Notting Hill Genesis (202344083)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202344083

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

13 August 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. Response to the resident’s reports about its staff’s conduct.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. She lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette with her 3 children. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has said it had been told 1 of the resident’s children has vulnerabilities due to being autistic. The resident has said her son has vulnerabilities due to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
On 28 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. She said there were damp patches in her son’s bedroom, and she wanted it to arrange treatment of the areas. On 7 August 2023 the resident declined an inspection of the issue by the landlord. She felt its operative was not qualified to inspect damp and mould.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 August 2023. She reported that the ceiling in her living room and kitchen was not secure. It raised a repair job to inspect her ceiling the same day.
The landlord raised a repair job on 29 August 2023, to apply mould treatment to the resident’s son’s bedroom.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2023. She asked it to raise a complaint “as there are many issues that are not being dealt with appropriately.” She said:
1. It had ignored repairs that she had reported to it.
2. She had been harassed and physically assaulted by one of its tenants, outside her front door.
3. It was unprofessional that its housing officer brought a neighbour to her door, whose behaviour she had complained about, to discuss the complaint.
4. Its housing officer had harassed her for rent arrears, when she did not consider there to be any.
5. The actions of its housing officer had caused her “no end of trouble” including criminal damage to her property and verbal and physical abuse.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 September 2023. She reported that the extractor fan in her bathroom was not working. It raised a repair job for this and replaced the fan on 11 October 2023.
The evidence shows the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 29 September 2023. She contacted it the same day to say she did not accept its response, as it was from the same member of staff she was complaining about.
The landlord completed its inspection of the resident’s son’s bedroom on 5 October 2023. It checked the balcony above his bedroom and noted there was no sign of issues that may cause damp. However, it found that the window vent was not sitting flush to the wall which was allowing water through. It also:
1. Found there was a missing light switch and smoke alarms at the property.
2. Tested smoke detectors in the property and these were not working.
The landlord’s records show that it visited the resident’s property on:
1. 29 November 2023 to inspect the outdoor flooring and found there was a potential hazard.
2. 8 December 2023. It completed repairs to her balcony and rechecked her son’s bedroom for damp and found it was now dry.
3. 12 December 2023. It inspected her kitchen and living room ceiling, which it found were not secured to the joists. It also found damp marks around her son’s bedroom, which the resident felt was caused from a fault with the balcony above.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 May 2024. She was unhappy the landlord had not got back to her since she told it she did not accept its stage 1 complaint response. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 June 2024.
On 15 July 2024 the landlord raised repair jobs at the resident’s property for, a broken light switch, a faulty smoke detector, a faulty smoke alarm and an extractor fan fault. The landlord cancelled these repair jobs on 24 July 2024.
The landlord raised a structural inspection of the resident’s ceiling on 17 July 2024. Its records show that this was first reported to it on 23 August 2023, but no further works were conducted following this.
The landlord contacted the resident on 17 July 2024. It said it had no record it had sent her a stage 1 complaint response. Therefore, it was unable to continue to stage 2, and it closed her complaint.
On 11 October 2024 we contacted the landlord and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The landlord discussed this internally and decided to raise a new complaint, as it could not find its earlier stage 1 response.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 29 October 2024. It said:
1. It did not provide her with a stage 1 response after she raised a complaint with it in September 2023. It recognised this was not an acceptable level of service and apologised to her for this.
2. It understood its failure to respond had a negative impact on her feeling of it. As a result, it would like to compensate her by offering her help with her energy debt.
3. It would like her to contact it to discuss its staff conduct and reports of ASB.
4. It gave her diary sheets to record incidents of ASB.
We contacted the landlord on 24 January 2025 and asked it to send the resident its stage 2 response by 28 February 2025. It provided the resident with its response on 26 February 2025, which said:
1. She told it that although some repairs are pending, some issues had now been dealt with.
2. Its housing officer had contacted its repairs team for an update about the repairs. It would send her details on when work will start and a timeline for completion.
3. It had asked a housing officer to investigate the communal gate repair and raise a repair request.
4. Although she had said repairs had gone on for too long, she had praised her housing officer.
5. As it had combined all her repairs, it hoped they would be completed together.
6. The ASB did not relate to its tenants, and she would be contacting the police, as it involved issues around school. It offered her support if she needed it.
7. She felt its previous staff did not support her, but she was happy with her current housing officer, who would remain her main contact for all the repair issues.
8. It offered her £350 compensation, as it took too long to resolve her repair issues. It also offered her £150 for the lengthy delay which caused her stress and inconvenience.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response. She told us on 17 March 2025, that she was concerned about the safety of the property for her family. This had affected her mental health as well as her son’s ADHD.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has said how the situation has impacted her health, as well as her son’s. However, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused, and whether the landlord considered the resident’s and her son’s health conditions.
The evidence that we have seen, shows that the resident first complained to the landlord in September 2023. Although this complaint did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints process, it did form part of the complaint she raised in October 2024. Therefore, we consider it is appropriate to consider events from July 2023. This is when the resident contacted the landlord about damp in her property, which gave rise to her complaint.
The outcome the resident has told us that she is seeking, is for the landlord to accept she will be 2 weeks in rent arrears, for the duration of her tenancy. However, this is an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 creates an implied term in tenancy agreements that a landlord must carry out certain repairs. This places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It also has an obligation to keep in repair and working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time.’ This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says its local officer will visit properties within 10 days of it receiving a report. Its officer will determine the severity of the issue. If the issue is minor it will arrange for repair works to take place. For severe cases its surveyor will conduct a follow up inspection within 10 days, and repair works will be prioritised according to the risk.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete standard repairs within 20 working days from the date of report. It will keep residents informed about progress of their repairs through an agreed channel convenient to them including telephone, text messaging, email, or letter.
The resident declined the landlord’s inspection of damp and mould at her property on 7 August 2023. Although she felt its operative was not qualified to inspect the issue, its response was reasonable and in line with its damp and mould policy. The landlord raised a repair job on 29 August 2023 to inspect the issue, which it completed on 5 October 2023. It inspected the balcony above her son’s bedroom but did not find any sign of issues that may have caused the damp. Although it found a fault with the window vent that was allowing water in, it did not tell the resident if it would be applying a mould treatment. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so, as this is what she requested when reporting the repair.
The landlord’s records show that it visited the resident’s property on 8 December 2023. Its records show it rechecked the damp in the resident’s son’s bedroom and this had become dry. However, there is no record that it told her of its findings or what its plan to resolve the issue would be. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord’s inspection on 5 October 2023 also found, some of the resident’s smoke detectors were faulty, some smoke/fire detectors were missing, and there was a broken light switch. It noted these faults during further inspections of her property, on 8 December 2023 and 15 July 2024. It is unclear why the landlord did not resolve the issues after it first identified them. This was a failure by it to follow its statutory and policy obligations, as it did not repair the issues within a reasonable amount of time or the 20 working days timeframe for standard repairs set out in its repairs policy. This is likely to have caused the resident distress and confusion.
The landlord discussed the repairs internally on 19 July 2024. Its records show it emailed its contractor as it wanted them to “package all the works” with one contractor. If this meant waiting for the contractor’s availability it could consider installing battery-operated smoke detectors as a temporary measure. However, there is no record that it contacted the resident to keep her informed about the progress of the repairs. In not doing so the landlord did not follow the obligations set out in its repairs policy. It was also unreasonable that the landlord delayed addressing each repair as soon as possible, to wait for one contractor to complete the works, due to the nature of the repairs which represented a potential hazard.
The landlord then cancelled the repairs on 24 July 2024, as the resident could not “give a day” for its contractors to attend. However, there is no record that the landlord contacted the resident to rearrange the repairs. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so, given the seriousness of the issues, including exposed live electrical cables of the broken light switch, that it identified. It would have been reasonable for it to have treated this as an emergency repair. By not taking proactive steps to resolve the issue the landlord did not follow its repairs policy.
The landlord’s evidence shows it then left the repair issues until 2 October 2024, when its contractor responded to its email of 19 July 2024. Its contractor asked the landlord if a survey of the resident’s property was still needed. A survey was then arranged for 16 October 2024. However, this was cancelled by the resident as her electricity supplier had cut the power off to her property. The landlord’s stage 1 response did address the electricity being cut off to her property. It offered to review the level of compensation it could award, to help with her energy debt, after she provided it with an energy statement. This was a reasonable response from the landlord and shows it was taking steps to support the resident.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor completed the survey of the resident’s property on 29 January 2025. It then raised a purchase order to agree the contractor’s scope of works on 3 March 2025. However, there is no record of the contractor’s inspection or scope of works in its evidence, or if this was provided to the resident. Given the lengthy delays she had experienced it would have been reasonable for it to have clearly communicated to her what its plan was to complete the repairs. This is likely to have caused the resident distress and confusion.
The landlord raised a repair to inspect the resident’s kitchen and living room ceiling on 23 August 2023. However, its records show that it did not complete its inspection until 12 December 2023. It is unclear what the reason for the delay was and it failed to meet its repairs policy published timeframe by 59 working days.
On 12 December 2023 an inspection found that the ceiling was not secured to the ceiling joists. However, there is no record from the landlord’s evidence that it raised repairs to remedy the issue at this point. Its records show it raised a plastering repair job on 24 April 2024 related to the issue, but the specifics of this job are unclear. However, its contractor cancelled repair appointments on 3, 20 and 4 June 2024. The reasons for this are unclear. Its records show its contractor completed the repair on 24 June 2024, 21 working days beyond its repairs policy published timeframe.
The landlord raised a further inspection of the resident’s kitchen and living room ceiling again on 17 July 2024. However, its records show that it did not complete any further works following this and the resident has told us that “nothing has changed since she first contacted us.” This is a concern given the seriousness of the issue and that it was 2 years since the landlord became aware of the problem. The resident’s communications show this was distressing for her and she does not feel the property is safe for her or her son. The evidence shows lengthy delays in the landlord’s response to the repair issues and the significant detrimental impact this had on her.
The landlord’s evidence does not include records of any structural, electrical or damp and mould surveys at the resident’s property. Given the potential risks it would have been reasonable for it to have done so. This would have meant it could better assess each issue and consider the risk each repair posed to the resident’s safety, along with what its response time needed to be.
The landlord’s recording of repairs to the resident’s property could have been more effective. For example, it used the findings of its property inspection on 12 December 2023 to describe further repair jobs it raised on 24 April and 17 July 2024. This has caused confusion in this investigation in assessing the resident’s complaint. It would have been reasonable when it raised the 2 further repairs for it to have clearly explained the reasons for this.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said that the resident had stated it had completed some repairs, while some were pending. Given the number of repairs involved and time delays, it would have been reasonable for it to have listed what repairs it had completed and when. It also told her that it was still waiting on a timeline for the repair works. Given the delays she had already experienced it would have been reasonable for it to have clearly explained why it could not give her that at this point. This is likely to have caused the resident distress as she still did not know what the landlord’s plan to resolve the issues were.
It was positive that the landlord responded quickly to a leak in the resident’s kitchen. It completed repair work within 24 hours of this being reported on 2 January 2025.
As part of the determination for case 202126742 in December 2023, we ordered the landlord to carry out a review of the learning from that case and improvements it needed to put in place as a result. In March 2024 it introduced an action plan to establish more robust processes for managing damp and mould cases. Its action plan also:
1. Introduced new processes for identifying and recording vulnerabilities of its residents.
2. Clarified its standards and expectations for record keeping across the organisation.
However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord has applied its learning from case 202126742, to the issues the resident raised with it:
1. There is no record it considered the vulnerabilities of the resident’s son in its response, or how this would also have impacted on the resident. This is a concern given the seriousness of the repair issues she had raised.
2. Its record keeping was poor. There is no record of survey reports in the landlord’s evidence, or that it told the resident of the progress of her repairs.
Overall, the evidence does not show that the landlord followed its statutory or policy obligations for repairs to the resident’s ceiling, smoke alarms, light switch and reports of damp and mould. Its service failure accumulated over a significant period of time, which led to her concerns for hers and her son’s safety in her property that she felt was unsafe. The evidence shows that the delays in the landlord resolving the issues has had a serious detrimental impact on her.
The £500 compensation the landlord offered in its stage 2 response went some way to acknowledge its failings. However, we do not consider this was enough due to the significant delays in addressing the repairs and the impact its failures had on the resident, which is likely to have undermined the landlord and tenant relationship,
The Ombudsman finds there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £900 compensation, in addition to the £500 set out in its stage 2 complaint response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

The landlord’s ASB policy states:
1. It takes a victim-centred approach to dealing with ASB, ensuring that residents feeling safe in their homes.
2. Being clear with residents about what tools are available to tackle ASB and providing an overview of processes can provide residents with assurance that it will use all tools available to deal with these matters.
3. It will respond to ASB complaints swiftly, act promptly, when possible, try to contact the complainant within one working day of their report if it is not received directly by telephone and log the report on its systems.
4. Effective record keeping is crucial in all cases of ASB. Any evidence gathered during the case, such as letters sent to the resident, or evidence of phone calls, should be recorded and filed as evidence.
The resident reported ASB to the landlord as part of her complaint to it on 8 September 2023. There is no record that it took any action at this point to investigate the issue. This is a concern as she mentioned violence and threats of violence towards her, along with damage to her property. At this point the landlord should have investigated the issue in line with its ASB policy. Its failure to do so is likely to have caused the resident distress.
There is no record of further reports of ASB until we asked the landlord to consider this as part of her complaint in October 2024. Its stage 1 response told her to contact it to discuss the matter further. Having failed to act on her reports the previous year it would have been reasonable for it to have contacted her rather than placing the onus on the resident.
As part of its stage 1 response the landlord sent the resident diary sheets to record incidents. However, it told us on 9 April 2024 that it believed providing diary sheets would raise expectations that it could intervene in a dispute that it said was unrelated to housing. As it had already provided the resident with diary sheets, it is likely that it did raise her expectations it could resolve the issue.
There is no record in the landlord’s evidence that it explained to the resident what it could or could not do to resolve the reported ASB. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so, in order to manage her expectations at an early stage. There is also no record that it opened an ASB case or undertook any investigation after its stage 1 response. This indicates that it failed to follow the obligations set out in its ASB policy.
There is no record that the landlord investigated the issue further after its stage 1 response. However, its stage 2 response said the resident had told it in a phone conversation that the ASB was not related to any other of its residents and related to issues at her children’s school. It would have been reasonable for it to have told the resident at an earlier stage that it would not be investigating her reports of ASB. Its lack of response in line with its ASB policy is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord’s stage 2 response offered the resident support and help, which was positive. It told us on 9 April 2024 that its housing officer would suggest she contact the school to discuss the issue. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have told her of this in its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s evidence shows its response to the resident’s report of ASB was limited to its complaint responses. Outside of this, there is no record that it opened an ASB case, investigated the issue or provided support to her. It did not manage her expectations, in fact in providing her with diary sheets, it is likely it raised her expectations that it could help her resolve the issue. It also did not consider the reports she made to it in September 2023, which were serious in nature. It would have been reasonable to have confirmed if these issues were still happening or not. Despite the landlord’s failures there is no evidence that indicates this would have significantly affected the outcome for the resident.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with an apology which acknowledges the failings identified in this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about its staff’s conduct

The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 8 September 2023. Part of her complaint related to rent arrears, as she believed under the terms of her tenancy agreement, 2 weeks rent in advance was needed and the landlord had told her it was 4 weeks. She felt that its housing officer had harassed her in relation to the rent arrears. She was also unhappy with its housing officer’s response to her reports about ASB.
The evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident its stage 1 response on 29 September 2023. There is no record of its response letter in the evidence, so we do not know its response on this matter. Her complaint included concerns that its housing officer had brought a neighbour who she complained about to her house, without her agreement. However, there is no record of this in the landlord’s evidence. Therefore, we are unable to make a determination on this matter.
The landlord’s stage 1 response in October 2024 addressed this issue. However, it asked her to contact it so it could understand what her concerns were. It would have been reasonable for it to have checked its management system records, as it already had information on the issue, or asked her as part of its investigation. This is likely to have caused the resident distress.
It is unclear from the evidence if the resident contacted the landlord to discuss the issue with it after receiving its stage 1 response. Although its stage 2 response did include the issue in its complaint definition it did not adequately address the issue. Its response focussed on the resident’s satisfaction with her new housing officer, rather than considering the conduct of the officer she had complained about. It would have been reasonable to have explained to the resident if it considered its staff members conduct was appropriate. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
There is no record that the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns of its staff’s conduct, which would have been reasonable for it to have done. Its stage 1 response in October 2024 also indicates there was a record keeping failure by it. However, we found no evidence to show that its failure significantly impacted the resident.
The Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about its staff’s conduct. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a response to the previous housing officer’s conduct and an apology which acknowledges the failings identified in this investigation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says a resident who is dissatisfied with its stage 1 response can ask for the complaint to be reviewed. Residents will usually have 20 working days from the date of its stage 1 response letter to escalate their complaint.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate, using plain language.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 8 September 2023. It acknowledged this on 13 September 2023 and sent her its stage 1 response on 29 September 2023. The resident contacted it the same day to say she did not accept its response, as it was from the same staff member she had complained about. Until an authorised person sent its response, she would not be contacting it again. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have recognised the resident was dissatisfied with its response and escalated it to stage 2 of its complaint’s procedure. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s concerns at an earlier date.
Although we have not seen the stage 1 response from September 2023, the resident’s concerns about the complaint handler are noted. This is contrary to the Code which states landlord’s complaint handlers must deal with complaints on their merits, act independently, and have an open mind.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 11 June 2024. This was over its published timeframe to escalate her complaint. However, it told her as it had no record of sending her its stage 1 response it was unable to continue to stage 2. In the absence of its stage 1 response in its records, it would have been reasonable for it to have asked her to send this to it. Had it done so it could have considered applying its discretion to escalate or log a new complaint. The evidence shows that it did neither and closed the complaint which is likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
As the landlord had closed the resident’s complaint, she contacted us for help. Its evidence shows it considered using its discretion to escalate her complaint, if it could find its stage 1 response. Again, it would have been reasonable for it to have asked her if she was able to provide it with its original stage 1 response. There is no record it did this and as it could not find its stage 1 response it logged a new complaint. This delayed it resolving her concerns and her accessing this Service.
The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for its failure to send the resident a stage 1 response in September 2023. However, the evidence shows the resident did receive its stage 1 response by email. Had it asked her for evidence of its response, it would have recognised its failure was, not recording its response on its systems. This is likely to have caused the resident confusion.
The landlord offered £500 compensation to the resident for the impact the substantive issue had on her. However, it did not recognise its complaint handling failures, nor provide her with a remedy for this.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about its staff’s conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, we order the landlord to:
1. Provide an apology letter from a senior manager to the resident acknowledging the failures identified in this report. In drafting this letter, the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance available on our website.
2. Pay £1500 compensation directly to the resident, comprised of:
  1. £900 for the failures identified in its handling of repairs to the resident’s property.
  2. £100 for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  3. £500 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already paid this.
3. Consider the vulnerabilities of the resident’s son and whether any additional support or adjustments can be provided.
4. Provide the resident and this Service with written confirmation of the outstanding works needed to address any ongoing repair issues at her property, along with a clear timeline for the works.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord arranges complaints handling training for its staff to ensure its complaints policy is followed and suitable records kept.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its action plan it produced following the determination of case 202126742 to ensure it has adopted this into its processes.