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 (202450560)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202450560

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

5 September 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 response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. Repairs to the front door of the flat.
    2. Repairs to internal doors inside the flat.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. She has lived in the 2-bedroomed flat since 2019. The landlord’s records confirm the resident’s mental health concerns.
  2. The resident raised an issue with the lock on the front door of her flat on 16 January 2023. A contractor called the resident to arrange an emergency repair, but the resident said the door needed replacing and the contractor was not required. The resident reported the door again on 28 April 2024. She said the handle and lock had fallen out. The contractor attended as an emergency, fixed the handle, eased the door, and advised the landlord a new multi-lock was needed. The resident reported the internal doors jamming on 8 July 2024.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 8 July 2024. She said:
    1. the front door had been repaired previously but was faulty and not secure
    2. internal doors were jamming, and people were getting stuck in rooms
    3. cupboard doors were jamming and could not be opened
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 September 2024. In summary, the landlord:
    1. apologised for the time taken to repair the internal doors, and confirmed the repairs had been completed in August 2024
    2. advised work was in progress regarding the front door and a contractor would contact the resident to arrange an appointment
    3. explained it was in the process of moving to a new complaint model and apologised the delay in the complaint response
    4. offered £200 compensation (£50 for the delay in repair, £75 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £75 for the complaint handling)
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 September 2024. She said:
    1. there had been multiple missed appointments that had caused disruption, and the landlord had not acknowledged this
    2. she had paid a locksmith to help her get out of her home and the landlord had not acknowledged the expense
    3. the issues had been ongoing for 3 years, repairs had been continuously delayed, and as a burn victim, it had a psychological impact on her
    4. the issues with the front door left her home vulnerable to break ins and the broken door had invalidated her home insurance
    5. the compensation did not address the full severity or extent of the monetary loss, security, distress, missed appointments and loss of earnings endured
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 February 2025. In summary, the landlord:
    1. said it had not effectively managed the front door repairs in line with its policies and acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused
    2. advised it was satisfied with the handling of the repairs to the internal doors
    3. confirmed after its call with the resident on 10 February 2025 when she said the front door and the internal doors were still causing problems, it had raised an emergency repair, and the repairs were completed the same day
    4. confirmed it was unable to identify any missed appointments, and it did not compensate for loss of earnings, however if the resident provided receipts from the locksmith, it would consider an offer to reimburse the costs
    5. acknowledged it had not responded to the complaint in line with its policy
    6. increased the offer of compensation which meant in total, the resident was offered £650 (£250 for the delays in the front door repairs, £150 for the delays to the internal doors, £175 for the complaint handling, and £75 for the distress and inconvenience)
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us on 12 March 2025. She said:
    1. the faulty door had made her feel trapped, vulnerable to break-ins, had heightened her sense of vulnerability, and had an emotional toll on her family
    2. she had suffered monetary loss due to missed appointments which the landlord had denied any record of, and it refused to compensate for loss of earnings and out-of-pocket expensed for the locksmith
  8. As a resolution, the resident asked for:
    1. compensation for distress, financial hardship, and psychological trauma
    2. an apology for the ongoing suffering and hardship

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on her health. We can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter best suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she should seek legal advice. The resident also said the faults with the front door had affected her home insurance. This is an insurance matter and not something we can comment on.
  2. The resident stated her front door has been faulty for 3 years. We expect a resident to raise a complaint with its landlord within a reasonable period which is usually 12 months of the matter arising. There is no evidence the resident raised a formal complaint prior to 8 July 2024. Based on the evidence provided, this assessment will therefore focus on events linked to the complaint, between January 2023 and 12 February 2025, the date of the final complaint response.

Repairs to the front door of the resident’s flat

  1. The resident’s Tenancy Agreement and the landlord’s Repairs Policy states the landlord should keep in good repair doors and internal doors. The policy states:
    1. it will attend emergencies within 4 hours to make safe, and a temporary repair should be completed at this visit or within 24 hours (including external doors that cannot be secured)
    2. it will complete standard repairs within 20-working days from date of report
  2. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it will:
    1. not compensate for loss of earnings
    2. pay compensation in recognition of distress or inconvenience caused by a service failure
    3. offer £100 for low impact, £250 for medium impact, up to £500 for high impact service failures
  3. The resident reported a problem with her front door lock on 16 January 2023, and the landlord raised an emergency repair. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The contractor spoke to the resident who said the door needed to be replaced so they were not required. The contractor noted the resident said she would not be available for a visit within 4 hours. There is no evidence to confirm if the contractor did attend, or if the door was left in a secure state. The landlord is responsible for the security of external doors, therefore it was unreasonable not to follow up this issue with the resident.
  4. The resident reported the door again on 28 April 2024. The resident said the handle and lock had fallen out and the property was insecure. A contractor attended the same day, refixed the handle and eased the door. The contractor left the door secure but told the landlord a new multi-lock was needed. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
  5. The landlord raised the repair for the new lock on 30 April 2024. The resident asked for the appointment to be rescheduled on 9 May 2024. The contractor tried to contact the resident on 13 May 2025 to rearrange the appointment, but it could not make contact.
  6. The contractor attended on 28 May 2024. It confirmed further work was needed and returned to the property on 3 June 2024 to note the materials needed. The contractor took until 20 June 2024 to confirm the materials needed. The landlord advised progress was delayed as the variation to the quote was queried throughout July and August 2024. There is no further information to explain why it took so long and there is no evidence the landlord explained the delay to the resident. This was a communication failure.
  7. The landlord arranged to fit the new lock on 17 September 2024, but the resident asked for it to be changed to 19 September 2024. The contractor attended as arranged but there was no access. The contractor fitted the new lock on 26 November 2024, 7 months from when it was reported in April 2024. Considering the rescheduled appointments, the no access visit, and the ordering of materials, the time taken to repair the door was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
  8. It is reasonable for a landlord to complete repairs in the timeframes outlined in its policies, and where there is a delay, to keep the resident informed. However, from the time the resident raised the repair through to its completion, there is no evidence of any communication to the resident, other than the stage 1 complaint response on 25 September 2024. The landlord was made aware of the resident’s history on 25 September 2024 and the impact the situation had on her, yet it took a further 2 months for the repairs to be completed. Under the circumstances it would have been reasonable to prioritise the repair. This would have been in line with the landlord’s commitment to provide a customer centric service. There is no evidence it did this.
  9. The resident referred to calling a locksmith to help her get out of home due to the lock on the door. While she said it happened in July 2024, there is no evidence she reported the issue to the landlord at this time. This meant the landlord was not aware of the situation and was not given the opportunity to respond and repair in line with its obligations. Despite this, it said if the resident provided a receipt, it would consider a reimbursement of the costs. This was reasonable, however the landlord has confirmed it has not received the receipt.
  10. The resident asked for compensation for loss of earnings due to missed appointments. The landlord confirmed there was no evidence of any missed appointments and explained it did not compensate for loss of earnings. The landlord’s response was appropriate and in line with its Compensation Policy.
  11. The landlord acknowledged the poor handling of the repair in its final complaint response on 12 February 2025. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and in recognition of this it offered a total of £325 compensation. This was an appropriate offer and was in line with its Compensation Policy for a serious failure in service delivery over a period which caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience.
  12. In summary, the landlord acknowledged it took too long to complete the repair and recognised the impact this had on the resident. However, the landlord did not highlight any improvements to prevent a recurrence. A recommendation has been made to this effect. The landlord offered compensation that was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where the failure had an adverse effect on the resident, but where the landlord acknowledged this and made attempts to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Repairs to internal doors inside the resident’s flat

  1. The resident told the landlord the internal doors were faulty in her stage 1 complaint on 8 July 2024. The landlord raised a repair the same day and an appointment was made for 15 July 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed a contractor attended on 26 July 2024 and again on 5 August 2024 when the repairs were completed in full. The landlord’s evidence confirms it responded in line with its policy and repair obligations.
  2. The resident did not raise the issue in her escalation request, however on 10 February 2024 and during the stage 2 investigation, the resident said there was still an issue with 2 internal doors. The landlord raised an emergency repair for the matter to be addressed, and repairs were completed on the same day. This was appropriate and in line with policy. As such we find no maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states:
    1. complaints should be made within 12-months of the issue happening
    2. it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    3. it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement date, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days of the escalation request
    4. if an extension is needed, the landlord will agree this with the resident, and it will then respond within 20-working days (stage 1 complaints) and 30-working days (stage 2 complaints)
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
    3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
    4. put things right via a number of actions which could include an apology, an acknowledgement and explanation when things have gone wrong, or an offer of financial remedy
  3. The resident raised her complaint on 8 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 23 July 2024, 11-working days after it was received. The landlord provided it stage 1 complaint response on 25 September 2023, 46-working days from the acknowledgement. The landlord’s response times were not appropriate as they were not in line with policy.
  4. The landlord apologised for the time taken to repair the internal doors and advised the repairs to the front door were in progress and a contractor would arrange an appointment directly with the resident. It did not however provide any further information regarding the history of the repairs. This demonstrated a lack of an in-depth investigation and as such, it failed to identify the cause of the delays, any learning to prevent a recurrence, and the impact on the resident. The landlord’s complaint response was not reasonable.
  5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 25 September 2024 but the landlord did not carry out the escalation. This was not appropriate and was a missed opportunity by the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint earlier than it did. The resident escalated her complaint again on 3 December 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request on 10 December 2024, 54-working days later. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy or the Code.
  6. The landlord told the resident it aimed to respond by 15 January 2025, however it extended the deadline and advised it would respond by 12 February 2025. The landlord provided the final complaint response on the date given, however this was 97-working days from the first escalation request. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy or the Code.
  7. The landlord informed the resident of the timeframe covered by its complaint investigation. This was appropriate and in line with policy. It addressed the repair concerns raised by the resident, confirmed the repairs had been completed and confirmed it had updated its system to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. This was reasonable. It acknowledged and apologised for the delays in the complaint handling at both stages of the complaint. While it told the resident it had implemented a new complaint model, it did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence. A recommendation has been made to this effect. In recognition of the delays and the distress and inconvenience the landlord offered £175. This was appropriate and in line with its Compensation Policy.
  8. In summary the landlord did not comply with its policy timescales at either stage of its complaint process. It did however acknowledge this and offer compensation that was in line with its policy. In line with our remedies guidance the offer was at the level we would expect for a finding of maladministration where the landlord has acknowledged its failings and tried to put things right. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door of the flat.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to internal doors inside the flat.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £650 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to the front door repairs and complaint handling is made on the basis this compensation is paid.
  2. The landlord should consider reviewing its handling of this complaint to identify any learning to address the failures and ensure it complies with its policy in future cases.
  3. The landlord should consider contacting the resident for copies of the receipt from the locksmith so it can reaffirm the offer it made in its final complaint response.