Notting Hill Genesis (202320092)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320092

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 May 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:
    1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports, including items left in communal areas.
    2. A transfer request.
    3. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy that began on 10 November 2020. The property is a 1-bed first floor flat in a converted house. The landlord said that it did not have record of any vulnerabilities at the property. However, evidence provided for this investigation shows that the landlord should have been aware that the resident has mental health vulnerabilities.
  2. Throughout his tenancy, the resident regularly contacted the landlord with noise complaints and reported neighbours leaving items in communal areas, blocking the fire exit.
  3. In 2022, the resident and his neighbours raised allegations and counter allegations about similar issues which led to serious incidents involving threats being made. The police were involved and, following this, the landlord said it would look to address these issues.
  4. In July 2022, the landlord contacted residents and asked that they try to be considerate with any noise and reminded them not to use communal areas for storage. The resident made 4 similar reports following these notices.
  5. On 2 August 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord. He said that continued ASB, including noise, threatening behaviour and items left in the communal area, were negatively affecting his mental health. The resident requested that the landlord transfer him to another property.
  6. On 25 September 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said that it had always contacted the neighbour following his reports and asked that they remove the items. The landlord said that it would attend the property and take enforcement action if it found any items in the communal area. It said it had issued transfer forms for him to fill in and return so it could process his request. The landlord offered a compensation payment of £50.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 4 October 2023 as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 following our contact with it.
  8. On 8 November 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response in which it acknowledged several service failings. It proposed that it take steps to address the ASB reports with enforcement action, if this continued. It issued further transfer forms (as it understood he had not received them previously) and offered £450 compensation.
  9. The resident has since raised further complaints with the landlord about the same issues. We are not able to consider events that occurred after the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

Assessment and findings

ASB reports

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy says that after receiving a report of ASB, it should record it, contact the resident within 1 working day and visit within 5 working days. The policy says that the landlord should then create an action plan with the resident and offer additional external support where needed.
  2. The landlord does not dispute that it failed to appropriately handle the resident’s ASB reports prior to his complaint in August 2023. Within its evidence submission, the landlord acknowledged that it did not record the resident’s concerns as ASB cases. This meant that it did not manage them in line with its policy. This is a significant service failing on the part of the landlord. It meant that the landlord failed to afford the resident the correct level of support, allowing similar issues to continue.
  3. The resident raised different ASB issues with the landlord. We address them separately below.

Items left in the communal areas

  1. The tenancy agreement requires residents to keep common areas free from obstruction. The landlord’s communal areas policy says that if it finds items in communal areas, it will service a TORT notice on them and residents have 14 days to remove them, or the landlord will remove and dispose of the items.
  2. Landlord records show that the resident provided numerous reports and photographs of items left in the communal areas. The landlord acknowledged these reports and noted that it was an ongoing problem.
  3. The landlord did contact other residents in the building on more than one occasion to remind them of their responsibility to keep the communal area clear. It contacted specific residents to request the removal of items. However, despite the continued nature of the problem, the landlord failed to take enforcement action by issuing TORT notices. This was a service failing by the landlord and likely contributed to similar issues reoccurring.
  4. It is understandable that a landlord may seek to avoid enforcement action in the first instance of such a report. However, landlord records show that this was a persistent problem which continued to cause the resident significant distress.
  5. Given the number of reports made by the resident and the warnings sent to neighbours, the landlord should have been aware that its actions were not resolving the problem. The landlord should have opened an ASB case and followed its process in an effort to reduce the distress caused to the resident. This lack of action by the landlord is a service failing on its part.

Noise reports

  1. Within the landlord’s noise and neighbourhood disputes policy, it says it would consider noise caused by children and banging doors as ‘domestic noise’. It recognises that domestic noise can impact a resident’s enjoyment of their home. The policy promotes neighbours discussing such problems in the first instance but that if this does not work, the landlord should advise on other tools available to help.
  2. Landlord records show that it was aware that after a serious incident in May 2022, discussions between the neighbours would not bring about a resolution.
  3. The landlord’s noise policy says that if domestic noise cases escalate, it should consider recording those concerns as an ASB case. The resident continued to report the noise made by his neighbour following the incident in May 2022, with counter allegations made by neighbours about the resident.
  4. Given the number of reports from multiple parties, the resident’s vulnerabilities and the continued problems, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have opened an ASB case at this stage.
  5. It is evident that despite the persistent reports, the landlord took no action to escalate the matter. Landlord notes do show that it spoke to the resident and others in the building about the noise. However, the landlord took no additional measures to address the continued problem in late 2022 or mid-2023. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord. It is clear from his correspondence that this added to the distress that the resident experienced.

Threatening behaviour

  1. The tenancy agreement says that residents should not allow guests to harass or threaten other residents. Within the August 2023 stage 1 complaint, the resident reported that a neighbour’s partner had threatened him. After receiving this report, the landlord should have opened an ASB case and followed its policy. 
  2. Within its September 2023 complaint response, the landlord did direct the resident to report this to the police. This was appropriate advice but did not address the potential breach of tenancy by the other resident. It was unreasonable for the landlord to take no action following these reports.  

Summary

  1. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability and of the number of reports he raised but failed to open an ASB case. The landlord managed each report as if it was the first and outside of calling or writing to the residents involved, it took no action to escalate or explore enforcement. It is understandable that the resident felt the landlord did not take his concerns seriously.
  2. The landlord was made aware of police involvement in May 2022, following threats of violence, and stemming from a domestic noise issue. Given that a lack of previous action by the landlord potentially contributed to the escalation, it should have acted on new reports and opened an ASB case immediately. Had it done so, the landlord could have put in place an action plan to reduce the possibility of further incidents or escalation.
  3. Within the landlord’s complaint response, it acknowledged its failings in not addressing the ASB reports and its poor communication with the resident throughout. The landlord said it would carry out weekly visits over the next 4 weeks, ensuring the communal area remained clear, discussing the noise complaints and considering more enforcement action if there were tenancy breaches. The landlord also offered compensation of £400 for the service failings linked to the ASB reports. Given the failings identified in this report and the impact on the resident, this offer was proportionate. It is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where a landlord’s failings had an adverse impact on a resident as happened in this case.
  4. The landlord demonstrated learnings from the complaint, acknowledging its failings and putting in place a reasonable plan of action alongside the compensation offer. We have seen evidence of the landlord taking more serious steps in the period after the final complaint response. We therefore make a finding of reasonable redress. We would have found maladministration had the landlord not taken these steps to acknowledge, and provide redress for, its failings.
  5. This finding does not mean the Ombudsman thinks the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports was ‘reasonable.’ The finding reflects that there were considerable failings by the landlord which its compensation offer acknowledges and compensates for in line with the Ombudsman’s approach.

Transfer request

  1. Landlord records show that the resident first requested a move in July 2022. Those records show that the landlord sent transfer request forms to the resident by post and email. The landlord sent further request forms by email in August 2023, following the resident’s complaint in which he requested a move.
  2. In its stage 2 response, the landlord also offered to help the resident in completing the required forms. It said that if he required assistance, it would arrange for him to visit their office and it would complete them with him. This Service has not had sight of any request from the resident for this assistance.
  3. Within his complaint submission to this Service, the resident said that the landlord had not provided the transfer request forms.
  4. It is unclear why the resident did not receive these forms. However, it is evident that the landlord sent them to his email address and offered to assist with the completion of the forms within its complaint response. The landlord has acted appropriately in addressing this request from the resident. In view of this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration in its handling of the transfer request.

The resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord does not dispute that it failed to identify contact from the resident as formal complaints which meant that it did not record or manage them as such. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord which led to an unnecessary delay in the formal complaint process. These delays meant that the resident experienced unnecessary time and trouble in seeking a review of his concerns.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy says that complaints should be acknowledged within 2 working days with a stage 1 response issued within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. At both stages of the complaint process, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint.
  3. The landlord provided a stage 1 response after 39 working days and the stage 2 took 26 working days. The landlord did not inform the resident of the need for an extension to the timeframe required for its investigation at either stage. Given the information provided within the landlord’s responses, there is no reason that they required such delays. This is another service failing on the part of the landlord.
  4. In summary, the landlord failed to record formal complaints when the resident first made them. When it did record the complaints, it did not manage them in line with the timeframes set out in its complaint policy. The delays in both recording the complaints and managing them initially prevented the resident from seeking a review of his concerns and delayed his ability to approach this Service.
  5. Although the landlord did offer £50 for communication failings at stage 1 and £50 for its failure to record complaints at stage 2, it did not acknowledge the delays in providing its responses. On this basis, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure and orders increased compensation.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour (ASB) reports, including items left in communal areas.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a transfer request.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make an additional compensation payment of £50 to the resident for the time and trouble caused by the delays in its complaint handling. This is on top of the £100 it proposed for its complaint handling failings which should also be paid, if it has not already done so.
  3. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £400 for the failings linked to his ASB reports. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress decision is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident and make a further offer to assist him with completing the transfer request forms.