Notting Hill Genesis (202334336)

Decision
Case ID	202334336
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives with his partner and teenage son. The landlord refurbished the resident’s kitchen as part of a works programme in 2019. The resident complained that the works were delayed, the contractors damaged his white goods, and he was left without essential amenities for several months.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The kitchen refurbishment.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the kitchen refurbishment.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen refurbishment

4. The landlord acknowledged in its final response that the works were delayed and it should have arranged temporary accommodation for the resident. It also recognised issues with its communication and record keeping. The compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the impact of its identified failings.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. The landlord unreasonably delayed treating the matter as a formal complaint and it did not follow its 2-stage complaints procedure. This prolonged reaching a resolution. However, it offered proportionate redress in line with our remedies guidance, reflecting the additional distress and inconvenience likely caused.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1,845.24 compensation as agreed in its final complaint response. This is the amount left after deducting the £4,234.76 it credited to the resident’s rent account on 9 May 2024. Our finding of reasonable redress for the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen refurbishment and the complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
3 February 2020	The landlord noted that the resident requested compensation for the “delayed kitchen renewal”.
18 March 2021	The resident told the landlord that compensation remained outstanding.
25 August 2022	The landlord invited the resident to a meeting to discuss compensation.
4 October 2022	The resident said he could not attend the meeting and requested that communication take place by email.
13 October 2022	The landlord requested receipts for the costs the resident had incurred.
23 December 2022	The landlord wrote to the resident and offered him £1,115.04 compensation which it said amounted to 8 weeks rent.
26 January 2023	The resident rejected the offer and said he was previously advised the landlord would cover loss of wages.
17 April 2023	The landlord told the resident that the total in its earlier compensation letter was incorrect. It made an updated offer of £1,930.04, detailed as: £650 for stress and inconvenience caused by white goods damage £75 for misplacing receipts the resident had sent in £250 for poor complaint handling £115.04 as a goodwill gesture £840 for food (the landlord said its contractors confirmed the white goods were replaced within 2 weeks and its policy was to offer £20 per person per day) The landlord confirmed this letter was its formal response.
17 April 2023	The resident rejected the landlord’s offer. He said he should not have to pay rent for the time the house was unhabitable. He also said that his partner lost 2-3 months’ worth of wages to accommodate the builders.
18 April 2023	The landlord told the resident it had already taken these issues into account and its policy was not to reimburse for lost wages. It confirmed rent was due, regardless of the outcome of an active complaint.
30 May 2023	The landlord said it had escalated the matter to management and increased its offer of compensation to £3,255.
3 July 2023	The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said £18.50 per week compensation was insufficient to cover the cost of food.
13 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It apologised for its failings and acknowledged the following: its communication and overall service since 2019 was poor its contractors had damaged the resident’s white goods the resident was left without essential amenities it should have arranged temporary accommodation when it became aware there was no water in the property it had misplaced the receipts the resident had sent in previously it had issued its stage 2 response outside of its policy timescales   The landlord offered the resident £6,080 compensation made up of: £1,880 for the distress and inconvenience due to loss of essential amenities £250 for failure to offer the resident temporary accommodation £2,000 to reimburse the resident for takeaway food for 3.5 months £250 for loss of running water £350 for the misplacement of receipts £700 for poor communication £400 for poor complaint handling £250 for stage 2 delays   The landlord also said it had retrained its staff on data handling and was planning further training on complaints handling and temporary move procedures.
9 May 2024	The landlord credited £4,234.76 of the compensation to the resident’s rent account.
Referral to the Ombudsman	Dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, the resident escalated his complaint to us. He said that £2,000 was insufficient to cover takeaway food costs for his family and requested additional compensation for loss of wages while accommodating builders attending the property.

 

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 the kitchen refurbishment.
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. In its stage 2 response, the landlord agreed the length of time it took to complete the works was unacceptable. It said it should have placed the resident in temporary accommodation when it became aware there was no running water in the property. It also acknowledged the resident said he had no heating or electricity in some rooms.
7. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
8. The landlord acted fairly by recognising and apologising for its failings.
9. The resident claimed loss of wages incurred by his partner while she had to accommodate builders in their home. The landlord’s compensation and goodwill gestures policy says it will not pay compensation for loss of earnings. This is a reasonable approach as residents are expected to give access for repairs to be carried out. When considering compensation in cases such as this one, where works were delayed, we consider the overall impact caused to the resident.
10. The landlord confirmed the works began on 26 February 2019 and the resident supplied a receipt which shows that the gas cooker was connected on 8 June 2019. However, there is no evidence to show when during this period the water was switched off or when the white goods were damaged.
11. The landlord’s offer of £1,880 for the distress and inconvenience due to the loss of essential amenities was equivalent to the full rent for the period between 26 February 2019 and 8 June 2019. This was consistent with its compensation policy which says it will reimburse full rent in cases where the resident had no sanitary provision of any kind.
12. The resident also asked the landlord to compensate him for the cost of takeaway food he had to purchase due to not having cooking facilities. The resident told us he estimated that he had spent in excess of £6,000. He said he had provided receipts to the landlord which it admitted it had lost due to poor record keeping. The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation in recognition of this error.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy says that in cases where a service failure causes a resident to incur additional expenses, it will aim to cover reasonable additional expenses, in addition to any other compensation payable. It says it will assess this on a case-by-case basis and it may request evidence. The landlord acted reasonably in offering compensation for loosing the receipts.
14. The landlord offered the resident £2,000 towards the cost of takeaway food, £350 for the lost receipts, £1880 for the distress and inconvenience due to the loss of essential amenities and an additional £1,200 for the impact of its failings. We consider this combined amount to be proportionate given the circumstances and that no evidence is available to verify the exact amount spent. The landlord’s overall offer of compensation was also consistent with our remedies guidance for cases such as this involving a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. The landlord therefore put things right by offering a proportionate amount of compensation.
15. The landlord also demonstrated it had learnt from the outcome of the complaint by retraining its staff on its temporary moves policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The resident attempted to make complaints as early as February 2020. We do not have a copy of the landlord’s complaints policy from that time, and the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code) was introduced in July 2020. Under the Code, landlords were expected to log expressions of dissatisfaction as formal complaints.
17. The resident’s compensation request was an expression of dissatisfaction, which met the Code’s definition of a complaint. Therefore, the landlord should have logged a complaint as early as March 2021 when the resident told it compensation was still outstanding. Its failure to do so delayed resolution and left the resident without clear timescales or expectations regarding next steps.
18. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it logged the complaint on 17 April 2023. However, it did not issue any complaint acknowledgments or mark any of its responses as stage 1. Its process also became unclear when it introduced an additional stage before escalating the complaint to stage 2. In total, the landlord made 4 separate offers of compensation for its failings. This was not in keeping with its complaints policy which confirmed it operated a 2-stage complaints process.
19. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 15 weeks outside of the timescales set out in its complaints policy. Its response lacked clarity as the figures in the letter did not correspond with those in the summary table and the landlord did not explain the basis for its calculations.
20. The landlord recognised its complaints handling was poor and offered a total of £650 compensation. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance for cases involving failures which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord also identified areas for improvement and demonstrated it had taken steps to learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s current complaints policy

21. The definition of complaint and timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy applicable from 1 July 2024 are consistent with the provisions of our 2024 Code.

Learning

22. The landlord confirmed it was retraining its staff on its temporary moves policy. This should help to ensure its staff can take prompt action should its residents be left without essential amenities. 

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord confirmed it had retrained its Housing Officers in data handling and ensuring that all information from residents is stored on the system. This is important to help prevent instances where evidence is misplaced or inaccessible after a member of staff leaves the company.  

Communication

24. We have identified significant gaps in the landlord’s communication after the resident first requested compensation in February 2020. The landlord should ensure its staff follow up on queries raised with other departments and respond to residents in a timely manner. It should also ensure its staff are aware of what is considered a formal complaint.