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 (202345749)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345749

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

16 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:

a.     The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for service charge account information and its response to the resident’s reports about service charge errors.

b.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a local authority. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house. The property is on a mixed tenure estate. The property is managed by the landlord but the estate is managed by a private management organisation.
  2. The resident pays a weekly rent to the landlord, which includes a variable service charge.
  3. The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s communications and its handling of her service charge queries on 3 March 2023. It issued the final stage 2 complaint response on 9 July 2024. In summary:

a.     The resident said the landlord:

  1. Had not acted in accordance with its complaint policy.
  2. Had not responded to service charge queries she had raised.
  3. Had apportioned the estate service charges incorrectly and she disputed some of the charges.
  4. Was taking too long to correct service charge errors and issue accurate statements and accounts.

b.     The landlord:

  1. Apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s initial complaint and service charge enquiries. And for the moving target for resolution of the resident’s queries.
  2. Explained how its service charges were calculated, acknowledged that errors had been identified, and clarified how it had / was intending to address those errors.
  3. Apologised for delays in correcting the service statements and accounts.
  1. The resident told us on 26 August 2025 the landlord had amended the service charges but she still did not understand what she was being charged for and it had not fully explained the amendments made. The resident said the landlord should provide accurate service charge accounts in a timely manner in future and treat complaints more seriously.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge are best suited for consideration by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT), who can make a binding decision on whether service charges are reasonable or payable.
  2. Therefore, this report will not consider whether the resident’s service charges were reasonable or payable, or whether any reimbursement of the service charge was due. But this investigation may consider the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in all of the circumstances of the case.

Obligations, policies, and procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement placed a legal obligation on the resident to pay a weekly rent for the property, which included a variable service charge. The tenancy agreement states that “the service charge will be apportioned between the property in the scheme / block / building on the basis of floor area or other reasonable method of apportionment as chosen by the landlord from time to time”.
  2. The landlord must issue a summary of service charge accounts within 6 months of the financial year ending, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. If it is unable to provide the final accounts within 6 months, it is statutorily obliged to provide the resident with a Section 20b notice, which gives the landlord more time to finalise the accounts.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for service charge account information and its response to resident’s reports about service charge errors

  1. The landlord issued a notice of rent change on 19 February 2021 for the financial year 2021 to 2022 along with an estimate of service charge costs. This included estate costs for bulk refuse disposal, estate maintenance, close circuit television (CCTV), and electricity, The percentage apportionment of the estate charges to the resident was 0.481%.
  2. The landlord issued a notice of rent change on 22 February 2022 for the financial year 2022 to 2023 along with an estimate of service charge costs. This included estate costs for bulk refuse disposal, electricity, estate maintenance, gardening, pest control, and tree works. The percentage apportionment of the estate charges to the resident was 0.481%.
  3. The landlord issued a Section 20B notice on 20 September 2022 for the financial year 2021 to 2022 delaying issue of the summary of actual service charge accounts. This was within the statutory timescale. The landlord explained that it was delaying publication of these accounts until 31 December 2022 to enable it to carry out a more thorough and detailed review of the costs and the way these costs were apportioned. This was encouraging as landlords have a duty to ensure that service charges are accurate and transparent.
  4. The landlord told the resident on 9 March 2023 that the summary of accounts for the financial year 2021 to 2022 would be ready by the end of June 2023. However, it did not meet this deadline. And it did not keep the resident informed as to when she might receive this. This was unfair and created uncertainty for the resident.
  5. The landlord issued the summary of accounts for the financial year 2022 to 2023 on 26 September 2023 showing the actual service charges. The percentage apportionment of the estate charges to the resident was 0.48%, which included intercompany service charge costs, communal electricity, cleaning, gardening, day to day repairs and lift maintenance. We note that the resident raised concern in the stage 1 complaint that the landlord had not issued a Section 20B notice. However, this was not necessary, as the landlord issued the summary of accounts, with the actual service charges, within the statutory time limit.
  6. The resident chased the landlord on 7 October 2023 for an update as to when the summary of accounts for the financial year 2021 to 2022 would be issued. She also raised concern that some of the service charges did not apply to her as she lived in a house not a flat. Again, the landlord did not respond, which left the resident unclear of the landlord’s intentions and position.
  7. The landlord acknowledged in the stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2024 that it had not responded to the resident’s initial enquiries in a timely manner, for which it offered an apology. This was encouraging and shows it was taking responsibility for inadequacies in its communications.
  8. The landlord issued the summary of accounts for the financial year 2021 to 2022 on 15 February 2024 showing the actual service charges. The estate services included cleaning, day to day repairs, electricity, gas and heating, service charge recharges, and tree works. The percentage apportionment of the estate charges to the resident was changed to 0.7874%.
  9. The landlord issued a notice of rent change on 20 February 2024 along with an estimate of service charge costs for the financial year 2024 to 2025. In relation to service charges, the notice confirmed there was a prior year balance of £11.77. The estimated service charges comprised a number of estate costs, for bulk refuse disposal, cleaning, electricity, estate maintenance, gardening, pest control, and tree works. The percentage apportionment of the estate charges to the resident was 0.48%.
  10. The resident raised several service charge queries on 2 March 2024 about the charges. She asked for the audit costs on the most recent accounts to be removed as she said this was a landlord charge. She said the cleaning costs and electricity costs should be removed as well, as she lived in a house not a flat, so these charges did not apply to her. She added that she was unwilling to pay the weekly charges in connection with the previous year’s balance showing on the estimated charges for the financial year 2024 to 2025, until it had provided proof of these charges.
  11. The resident raised an expression of dissatisfaction on 3 March 2024 about the landlord’s failure to issue the actual service charges for the financial year 2021 to 2022, which suggests the resident had not received the landlord’s earlier communication dated 20 February 2024. She said the landlord had issued the actual service charges for the financial year 2022 to 2023 but these were wrong. She explained that she had raised this with the landlord on 7 October 2023 but it had not responded. She asked the landlord to resolve her complaint, correct the charges, and finalise the actual service charge costs for the financial years 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023.
  12. The landlord responded to the resident’s communications on 4 March 2024 as a general query, rather than as a complaint. We will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s dissatisfaction later, within our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling. But we note the landlord provided the resident with copies of the actual service charges for the financial year 2021 to 2022, which it said would explain the reason for the weekly charge in respect of the prior year balance. It also provided an explanation for the estate cleaning and electricity charges and committed to removing the audit fee, which it did the next day. It was positive it made the resident aware of her right to escalate matters to the FTT if she continued to be dissatisfied.
  13. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 March 2024 maintaining that she thought the cleaning costs were covered by the estate management charge. And continued to question the electricity charges. She added on 8 March 2024 that it had apportioned the estate costs incorrectly for the financial year 2021 to 2022, leaving her rent account in deficit. She said she could not see, after reviewing the actual service charges for the financial year 2021 to 2022, how it had arrived at the figure for the prior year balance. And she was still waiting for it to issue the corrected actual service charge costs for the financial year 2022 to 2023. The landlord acted fairly by referring the resident’s service charge queries onto its internal specialist so the service charges could be reviewed.
  14. The landlord told the resident on 20 March 2024 it would arrange a refund if any errors were identified during its review. It did not give an indication of when the outcome of this review would be communicated. But tried to manage her expectations, that there might be a delay, given the high volume of service charges enquiries received at that time of the year. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  15. The landlord proactively updated the resident on 16 April 2024, which was positive. It confirmed that the audit fee had been reimbursed and said it would try to provide the outcome of its review by the end of May 2024. The landlord issued the outcome of the service charge review just after this date, within the stage 1 complaint response.
  16. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2024. In summary, the landlord:

a.     Apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s initial service charge queries. It said it understood the importance of addressing service charge concerns promptly and regretted any inconvenience this delay had caused.

b.     Clarified its approach to calculating estimated and actual service charges. And confirmed that the cost of estate cleaning was previously included in the estate maintenance costs but these costs had been separated to make the charges more transparent. It explained that the electricity costs related to communal estate lighting.

 

c.      Confirmed that the final statement for the financial year 2021 to 2022 was correct, according to its service charge review. But accepted the apportionment was different from more recent apportionments, which had caused confusion and gave the appearance that the service charges were incorrect. It clarified that the percentage apportionment of estate costs to the property should have been 0.787%, not 0.48% as it had stated. It explained its rationale for this and committed to a course of action to make things clearer in the future.

d.     Accepted there were errors in the final accounts statement for the financial year 2022 to 2023, which included the charges levied for lift maintenance. It committed to correcting those errors, sending out the corrected final accounts by mid-July 2024, and apologised for any inconvenience this had caused.

e.     Noted that the resident had provided her own calculations for the service charges payable. It said it was satisfied the estimated charges for the financial year 2024 to 2025 were correct. And suggested that any differences between its calculations and her own were due to rounding figures, apportionment, and the calculation of yearly and weekly sums.

f.        Confirmed that that it had credited the audit fee to her rent account as this had been added in error.

g.     Advised that it had reviewed the organisational structure of its service charge team and had implemented some changes to improve service charge handling and to minimise future errors.

  1. The landlord’s stage 1 response shows that the landlord had carried out a thorough investigation in relation to the resident’s complaint, was taking responsibility for the errors it had identified, was committed to improving its service to residents, and was trying to put things right.
  2. The landlord issued the revised final account statement for the financial year 2022 to 2023, with actual service charges, on 26 June 2024. This was within the timescale it had committed to in the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said it was sorry there were errors on the original statement and for any confusion that this had caused. The estate charges on the revised statement included electricity, cleaning, bulk refuse disposal, gardening, estate maintenance, and tree works. The percentage apportionment of the estate charges to the resident was 0.481%.
  3. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 9 July 2024. In summary, the landlord:

a.     Tried to add further clarity about the way it had apportioned the estate charges. And explained that since its review, it had changed the way it accounted and apportioned the service charges to the estate for the financial year 2021 to 2022. And clarified that all charges would now be recharged to the whole estate and apportioned to residents depending on their tenure, which in the resident’s case would be 0.481%. This was roughly in line with the resident’s expectations. However, we note the resident said the percentage should actually be 0.48%. Any dispute concerning this would be a matter for the FTT.

b.     Explained that it would not be making any immediate adjustments to the current estimated charges for the financial year 2024 to 2025. It said it would adjust the charges when it prepared the final accounts and the actual costs were known. This was reasonable, as the costs were likely to change over the course of the year.

c.      Apologised for any confusion caused and for delays correcting the service statements and accounts, which was fair.

  1. The resident asked us if the landlord was allowed to change the way it apportioned its service charges. According to its tenancy agreement, it could. But we recommend that the landlord satisfy itself that is able to include the whole of the estate when calculating the service charges payable by the resident, as we consider the wording of the tenancy agreement is ambiguous in this regard. The landlord should then explain the outcome of this to the resident.
  2. We note the resident remains unconvinced that she should be paying for some of the service charges, has continued to question the figures for the previous year balance, and states she remains unclear how the estate charges have been apportioned. The landlord should offer to meet the resident to support her with her understanding of the service charges. If she continues to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation, she may wish to seek further guidance from the FTT, who may be able to take a more forensic look at the service charges levied and make a binding decision.
  3. In summary, our investigation found the landlord:

a.     Followed the statutory procedure for notifying the resident of estimated and actual service charges.

b.     Apologised for its delay in addressing the resident’s initial service charge queries. And was generally responsive to the resident’s queries thereafter.

c.      Initiated a review of the service charges, in response to the resident’s ongoing concerns.

d.     Took responsibility for errors it identified in the service charges and committed to a course of action to put things right.

e.     Apologised for any confusion caused to the resident and for delays correcting the service charge statements and accounts.

  1. It is evident that the situation was frustrating for the resident. However, the landlord recognised its failings, apologised, and committed to a course of action to try and put things right.
  2. Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for service charge account information and its response to the resident’s reports about service charge errors.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord defines a complaint to be “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”. Its policy states that “an expression of dissatisfaction does not need to include the word complaint to be handled in line with this policy”.
  2. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy. The landlord will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 2 working days. It will issue the full stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and the full stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  3. The resident raised an expression of dissatisfaction on 3 March 2023 to the landlord, about inadequate communication and its handling of service charges. The resident clearly stated she wanted the landlord to treat her communication as a complaint. While the landlord responded to the resident’s communication, it did not log a stage 1 complaint, until we asked it to in June 2024. This was contrary to its complaints policy. The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 7 June 2024, which was within the target response timescale we gave to the landlord.
  4. The landlord apologised in the stage 1 complaint response for its delayed response to the resident’s complaint. It is unlikely the resident was significantly impacted by this, as the landlord had responded to her expression of dissatisfaction in a timely manner, as a service enquiry. Nevertheless, the landlord accepted this was a complaint handling failure and committed on 10 June 2024 to contacting the resident to discuss an offer of compensation. However, we cannot conclude that it did, from the available evidence.
  5. The resident raised the stage 2 complaint on 10 June 2024. The landlord sent the stage 2 acknowledgement and issued the stage 2 complaint response within expected timescales.
  6. The resident raised concern to us on 16 August 2025 that the stage 2 complaint review was not independent, as it was carried out by an employee of the landlord. And because that employee was the manager of the member of its staff who issued the stage 1 complaint response.
  7. Although some landlords do employ independent adjudicators to carry out their stage 2 reviews, it is common practice for landlords to manage their complaints internally. This is permitted under our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  8. The landlord’s complaints policy states that the stage 2 complaint investigation will be carried out by a manager who was not involved in the original decision and at least one other independent reviewer.
  9. We note that the stage 2 reviewer in this case, who was a senior manager, was copied into several communications prior to the resident raising the stage 2 complaint. But there was no evidence that this manager was involved in advising upon or making the original stage 1 complaint decision. We consider the manager in this case was far enough removed from day to day handling of the resident’s service charges, to be impartial. We were unable to verify if the landlord involved an independent reviewer in the stage 2 investigation, in line with its policy. But this was not a requirement under the Code.
  10. On balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  11. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards in this range, where there have been errors by the landlord which have caused inconvenience to the resident, but the remedy offered by the landlord, in this case an apology, was not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for service charge account information and its response to the resident’s reports about service charge errors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation, in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident by complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should satisfy itself that it is permitted, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, to include the whole of the estate when calculating the service charges payable by the resident. And then offer to meet the resident to support her with her understanding of the estate service charges and how the charges are apportioned.