Notting Hill Genesis (202432622)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432622

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

22 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports that her floor was sinking.
2. Reports of rodents in her property.
This complaint is also about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 2 April 2018. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the fifth floor of a block. The resident lives at the property with her 2 young children. The landlord has no other vulnerabilities listed for the household.
On 8 April 2024, the resident contacted her housing officer to raise concerns about rodents in her property. The resident called her housing officer for an update on 12 and 15 April 2024. On 15 April 2024, the resident asked that her housing manager contact her.
The resident emailed her housing officer again on 3 and 14 June 2024 to say:
1. she had contacted them and their manager but had heard nothing
2. she had been having issues with rats and mice for more than a year but regardless of how many times pest control attended there was no improvement
3. she felt ‘very unsafe’ due to the floor dropping, saying the gap between the walls and floor kept increasing
4. she hoped the landlord would do something about this as soon as possible as ‘it kept getting worse’ and was ‘affecting her and her children’s mental health’
On 21 August 2024, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in which she said:
1. she had tried to raise concerns with her housing officer over the past 2 months but they never answered their phone and did not reply to emails. When she chased this up, she was told her housing officer had been replaced twice. The resident said she had been contacting each of these new housing officers but no one took any action
2. in July 2024, she contacted the landlord’s ‘emergency team’ and an engineer attended. The resident said the engineer told her that her flat was not safe as the gaps indicated an issue with the construction of the building. The resident said she was told the engineer’s report would be sent to her housing officer but 2 months had passed and she had heard nothing
3. this was no longer a pest control job as the rodents were coming through the gaps between the floor and the walls. The resident said something must be done about the floor ‘dropping down’
4. her children, who were 5 and 2 years old, were terrified of the rodents and could not sleep at night, the rodents also ate any food she bought. The resident said their lives, as well as the neighbour’s in the flat below, were at risk if the floor dropped
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 September 2024, in which it said:
1. it was sorry to hear the resident was experiencing issues with her flooring. The landlord said its repairs inspector had been in contact with the resident to arrange an inspection on 27 September 2024. This inspection would also assess the pest control problem in her home
2. the customer service the resident had received was not to the standard it would expect and it had taken longer than it should have to provide its response to her complaint
3. it offered the resident £300 compensation for its poor customer service in relation to her reports about her flooring and rodents. The landlord said this also included and time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident. It also offered £50 for the delayed complaint response
4. on 1 July 2024, its new centralised complaints team went live. The landlord said going forward, if the resident experienced any dissatisfaction about the level of service it provided, this would be dealt with by its dedicated complaints team
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 October 2024 saying she was again waiting for an update following the landlord’s surveyor’s visit on 27 September 2024. The resident said she had again kept calling for an update. Every time she was told someone would get back to her by the end of the day, but no one did.
On 18 November 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it:
1. apologised for not providing any updates following its repair inspector’s visit on 27 September 2024. The landlord said, following that visit, its surveyor had inspected the property on 1 November 2024 and said a structural engineer would be needed. The landlord said once this had been arranged the structural engineer would contact the resident directly to book an appointment
2. confirmed no site survey had been carried out with regards to the resident’s reports of pests in her home. The landlord said its pest control team would contact her on or before 28 November 2024 to book an appointment. Once this had been completed, it would review the report and recommendations to decide what course of action should be taken
3. increased its earlier offer of £300 compensation to £400 for its handling of her reports about her floor and pests
4. apologised again for its poor complaint handling at stage 1, for which it offered an additional £50, bringing the total payable for its complaint handling failures to £100
5. confirmed it had spoken to the resident’s housing officer and their manager to remind them of the importance of responding to enquiries promptly. The landlord said it had also increased the frequency of training to ensure any actions were tracked and monitored to completion

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response.

On 26 November 2024, a structural engineer provided their report following their inspection of the resident’s property, in which they said:
1. they were of the opinion that the movement of the floor was ‘very unlikely’ to be related to structural movement of the building. Instead, it was believed to be related to the flooring system and non-load bearing partition walls only
2. they would need to see the structural drawings, and details of the internal floor and partitions, before a decision could be made about the cause
3. it was also likely that they would need to visually inspect both the floor construction and partition wall construction before any conclusions could be reached. This would mean ‘opening up’ would be needed.
The pest control team visited the resident’s property on 27 November 2024 and noted treatment would be needed. Further appointments were arranged for 9, 16 and 30 December 2024. It was noted that no access was gained on 30 December 2024. A further appointment took place on 14 January 2025 which noted that no bait was taken and no ‘tracking’ seen.
On 6 January 2025, the structural engineer confirmed the landlord had provided the information they requested but before they could reach any conclusions, they would need to inspect the flooring as installed. On 10 February 2025, the landlord emailed the resident to arrange the appointment.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
We will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Scope

Following the landlord’s final response, and the structural survey promised in that response, the resident continued to experience issues with her flooring. We have seen evidence of the landlord taking action with regards to this and the resident’s dissatisfaction with its actions. However, we may not consider matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. We have explained to the resident that, as she is evidently dissatisfied with the actions of the landlord following its final response to this complaint, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord about this.
Whilst we may not consider matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, we have considered later events in relation to the specific commitments made by the landlord in its complaint responses. This is to ensure the landlord has followed through on the commitments it made promptly.
The resident has described to both us and the landlord the impact the issues considered in this report have had on her and her family’s physical and mental health. We do not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond our remit to make a determination as to whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any impact on either physical or mental health. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.

Reports of floor sinking.

There is no dispute that the landlord did not act on the resident’s concerns about the floor in her property within a reasonable period of time.
The resident reported her floor was sinking on 3 June 2024. At this point, the resident told the landlord ‘the whole flat’ had dropped by more than an inch or two and this kept increasing. The resident said she had attached some photos and she felt ‘very unsafe.’
The landlord’s repairs policy includes ‘a serious issue with internal structure of the building, (e.g., collapsed ceiling)’ within the examples given for emergency repairs. The policy confirms the response time for ‘any emergency repair’ should be within 4 hours, with works to make safe or temporarily repair completed at this visit or within 24 hours. The policy notes that further repairs may then be needed to complete the repair.
Given the resident was reporting that her floor was potentially collapsing, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to respond to her reports in line with other emergency repairs. However, it took no action.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 14 June 2024, to say she felt ‘very unsafe’ due to the floor dropping. The resident said the gap between the walls and floors kept increasing. Again, the landlord took no action.
It was not until 29 July 2024 that the landlord raised an emergency repair, which its engineer attended the same day. We have not seen a copy of the report from the engineer that attended on 29 July 2024. However, in its final response the landlord confirmed that follow on works, following this visit, were not raised until 16 September 2024.
It is also noted this was not until after the resident’s initial complaint of 21 August 2024, in which she said the engineer that attended on 29 July 2024 told her the property was ‘not safe as the gaps indicated an issue with the construction of the building/flat itself’.
In its stage 1 response, of 24 September 2024, whilst it made general apologies for the delay and standard of its communication, the landlord made no reference to any specific failures with regards to the resident’s concerns about her floor. This was despite acknowledging she felt this had not been taken seriously and nothing had been done about it. The landlord also made no reference to the engineer’s visit of 29 July 2024. Instead, it simply said an appointment had been raised for its repairs inspector to visit the resident’s property on 27 September 2024. It is noted this was almost 2 months after the engineer’s visit on 29 July 2024 and more than 3 months after the resident first reported her floor had fallen.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 October 2024, as she had had no update from the landlord following its repair inspector’s visit of 27 September 2024, despite her repeated attempts to get a response.
On 14 November 2024, a further inspection was carried out by the landlord’s building surveyor who recommended the property be inspected by a structural engineer.
At this point over 5 months had passed since the resident’s initial report on 3 June 2024 and, whilst at least 3 inspections had taken place, no meaningful action had been taken by the landlord. Further the resident had had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates. She had also received no reassurance that her property was safe to live in, despite her repeatedly raising concerns about this.
In its final response, the landlord apologised for the resident not being told her case had been assigned to its building team following its repairs inspector’s inspection of her property on 27 September 2024. It also again made general apologies for the delay and the standard of its communication with the resident.
The landlord offered £400 compensation for its handling of the resident’s reports and concerns, its poor communication and inconvenience experienced. As this was offered in respect of both the resident’s flooring and pest concerns, and with no evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that this would mean the amount offered for each of these issues was £200. This figure falls well below what we would expect to see offered where there have been such significant failures by the landlord.
Further, the landlord did not acknowledge the excessive delay in its response following the resident’s initial report or the ongoing excessive delays in it taking any meaningful action. It also did not recognise, despite the resident’s repeated concerns about the safety of her property, that it had failed to provide her with any reassurance about this.
Given the extent of its failures, the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the limited acknowledgement of its failures and the offer of £200 compensation being significantly below what we would expect to see in such circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made.
It should be noted that were it not for the landlord going at least some way to acknowledge its failures, offering compensation even though this was not proportionate to the level of its failings, and committing to arrange for a structural engineer to inspect her property, which took place on 19 November 2024, a finding of severe maladministration would have been made.
To put things right, the landlord has been ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report and pay her a further £800 compensation. This brings the total payable for this element of her complaint to £1,000 when taking into account the £200 previously offered by the landlord. This figure is in line with amounts set out in our Remedies guidance in situations where there were serious failings by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident.
In addition to apologising and paying more compensation, the landlord has also been ordered to carry out a review of the failures identified in this report. The landlord is to confirm to us what its findings were, what learning it has taken and what action it intends to ensure the failures identified in this report do not occur again going forward.
Whilst, as noted earlier, the resident may wish to make a new complaint to the landlord about what happened following the period covered by this report, no further orders have been made with regards to the floor. This is because, the landlord has provided us with a copy of an independent inspection which took place in August 2025 which confirmed:
1. ‘the flooring system had been installed correctly, but to the nature of the system, which is primarily to reduce acoustic noise and vibration, there will inevitably be some give (movement) in the flooring. The amount of give was considered to be normal’
2. ‘the gaping at the underside of the skirting is due to there being a large gap to allow for the underlay and carpet thickness. The gap was therefore considered to be as constructed and it is only because the underlay and carpet have been replaced with a thin vinyl sheet that the gap is evident’
3. ‘this can only leave shrinkage cracking as the cause of movement which is cosmetic only’

Reports of rodents in her property

The resident first contacted the landlord on 8 April 2024 to raise concerns about rodents entering her property. Having had no response, the resident contacted the landlord again on 12 April, 15 April, 3 June, and 14 June 2024.
Despite its pest control policy saying a first visit would be carried out within 10 working days of receiving the request, the landlord took no action following these reports until 29 July 2024. At this point, the landlord raised a job for the resident’s housing officer to contact its pest control team to arrange an appointment.
By the time of its stage 2 response on 18 November 2024, and 7 months after the resident’s first report of 8 April 2024, no visit had been carried out. This was despite the resident’s housing officer contacting her on 6 August 2024 to say the pest control team would be in touch to book an appointment.
This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord to take any action. This understandably caused significant upset and distress to the resident. As early as 3 June 2024, the resident had advised the landlord ‘the rodent infestation was everywhere in the property, even inside (their) wardrobe’, ‘(their) kids were terrified of mice and because of the noise could not sleep’ and ‘(her) daughters get skin rashes which could be due to the rat infestation’.
In its final response of 18 November 2024, the landlord acknowledged there were delays in it responding to the resident’s reports of rodents in her property. It also acknowledged it had handled the resident’s concerns poorly, had failed to communicate effectively with her or to ensure works were raised promptly.
To put this right, the landlord apologised for its failures and as set out in our assessment in relation to the resident’s floor, offered the resident £200 compensation. The landlord said its pest control team would contact the resident by 28 November 2024 to arrange an appointment. It also said it would discuss with the resident’s Housing Officer and their manager the importance of acknowledging and responding to enquiries promptly.
As promised, the pest control contractor visited the resident’s property on 27 November 2024. The pest control contractor found further treatment was needed. This took place between 9 December and 14 January 2025. At the visit on 14 January 2025 the pest control contractor noted no bait was taken and no ‘tracking’ seen. This is positive, but also shows the resident experienced a long period of avoidable distress due to the delay in the landlord taking the appropriate action.
We have seen evidence of the landlord booking in time with the resident’s housing officer and others, as promised in its stage 2 response, to discuss the resident’s concerns and how these might be addressed going forward.
Having considered all the evidence in relation to this issue, and the steps the landlord has taken to put things right, we are still dissatisfied that the £200 compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient to provide reasonable redress in respect of this element of the complaint.
The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident an additional £200 compensation bringing the total payable for this element of the resident’s complaint to £400. This amount being in line with amounts set out in our Remedies guidance for situations where there were delays in getting matters resolved, which were not of a short duration, and which adversely affected the resident.

Handling of the associated complaint.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy which says it will acknowledge both initial complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It will then provide its response within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
The resident logged her initial complaint with the landlord on 21 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 27 August 2024, in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. However, it did not provide its stage 1 response until 24 September 2024, 13 working days outside of the timescale set out in its complaints policy.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for this delay for which it offered the resident £50 compensation. It also explained its centralised complaints team ‘went live’ on 1 July 2024 and so, going forward it would have a dedicated complaints team to investigate residents’ concerns.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 October 2024, which the landlord did not acknowledge until 8 November 2024, 16 working days later. However, it did go on to issue its final response on 18 November 2024, and so there was no overall delay in its response at stage 2.
Despite there being no failure with its response at stage 2, the landlord had revisited its response at stage 1 and offered the resident an additional £50. The landlord said this was because it did not make the resident aware of the delay in its response.
Overall, we are satisfied the apology and £100 compensation offered by the landlord for its failures at stage 1 of the complaints process provided the resident with reasonable redress for the failures identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports that her floor was sinking.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of rodents in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,400 compensation, made up of:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its significant failures with regard to her reports that her floor was sinking. This figure includes the £200 previously offered by the landlord, of which the resident has said she has already received the £150 offered at stage 1. The landlord therefore need only pay the resident £850 of the £1,000 ordered by us.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of its failures with regard to her reports of rodents in her property. This figure includes the £200 previously offered by the landlord, of which the resident has said she has already received the £150 offered at stage 1. The landlord therefore need only pay the resident £250 of the £400 ordered by us.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of our findings in this case. The landlord is to confirm to us what its findings were, what learning it has taken and what action it intends to take to ensure the failures identified in this report do not occur again going forward.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders in line with the above timescales.

Recommendation

The resident has told us she has already received the £50 offered at stage 1 and so, the landlord need only ensure the rest of the £100 offered for its complaint handling failure is paid to the resident. The finding of reasonable redress being dependent on this being paid to her.