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

Take part in the consultation

Notting Hill Genesis (202446412)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446412

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

4 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 reports of repairs to the staircase and landing.

Background

  1. The resident’s assured tenancy began in 2021. The property is a 4 bedroom house. Her complaint was made to the landlord on her behalf by a relative. For the purposes of this report both the resident and her relative are referred to as ‘the resident’.
  2. The resident reported loose fittings and noise from her landing floor and staircase in May 2024, which she chased over the following months. The landlord carried out repairs in mid-August 2024.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord, on 19 September 2024, about its poor communications, multiple cancelled appointments, and the time she had waited for the repairs. She highlighted that the works had been far less than what was promised. She said that what had been completed was to a very poor standard and left the stairs even more hazardous.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 31 October 2024, upheld and apologised for all elements of the resident’s complaint. It described its learning to improve its service. It said it would arrange further work in line with its original scope. It offered £100 compensation.
  5. It is not clear from the evidence when the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord later stated that, when she did, she had said that the works remained outstanding, and she had received no follow up communication since stage 1.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response, on 4 March 2025, apologised for its delayed complaint handling. It further apologised for its continued poor communications and that it had not yet inspected the outstanding works. It said that an appointment would be arranged by no later than 18 March 2025. It offered £150 compensation for its complaint handling delays, and £250 for its repairs and communications delays.
  7. The landlord completed its inspection on 17 March 2025, and sought quotations for the works.
  8. Following this, the landlord’s contractor stated that it had difficulties contacting the resident until June 2025, when she queried why the works did not include the landing. In early July 2025 the landlord agreed to include the landing works. Later the same month its contractor stated that the resident was going on holiday but would book a works date when she returned. The landlord told us that the works were completed by 29 August 2025, and it was awaiting its contractor’s completion report.
  9. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matters above. She said that she had agreed with the contractor, on 29 August 2025, that the works had resolved the staircase and landing issues. She stated she has since noticed that screws and tacks have been left protruding, which she provided us photographs of. She said that the landlord had taken up and disposed of her staircase carpet earlier this year, which it had agreed at the time to replace, but was now refusing to do so.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The landlord’s completion of the landing and staircase works, and the dispute described by the resident about carpeting, occurred over 4 months after the conclusion of her complaint. No evidence has been seen that the landlord has investigated or responded to those matters via its formal complaint process. Because of that, they have not been considered in this investigation.
  2. The resident could consider making a new complaint to the landlord about matters that have occurred since its inspection on 17 March 2025. She could then return to the Ombudsman and ask us to consider her new complaint. A recommendation has been made to the landlord about this.

The landlord’s handling of staircase and landing repairs

  1. As the landlord later accepted, the evidence shows the resident chasing her landing and staircase repairs from May to August 2024, and her inconvenience and frustration with its lack of communication and many appointment failures. She complained about this in September 2024, as well as the scope and standard of its repairs completed on 14 August 2024. She said that the stairs, which she considered to be hazardous prior to the repairs, had been left even more so by the “DIY job” workmanship.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response, on 31 October 2024, readily accepted its communication and appointment failings. It further accepted that its contractor had not completed the “significant repairs” that its own surveyor had identified. It committed to recall the contractor and ensure that it completed the works in line with its surveyor’s scope. It offered £100 compensation.
  3. No further information has been seen until the landlord’s stage 2 response, which it sent to the resident on 4 March 2025. It accepted and apologised for its complaint handling delays. It offered £150 compensation, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (the Guidance) for its poor complaint handling.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response again fully accepted the failings in all aspects of its repairs service. It committed to attend no later than 18 March 2025, which it did. It offered £250 compensation for its repairs handling failures (in addition to the £150 for poor complaint handling). However, it also stated that it had “amended the compensation offered at stage 1”. It is therefore unclear whether its £250 offer was in addition to, or intended to replace, its previous £100 offer.
  5. Nonetheless, total compensation of £350 is in line with the Guidance for the landlord’s communication, service, and repair failings, and their impact on the resident over the previous 10 months.
  6. Overall, the landlord accepted and apologised for its poor complaint handling, and its communication, service, and repair failings. It committed to inspect the scope of the resident’s works within 2 weeks of its stage 2 response, which it did. It offered compensation that was in line with the Guidance for its failings up to the conclusion of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident any part of its £500 award (£150 for poor complaint handling and £350 for repairs matters) that it has not already done so.
  2. The landlord should consider proactively contacting the resident within 4 weeks, to obtain details of her complaint about matters since 17 March 2025.