Notting Hill Genesis (202424182)

Decision
Case ID	202424182
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lived in the property with her daughter. The resident was pregnant during the complaint and had her baby while decanted from the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A pest infestation.
   2. The resident’s decant.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. A pest infestation.
   2. The resident’s decant.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation

5. The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of pests. The time taken to act upon the recommendations made by the pest contractor was also not appropriate and caused delays in resolving the matter. However, the landlord acknowledged its failures in its complaint responses and it put things right by offering a proportionate amount of redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant

6. It is evident there were procedural issues with the landlord’s management of the decant from the permanent property and there were delays in arranging temporary accommodation. It has not evidenced its handling of the concerns regarding the condition of the decant property was timely or reasonable. These failures led to a significant impact on the resident. The landlord acknowledged its failures in its complaint responses, it showed learning from the outcomes, and it put things right by offering a significant amount of compensation.

Handling of the complaint

7. The redress offered for the landlord’s identified failures was reasonable. However, we found maladministration for the landlord’s revised offer of compensation made 10 months after its stage 2 response. The offer was not made in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and did not show fairness in its overall handling of the complaint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Complaint handling order   The landlord must liaise with the resident to establish the additional complaints she wishes to raise following 3 December 2024. It must then provide the resident with a new stage 1 response for the complaints raised. It must ensure it responds in line with its policies and the Code.	No later than 07 January 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 August 2023	The resident reported pest activity at her property to the landlord and said she had moved to her mother’s house. The landlord initially stated it was the resident’s responsibility. Following further contact from the resident, it arranged a pest contractor visit on 12 October 2023.
6 September 2024	The resident said she had been complaining for a year. She said her property was not fit to live in and it took 7 months for the landlord to decant her. She said there had been no progress in the property since March 2024. The resident said her health conditions had deteriorated during that time, she said she had felt suicidal and had broken down on many occasions. She said she sent medical evidence the previous year but the landlord did not respond.   The resident outlined the issues with her decant property. She also raised concerns about the high amount of arrears which had built up while not living at her permanent property.
23 October 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It outlined the action carried out so far. It said it had completed all the works suggested by the pest contractor in her property. It said the pest contractor would reattend the following week to confirm whether that had resolved the pest issues. It said it would invite the resident to view the property so she could decide whether to move back to it or remain at the decant property.   The landlord said it could not find the resident’s medical self assessment. It said if she still wished for it to assess her, she should email the relevant evidence, and it would forward on to an independent doctor to review.   It acknowledged and apologised for its failures, which included a delay in providing the complaint response. It offered a total of £8,310.15 in compensation.
6 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She felt the compensation was not sufficient for its failures or the impact caused to her. She felt much of the information stated by the landlord was incorrect. The resident said she made a complaint in September 2023 and did not receive an official response.
3 December 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It upheld her complaints and offered a total of £13,175 compensation which it broke down as:   £500 for the delay in pest control. £10,850 for the period of 21st September 2023 to 25th April 2024. £250 for delays in responding to your initial complaints. £500 for the unsuitable state of the decant property. £250 for limited access to belongings. £500 for delays in moving to the current decant property. £75 for failing to address outstanding repair works. £250 for stress and inconvenience.   It confirmed it would offer her a suitable 2 bedroom property in light of her experience. It outlined the changes it would make to ensure it did not repeat the same failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the response. She did not feel the compensation reflected the delays, stress, and inconvenience she had suffered. She did not agree for the compensation to be paid against her rent arrears.   The landlord has since made a revised offer of compensation of £14,209.72 on 17 October 2025 which it paid into the resident’s rent account. It also offered her a 3-bedroom property into which she has recently moved.

 

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a pest infestation.
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. It was not disputed by the landlord that there were failures in its handling of the pest infestation, it acknowledged those failures in its response, apologised and offered compensation to put things right for the resident.
9. When there are identified failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
10. It was not appropriate or in line with its policy for the landlord to initially state it was the resident’s responsibility to deal with the pests. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord arranged for its pest contractor to attend the property. The landlord has not provided a copy of the report but confirmed there was a mice infestation and proofing was required in different areas of the property.
11. On 31 August 2023 the resident informed the landlord she was not residing at the property due to the infestation. On 21 September 2023 she informed the landlord she was currently hospitalised due to an infection, she felt it could have been caused by rodents. She said she could not return home due to the risk of further infection. The resident provided a medical letter on 4 October 2023 which said if there was mice in her property then it would not be safe for her to live there.
12. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not raise the recommended works for the pest infestation until 17 July 2024. The landlord then completed the works on 27 August 2024, almost 1 year after the resident first reported the issue. The delays in addressing the issues likely caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience and was not in line with its repairs policy which states it should complete standard repairs within 20 working days. The resident was not residing in the property throughout this time but given the hazards presented and the impact reported to herself and her daughter in not being able to live in the property, the landlord should have acted with more urgency.
13. While the resident disputes the works which the landlord said it carried out at the time, we must rely on the evidence provided to us. It was reasonable for the landlord to state its surveyor and pest contractor would carry out further checks of the property. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed the resident would have the opportunity to view the property and at that point she could decide whether to move back or stay at the decant property.
14. The landlord’s complaint response dated 3 December 2024 apologised for the delay in addressing the pest infestation in the property. It offered £500 for the delays. It also apologised for its failure to communicate with her effectively to resolve the pest issue. It offered £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused for its handling of the case.
15. To conclude, we found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation. It is clear the landlord’s handling of the pest infestation caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, in line with our dispute resolution principles, its complaint responses fairly acknowledged its failures and outlined what learning it would take from the complaint. The redress offered was proportionate to the identified failings and showed consideration to the impact caused to the resident over a prolonged period.

Complaint	The handling of the decant
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The landlord’s decant policy states that where it provides alternative accommodation on a temporary basis, the resident will still be responsible for the rent for their original property. It says the rent for the alternative accommodation will be set to zero. It says if the tenant makes their own accommodation arrangements, the rental charge on the permanent property will be set to zero.
17. The resident informed the landlord on 21 September 2023 that she was currently in hospital and could not return to the property due to the risks associated with infection from the pest infestation. It would have been reasonable at that stage for the landlord to have conducted a thorough health and safety risk assessment of the property to show consideration to the resident’s safety and wellbeing. There is no evidence of it doing so, this was a failing and likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
18. In an email on 17 October 2023 the landlord asked the resident to send medical information to support her claim for a decant, it said once it received the information it would present it to its internal review panel. The resident said she sent the information to the landlord and we have seen a copy of a letter written by her GP dated 23 November 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to or considering the information, which was not appropriate. This likely led to the unnecessary delays in arranging alternative accommodation.
19. In its stage 2 response the landlord referred to offering to move the resident to a hotel on 15 December 2023 and said the resident declined the offer. It said she stayed with her mother until 8 April 2024 when it decanted her to another property. The resident disputed the landlord’s account and said it did not offer her any accommodation until March 2024. In the absence of the available records at the time, it is difficult to determine what was discussed at the time and whether it was in line with its policy.
20. The resident moved into the decant property on 9 April 2024. The landlord’s records show it raised repairs the following day for a toilet leak and follow on works were required. It showed the landlord attempted to access the property in line with its emergency timeframes and there was no access. It is unclear when the landlord fixed the leak.
21. On 16 April 2024 the resident emailed the landlord with a list of concerns regarding her decant property. This included issues with the boiler upon moving in, leaks, damage from the leaks, and the kitchen door handle locking with no way to get out of the room. She said a major concern for her was the exposed areas in the property which she felt should have been proofed by pest control prior to moving in. She said she was feeling overwhelmed and the condition of the property was not acceptable. The landlord responded the same day but its records do not show what action it took. We note in the resident’s stage 2 escalation that she requested compensation from 21 September 2023 up to 25 April 2024 “when the property was liveable”.
22. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £50 per day from 21 September 2023 up to 25 April 2024 for the 217 days of disruption. The resident also felt the landlord should have cleared her rent arrears from that time period. She said the landlord agreed in November 2023 that her rent account would be frozen while she was not living at the property. We do not dispute the resident’s account however we have not been provided with any evidence to substantiate this agreement. We have seen an email from the landlord dated 13 February 2024 in which it confirmed it had discontinued its claim for rent arrears. It said it would review her account once it had completed the works.
23. On 12 August 2024, the landlord sent the resident a notice of seeking possession (NOSP). In its email it said it was “due to the level of rent arrears, as discussed.” The resident responded to the email to say she was confused and the landlord had ignored that she was getting the rent arrears removed as part of her compensation claim. We have not seen evidence of what was discussed at the time.
24. The landlord has not provided the figures for the resident’s weekly rent from 2023 – 2024. Although, it has provided the weekly rent payments from 1 April 2024 which were £178.98. The landlord’s compensation offer amounted to £350 a week. This is approximately double the amount the resident would have been liable to pay in rent for the majority of that time.
25. The landlord could have been clearer about what the £50 a day was for. This would have helped managed the resident’s expectations and shown consideration to any additional costs incurred by not living in her property. However, while the landlord did not follow its policy in setting the resident’s rent to zero while she was living at her mothers, it offered a payment which was more than the total rent amount in the time. As such, we would not expect the landlord to reimburse the rent paid as the £50 per day achieved and exceeded that objective.
26. Other than the email in February 2024 regarding the court action, there is no evidence of a written response regarding liability for rent or freezing the account. As the landlord had failed to clarify its position or apply its policy, the resulting confusion and frustration on the resident’s part following the NOSP was understandable. However, in line with the decant policy, the resident was liable for rent on her permanent property from the date of moving into temporary accommodation. Therefore, we would not order the landlord to clear her rent arrears from that time period either.
27. In her formal complaint the resident said she was experiencing ongoing stress in the decant property due to the void works in the decant property not being completed and neighbour disturbances. She said she had put her items in storage as the property could not fit all her items in it. In her stage 2 escalation she said it was a huge trigger for her stress while pregnant. We have not seen evidence of the resident raising the additional concerns prior to her formal complaint.
28. In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for the delays and failures related to the decant property. It acknowledged the resident was no longer living in the decant property and said it would work with her to return to the original property until she was offered a suitable alternative. To put right its failures, it offered her £50 a day from 21 September 2023 to 25 April 2024, £500 for the condition of the decant property, £250 for her limited access to her belongings, £500 for the delays in moving to the decant property. It also included a like for like offer to an alternative property.
29. The landlord’s offer of redress was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances of severe maladministration. The offer of a suitable 2 bedroom property was an appropriate gesture of goodwill for the landlord to make. It was a positive step in putting right its failures and repairing the landlord tenant relationship. We are aware there were delays following this offer but the reasons for the delays have not been considered as part of this investigation. The offer was reasonable at the time of the stage 2 response.
30. To conclude, it is clear the failures which accumulated over the period of the complaint led to a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The resident had vulnerabilities which the landlord failed to take into account and which were exacerbated by the time and trouble she spent chasing the landlord. However, the redress and learning outlined by the landlord was fair, reasonable, and in line with our dispute resolution principles. We therefore find reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the decant. We have identified additional learning to avoid similar failings in future.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

31. On 3 October 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her concerns and treat her email as a formal complaint. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint and responded in line with its complaints procedure. It is not appropriate that it did not do so. The failure to follow its policy likely caused the resident significant time and trouble in having to raise the issues again and delayed her in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman.
32. Following the complaint on 6 September 2024, the landlord responded 33 working days later. This was not appropriate or in line with the timescales set out in its policy or the Code. It provided its stage 2 response 19 working days after the stage 2 escalation which was reasonable. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged its failure to respond to the initial complaint made by the resident and the delays at stage 1. It offered £250 for those failures.
33. The landlord also offered a further £75 for failing to fully review the outstanding repair works at the resident’s permanent address which was fair. It also appropriately identified changes it needed to make to ensure it did not repeat the same failures. This included establishing a new independent team to ensure it impartially investigates complaints. It also included strengthening its processes for decanting residents to minimise delays and ensuring properties meet required standards.
34. In bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord had paid the compensation into her rent account. She felt the landlord should have paid the compensation directly to her. The landlord’s compensation policy states that where a resident has arrears on their account, it will pay compensation to the rent account to reduce or eliminate the arrears. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed that in line with its compensation procedure, if there were arrears on the account, the compensation would offset the balance in the first instance.
35. We acknowledge the landlord’s offer of compensation at stage 1 stated it would pay some of the compensation directly to the resident. However, the landlord’s position in its stage 2 response was in line with its policy. The resident’s arrears at the time exceeded the compensation offered, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to pay the compensation to offset the arrears. We are aware the resident felt she was not responsible for the rent owed during the time she was not living at the property. We have addressed this in the assessment of the decant.
36. Following the stage 2 response, the resident continued to raise concerns about the time taken to resolve the issues and the impact caused to her. She referred to the landlord reportedly removing the original property from its housing stock due to extensive repair costs. She felt the landlord’s original position that she could return to her property was therefore not true. She asked for home loss and disturbance payments based on that information. She raised that the decant property was unsuitable following the birth of her child as it only had a wet room. She referred to moving back to her mothers and the costs incurred by having to do so. She also queried the council tax payments while being decanted. The resident sent a “schedule of loss claim” to the landlord with her own calculations for why she wanted further compensation.
37. The events which took place after the stage 2 response have not been considered as part of this complaint. This is because landlords should have the opportunity to respond to the concerns and for any formal complaints to exhaust its internal complaints procedure before we consider them. The landlord sent a revised compensation offer to the resident on 17 October 2025, 10 months after the stage 2 response. The offer said it took into account the additional concerns raised by the resident and considered the timeframe up to 31 October 2025. It said it was its final position under its complaints process.
38. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate. The stage 2 response dated 3 December 2024 explained that if the resident remained unhappy with the reply, she should contact this Service, which she did. Therefore, it was not appropriate to then make an additional offer, 10 months later, once we had accepted the complaint. This puts into question the landlord’s transparency and fairness to the resident.
39. In its revised compensation offer the landlord changed its original offer regarding the £50 per day (totalling £10,850) payment between 21 September 2023 and 25 April 2024. It became a contribution to the rent arrears up to 31 October 2025 of £10,709.72. It did not explain why it had changed that offer or how it had made its calculations in line with its policy. It was also not appropriate for it to say it had considered the additional issues raised and that it was its final response. This did not afford the resident the opportunity to escalate the complaint if she remained unhappy. As such, and in the interests of fairness, we have not considered the revised compensation within this investigation.
40. To conclude, the compensation offered for its complaint handling at the time of its stage 2 response on 3 December 2024 was proportionate to the failures identified and in line with our remedies guidance for putting things right. Therefore, we will not order the landlord to pay any further compensation. However, we find maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the complaint. This is because its decision to revise the compensation 10 months after its stage 2 response was not appropriate or in line with its obligations. It also did not sufficiently breakdown the compensation or explain the reasons for any changes made to its original offer.
41. The landlord must consider the additional complaints raised by the resident since 3 December 2024 and provide the resident with a new stage 1 response which sufficiently addresses those concerns and affords her the opportunity to escalate those concerns should she remain dissatisfied. We are aware the landlord has already paid the revised total compensation into the resident’s rent account.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

42. The landlord has not provided records of surveys or inspections related to the quality of works carried out or internal correspondence related to decisions made. The lack of records would have impacted the landlord’s service delivery and oversight of the issues. In this case the landlord’s redress was reasonable. However, effective record keeping would have helped the landlord to ensure its findings were wholly based on its actions and evidence available to it from the time.

Communication

43. Similar to the record keeping, the landlord has not provided sufficient evidence of all its communication with the resident. Both the resident and the landlord referred to occasions where they discussed key information such as the rent arrears verbally. The landlord did not then provide evidence to outline what was discussed in the conversations. This made it difficult for us to investigate, especially when either party disputed it. The landlord should reflect on how it shares key information with residents. It should ensure it keeps accurate records of the conversations or follows up with residents in writing.

Decant

44. The landlord appropriately outlined learning it would take from the complaint. In its learning for the decant it could reflect on these issues identified alongside guidance we have published for decants to consider any further changes required. This could include consideration of staff training needs to ensure it handles decants in line with its policy. And consideration of any changes to its processes to help clarify any confusion around the costs associated with decants.