Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Notting Hill Genesis (202331059)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331059

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

8 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 concerns about access to her garden.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since January 2022. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The resident has advised that she has autism and lives in the property with her son who has a disability. The landlord was aware of these vulnerabilities throughout the period of the complaint.
  2. The property is a basement flat (‘Flat A’) with access to a garden. There is another flat above the resident’s flat (‘Flat B’). Flat B was vacant at the time the resident moved in.
  3. The landlord offered the resident the property in or around December 2021. On 21 December 2021, prior to signing the tenancy agreement, the landlord’s housing officer advised that “the garden is exclusive for the basement property [Flat A], that means only you will be able to access it.” The resident has advised that she accepted the property on the basis of this advice.
  4. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of the tenancy agreement. It is not disputed that the tenancy agreement itself says the property has “garden access,” but does not note exclusive use.
  5. While not the subject of this investigation, it is evident that repairs were required to the garden which took some time to progress. As part of these works, the issue as to whether Flat A had exclusive use was raised. Around this time, Flat B also became occupied, and the new neighbour began using the garden.
  6. The resident sought clarification on this point on 12 June 2023. It is not evident that the landlord responded and so she chased it again on 11 August 2023. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that that access to the garden was shared with Flat B. It also apologised that its housing officer had incorrectly informed the resident that she had exclusive use.
  7. The resident raised a formal complaint and queried if it could prevent the neighbour from using the garden while the issue was investigated; however, the landlord advised it would be unable to do so.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 7 September 2023, which included the following:
    1. It addressed concerns about the housing officer’s behaviour, which are not the focus of this investigation.
    2. Regarding the use of the garden, it apologised for the incorrect information and offered £200 compensation.
    3. It also offered to divide the garden into 2 with a fence so that each party had exclusive use to half the garden.
  9. The resident escalated the complaint relating to the garden on 20 November 2023, which the landlord acknowledged on 21 November 2023.
  10. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 December 2023, which included the following:
    1. It repeated its apology for the incorrect information and increased its offer of compensation to £700, being £350 for the initial incorrect information and £350 for the delay in realising the error.
    2. It repeated its offer to divide the garden and also offered to arrange mediation with the neighbour so they could potentially agree to a timetable for exclusive use.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied with the outcome and referred the complaint to this service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As noted above, the resident raised a separate complaint about the behaviour of her housing officer. The landlord’s stage 2 response on this matter noted it was increasing supervision of the housing officer to improve the housing officer’s service delivery going forward. It also offered £200 for the distress and inconvenience their conduct had caused. The resident has advised that the housing officer was subsequently moved to a new area and the issue is no longer in dispute. Nevertheless, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to reiterate this offer of compensation if it is yet to have been accepted.
  2. The resident has also advised that she has concerns about the behaviour of her present housing officer. It is not evident if this has been raised as a formal complaint; however, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and discuss her concerns. If a complaint has already been raised, it should provide an update as to the outcome of the complaint.
  3. The resident has advised that she considers the promise of exclusive use of the garden should amount to a term of the tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise or jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord’s promise forms part of the formal contractual agreement. Such a determination is more appropriate for a court. Additionally, the Ombudsman cannot award damages for loss of opportunity or negligence in the way a court can. The resident has the option to seek legal advice if she wishes to pursue this element of her concern.
  4. Similarly, the Ombudsman will not make an order which impacts upon another resident. We therefore will not be able to make an order granting exclusive use of the garden to the resident. Instead, our investigation will focus on whether the landlord followed its policies and good practice, and how it responded to the resident’s complaint.
  5. Finally, in conversation with this service, the resident has advised that she is experiencing both ASB concerns relating to her neighbour and ongoing repair issues. As with above, it is not evident if these have been raised as formal complaints; however, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and discuss her concerns. If a complaint has already been raised, it is to provide an update as to the outcome of the complaint.

Access to garden

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord’s housing officer advised the resident she would have exclusive use of the garden. While this was not legal advice relating to the terms of the tenancy agreement document, it was nevertheless understandable that the resident placed her trust in the housing officer’s knowledge about the property. The landlord was aware of the circumstances in which the resident was moving from her existing property, which included domestic violence and the requirements of her son. This means it was reasonable for the resident to expect the housing officer to have a firm understanding of the property being offered to ensure it met her needs. The resident therefore had a reasonable expectation that the garden access was exclusive.
  2. The Ombudsman notes that the resident had the opportunity to review the tenancy agreement prior to signing it and did not raise any concerns about the wording at that time. Additionally, the other property was vacant for over a year. It was therefore understandable why the landlord did not immediately realise the error of its housing officer.
  3. The resident has advised this service that the landlord had the opportunity to resolve this issue prior to the neighbour signing their tenancy agreement. She considers that the landlord could therefore have amended her tenancy agreement to grant exclusive use of the garden prior to entering an agreement with the neighbour. This service has not been provided with the timeline of the neighbour entering into the tenancy agreement and so it cannot be known if such steps would have been possible. Nevertheless, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have included its position on the timeline of events in its formal responses. The formal complaint responses are its opportunity to demonstrate why any action or inaction was reasonable, and its lack of clarity on this point was a missed opportunity to justify its actions.
  4. It is evident that the issue was chased by the resident in writing in June 2023. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for a landlord to respond in a timely manner. Should it require further time to investigate the issue, it should notify this to the resident. However, it is not evident that the landlord responded leading the resident to have to expend time and effort chasing a response. Given the significance of the resident’s concerns, this was unreasonable and did not demonstrate to the resident that it was taking her concerns seriously.
  5. When the landlord did respond, it made its position clear that the garden was shared. It also acknowledged its incorrect initial advice and apologised at the earliest opportunity upon identifying its error. While an apology alone was not reflective of the impact caused to the resident, this was nevertheless appropriate.
  6. The resident queried if the neighbour could be prevented from using the garden while her complaint was investigated. Given that the neighbour had a signed tenancy agreement granting access, this would not have been within the landlord’s power. It was therefore reasonable that it measured the resident’s expectations about this.
  7. Throughout its formal responses, the landlord was also proactive in coming up with a practical solution to the issue. While the resident’s explanation as to why a divided garden or schedule for the use of the garden were not appropriate for her circumstances, it was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to explore options to potentially mitigate the impact of the issue.
  8. That said, the resident made it clear that her circumstances and the needs of her son meant that she considered exclusive use to be the only option. It is not evident that the landlord explored any up-to-date formal assessment, such as an Occupational Therapist’s assessment to ensure it understood the household’s needs. While this would not have resulted in the resident being granted exclusive use of the garden at this property, it may have helped it understand what other assistance it could have offered.
  9. In its formal responses, in addition to its apology and attempts to arrange a compromise for the use of the garden, the landlord offered compensation in recognition of the impact caused to the resident. It initially offered compensation only for the misinformation but appropriately increased its offer in its stage 2 response to also account for the delay to the clarification of its position.
  10. In summary, while the landlord’s primary failing was an instance of misinformation, this resulted in a significant long-term impact on the resident. This was exacerbated by an initial delay to clarify the situation with the resident. Given that the landlord was aware that the resident was fleeing domestic violence and so had a need for privacy, that it raised her expectation that this is what she would have, and that it is unable to meet this expectation, its misinformation amounts to a serious failing. That said, the landlord has taken steps to mitigate the impact of its failing, including methods to provide some level of privacy in the garden. It also apologised at the first opportunity, which was appropriate. Finally, it offered compensation; however, the total amount offered was not reflective of the level of impact caused to the resident.
  11. This service’s remedies guidance notes that in instances where there has been a single significant failure which has had a serious detrimental impact on the resident, a finding of severe maladministration may be appropriate. However, the landlord’s attempts to put things right have been taken into account. A finding of maladministration has therefore been made in the circumstances. An order for £1,000 compensation has been made to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This in line with the higher amount for this finding in our remedies guidance. This order replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £700. As noted above, this amount is not meant to reflect the possible loss of opportunity experienced by the resident, which is beyond the scope of this investigation.
  12. Furthermore, while the resident has advised she is reluctant to consider rehousing, an order has been made for the landlord to provide relevant information to the resident about her options for rehousing including information about any further assessment of her circumstances as part of that process.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about access to her garden.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,000 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings relating to garden access.
  2. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £700. The ordered amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer) must be paid within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is to provide relevant information to the resident about her options for rehousing including information about any further assessment of her circumstances as part of that process.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £200 compensation made in its stage 2 response dated 30 October 2023 relating to the behaviour of its housing officer if this is yet to have been accepted by the resident.
  2. The landlord is to contact the resident and discuss her concerns about her present housing officer, ASB from her neighbour, and any outstanding repair issues. If a complaint has already been raised, it is to provide an update as to the outcome of the complaint.