Notting Hill Genesis (202327646)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327646

Notting Hill Genesis

21 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the ceiling.
2. Temporary accommodation for the resident.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since September 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat.
On 7 August 2023 the resident reported that there was a leak from the flat above coming through the bedroom ceiling. The resident then reported that the ceiling in the bedroom had collapsed on 10 August 2023. The landlord transferred the resident to temporary accommodation on that day to allow it to carry out repair works.
The resident raised her complaint on 17 October 2023. She said:
1. The landlord did not attend the emergency repair to the ceiling leak until 3 days after she reported it and it did not communicate that this delay was because an asbestos survey was needed. It also did not communicate its findings or what works were needed following the preliminary inspection. She said that left her distressed and feeling like she needed to it for clarification.
2. At one point the landlord failed to arrange temporary accommodation and this left her with nowhere to stay for a night. She said this caused her further distress.
3. She wanted the landlord to tell her what the instructions for the works were and for it to provide a copy of the ‘specification of works’.

The resident provided a list of goods damaged or dirtied by the collapse of the ceiling, this included the cost of replacing and cleaning those items. She also referred to ongoing issues with damp and mould in her living room which the landlord had not yet resolved.

The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 November 2023. It said:
1. It agreed that it had not explained that an asbestos test was needed before any repairs could be carried out. It also acknowledged that it should have explained that the contractor first needed to see what the cause of the leak and ceiling collapse could have been. It said that was why it inspected the flat above her first.
2. It apologised for the miscommunication caused by a clash between the emergency repair works and those regarding damp in the living room. It said it had intended to complete both sets of works together but when the works to repair the damp were cancelled this caused confusion.
3. It apologised that it had missed a night when authorising the resident’s stay at a hotel while repair works were being carried out.
4. It had requested a copy of the specifications of work from the surveyor.

In recognition of its failings the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. It also offered £250 compensation for the missed night of accommodation and the delay in responding to her complaint.

The resident escalated her complaint on 23 November 2023. She said she had not yet received a copy of the surveyor’s report or been compensated for the damaged items. She said she appreciated the landlord’s offer of compensation but that it was not enough to address the impact her experience had had on her. The resident also said there was still a damp stain in her living room and asked for a contractor to be sent to finish painting this.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 January 2024. It said:
1. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed response to the emergency repair which led to the ceiling collapse. It said it could have sent an operative to inspect the ceiling before the asbestos test to identify the potential risk of a collapse if the leak persisted.
2. It acknowledged that its poor communication regarding the management of the repairs led to confusion and caused the resident to chase for updates.
3. It acknowledged that it had not managed the temporary accommodation effectively. It apologised that this had caused delays in extending the accommodation which in turn had left the resident without a place to stay. It said to prevent this happening in future it had set up weekly checks of current temporary accommodation so it has overview of the cases and arranged for housing officers to carry out handovers before taking annual leave.
4. It acknowledged that the resident had told it she was still experiencing damp and mould on the living room ceiling which was believed to be caused by the flat roof. It confirmed it had asked a roofer to trace the source of the potential leak. It said that once this was identified it would fix it before repairing the damp and mould patches.

In recognition of these failings the landlord increased the original offer of compensation from £500 to £1,000. The landlord also confirmed it would reimburse the £295.50 the resident had spent on dry cleaning her items.

On 11 April 2024 the resident confirmed that she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. She said the landlord had not issued its stage 2 response within the 20 day timeframe. She said she had gone to its office to speak to it and told it how much compensation she wanted as well as what works remained outstanding. It then issued its response a few months later but she was unhappy with what it had offered.

Assessment and findings

Ceiling repair

In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is, this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that it should attend emergency repairs within 4 hours of being reported. It says it will carry out any works to make safe or temporarily repair the issue at this visit or within 24 hours. The policy also says the landlord will aim to complete standard repairs within 20 working days but that in complex cases, for example if it needs to consult other residents, it may take longer.
On 7 August 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a leak coming into her bedroom from the flat above. The landlord logged this as an emergency repair. The landlord did not attend the property to carry out an asbestos test until 10 August 2023 and later that evening the ceiling collapsed. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and as a result of the delay the condition of the ceiling worsened until it collapsed. Additionally, we have not seen any evidence to show the landlord communicated the reason for the delay to the resident. This was unreasonable and cannot but have caused her unnecessary distress.
The landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation on 11 August 2023 in order to allow it to carry out the repair works. However, it did not start the repair works until 3 October 2023. The landlord’s records indicate that during this 2 month period there were 4 repair orders raised but later cancelled. The records indicate that most of these were cancelled by the landlord, for example because the source of the leak had not been found or access issues. The evidence seen also shows that throughout this period the landlord did not actively update the resident about the status of the repairs. She regularly chased it for updates and told it she needed to be kept up to date as it could be difficult to arrange appointments due to her work. While there were still some minor works to be completed as well as monitoring for signs of further water ingress, the resident returned to the property on 3 November 2023. The landlord’s records indicate that these minor works were completed on 23 November 2023.
It was not in keeping with its repairs policy timescales for it to take the landlord just under 3 months to complete the repairs to the ceiling. Furthermore, it was unreasonable for it to have not kept the resident properly updated on the progress of the works. This delay and the landlord’s failure to adequately communicate with the resident caused her avoidable distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. This was because she had to remain in temporary accommodation for an extended period and had to chase the landlord for updates.
Overall the landlord’s failure in relation to the repair works can be summarised as failing to:
1. Attend the emergency repair within its policy timescales.
2. Complete the repairs within its policy timescales.
3. Adequately communicate with the resident throughout the repairs process.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that there were failings with its handling of the repairs, its handling of the temporary accommodation and its communication with the resident. In recognition of these failings the landlord offered £1,000 compensation broken down as:
1. £100 for the delayed response to emergency repair.
2. £250 for the length of time taken to complete repair.
3. £50 for the delay in responding to stage 2 complaint.
4. £250 for the poor communication.
5. £100 for the poor management of the temporary accommodation.
6. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord also confirmed it would reimburse the £295.50 the resident had spent on dry cleaning her items.

Based on the figures provided, the Ombudsman is of the understanding that the compensation offered for poor communication and stress equals £125 for the landlord’s handling of the repairs and £125 for the temporary accommodation. As such, the total compensation offered for the landlord’s handling of the repairs would come to £600.
Having taken into consideration the delays, the landlord’s poor communication and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £600 offered for these heads of compensation is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord has compensated the resident for the tangible detriment caused by the delayed repairs and poor communication but also the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.

Temporary accommodation

The landlord’s decant policy says that in emergency situations it may require a tenant to move to alternative accommodation. In circumstances where the move is for a short period of time (up to 10 working days) it may offer the tenant a cash incentive to stay with friends or relatives. However, if a hotel is more convenient, it will cover the cost of the alternative accommodation and any agreed reasonable expenses. It says if the landlord transfers a resident to emergency accommodation and their property will not be liveable for longer than 10 working days it will seek to change their status to a planned transfer. It would then seek to find alternative accommodation for the resident while the works are ongoing.
The landlord transferred the resident to hotel accommodation on 11 August 2023 and she was returned to her property on 3 November 2023. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that during this 3 month period the resident regularly chased the landlord for updates and repeatedly had to ask it to extend her hotel accommodation. This was unreasonable as the landlord should have proactively kept the resident up to date as well as managed the temporary accommodation effectively so that any extensions were arranged in a timely manner. The evidence shows the landlord extended the hotel accommodation 5 times during these 3 months. However, the evidence shows the landlord often failed to confirm these extensions within a timely manner and the resident had to chase it. This not only caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience but also led to its failure to arrange accommodation for the resident on the night of 23 August 2023. As a result of this failure the resident had to spend the night at her workplace. This was unreasonable and caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
Under the landlord’s decant policy the resident should have been offered alternative accommodation because her property was not liveable for longer than 10 working days. That said, the Ombudsman appreciates that alternative properties may not always be available when needed.
Between August and October 2023 the resident made 4 requests for an alternative property. In response to the resident’s first request on 14 August 2023 the landlord said it would look to see if an alternative property was available but said one may not be. However, no evidence has been seen to show the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that it had looked for a property and one was not available. This was the case even after the resident’s later requests for an alternative property. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to respond directly to the resident’s requests for an alternative property and confirm the results of any search it had carried out. In the absence of any evidence to show the landlord did look for a suitable alternative property, the Ombudsman can only conclude that it did not and instead it relied on the hotel accommodation. This was not in–line with the landlord’s decant policy and its poor handling of the hotel accommodation caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
Overall the landlord’s failures relating to its management of the temporary accommodation can be summarised as failing to:
1. Arrange accommodation for 23 August 2023.
2. Adequately manage the temporary accommodation.
3. Adequately communicate with the resident.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in it extending the hotel accommodation which led to her not having accommodation in one instance, its communication with the resident was poor and that it had generally failed to manage the temporary accommodation effectively. In its complaint responses the landlord has acknowledged that there were failings with its handling of the repairs, its handling of the temporary accommodation and its communication with the resident. In recognition of these failings the landlord offered £1,000 compensation broken down as:
1. £100 for the delayed response to emergency repair.
2. £250 for the length of time taken to complete repair.
3. £50 for the delay in responding to stage 2 complaint.
4. £250 for the poor communication.
5. £100 for the poor management of the temporary accommodation.
6. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord also confirmed it would reimburse the £295.50 the resident had spent on dry cleaning her items.

Based on the figures provided, the Ombudsman is of the understanding that the compensation offered for the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation includes £125 for poor communication and £125 for the stress caused. As such, the total compensation offered for the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation would come to £350.
Furthermore, in its stage 2 response the landlord set out the steps it had taken to prevent the failings it had identified from happening in future. For example setting up weekly checks of current temporary accommodation so it has overview of the cases and arranged for housing officers to carry out handovers before taking annual leave.
Having taken into consideration the delays, the landlord’s poor communication and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £350 offered for these heads of compensation is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord has compensated the resident for the tangible detriment caused by its mismanagement of the temporary accommodation as well as the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will inform the resident and an extension will not exceed a further 20 working days at stage 1 or 30 working days at stage 2.
Th resident raised her complaint on 17 October 2023 and the landlord issued its response on 6 November 2023. While this response was 4 days late, this was a short delay and we have not seen evidence of a significant impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 23 November 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 29 January 2024. This was 44 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was a large delay and not in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy. Additionally, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to explain why there was such a delay in it responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint nor that it communicated with her about it. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman cannot but conclude that such a delay was unnecessary and unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord recognised there were failings in its complaint handling and offered the resident £50 compensation. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings which did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident, and it has compensated her for the inconvenience caused by the delays. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

There was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the ceiling.
There was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of temporary accommodation for the resident.
There was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1,000 compensation it offered through its complaints process as well as the £295.50 reimbursement of dry cleaning costs. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
The landlord should ensure the effectiveness of its communications frameworks in place in respect of emergency works and any required asbestos testing.
The landlord should consider the development of a more effective systematic communication framework in respect of moving residents on from emergency accommodation into self contained accommodation where stays are longer than 10 days.
The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.