Notting Hill Genesis (202413896)

Background

1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a flat. A member of the household has mental health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of. The resident has also told us he has asthma. However, the landlord was not aware of the resident’s asthma during the complaint. In May 2024, the resident reported damp and mould in his property and in July 2024 he reported antisocial behaviour from his neighbour. The resident also reported cracks on the bedroom ceiling and asked the landlord to consider an application for a request to move property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Damp and mould and cracks on the bedroom ceiling.
   2. Reports of antisocial behaviour.
   3. The resident’s request to move.
   4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould and cracks on the bedroom ceiling.
4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors in its response to reports of antisocial behaviour.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move.
6. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the errors of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. There were delays in the landlord arranging an appointment to carry out works to resolve the damp and mould at the property. Also, the damp and mould works and agreed repairs to the cracks on the bedroom ceiling remain outstanding.
8. The landlord acknowledged its handling of the resident’s reported antisocial behaviour could have been better and offered the resident sufficient compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the error.
9. The landlord responded to the resident’s move request in line with its allocation and lettings policy.
10. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in it providing its response at stage 2 of its complaints process and offered the resident sufficient compensation to recognise the delays.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

11. The resident raised in his complaint that damp, and mould had been an issue at his property for around 6 years. We acknowledge the resident’s comments about the length of time the issue has been ongoing for. However, our scheme states we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. However, we have seen no evidence the matter exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure prior to May 2025. We have therefore not assessed the landlord’s handling of damp and mould dating back 6 years. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of damp and mould the resident’s more recent reports leading to his complaint in February 2025.
12. In May 2024, the resident reported damp and mould in his property. The landlord responded appropriately and carried out an in inspection to identify the cause of the damp and mould. It located a leak from the roof and carried out works to the roof in July 2024 to resolve the leak. However, it failed to carry out any works such as mould treatment to resolve the damp and mould located in the bathroom and living room. There was also a lack of communication from the landlord about the outstanding repairs.
13. In August 2024, the resident reported that the bathroom extractor fan was not working properly. The landlord did not inspect the fan at that time. Due to the delay, the resident requested an update later that month and raised the issue again in December 2024. The landlord’s contractor inspected the fan on 18 December 2024 and confirmed it was working. The landlord did not respond to the repair request within its standard timescale of 20 working days.
14. The damp and mould in the bathroom and living room remained unresolved. Following the resident’s complaint in February 2025, the landlord acknowledged delays in addressing the issue in its stage 1 response. It stated it would contact the resident before the end of March 2025 to arrange an appointment for the damp and mould treatment. Its offer of £200 compensation to recognise the delay was not sufficient to recognise the impact of the unresolved damp and mould.
15. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property at the end of March 2025 as agreed and carried out works to resolve the damp and mould in the bathroom and replaced the kitchen extractor fan. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out the works to the bathroom. However, it failed to carry out any works to resolve the damp and mould previously identified in the living room which was a failing.
16. After the bathroom works were completed, the resident raised concerns about the quality of the painting and reported that the area around the extractor fan had not been sealed correctly. He also reported a ceiling crack in his son’s bedroom and, in May 2025, further damp and mould in the bedroom and living room. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord confirmed it had raised work orders to address the painting, the gap around the extractor fan, and the damp and mould in both rooms. It also stated it would monitor the repairs until completion. This was a reasonable response and appropriate to address the outstanding issues, however, it did not complete these actions.

17. The landlord also asked the resident to provide photographs of the ceiling crack to determine whether the repair fell under its responsibility or the resident’s, in line with its repairs policy. The policy states that residents are responsible for repairing small cracks in plaster or woodwork.
18. In addition, the landlord provided the resident with a revised compensation offer for the delay and distress and inconvenience in resolving the damp and mould. It offered the resident a total of £600. The amount of compensation offered was reasonable to recognise the distress and inconvenience and also complies with the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation set out in our remedies guidance published on our website. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, but there may be no permanent impact. It also provided the resident with the contact details for its insurance department if he wanted to submit a claim for his damaged belongings, which was reasonable. Therefore, we will not be asking the landlord to pay the resident further compensation for its handling of the damp and mould and cracks on the bedroom ceiling.
19. The resident also raised concerns to us that the damp and mould impacted his health due to him having asthma. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
20. After receiving photographs of the ceiling crack, the landlord agreed to carry out the repair and booked an appointment for July 2025. However, the contractor was unable to access the property and received no response when attempting to contact the resident by phone. We acknowledge that a resident may have valid reasons for being unavailable, and we do not question the resident’s circumstances. However, the landlord was not responsible for delays caused by access issues. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow up with the contractor to rebook the appointment for the repairs.
21. There was a delay in completing the bathroom, damp, and mould works because the resident informed the landlord he would not be available for a mould wash appointment until August 2025, when his children would be away from the property. We recognise that this part of the delay was outside the landlord’s control. The landlord also advised the resident that he needed to remove the built-in wardrobe in the bedroom to allow access for inspection and treatment. It asked the resident to confirm once the wardrobe had been removed. The landlord’s contractor also attended the property in August 2025 but was unable to gain access.
22. The landlord failed to raise a work order and book an appointment for the bathroom painting and sealing of the extractor fan as agreed in its stage 2 complaint response which was a failing. We contacted the landlord in October 2025 to request an update on repairs to the bathroom, cracks on the bedroom ceiling and damp and mould works. The landlord confirmed all of the repairs remained outstanding due to it not raising a work order for the bathroom works, difficulties contacting the resident and no access when it attended the property. It also explained that the resident had not contacted it to confirm he had removed the wardrobe for the mould treatment to be carried out. The landlord confirmed to us it would raise a new work order for the works.
23. As the landlord failed to book an appointment for the bathroom works, we order the landlord to carry out the bathroom works, and it would also be reasonable for it to complete repairs to the cracks on the bedroom ceiling as it previously agreed to do so. Due to the risk which damp, and mould can cause, we order the landlord to carry out works to resolve the damp and mould in the bedroom and living room. We recognise the landlord has previously experienced issues accessing the resident’s property. Therefore, the completion of the repairs is subject to the resident providing access to his property and removing the built-in wardrobe in the bedroom as the landlord previously requested.

24. In July 2024, the resident reported alleged noise nuisance from his neighbour and also smells of cannabis within the building. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and told him to report the noise nuisance to the local authority’s environmental team and the smell of cannabis to the police. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to report the alleged noise nuisance to the local authority as this was in line with its domestic noise and neighbourhood disputes policy, which states it advises residents to discuss excessive noise nuisance with their local authority’s environmental team. However, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to work alongside the environmental team to investigate the reported noise concerns and offer the resident tools such as diary sheets or the noise application to record the noise. As the landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy explains it works in partnership with agencies to prevent and tackle ASB. The landlord initially failed to do this.
25. The landlord acted appropriately by asking the resident to report the smell of cannabis to the police, as the police are responsible for investigating criminal behaviour such as drug use. The landlord would be expected to assist the police with any investigation, and the landlord may be able to take action following the end of a police investigation, if there was sufficient evidence to support enforcement action. The advice was compliant with the landlord’s ASB policy, which states crime related incidents should be reported to the police.
26. The resident continued to report noise concerns to both the landlord and the environmental health team. He informed the landlord that the environmental team had sent a letter to his neighbour regarding the issue. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord offered mediation, in line with its domestic noise policy. The resident declined the mediation, stating he did not have a personal issue with the neighbour. Mediation is optional, and it was the resident’s decision whether to accept the offer. It was reasonable that the landlord offered mediation, as it can be an effective way to resolve neighbour disputes in some cases.
27. Due to the alleged noise nuisance remaining outstanding, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that there were issues with his neighbour leaving furniture in the communal areas and confirmed the furniture had been removed. It also confirmed on it stage 2 complaint response that it would open an ASB case for the resident for his reports of the smell and smoking of cannabis and loud noise from his neighbour during unsociable hours, which was reasonable.
28. The landlord also acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it could have handled the resident’s concerns about the reported ASB better and offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise the error. This was sufficient to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above.
29. The landlord opened a ASB case for the resident in June 2025. However, the landlord has confirmed the case was closed in August 2025 due to no further reports of ASB. It was reasonable for the landlord to close the case due to no further incidents reported and this was in line with its ASB policy.
30. The resident recently reported a new incident of ASB, and the landlord confirmed in October 2025 it had opened a new case for this. This occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure and since the landlord closed his existing ASB case. We cannot conclude whether the new report of ASB is linked to the resident’s initial report, and we have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the recent ASB report exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, we have not investigated this.
31. Overall, there was a delay in the landlord opening an ASB case for the resident and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to open a case much sooner than it did. However, the landlord acknowledged this error and provided suitable compensation for this which is positive. We recommend the landlord reviews and update its domestic noise policy to include the actions it can take in relation to reports of noise nuisance alongside other agencies such as environmental health.

32. In February 2025, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s response to his request to permanently move to another property. In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the landlord explained it could consider a transfer application from the resident once he had cleared his rent arrears. This was in line with the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy which states a transfer applicant who is an existing resident must have no outstanding debts with the landlord including rent.
33. The resident cleared his rent arrears with the landlord in July 2025 and shortly after submitted a transfer application to the landlord. As part of the application, he explained his reason for the move request was due to repair issues with the property, the level of rent and noise nuisance from his neighbour. The landlord approved the resident’s transfer application and added him to the transfer waiting list. Overall, it acted reasonably and in line with its allocations and lettings policy.

34. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy are the same as the timescales referenced in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints processes. The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
35. The resident submitted his initial complaint to the landlord on 26 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 March 2025 and then issued it stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 18 March 2025. The complaint response was slightly late by 1 working day, which would have caused minimal inconvenience to the resident.
36. On 25 March 2025, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response. However, it requested an extension to provide the response. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 May 2025. Overall, it took the landlord approximately 2 months to provide its response. This would have caused inconvenience for the resident, as he had to wait to receive his stage 2 complaint response before he could progress his complaint with us.
37. The landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in it providing its stage 2 response and offered the resident £50 compensation. The overall compensation offered for complaint-handling delays was sufficient to recognise the inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate its overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

39. There was very limited communication from the landlord to the resident when he initially reported the damp and mould and ASB and this would have contributed to the distress experienced by the resident.