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 (202307459)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307459

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

23 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 handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident lives in the property with his 2 daughters. The resident has a neurological disorder. At the time of the complaint, the resident’s wife was also living at the property, she had a very serious illness and was undergoing treatment. His wife has since sadly passed away.
  2. The resident sought independent advice from a housing charity during his complaint. His adviser supported him in progressing his complaint. For the purposes of the report, we will refer to both the resident and his adviser as ‘the resident’.
  3. On 29 November 2023 the resident asked the landlord to contact him to discuss a move on medical grounds. On 26 March 2024 the landlord held a meeting with the resident to discuss his banding of D. The resident disputed the banding and felt his circumstances met the criteria for band A. The landlord informed the resident that he could submit medical evidence for another review of his re-housing request on medical grounds.
  4. The resident submitted a request for a review of his re-housing application on 25 April 2024. On 14 June 2024 he submitted a formal complaint to the landlord. He said he had not received acknowledgement or a response to his request. He said both his own and his wife’s health conditions were deteriorating and the landlord had said it would consider his request as soon as possible. The resident said the lack of response was causing him great psychological distress. He asked the landlord to confirm receipt of his request and provide a timeline for its response.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 July 2024. It apologised for the delays in addressing his request. It said it had sent it to its independent medical assessor. It said it would provide the outcome within the following week. The landlord acknowledged the attempts made by the resident to make contact with it. It apologised for its lack of response to the contact and delays experienced. It offered £250 in compensation.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 9 August 2024. He acknowledged the outcome of the recent review which had placed him in band A. He said he would like the landlord to re-house him to a 3-bedroom property as soon as possible. The resident said both his own and his wife’s health conditions were deteriorating due to the distress and horrifying living conditions. He said the compensation offered was insufficient and did not recognise the serious suffering and deterioration of their health.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 December 2024. It:
    1. Outlined the steps taken in his case so far. It confirmed that on 29 July 2024 it awarded the resident with band A on medical grounds. It also confirmed that the resident was registered on its choice based lettings scheme.
    2. Noted that since receiving the band A, the resident requested a direct offer of a 3-bedroom property as a management transfer. It said his request was outside of its management transfer process as he had requested a bigger property than his current property. It outlined its policy which stated that a direct offer must be a like for like property, with the same number of bedrooms.
    3. Said it submitted his request for a management transfer to its tenancy approval team and they did not uphold the request. It said it submitted his appeal to the lettings appeal panel which would take place on 14 January 2025 and the resident would receive the outcome shortly after.
    4. Apologised for the delays, lack of communication, and the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused. It outlined the steps it had taken since the resident’s complaint to improve its service. It offered a total of £900 compensation. £200 of the total amount was for its complaint handling delays at stages 1 and 2.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He described the landlord’s decision to only consider 2-bedroom properties as negligence because it was his housing officer who had initially stated that he would get a 3-bedroom property. He said the conditions of his home were impacting the household’s health and wellbeing. The resident said he was having difficulties bidding on properties. He said he wanted to be moved to a property which was not owned by the landlord.
  9. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the landlord has confirmed that due to his difficulties with using the system, the resident was set up for auto bidding and he could choose from properties offered to him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to previous repairs carried out by the landlord and the condition of the property he is living in. The resident made a separate complaint to the landlord regarding this and has now received a stage 2 response from the landlord. As the resident remains dissatisfied with the stage 2 response, the Ombudsman will consider this under a separate case. As such, the concerns regarding the repairs and the condition of his property will not be addressed within this investigation.
  2. The resident has stated that the landlord’s handling of the matters under review in this investigation had a negative impact on the household’s health and wellbeing. This Service is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Although, we will consider any impact that likely resulted in distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. The resident has requested a move as an outcome for the complaint, and more specifically, to a property which the landlord does not own. It is not within the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to make orders to a landlord to offer a new property to a resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re–housed

  1. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy sets out the different banding levels it gives tenants when they want to move homes. The levels range from A (the highest need to move) to D. It describes level A as being in cases where there is a life-threatening medical condition or an imminent personal risk which could be impacted by remaining in the property. The landlord lists its available properties online and all eligible tenants can bid on them using the banding priority provided.
  2. The policy states that where it approves a tenant for a management transfer it will make 1 reasonable direct offer. It states the direct offer and property will be like for like, with the same number of bedrooms. It outlines its criteria for allocating bedrooms and determining if a property is overcrowded. Relevant to this case, it states that it allows 1 bedroom for each single adult or couple and an extra bedroom for 2 children of the same gender under the age of 16.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy provides a 3-tier guide for awarding compensation. The highest tier is for a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident. It suggests awards for such failings to be up to £500.
  4. It was not disputed by the landlord that there were unnecessary delays in its handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed. This likely resulted in significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord acknowledged its lack of response to the resident from 29 November 2023 onwards. It also acknowledged the delay from the resident submitting his medical evidence on 25 April 2024 and providing the outcome of his request on 29 July 2024. The landlord apologised and offered compensation for its failings.
  5. When there are identified failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that the resident submitted a transfer form on 7 February 2024 and was subsequently awarded band D on 23 February 2024. It noted that although the resident cited medical reasons, he did not provide the necessary medical evidence to support his application. It was therefore reasonable that given the circumstances, the landlord arranged a meeting on 26 March 2024 with the resident to discuss his housing needs further. The meeting consisted of the resident, his adviser, his housing officer, and an operational manager. This was a proportionate step and demonstrated a willingness to help resolve the resident’s concerns.
  7. It was a failing that despite reassurances within the meeting and its advice to submit further evidence, the landlord did not then acknowledge or respond to the resident’s request for a review and his subsequent attempts to chase the landlord. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and did not manage his expectations. While the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to show consideration as to why it failed to respond to the resident’s repeated contact. The landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities within the household and its lack of response appeared dismissive.
  8. The resident was awarded band A on medical grounds on 29 July 2024. This was positive and was the outcome he was initially seeking. However, in his stage 2 escalation, he said that he wanted a 3-bedroom property and a management transfer. The landlord appropriately explained that as per its policy, if it was to offer him a management transfer it would have to be for a like for like property, with the same number of bedrooms. As the resident was in a 2-bedroom property, it said his request would be outside of its management transfer process.
  9. On 22 August 2024, the landlord confirmed that it would pass the resident’s request for a 3-bedroom property to a manager and its tenancy approval panel. On the form submitted by the landlord it stated that the resident had damp and mould in the property which it had fixed but could reoccur in the winter. It said its medical assessor had said that stress and the current condition of the property was a trigger for the resident. It said that the resident’s wife would be at risk of infection and that would be why a management transfer would be beneficial.
  10. While the landlord has shown that it followed its policy to escalate his request, it did not provide a timeframe for when the resident would receive a response. It is also unclear from the records when the tenancy approval panel provided their outcome. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of the resident chasing an update from the landlord in October and November 2024. The landlord’s internal communication at the time showed confusion regarding whether the resident’s case should sit with the tenancy approval team or the lettings appeal panel.
  11. It is not uncommon for landlords to have separate teams to deal with different requests. However, it is essential that there is awareness of responsibilities across the wider organisation to ensure landlord’s deal with cases in a timely manner. While the resident was awarded band A, he would not have been able to bid for properties within that timeframe due to waiting to hear back about a 3-bedroom property. The delays likely caused him distress and inconvenience which was evident in the emails he sent chasing a response.
  12. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that the tenancy approval team did not uphold the resident’s request and stated that the request would need to be submitted to the lettings panel. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the reasons for why the resident’s request was denied, this may have helped manage the resident’s expectations. It confirmed it had submitted the case to the lettings panel for review on 14 January 2025. It said it would update the resident shortly after. The landlord’s response was reasonable and in line with its policy which states that the lettings panel would consider appeals.
  13. It is understood that the lettings panel did not uphold the resident’s request for a 3-bedroom property and a management transfer. The resident remains dissatisfied as he said his housing officer initially told him that he would be able to have 3 bedrooms. While we do not doubt the resident’s account, the Ombudsman has not seen any correspondence from the landlord which supports this. Nor have we seen any evidence from the resident which would meet the criteria for an additional bedroom. Therefore, despite what may have been previously discussed, it would be reasonable for the landlord to rely on its guidance and the outcome of the lettings panel.
  14. To summarise, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether the landlord should have approved the resident’s requests. It is our role to consider whether the landlord reasonably considered the requests in line with its policies and procedures. We are satisfied that the landlord reasonably followed its lettings and allocations procedure. It outlined what it required to consider his requests and medical concerns. It also explained why it could not agree to some of the requests and the steps which it would need to follow. There was some confusion regarding the correct team to refer the case to but this did not impact the eventual outcome.
  15. The failings in this case were the landlord’s poor communication which led to unnecessary delays. In line with our dispute resolution principles, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for these failings. And it fairly considered how its shortcomings resulted in distress to the resident. The landlord said it had identified areas for improvement to ensure such issues would not occur again.
  16. The landlord offered a total of £700 in compensation to put things right for the resident. The amount offered was appropriate and it was above the highest tier of compensation recommended in its compensation policy. This suggests the landlord recognised the seriousness of its failings, the impact caused to the resident as a result, and that the redress needed to put things right would be substantial.
  17. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed. We do not underestimate how challenging a time this must be and has been for the resident and his family. However, this Service is satisfied that the landlord reasonably followed its policy and procedures regarding the resident’s request to be re-housed and it offered reasonable redress for the failings identified.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It says it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 response 25 working days after the resident’s formal complaint. It provided its stage 2 response 96 working days after the stage 2 escalation. The delays in responding to the resident were not appropriate or in line with its policy.
  3. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the delays in its complaint responses. It also outlined the changes it had made to its complaint managing process to improve its services. Given the significant delay at stage 2, it was positive that the landlord showed learning from its outcomes and explained what steps it had taken to ensure it does not repeat the same failures again.
  4. The landlord offered a total of £200 for its complaint handling failures. This was in line with its compensation policy for where it had markedly failed to meet its service standards which then caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s actions were in line with our dispute resolution principles. It fairly acknowledged its failures in handling the resident’s complaint. It put things right by offering a proportionate amount of compensation for those failings. And it showed how it had learnt from the outcomes by outlining the changes it had made within its complaints team.
  6. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be re-housed.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, it is recommended the landlord pay the resident the £900 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response.
  2. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord provide the reasons for why the lettings panel did not approve the resident’s request. It may also be helpful to confirm to the resident what his current status is on its choice based letting scheme and to provide information to the resident regarding all the options available for him to progress a move.