Notting Hill Genesis (202435906)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435906

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to repair windows which were reported as being stiff to open and close.
2. Request to replace the bathroom at the property.
3. Further repair requests and reports of damp and mould at the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives with her husband and 3 children who were aged 14, 11, and 2 years old at the time of the complaint. The tenancy began in 2020. The property is a 3-bedroom maisonette. The resident has a representative who has at times acted on her behalf. Some of the actions or correspondence referenced in this report that are attributed to the resident may have been sent by the representative on her behalf.
On 10 December 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to report that the sash windows in the living room were stiff, making them ‘very difficult’ to open or close. The resident emailed the landlord again on 21 January 2024 to remind it of the stiff windows.
An operative attended on 29 February 2024. The window frame required removing, planing down, and replacing. However, due to the size and weight of the window frame, the operative was unable to repair the window without the help of a second colleague. A second appointment was arranged for 7 March 2024. The appointment was cancelled on the day due to staff sickness.
On 18 March 2024 the resident emailed the landlord asking it to rebook the repair to the windows following the cancellation. The landlord’s contractor attended on 26 March 2024, but advised repairing the window would be difficult due to the condition of the window frames and suggested the windows should be replaced instead.
On 2 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord for an update on the window repairs. She also requested an update on when her bathroom would be replaced, adding that the landlord had previously told her the bathroom would be ‘renewed’ in either 2024 or 2025.
On 11 April 2024 the contractor sent the landlord a quote to replace the affected windows. The landlord declined the quote and after further correspondence, the contractor agreed to the landlord’s request for it to repair the windows instead of replacing them on 26 April 2024. It attended on 16 May 2024. It later told both the resident and landlord that it had repaired the window ‘as much as it could’ but that ‘the windows are fragile, at risk of shattering, and we believe new windows should be installed here’. The resident emailed the landlord the same day asking it to inform her when it would be replacing the windows. The landlord marked the repair as complete on 28 May 2024.
On 31 May 2024 the landlord emailed the resident explaining that its previous agreement to renew the bathroom had been given in error. It said that the bathroom ‘did not meet the threshold for renewal’ and so its replacement had been cancelled. It told the resident the bathroom had been renewed in 2020 before she moved in. It also said that it would ‘follow up with the progress of the window repairs’.
On 5 June 2024 the resident complained to the landlord. She said that:
1. the bathroom was old, damp, and not fit for purpose. She was unhappy that she had been told to expect the bathroom would be replaced, only to later be told that this had been cancelled.
2. she was surprised to learn that the bathroom had already been renewed in 2020 before she moved in and asked for evidence to support this. She asked for a full inspection of the bathroom’s current condition.
3. the windows in the property were in poor condition and were ‘very stiff to open and close’. She was unhappy that the landlord had declined 2 recommendations by its contractors to replace the windows and the repairs it said it would do instead remained outstanding.
4. she had needed to take ‘considerable time’ off work to accommodate repairs, some of which were not attended. She asked for compensation to make up for her loss of earnings, which was in the region of £400.
On 19 June 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. after inspecting the bathroom on 6 September 2023, the landlord had told the resident it would be renewed during the 2024/25 works programme. This had been cancelled because the resident’s bathroom did not meet the threshold for renewal, but the resident had not been informed of this change. It offered £50 compensation for this error.
2. it ‘could discuss’ raising repairs to the bathroom.
3. after multiple inspections of the windows by the landlord’s contractors, its senior surveyor considered the windows could be repaired without being replaced. A window specialist would be in touch with the resident ‘shortly’ to arrange a further inspection and complete the necessary repairs.
4. it could not compensate the resident for her loss of earnings, in line with its compensation policy. It instead offered £60 for the 2 missed appointments to repair the windows.
On 16 July 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said that:
1. she did not believe her bathroom had been renewed in 2020.
2. she wanted the landlord to inspect the bathroom to book in the necessary repairs.
3. she was yet to hear from the landlord’s specialist window contractor.
4. she believed the landlord had reimbursed other residents for a loss of earnings in the past, and that the landlord’s decision not to do the same for her was inconsistent and unfair.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same day. The landlord also replied acknowledging a repair was needed to the bath panel and asked if there were any other repairs to the bathroom required.
On 28 August 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to ask for an update. She reported a persistent damp problem in the downstairs bedrooms of the property and the regular recurrence of black mould as a result, which the family were cleaning and repainting. She said that the family suspected this might be causing ongoing respiratory problems for her youngest child. The resident emailed the landlord again on 3 September 2024 to ask for an update on her stage 2 complaint.
On 9 September 2024 the landlord’s specialist contractor contacted the resident to advise that works to repair the windows would take place over 4 days between 30 September 2024 and 3 October 2024. These works went ahead and were completed by 2 October 2024.
On 2 October 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She said the works had been completed but she was unsure what had been done. She said that she had raised the repairs because the windows were stiff to open and close, but they were now ‘more stiff than before’. She also raised some remaining issues with the latches and locks on the windows. The landlord’s contractor attended on 4 October 2024to resolve the outstanding issues with the latches and locks.
On 8 November 2024 the resident emailed the landlord. She was unhappy with the delay in responding to her stage 2 complaint. The landlord met with the resident on 11 November 2024 ‘to try and resolve the complaint at stage 1’. It said that it would:
1. complete a ‘heat loss survey’ in the property to deal with concerns raised by the resident during the meeting about the windows being draughty and damp and mould.
2. make a new request to renew the bathroom, but that it could make no promises this request would be accepted by the relevant team.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on her stage 2 complaint response on 22 and 28 November 2024. On 10 December 2024 she emailed the landlord again saying that the windows were draughty, one of the handles had broken and that the bedroom window remained stiff to open.
On 16 December 2024 the resident approached this Service and told us that her bathroom was in a poor condition with multiple outstanding repairs. She said she believed the condition of the flooring was contributing to damp and mould. She was unhappy that she had yet to receive a stage 2 complaint response and had not been compensated for her loss of earnings. She also added that she was also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the window repairs, the condition of the bedroom and the damp at the property.
On 20 December 2024 the landlord attended and resolved the remaining issues with the windows. On 24 December 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It maintained its stage 1 position but added that:
1. it would be happy to complete any repairs to the bathroom raised by the resident.
2. the windows had been repaired on 29 May 2024, which it apologised for because this was outside of its published timescales.
3. it was sorry for the delay in complaint handling.
4. It offered £335 compensation made up of:
  1. £150 for delays in completing the window repairs
  2. £60 that had already been offered for missed window repair appointments
  3. £100 for complaint handling
  4. £25 for ‘misinformation’
On 24 January 2025 the resident’s representative informed us that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. She asked us to investigate. She wanted several outstanding repairs to be completed and the condition of the bedroom and bathroom to be addressed by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

Part of the resident’s complaint which she brought to the landlord also included concerns about its administration of service charges. The landlord addressed her concerns in its complaint responses and provided a resolution that the resident was satisfied with. This issue does not remain in dispute and has not been brought to us for investigation.

The resident’s request to repair windows which were reported as being stiff to open and close

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days. It states that it aims to complete repairs on the first visit and that it ‘has procedures in place to monitor this and ensure repairs are completed within its timescales’, but that sometimes, additional visits may be required. The policy says that if the landlord is unable to keep to an appointment, the resident will be communicated with as soon as possible, and an alternative date will be agreed. The policy says that residents can report repairs to any member of staff. It accepts repairs reports in person, over the phone, by email, and through several other channels.
The resident first reported to the landlord that the windows were stiff to open and close on 10 December 2023. The repair should have been attended within 20 working days, but there is no evidence that the landlord responded to this report. On 21 January 2024 the resident reported the repair again. The landlord attended 29 working days later, on 29 February 2024, again exceeding its timescales. These were failings.
Follow on works were required and raised for 7 March 2024; however, the landlord’s contractor had to cancel the appointment due to staff sickness. The landlord’s policy states that it should agree an alternative date with the resident when it cannot attend an appointment. The evidence suggests that the resident was told to make contact with the landlord or its contractors to rearrange the appointment and that the resident was frustrated by this. It would have been helpful for the landlord to contact the resident to propose a date.
The landlord’s contractor later attended on 26 March 2024, recommending that the affected windows be replaced due to their condition. The landlord’s own surveyor disagreed with this assessment. The landlord has the right to rely on the opinion of its experts; however, the resulting discussion between the landlord and its contractors led to further delays up to 16 May 2024, until another appointment could be attended. Although the contractor who attended ‘repaired the window as much as it could’, it reported back to the landlord it believed the window should be replaced and requested further instruction. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy frequently encourages landlord staff to take a cost-effective approach to repairs. It was reasonable that the landlord, still believing the window could be repaired, later engaged a specialist contractor.
The evidence shows that following the appointment on 16 May 2024, despite knowing that the issues were only partially resolved, the landlord marked the repairs as ‘complete’. There is no evidence that it had any correspondence with a specialist contractor until August 2024, following multiple expressions of dissatisfaction by the resident and promises by the landlord to contact the contractor, such as on 31 May 2024 and 16 July 2024. It is unclear why there was then a further delay until 30 September 2024 to attend. This delay was significant.
The landlord is responsible for the performance of its contractors and this delay was a failing. In total, there was a delay from 10 December 2023 to 4 October 2024. This was a total of 208 working days. This reflected a significant delay beyond the 20 working days set out in its policy and was a failing.
Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance was published in May 2025. It highlights the importance of a landlord’s ability to effectively manage its relationships with its contractors, to avoid delays and provide adequate services. It also states that ‘effective communication is vital as poor communication leaves residents uninformed, sometimes placing them as intermediaries between landlords and contractors’. This was reflected at various stages throughout the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the windows. Had the landlord communicated with the resident more effectively, the additional unnecessary time and trouble gone to by the resident to rearrange and request updates on appointments, may have been avoided.
The resident was unhappy that she had taken time off work to accommodate 2 unnecessary or missed appointments by the landlord. She requested £400 compensation to reimburse her loss of earnings. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not pay compensation for a loss of earnings. The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident was not a failing. The resident said that she knew of instances with other residents where the landlord had used its discretion to reimburse for a loss of earnings. However, the landlord has the right to use its discretion. If it has decided to reimburse residents for a loss of earnings previously, it would not necessarily indicate a failing in circumstances where it chooses not to reimburse residents, as in this case.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay £30 compensation for missed appointments. The landlord was right therefore to offer this to the resident, totalling £60 for the 2 appointments. The landlord also offered a total of £150 compensation for the delays in repairing the windows. However, it wrongly described these delays as being until 29 May 2024. It failed to identify or consider the further 4 months and 5 days of delays experienced by the resident. There is also no evidence the landlord took into account the extensive time, trouble, distress and inconvenience likely caused by its delays and lack of communication. There is also no evidence the landlord identified or completed any learning from this complaint. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair the resident’s windows which were reported as being stiff to open and close.
It is important that the landlord now puts things right and learns from outcomes, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. We have identified themes for learning which affected the landlord’s performance across multiple areas of this complaint. We have expanded on the learning the landlord should now complete later in this report. As part of this, we have included that the landlord should reflect on the failings highlighted in our assessment of its handling of these window repairs, with particular consideration to how it manages its contractors.
Our remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration which has had a significant impact on the resident over a prolonged period of time, compensation of over £100 should be considered. This is in addition to the £150 offered for failings from December 2023 to May 2024. It is not reasonable to consider the £60 offered for missed appointments as part of this amount, as this is offered as part of the landlord’s policies regardless of any wider adverse effect on the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £410 compensation, inclusive of the £210 already offered, to reflect her time, trouble, distress and inconvenience likely caused by the delays in the landlord’s handling of repairs to her windows, which were stiff to open and close.

The resident’s request to replace the bathroom at the property

Both parties agree that the resident was told to expect her bathroom would be renewed between April 2024 and April 2025, following her request in October 2023. The landlord cancelled this request, but failed to inform the resident until 31 May 2024, after she emailed to request an update. This was inappropriate and was a failing.
Our Spotlight Report on Repairs and Maintenance also states that effective communication is vital and that poor communication leaves residents uninformed. In this case the landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident about its decision not to renew the bathroom caused unnecessary frustration, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. Had the landlord communicated effectively with the resident as described in the Spotlight Report, it may have avoided some of this impact.
The landlord said it cancelled this request because the bathroom did not meet the threshold for renewal. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of its policy or procedure which sets the threshold for bathroom renewals. However, it stated in its complaint responses to the resident that the criteria for a bathroom to be renewed was:
1. the majority of the sanitary ware must be failing.
2. the bathroom must be beyond repair.
3. nonstandard fixtures and fittings may be present.
4. the bathroom being over 30 years old.
The evidence shows that the landlord based its decision on an inspection done in October 2023 alongside its own records which note that the bathroom was renewed in 2020, before the resident moved in. The landlord later described the condition of the bathroom as ‘good’, likely in reference to the October 2023 inspection. The resident disputed this description and said that she doubted that the bathroom was renewed in 2020.
The inspection in October 2023 consisted of photographs being taken; however, no notes were made about the condition of the bathroom. The evidence suggests that these photographs were reviewed by a member of the landlord’s assets team in order to make a decision. However, no notes were made during the inspection.
The evidence shows that the landlord had marked the bathroom as having been renewed in 2020 but no longer held the details of this after moving to a new computer system in 2021. It was unable to provide the resident with evidence that the bathroom had been renewed when she asked it to during the complaints process. In view of this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete a more detailed survey of the bathroom in order to make its decision on whether the bathroom should be renewed.
There is also evidence of ‘non-standard fixtures in the bathroom’ such as the flooring, first noted by the landlord in October 2024.The resident told this service that the nonstandard flooring had been in place since 2020. There is no evidence that the landlord noted this during its initial inspection of the bathroom in October 2023. This indicates that the landlord’s inspection may not have been adequate for the purpose of considering if the bathroom met the criteria for renewal.
The landlord promised to make a new request to its assets team in a meeting with the resident on 11 November 2024 to renew the bathroom. However, there is no evidence that this was ever considered. There is no evidence an inspection was done to inform the landlord’s decision. This was inappropriate and was a failing.
The landlord is ordered to complete a survey of the bathroom. It must then write to the resident with a decision on her request to renew the bathroom. If the bathroom does not meet the criteria for renewal, the landlord must clearly explain why. It must also provide us with evidence of the policy containing the criteria relied upon alongside this.
The landlord offered £50 in its stage 1 complaint response for its error regarding the bathroom renewal. It is unclear if the resident accepted this. It offered a separate £25 at stage 2 for ‘misinformation’, which we understand to relate to this element of the complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a single failing results in disappointment and distress and inconvenience. While we cannot conclude that a different inspection would have resulted in a new bathroom for the resident, the landlord’s communication resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience. No further compensation has been awarded in this case. However, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the bathroom at the property, because there is no evidence it adequately considered the second renewal request it promised to the resident it would complete in November 2024.
The evidence shows that the landlord completed appropriate learning from its failure to notify the resident that her request to renew the bathroom had been cancelled. It found that the correct process for raising the renewal had not been followed. The relevant staff member said in an internal email that they ‘take full responsibility’ and the evidence shows this staff member was reminded of the correct process to follow in future. This was appropriate.

The resident’s repair requests and reports of damp and mould at the property

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that initial reports of damp or mould growth will be prioritised as urgent. After a report of damp or mould, a designated staff member will contact the customer within 5 working days and make an agreed appointment to visit within 10 working days to complete an inspection. Residents can report damp and mould to any staff member.
The resident’s request to replace her bathroom was driven in part because she said that the bathroom was damp. The resident reported damp in the bathroom on 5 June 2024. She requested that the landlord inspect the bathroom to list repairs again on 16 July 2024 and 28 August 2024, when she described the outstanding repairs as ‘urgent’ and also reported damp and mould in other areas of the property. She told the landlord that her youngest child had an ongoing cough that she believed was being caused by the damp and mould.The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it may prioritise cases where health conditions are reported. The landlord should have urgently arranged an inspection, in line with its policy.
There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the areas of the property reported to be affected by damp between the time of the resident’s first reports on 5 June 2024 and its stage 2 complaint response on 24 December 2024. The evidence shows the resident made several reports during this time. This was a significant failing.
There is some evidence that the landlord has completed some work or inspections at the property in 2025, after its final complaint response. The extent of these inspections or the associated work is unclear. In order to ensure the resident’s concerns are now addressed, we have ordered the landlord to provide evidence that it has completed a full survey of the downstairs bedroom and bathroom of the property, which are the areas the resident reports to be particularly affected by damp and mould. It must then produce an action plan to complete any works identified as part of the survey.
The resident also alluded to several other outstanding repairs and asked the landlord to inspect the bathroom to make a list of these. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that inspections may be necessary in some instances. For example, where investigations to identify a problem are required, or where there is a ‘generic problem’ reported. If the landlord had inspected the bathroom in line with its damp and mould policy, it would have also provided an opportunity to identify any other repairs which may have been required.
The landlord asked the resident as part of its complaint responses to report any specific repairs to it, but did not act on them appropriately. For example, the landlord told the resident it was aware of an outstanding repair to the bath panel on 16 July 2024. This was in acknowledgement of the resident’s escalation request. This should have been completed in 20 working days, in line with the landlord’s policy. However, in a meeting with the resident on 11 November 2024, the bath panel repair remained outstanding, and the landlord again promised to complete this repair. The evidence shows that a repair to the bath panel was not raised until 28 April 2025, 9 months and 12 days later. The reason for this significant delay is unclear. It is unclear why multiple opportunities to arrange the repair were missed.
Although the evidence shows that the repair was raised, there is no evidence that this repair was later completed. The resident reported to this Service on 8 August 2025 that the bath panel repair remained outstanding. We have ordered the landlord to provide evidence that it has now completed this repair. The resident also told this Service that several other repairs she has raised remain outstanding. We have made a further order that if any repairs are identified during the survey of the bathroom ordered above, the landlord must contact the resident to indicate when these repairs will be completed.
The resident also reported that the windows at the property were causing draughts. There is evidence that this was an ongoing issue at the property and that the landlord completed some associated repairs in 2022. The contractor who completed the window repairs on 4 October 2024, assessed earlier in this report, also included some draught proofing measures in these repairs. The resident reported to the landlord that these were ineffective in a meeting with the landlord on 11 November 2024 and again by email on 10 December 2024.
The landlord took appropriate steps by double checking that the draught excluders were installed correctly on 20 December 2024. However, it exceeded its 20-working day timescale to complete this by 9 working days. The landlord also told the resident it would complete a ‘heat loss survey’. This was likely appropriate in view of the wider damp issues reported at the property. However, there was a delay from 11 November 2024 until 7 February 2025 in completing this survey. This was unreasonable, particularly in view of the resident’s concerns already raised about damp and mould and her health concerns for her youngest child. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 24 December 2024, it said that the issue with the draughts had been resolved, but this was inaccurate.
In conclusion, the landlord failed to adhere to the expectations set out in its own policies and procedures, on several occasions. The resident’s frequent reports of repairs and damp issues were not responded to adequately, in a timely manner, or at all in some instances. Damp and mould reports were not acknowledged or investigated, despite multiple opportunities to do so. The resident was subject to significant and unexplained delays.
The evidence shows that the time and trouble the resident went to in order to progress even the simplest of repairs was extensive and avoidable. The issues reported were sometimes urgent in nature, but the landlord failed to complete an inspection. This was a significant failing in view of the health concerns reported by the resident, which the landlord failed to consider. The resident suffered avoidable distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period as a result of the landlord’s failings. As a result, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests and reports of damp and mould at the property.
Despite the resident having raised these concerns with the landlord, it missed the opportunity to respond to the elements assessed in this section of this investigation report in its final complaint response. As a result, it was unable to put things right and consider paying the resident an appropriate amount of compensation. Our remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration, a significant impact on the resident, and the landlord has made no attempt to put things right, compensation from £600 may be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation to reflect the adverse effect experienced as a result of the landlord’s failings.
There were several failings that contributed to this finding, which the landlord failed to identify or learn from as part of its complaint responses. The evidence shows that the resident had several points of contacts to deal with different repairs, from local staff members to senior Surveyors, or external contractors. In an internal email sent by a senior staff member of the landlord who investigated this case in May 2025, criticised how it had handled repairs at the property as a ‘pick and mix where different [teams and staff members] picked what they wanted to do’. The evidence shows that this staff member took the appropriate action of reassigning all works to a single staff member for centralised oversight.
However, this raises concerns about the process which led to this being required. The evidence also shows that this issue was only identified and resolved because this case was referred to our Service for investigation. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to complete a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this case. It should clearly set out what went wrong and why. It should outline what steps it will take to ensure these failings to not reoccur. It should consider, as a minimum:
1. why the correct process was not followed in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. the reasons for the extensive and repeated delays in completing repairs and inspections.
3. why some repairs raised by the resident, or works offered by the landlord, such as repairs to the bath panel or a heat loss survey, were not raised until significantly later than when they were first agreed with the resident.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the expectations the landlord must meet in its complaint handling. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. Landlords should respond to all elements of a complaint.
The Code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of being received. Stage 1 complaint responses should be issued within a further 10 working days. Stage 2 responses should be issued within a further 20.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 16 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this request the same day. The landlord should have issued its complaint response by 13 August 2024, in line with the timescales set out in the Code. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on her stage 2 response on several occasions, including on 28 August 2024, 3 September 2024, 8 November 2024 and 22 November 2024. The stage 2 response was eventually issued on 24 December 2024. This represented a delay of 95 working days after the date it was due and was a significant failing.
The landlord said that the reason for the delay was a change in its complaint handling process which was ongoing at the time. While it is likely that this played a part, the landlord had opportunities to prevent these delays. For example, on 3 September 2024 the landlord emailed the resident saying that it was going through process changes and that there were delays because ‘unfortunately this case is still on old system’. It is unclear why the resident’s case could not be moved to the new system, or why a stage 2 response could not be manually dealt with by an appropriate staff member at that time. The resident’s stage 2 response was already significantly delayed at this point.
There is concerning evidence that a large part of the delay was because the landlord took steps to actively prevent the resident from reaching stage 2 of its complaint process. For example, in an internal email on 30 October 2024 the landlord stated that it had not raised a formal stage 2 complaint yet and was instead ‘trying to find a way to resolve (the complaint) at stage 1’. This was 56 working days after the initial stage 2 response was due and after several further requests for a stage 2 response had been made by the resident. This was inappropriate and reflected a significant complaint handling failure. It also contradicted the reasons for the delays given to the resident on 3 September 2024.
On 11 November 2024 the landlord met with the resident to again try to ‘resolve the complaint at stage 1’. As above, this was inappropriate, not in line with the Code, and represented a failing. On 6 December 2024 after several emails from the resident’s representatives, the landlord replied. It said that it ‘thinks it would be best to continue with the stage 2 so that everything can go through the proper channels’, providing further evidence that it had taken the decision not to do so, without informing the resident.
The evidence shows that the landlord’s delays in complaint handling resulted in significant frustration, time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience to the resident. Given the nature of the issues that were not resolved by the time of the stage 2 complaint response, such as reports of damp and mould which had not been inspected, this case highlights how poor complaint handling can hinder the landlord’s ability to put things right and learn from outcomes.
When the landlord did issue its stage 2 complaint response, the evidence shows that it had not responded to several elements that it should have. For example, expressions of dissatisfaction regarding damp and mould in an email on 28 August 2024 and in a meeting with the landlord on 11 November 2024 were not responded to. This included concerns about the resident’s 2 year old daughter’s health in an email on 28 August 2024, which the landlord also did not acknowledge or respond to. This was a failing.
There were also inaccuracies in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, such as that the stiff windows had been repaired on 29 May 2024 and that problems with draughts from the windows had been resolved. As referenced earlier in this report, this prevented the landlord from being able to consider all of the adverse effect experienced by the resident in its compensation offers. This prevented the landlord from putting things right.
In conclusion, there were significant and unreasonable delays in responding to the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. The landlord at times relied on inaccurate information and demonstrated multiple instances where it failed to follow the Code. The landlord displayed a concerning complaint handling culture and did not attempt to learn from outcomes with regard to its complaint handling failures.
The landlord offered £100 compensation in respect of its complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation policy states that £100 compensation is to be offered where failings have had a ‘low impact’ on residents or where issues have taken ‘slightly longer than expected’. This description is not fitting with the length of the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. The amount of £100 was also not reflective of the resulting adverse effect to the resident. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 compensation in line with the ‘medium’ impact bracket outlined in the landlord’s compensation policy. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Although the landlord has changed its process since the time of this complaint, the culture and approach to complaint handling demonstrated in this case raises concerns beyond just the process that was followed. The landlord is ordered, as part of the senior management review of this case, to consider its complaint handling. It should pay consideration to what went wrong and why, making reference to as a minimum:
1. why steps appeared to be taken to prevent the resident from receiving a stage 2 complaint response.
2. why multiple expressions of dissatisfaction were missed and not raised as part of its complaint responses.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to repair windows which were reported as being stiff to open and close.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to replace the bathroom at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests and reports of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide us with evidence that it has:
1. Paid the resident £1,335 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to their rent account. This is made up of:
  1. £350 for delays in repairing her windows, which were reported as being stiff to open and close. The £150 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
  2. £60 compensation already offered for the missed appointments, if it has not done so already.
  3. £75 compensation already offered in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to replace the bathroom at the property, if it has not done so already.
  4. £600 compensation for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair requests and reports of damp and mould at the property.
  5. £250 for complaint handling. The £100 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if it has been paid already.
2. Instructed a suitably qualified person, who has not already been involved in this case, to complete a full survey of the bathroom and downstairs bedroom at the property, to address reports of damp, mould, and outstanding repairs.
3. Instructed an independent surveyor to survey the windows at the property to investigate the cold draughts reported.
4. Completed the repair to the resident’s bath panel.
With 4 weeks of completing the above surveys to the bathroom and bedrooms, the landlord must provide evidence to us that it has:
1. Produced an action plan to complete any works identified as part of the surveys. This must include works to address any damp and mould identified and any draughts coming from the windows.
2. Contacted the resident to provide a timescale by which it will complete any other repairs to the bathroom that it has identified during its surveys.
3. Written to the resident with a decision on her request to renew the bathroom. If the bathroom does not meet the criteria for renewal, the landlord must clearly explain why. It must also include evidence of the policy containing the criteria relied upon alongside this.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence that it has completed a senior management review of the failings highlighted in this case. It should clearly set out what went wrong and why. It should outline what steps it will take to ensure these failings to not reoccur. It should consider, as a minimum:
1. its management of its contractors.
2. why the correct process was not followed in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. the reasons for the extensive and repeated delays in completing repairs and inspections.
4. why some repairs raised by the resident, or works offered by the landlord, such as repairs to the bath panel or a heat loss survey, were not raised until significantly later than when they were first agreed.
5. what went wrong and why, in regard to its complaint handling, with reference to:
  1. why steps appeared to be taken to prevent the resident from receiving a stage 2 complaint response.
  2. why multiple expressions of dissatisfaction were missed and not raised as part of its complaint responses.