We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Notting Hill Genesis (202419691)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419691

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

14 August 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 the resident’s queries about:
    1. the service charge account for the financial year 2022 to 2023.
    2. the service charge account for the financial year 2024 to 2025.   

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 11 December 2023 the resident contacted the landlord because he believed there was a discrepancy of £84.68 between the final accounts and the Service Charge Annual Statement for the financial year 2022 to 2023. On 12 December 2023 the landlord responded and explained that it had not finalised its final accounts. Its revised final accounts would be processed in the new year.
  3. On 1 March 2024 the resident raised a separate complaint. He explained he had received notification of the new service charges for 2024 to 2025, and it showed an annual cost of £718.46 and a weekly charge of £13.86. The resident noted that the annual cost divided by the 53 weeks in that year equalled £13.56. The resident asked the landlord to explain why the annual cost divided by the number of weeks was not equal to the weekly charge outlined.
  4. On 2 April 2024 the resident complained that he had not received the revised final accounts for 2022 to 2023, and that he had not been given a timescale of when to expect these. He noted that he believed there were discrepancies in the charges for the garden, fire safety maintenance, and pest control.
  5. On 9 April 2024 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the 2024 to 2025 service charges. It stated that the appropriate department were looking into the error and that the resident’s account would be adjusted accordingly, but it could not give a timeframe for this. It advised the resident to keep checking his service charge account. On 1 May 2024 the landlord provided a further information. It explained that the first Monday of its 2025 to 2026 financial year would be 7 April 2025, so the period of 1 to 7 April 2025 was included in its 2024 to 2025 service charge calculations. Payment for these days accounted for the difference the resident had identified. On 2 May 2024 the resident escalated his complaint and reiterated his request for the amount be adjusted.
  6. On 14 May 2024 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint about the 2022 to 2023 final accounts. It advised that it was in the process of amending and finalising these accounts, but it could not confirm when this would be completed. The resident states he escalated his complaint on 4 June 2024.
  7. On 4 July 2024 the landlord provided a combined stage 2 response for both of the complaints raised by the resident. It apologised that it had not yet finalised its service charge accounts for 2022 to 2023 but assured the resident that this had not had an impact on the charges for the current financial year. It also acknowledged it had not updated the resident on his queries about the 2024 to 2025 service charges. It assured the resident it would credit any surplus to the resident’s account by 31 July 2024 and that it had introduced a new process to improve the accuracy and communication of its service charges.
  8. The landlord offered the resident compensation of:
    1. £100 for its delay in reviewing and responding to the resident’s complaint about the 2022 to 2023 service charge accounts.
    2. £100 for its delay in reviewing and responding to the resident’s complaint about the 2024 to 2025 service charge amount.
    3. £50 for its delay in correcting the year end balance for the 2022 to 2023 service charge accounts.
    4. £50 for its delay in correcting the 2024 to 2025 service charge amount.

Events after the landlord’s final complaint response

  1. On 9 July 2024 the resident asked the landlord to confirm the timescale for it to correct the service charge amount for 2024 to 2025. He noted he had now received the adjustment for the 2022 to 2023 accounts but believed that there was a further £5.32 due. He asked the landlord to confirm this and provide payment.
  2. On 15 August 2024 the landlord responded to the resident’s queries. It stated that there was no adjustment due for 2024 to 2025, the resident would likely make a slight overpayment over the financial year but if it reduced the service charge amount as the resident requested, there was a risk of underpayment. It confirmed that it would reimburse the resident for the £5.32 overpayment noted for the 2022 to 2023 year.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We are unable to investigate a complaint that concerns the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This report will therefore not determine whether the service charges mentioned are reasonable or payable but will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.

Policies and procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement outlines the resident’s obligation to pay service charges.
  2. The landlord’s service charge management policy states that variable service charges are estimated at the beginning of the financial year, as specified in the lease or tenancy agreement, and adjusted at the end of the year to reflect actual expenditure. If the services have cost more than estimated, the landlord can collect the underpayment. If the services have cost less, it may refund the difference. Small deficits are most often collected as an adjustment to the following year’s service charge and surpluses added to the reserve fund for future maintenance.

The service charge account for the financial year 2022 to 2023

  1. On review of invoices provided to him by the landlord, the resident informed the landlord that he had identified some discrepancies between the amount in the service charges annual statement and the final accounts. He noted that there were discrepancies for gardening, fire safety maintenance, and pest control which amounted to £84.68. The landlord responded the next day and explained that it was still finalising its accounts and that this would likely be completed in the new year. This was an appropriate response because it managed the resident’s expectations.
  2. It is not possible to ascertain what a reasonable time frame would be for a landlord to finalise its financial accounts because this will depend on a number of factors, including their complexity. We would expect to see evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date on the progress of the matter in order to demonstrate it was taking the matter seriously. That it did not was a failure, this ultimately led to the resident making his complaint. The resident was evidently frustrated that he had not received an update.
  3. In its initial complaint response, the landlord apologised that it had taken longer than usual to finalise its accounts. It stated it would update the resident on 3 June 2024, if the accounts had not been finalised by that point. This was an appropriate response. It is disappointing to note, however, that the landlord did not provide an update to the resident as it had promised. This was a failure and led to the resident escalating the complaint.
  4. We have not been provided with a copy of the resident’s stage 2 complaint escalation which is a record keeping failure by the landlord; however, the evidence suggests the complaint was escalated on 4 June 2024.
  5. The landlord upheld the resident’s stage 2 complaint and accepted that it had not provided the finalised accounts. It also provided assurances that this delay had not impacted the charges for the current financial year which was appropriate. The landlord’s records suggest it reimbursed the resident for the discrepancy on 15 May 2024, but it was £5.32 short. This caused inconvenience to the resident who needed to chase the landlord for the additional payment. When the landlord was notified of the error, it apologised for the oversight and confirmed it would reimburse the £5.32 owed, this was an appropriate response.
  6. The landlord acknowledged its failure to keep the resident up to date on the progress of the finalising of its accounts. It offered the resident £50 to reflect the delay in providing the finalised sum, and a further £100 in recognition of its delay in reviewing and responding to the resident’s complaint. The landlord also took steps to assure the resident of the steps it was taking to improve the customer experience for residents which was appropriate. 
  7. We consider that landlord failed to keep the resident up to date and did not refund the resident the correct amount. The landlord’s compensation offer of £150 is reflective of the failures noted. While the offer was made before the error in the landlord’s reimbursement, the offer amount still falls in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  8. A finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the £150 offered is paid to the resident, if it has not already done so.

The service charge account for the financial year 2024 to 2025

  1. The resident complained that the weekly service charge amount provided for the 2024 to 2025 was not equal to the annual charge divided by the number of weeks in that year. He noted there is a difference of 30p per week and requested this be adjusted.
  2. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it explained that it was looking into the matter, but it could not give a specific date for when it would provide an answer. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided a timeframe of when it would have finished its investigation, or otherwise of when it would provide an update, in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
  3. The landlord followed up on its stage 1 response and provided its calculations to show why it considered that the amount advertised was correct. The landlord’s response was appropriate because it demonstrated it had looked into the matter and provided a clear position.
  4. The landlord’s internal correspondence has been considered by us in our investigation of this complaint. We can see that the landlord took steps to discuss the matter internally with the relevant members of staff. This was appropriate and demonstrates that the landlord was taking the matter seriously. It also invited the resident to its offices so it could discuss the service charges in person, but the resident declined. Nevertheless, this was a reasonable offer to make.
  5. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s queries about the service charge in a timely manner and had not provided any updates outside of its complaint response. Given that the resident had asserted that the landlord’s calculations in its stage 1 response were not correct, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to address this in its response. The resident had to repeat his query to receive a response which caused inconvenience. 
  6. In the landlord’s stage 2 follow up email to the resident, it explained that the weekly service charge payments the resident was making meant there would be a slight overpayment of £4.24 for the year 2024 to 2025. It noted that this was in relation to estimated costs rather than confirmed costs, and if it reduced the resident’s payment there was a risk of underpayment by the end of the year. The landlord’s policy entitles it to keep hold of small surpluses for its reserve fund, as a result the landlord was following its policy with its decision not to refund the resident the surplus.
  7. Overall, the resident was inconvenienced by not knowing when he would receive a response to his query and had to chase the landlord when it did not respond to all the points he had raised. The landlord offered the resident £50 to reflect the delay in confirming the correct weekly service charge contribution, and £100 in recognition of its delay in reviewing and responding to the resident’s complaint. We consider that the landlord’s offer is reflective of the failures noted and is in line with our remedies guidance. A finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the £150 offered is paid to the resident, if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the service charge account for the financial year 2022 to 2023.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a reasonable offer of redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about the service charge account for the financial year 2024 to 2025. 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident its compensation offer of £300, if it has not already done so.