Notting Hill Genesis (202510395)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 1-bed flat with her partner and son. She reported damp and mould to the landlord on 8 January 2024. In May 2024, the landlord contacted her to discuss rent arrears. She complained about its handling of damp and mould on 30 January 2025 and about rent arrears on 20 March 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Rent account.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
   3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

4. There were failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. However, it offered fair redress by way of compensation, an apology, and a plan for works.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account

5. The landlord followed its income collection policy when communicating with the resident about rent arrears.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and it was not compliant with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, its compensation offer, and apology were sufficient to put things right.

Putting things right

7. 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.
8. Recommendations
9. 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.

10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will visit a property within 10 days of a report of damp or mould. It will arrange any required minor repairs in line with its repairs policy timescale of 20 working days. For more severe cases, it will arrange a second inspection within 10 days of the first. It will prioritise remediation works according to the risk caused by the damp and mould. If there is a risk to the health and safety of the property, it will arrange works immediately.
11. When the resident reported mould around the windows in September 2023, the landlord attended, inspected and raised works within its policy timescales. It completed all works by 5 October 2023.
12. The resident reported further issues in early November 2023, and the landlord raised another inspection. There is no evidence it completed this within its policy timescales. It tried to raise inspections again in January, April and May 2024 but did not visit the property. This was not in line with its damp and mould policy.
13. There were no further reports of damp and mould until December 2024. It raised works for its repairs team to check whether the resident’s extractor fans worked and to complete a mould wash of the affected areas. It attended on 7 and 16 January 2025 but could not access the property. The first visit was within the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 20 working days.
14. Following the resident’s complaint in January 2025, the landlord raised works to clear the guttering and review the suitability of the bathroom extractor fan. It completed guttering works in February 2025, within policy timescales. It contacted the resident to ask if she was available for a damp and mould inspection but did not receive a response.
15. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it confirmed an inspection appointment for 27 February 2025 and agreed it could have found a resolution for the mould earlier. It offered £150 compensation for inconvenience. This offer was fair and in line with its compensation policy for a service failure which caused unmanageable inconvenience and distress to the resident.
16. The landlord could not access the property for the damp and mould inspection on 27 February 2025. It reattended in March 2025 and identified internal and external repairs. When the resident escalated her complaint, she said she was unhappy with its inspection of the property and felt it did not investigate the bathroom or the large planter on the outside of the property which she thought may be the cause.
17. The landlord completed external works on 22 March 2025, but the resident refused internal works. She sent a further complaint after this and said it made an appointment for a mould treatment without her knowledge when the issue was structural. There is no evidence the landlord told her about the appointment. This was not in line with its repairs policy, which says it will confirm all appointments with residents.  
18. On 28 March 2023, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection. It found low-level mould and condensation on the bedroom windowpane. It recommended a mould wash to the affected bedroom wall and renewed sealant around the bathroom sink and bathtub. It raised all works, but it could not repair the extractor fan until it tested for asbestos. This was fair and reasonable when considering health and safety.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged it had not managed the resident’s damp and mould concerns in line with its policies. It apologised and offered £400 compensation for distress and inconvenience. She reported damp and mould damage to personal belongings. It offered £500 compensation for this, bringing its total stage 2 compensation offer to £900. This was in line with its policy for serious service failures with high impact on a resident. It raised a specialist damp and mould inspection of the property and asked the resident to allow access for this. It booked an asbestos survey for 30 May 2025.
20. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.  Its compensation offers in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were fair and in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance. The landlord has continued to visit the property and explore works with the resident since its final response. She may wish to make a new complaint for issues since its stage 2 response.

21. The landlord’s income collection policy outlines its approach to rent collection. It says it will monitor any arrears situation and reach out to tenants to understand the issues and identify any available support. It may apply to court where there is a high risk of continued non-payment.
22. In May 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to ask how she would clear rent arrears and if she needed support. She asked if it set up a direct payment with Universal Credit because she saw this on her account but received no communication about it. It said it did this and asked her to complete a form for support from its welfare and benefits team.
23. In September 2024, the landlord issued a Notice of Seeking Possession of the property under Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 due to increased rent arrears. It continued to communicate with the resident about how she intended to clear the arrears. It explained it would continue legal proceedings until they reached a reasonable agreement to manage or clear the arrears.
24. The landlord continued its communication with the resident throughout October and November 2024. The resident advised the landlord to contact Universal Credit directly for any issues receiving payment. There were no further communications about the matter until the resident emailed after receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response in March 2025 to say she was unhappy with its treatment of her about arrears. She said she felt victimised and scared.
25. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for not addressing the resident’s complaint about rent arrears in its stage 1 response. However, she did not include this in her original complaint. She asked it to change her housing officer as she was unhappy with their communication. The landlord refused this request and said it would not change a housing officer after a complaint but would offer support to the staff member to contact the resident and resolve the issue. It acknowledged the direct Universal Credit payment to gradually reduce arrears.
26. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the tenant is responsible for paying rent in advance. Overall, the landlord acted in line with its income collection policy by contacting the resident about rent arrears and asking her to engage with its support services.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement and stage 2 within 20 working days. If required, it can extend its response time at both stages.
28. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlord’s must log any issues raised after it issues a stage 1 response as a new complaint.
29. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint. It took 18 working days to respond at stage 1, exceeding its policy timescale. It did not apologise or offer any redress for this delay in its response. 
30. The resident sent 2 complaint escalation emails to the landlord on 20 and 25 March 2025. In one of her emails, she raised issues not included in her stage 1 complaint. The landlord did not log this as a new complaint in line with the Code.
31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation emails in line with its policy. It responded on 22 May 2025, 36 working days later. This was outside its policy timescale. It responded to all the issues she raised in her escalation emails.
32. The landlord offered £100 compensation for complaint handling delays at stage 1 and 2 of its process. This was in line with its compensation policy of payments up to £100 for taking longer than expected causing some inconvenience. While it did fail to log matters raised after stage 1 as a new complaint, its final response was comprehensive and responded to all her concerns. As such, we found the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident.

Learning

33. The landlord should ensure it actions inspection requests within its policy timescales. It should make sure its contractors tell residents about appointments ahead of time.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord kept clear and accurate records in this case.

Communication

35. Overall, the landlord’s communication was good except for not telling the resident about an appointment.