From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Notting Hill Genesis (202448512)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448512

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

26 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking roof.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since December 2009. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association. The resident informed the landlord that she has reduced mobility, long covid and anxieties.
  2. The resident reported a leak on her bedroom ceiling in 2021 and 2022. The landlord inspected the issue several times and carried out remedial repairs.
  3. On 1 October 2023 the resident informed the landlord that the leak had returned, and it raised a job to inspect the issue. It inspected the leak on 25 October 2023, and confirmed the gutters were clear from debris and it also repaired the cracked roof tiles. On 31 October 2023 it asked the roofing contractor to return and realign the gutters. In November 2023 the resident asked the landlord for updates and the outcome of its inspection.
  4. In December 2023 the solar panels contractor informed the landlord that it needed scaffolding to access and inspect the solar panels to establish the under lying cause of the leak. On 17 April 2024 the landlord agreed the quote for the scaffolding. Between January 2024 and May 2024, the resident continued to chase updates from the landlord and complained about water ingress. She also described how it was difficult to sleep in the bedroom with the windows closed because of the smell of damp.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 May 2024. She explained that although the landlord had reassured her that it would resolve the leaks, the issues remained. She said that she had experienced reoccurring leaks on her bedroom ceiling for a long time, which impacted on her mental health and caused her significant inconvenience.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 24 June 2024, and said:
    1. The complaint investigator became aware of the leak in the resident’s property on 13 February 2024, when they started working with the resident.
    2. On 18 March 2024 it requested for its contractor to erect scaffolding so that the solar panels contractor and the roofing contractor could inspect the roof. It explained that because of a breakdown in communication the scaffolding was not erected as planned. It said that its contractor would put the scaffolding up on 26 June 2024.
    3. It offered to pay £1140 compensation to the resident, which was equivalent to:
      1. £880 for the loss of use of the bedroom, which it calculated as 25% of the resident’s rent for 132 days.
      2. £250 for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
  7. On 26 June 2024 the landlord erected scaffolding. On 9 July 2024 the roofing contractor replaced a roof tile and said that it saw no evidence that the solar panels caused the leak. The resident confirmed on 22 July 2024, that since the last repair, the leak had not returned. She asked the landlord when it would repair the hole in her bedroom ceiling.
  8. Between September 2024 and November 2024, the resident contacted the landlord for updates on the repairs. On 23 September 2024 the resident reported that the leak was ongoing. On 18 November 2024 the landlord said that there were no updates on its repair log since the contractor attended in July 2024 and it closed the repair in September 2024. On 3 December 2024 the resident reported the leak had returned and the landlord asked the roofing contractor to inspect the roof again. The resident informed the landlord 2 weeks later that she had no contact from the contractor. The roofing contractor replaced a cracked roof tile on 16 December 2024.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 2 January 2025, and said:
    1. Between January 2021 and December 2022, the resident had reported 4 roof leaks. It made several attempts to resolve the problem, but the issue reoccurred, which suggested that it had not yet resolved the underlying root cause of the leak.
    2. On 1 October 2023 the resident reported another leak, and it carried out roof repairs in December 2023. On 27 December 2023 it noted that follow up works were necessary to address the internal pipework in the loft along with completing the roof and the solar panels repairs.
    3. On 16 December 2024 it repaired a cracked tile on the roof.
    4. It acknowledged there were significant delays in resolving the problems. It explained that this was due to its poor recordkeeping, poor communication, contractors’ availability and issues with co-ordinating the repairs. It also recognised the reoccurring impact of the repairs on the resident.
    5. It offered to pay £1340 compensation to the resident, which was equivalent to:
      1. £1140 compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response.
      2. £200 to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in resolving the leaks.
  10. On 19 January 2025 the resident informed the landlord that although the roof contractor and the solar panels contractor identified an issue with the solar panels, they had not returned to fix it. She asked for an update on the next step.
  11. The resident made a complaint to us on 2 January 2025. She described the impact the reoccurring leaks had on her. She is seeking for the landlord to identify and resolve the root cause of the leaks. She is also seeking compensation to reflect the inconvenience and distressed caused to her family.
  12. The resident made a second formal complaint about the issues in May 2025. The landlord issued its complaint response in June 2025 and acknowledged there were further delays in resolving the leak. It offered an additional £900 compensation to the resident, who indicated she is unhappy with its offer. It also said that it was in the process of getting quotes to carry out the remedial repairs identified during the roof drone survey it completed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident explained that the situation has significantly impacted on her mental and physical health. We can consider the impact that the issues raised have had on the resident, and whether the landlord acted reasonably. However, we cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions may have contributed to or exacerbated any physical and/or mental health issues. These are legal aspects better suited to a personal injury claim or court.
  2. We recognise that the resident has reported intermittent leaks since 2021. The evidence shows that between January 2021 and March 2023, the landlord responded to her reports and completed remedial repairs. We may not consider events which were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within 12 months of the matters arising.
  3. In this case, we saw no evidence that, prior to May 2024, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of the repairs to the leaks. Additionally, the evidence shows that following the repairs at her property in March 2023, the resident made no further report of leaks until October 2023. Therefore, whilst the historical reports of the problem offer context to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on events from May 2023 onwards.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking roof

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that on receipt of a repair request, it might inspect the issue to understand the nature of the repair. It says that it will book and confirm all the repair appointments with the resident and keep them up to date on the progress of the repair until completion. The landlord’s leaks affecting ceilings procedure adds that when it receives a report of a leak from a ceiling, it will raise an emergency repair. It will “attend and stop” the leak within 4 hours and book any remedial repairs within 20 working days.
  2. We recognise that having a leak in the property would have been distressing for the resident. She described water ingress from her bedroom ceiling when it rained and water was falling onto her bed. She explained that this has been ongoing for several years and that the landlord has done some remedial repairs, but the leak returned. We understand that having a leak in the property would not automatically amount to a failure by the landlord. We also recognise that finding and resolving the root cause of a leak can be difficult and take time.
  3. Nevertheless, our role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and whether the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  4. On 1 October 2023 the resident reported a leak on the ceiling in her bedroom. Between October 2023 and January 2025, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and inspected the problem. We recognise that it carried out some remedial repairs such as repairing the broken roof tiles in October 2023, in July 2024 and December 2024. Those were reasonable actions by the landlord, which were in keeping with its responsive repairs policy and completed within its published timeframe.
  5. Additionally, we understand that since October 2023, the landlord has continued investigating the leak and trying to identify its root cause. It inspected the roof, the solar panels and the loft. We recognise that appointing specialist contractors such as the roofer and the solar panels specialist, would have contributed to some of the delays in resolving the leak. This is because of the time spent in getting quotes, coordinating external contractors and issues with contractors’ availability. Overall, the landlord acted on the resident’s reports and took steps in resolving the leak.
  6. However, the landlord recognised in its complaint responses that it had failed to handle the repairs and resolve the leak in keeping with its policies, and we agree with its assessment. After considering the evidence of the case, we identified several failings by the landlord such as delays in taking actions, poor communication, lack of oversight of the repairs and poor record keeping. Below are some key examples of those failings.
  7. On 1 October 2023 the landlord raised a job to inspect the loft. It then attempted to inspect on 6 October 2023, but the resident cancelled the appointment. It carried out the inspection on 25 October 2023, and recommended follow up works. We understand the landlord had previously attended the property about the leak and completed some remedial repairs, but this was 6 months prior to the resident’s latest report. The landlord did not show that when the resident reported that the leak had returned, it raised an emergency repair and attended within 4 hours. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its leaks affecting ceilings procedure to raise an emergency repair for such leak even if it was contained.
  8. The evidence on the case shows that overall, the landlord did not keep oversight of the follow up repairs. For example, in October 2023, after it repaired the roof tiles and inspected the property, it noted that it had identified follow up repairs. However, it did not show that it raised those repairs or acted on its contractor’s recommendations. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with its responsive repairs policy or its leaks affecting ceilings procedure. This also caused inconvenience to the resident who had to chase the landlord about the next steps.
  9. Additionally, in December 2023, the contractor informed the landlord that it needed to erect scaffolding to thoroughly inspect the roof and the solar panels. In March 2024 it appointed a scaffolding contractor, and it agreed the quote for the job in April 2024. The scaffolding was erected on 26 June 2024. This was 6 months after the landlord knew it was required. We understand there can be delays in seeking and appointing contractors.
  10. However, in this case, we saw no evidence that the landlord was acting with a sense of urgency. It took 3 months for the landlord to appoint a scaffolding contractor, another month to agree the quote and another 2 months to erect the scaffolding. It acknowledged in its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint that because of poor communication, there was a delay in the scaffolding contractor receiving its instructions. It is evident that the landlord’s lack of oversight in organising the scaffolding and its poor communication with the contractor contributed to the 6 months delay in erecting the scaffolding. This was unreasonable by the landlord, especially as the leak was on going and the resident reported it was getting worse.
  11. Furthermore, on 11 June 2024, the landlord informed the solar panels contractor that the scaffolding was up, and it could proceed with its inspection. However, the resident informed the contractor the following day that the scaffolding was not yet up. The landlord should have known when the scaffolding was going up, it should have kept oversight of the request it made to the contractor until completion. Its failings to do this caused frustration to the resident and further eroded her confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve the matter.
  12. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) (May 2023) said that “Consistently, we find that poor knowledge and information management is a key contributing factor to why the landlord fails to provide an adequate service, particularly in the repairs service”. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to record on its systems some of the actions it took such as arrangements and agreements it made with its contractors.
  13. For example, in July 2024, the landlord coordinated a joint inspection with the roofing contractor and the solar panels specialist. The roofing contractor inspected the issue 13 days later. However, we saw no evidence that the solar panels contractor inspected the panels as planned. We understand that the roofing contractor repaired some broken tiles and informed the landlord that this resolved the leak. Therefore, it would have been understandable for the landlord to delay the solar panels inspection until it could assess whether the roof repairs resolved the leak. However, we saw no evidence that it discussed this with the solar panel contractor. It did not note on its systems that the solar panel inspection took place or that it had cancelled or postponed the inspection. There are gaps in the landlord’s repair log that have inevitably affected its ability to resolve the substantive repairs issues.
  14. In addition, on 3 December 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it had asked the roofing contractor to contact her to arrange a further inspection of the roof. In Its stage 2 response it said that on 16 December 2024, the contractor repaired some broken tiles. However, we saw no evidence that it recorded this on its repair log. This was unreasonable from the landlord and not in keeping with our spotlight report on KIM to keep accurate records of the events. The evidence shows that while investigating the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged that it found it difficult to establish the facts of the case because of its poor record keeping.
  15. In its complaint response, the landlord recognised that it had failed to provide regular updates to the resident. Effective communication is key to keep residents informed on the progress of the repairs and offer reassurance it is dealing with the problem. This is especially important when residents are experiencing issues which can be distressing and out of their control, such as leaks. In this case, it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide a named contact to the resident to discuss the repairs and agree a timescale for providing updates. The landlord’s failing in updating the resident was unreasonable and caused her distress and inconvenience because she had to chase the landlord for updates.
  16. Furthermore, 2 weeks after the roofing contractor repaired the broken tiles in July 2024, the resident informed the landlord that there had been no further water ingress. She then asked the landlord when it would repair the hole in her bedroom ceiling. It failed to show that it responded to her query or raised the job to repair the ceiling. This was unreasonable from the landlord. It should have discussed the next step with the resident. It should have either explained that it wanted to continue monitoring the leak before proceeding with repairing the bedroom ceiling or raise the job to fix it.
  17. In September 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that the leak was ongoing and recent heavy rain had exacerbated the problem. We did not see evidence showing that the landlord acted on her report. It did not show that it raised an emergency repair or inspected the problem. This was unreasonable by the landlord and not in keeping with its leaks affecting ceilings procedure.
  18. We understand the resident reported that the leak returned. She explained that the remedial repairs carried out failed to resolve the underlying cause of the leak. We understand that she raised a new complaint with the landlord about its handling of the repairs and it issued its stage 1 response to her complaint in June 2025. It acknowledged its failings and said it would carry out a drone survey. It also offered an additional £900 compensation to the resident.
  19. We are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of the repairs beyond its stage 2 complaint response as it has not had the opportunity to do so itself, through its internal complaints procedure. This would normally require the resident to log a new complaint about these events for the landlord to consider. However, we feel that this would unreasonably add to the time and trouble the resident has taken in pursuing the matter. We understand the landlord has committed to carry out the remedial repairs it identified during its recent drone survey. However, after considering the failings in this case, we are making an order in relation to the repair to the leak and making good the bedroom ceiling.
  20. We understand that during its internal complaint process, the landlord offered to pay £1340 compensation to the resident to reflect the impact of its failings on her. Its offer reflected the significant impact of its failings on the resident, the inconvenience and distress caused to her. It also reflected the accumulative impact of the repeated issue and that the leak was intermittent.
  21. However, while the landlord’s compensation offer is in keeping with the award we would make in such cases, we recommend that it further discuss its offer with the resident. This is because at its stage 1 response it said it calculated the compensation based on 25% of the rent between February 2024 and June 2024. However, the resident reported the leak in October 2023. We recognise the landlord’s offer was generous, but it did not clearly explain to the resident why it did not award her compensation between October 2023 and February 2024, or why its calculation based on 25% of the rent would not have been proportionate for that period. It could also agree to pay additional compensation if it felt it was proportionate to do so.
  22. After considering the evidence of the case, we determine there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking roof. We recognise that it responded to the resident’s reports, inspected the problem and completed some remedial repairs. However, and from its own admission, it failed to communicate effectively with the resident and its contractors. Its failings to follow up on and adequately coordinate the repairs caused significant delays in resolving the matter. It is also evident that its poor record keeping impacted on its ability to keep adequate oversight of the repairs and resolve the matter in keeping with its policies.
  23. Additionally, while we recognise the landlord’s compensation offer was proportionate to its failings and their impacts on the resident, we are unable to determine it offered reasonable redress. This is because both parties informed us that the substantive issue remains outstanding and the landlord had identified remedial repairs. The evidence does not show that this was in relation to a new leak. The resident said that the leak was on going, in the same location and happened when it rained as previous leaks did. The landlord did not dispute this. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this is not a new issue and despite completing remedial repairs, the landlord has not resolved the underlying cause of the leak.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking roof.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay £1340 compensation to the resident, if it has not already paid it.
    2. Provide the resident with a named person to discuss the repairs, this should be available to her until the completion of the repairs.
    3. Provide a work schedule to the resident in respect of the repairs it identified in July 2025. This must include the details of the repairs and their dates for completion. Its work schedule must also address the repairs to her bedroom ceiling. It is to share a copy of the work schedule with us.
    4. Discuss its compensation offer with the resident and explain its reasons for not awarding her compensation between October 2023 and February 2024, or why its calculation based on 25% of the rent would not have been proportionate for that period. It could consider paying additional compensation for that period if it felt it was proportionate to do so. It is to provide evidence to this service that it has done this and share the outcome of its discussion with us.