Notting Hill Genesis (202416988)

Decision
Case ID	202416988
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	10 December 2025

Background

1. At the time of the complaint the resident was subletting the property.
2. By May 2023 the landlord was aware that the resident’s neighbour was causing antisocial behaviour. It worked with the police who obtained a closure order on the neighbour’s property on 19 July. When it expired the neighbour moved back into the property and the issues started again. The police obtained a further closure order on 21 February 2024. Then the landlord began enforcement action against the neighbour.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. reports of antisocial behaviour
   2. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour
   2. reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Summary of reasons

Handling of reports of antisocial behaviour

5. The landlord appropriately identified its failures.
6. Its offer of compensation exceeded the guidelines in our remedies guidance.

Handling of associated complaint

7. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed at both stages. However, it apologised and offered compensation to try to put things right. The compensation was in line with our remedies guidance.

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
The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident: £1,852.93 as offered in its stage 2 response for its failures in its handling of the reports of ASB if it has not already done so £150 as offered in its stage 2 response for complaint handling failures if it has not already done so
The landlord may wish to review its ASB procedure to make sure it sets out the importance of updating residents. This is particularly important in lengthy and/ or complex cases.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that she’d sublet the property on the basis that the neighbour would be evicted. She also: said she’d been told this did not happen because of an administrative error asked for the eviction to be progressed correctly. She also asked that the landlord provide more consistent and responsive support when incidents occurred asked the landlord to fit a London bar to the front door to improve security
22 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response which said it: apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the antisocial behaviour (ASB) also apologised for its lack of response to the resident’s request for updates, CCTV and repairs was unable to obtain a date for a possession hearing during the first closure was in the process of applying for an injunction while it applied for a possession order had failed to communicate effectively recognised steps taken by the resident to add additional security to the property had raised a repair for the communal door and would consider if it needed to be replaced was unable to directly refund out of pocket expenses incurred by the resident for additional security. would ensure updates were provided by email on the court case would progress the case as set out in its response it offered £500 compensation comprised of:   £150 for poor communication   £250 for stress and inconvenience   £100 for the delayed complaint response
25 March 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to say the stage 1 response did not reflect its negligence and impact on her tenants. She said she’d spent £452.93 on additional security and was dissatisfied with its response.
7 June 2024	The resident emailed the landlord to chase its complaint response. She asked why it had extended the deadline to 4 July.
9 July 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response as follows: it set out the steps taken by agencies to address the ASB between May 2023 and the date of its stage1 response it apologised that it had not informed the resident about progress of its injunction application it acknowledged its inaction, inadequate communication and failure to safeguard residents it set out next steps in its response it set out its learning from the complaint including: complaint handling improved communication training and support for staff it offered £1,852.93 compensation comprised of:        £250 for poor communication        £500 for its failure in its handling of the ASB        £500 for stress and inconvenience        £150 for its delayed complaint response        £452.93 to reimburse the expenses incurred by the resident
28 July 2024	In her online complaint to us the resident set out her concerns about the impact of the ASB on her tenants. She wanted a fair offer because she wanted to pass the compensation onto them.
4 November 2024	The landlord took possession of the neighbour’s 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	Handling of reports of ASB
Finding	Reasonable redress

8. The resident’s email to the landlord of 19 February 2024 set out her dissatisfaction with the lack of progress to evict the neighbour. She asked for additional security to be fitted to her property and for better communication.
9. The landlord failed to use the complaint as an opportunity to improve its service. It failed to update on action it was taking to resolve the ongoing ASB. It also failed to respond to her request for additional security. Its inaction compounded the existing concerns around communication and suggested it did not take the situation seriously.
10. The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had not been able to obtain a court date by October 2023 when the first closure order expired. Its stage 2 response said it had initially focussed on the needs of the neighbour as a victim of ‘cuckooing’. When he did not engage it failed to take timely enforcement action.
11. It recognised it had not considered its responsibility to safeguard the resident and her tenants. Its stage 2 review pack dated 4 July 2024 said this was because it failed to raise an ASB case.
12. At stage 1 the landlord was transparent about its failures. It said it would provide email updates regarding progress of court action to keep everyone informed. The next steps outlined in its response were appropriate in the circumstances.
13. On 24 March 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to update that it had started its application for an injunction. While this was positive there’s no evidence that it provided further updates in line with its stage 1 complaint response. This was inappropriate because it failed to meet its commitments as part of its complaint resolution. It also demonstrated a lack of learning.
14. The resident’s email to the landlord of 25 March 2024 set out her concerns with the compensation offered at stage 1. She said it did not adequately reflect the impact its inaction had on her tenants. She asked that it be increased on the basis that she would pay it directly to her tenants.
15. On 7 June 2024 the resident asked again to be compensated fully for the inconvenience caused to her tenants to be passed onto them.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to manage the resident’s expectations around paying compensation to be passed onto her tenants. It would have been appropriate for it to clarify that its contractual relationship was with the resident. On that basis her tenants had no recourse through its complaints process.
17. Its response apologised that it had failed to provide updates as set out in its stage 1 response. The action it had taken since then was appropriate.
18. The landlord’s failures had an adverse effect on the resident. It offered £1,852.93 compensation to try to put things right. This exceeds the guidelines set out in our remedies guidance for maladministration.
19. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s response to reports of ASB could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

20. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
21. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 19 February 2024. The landlord provided its response on 22 March which was 14 working days over its target of 10 working days. Its response appropriately acknowledged the delay. It apologised and offered compensation to put things right.
22. The resident emailed the landlord on 25 March 2024 to escalate her complaint but it failed to provide a response. On 6 June it emailed the resident to acknowledge its failure to escalate the complaint in a timely manner. It said it would respond by 4 July. On 7 June the resident emailed the landlord to express her dissatisfaction with the new deadline.
23. The landlord issued its response on 4 July 2024 which was 71 working days after the resident first escalated her complaint. This was 51 working days over its response time of 20 working days. Its response apologised and offered £150 to put things right.
24. The Code requires landlords to confirm in clear plain language the details of any remedy offered to put things right. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to clarify whether the compensation was a revised offer or whether it was in addition to the compensation offered at stage 1. In its email to us dated 3 December 2025 it confirmed it was a revised offer.
25. The compensation offered by the landlord was in line with our remedies guidance where the landlord’s failures had an adverse effect on the resident. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Learning

26. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord was transparent about its failures. Its stage 2 response appropriately set out its learning from the complaint including ASB training and a new complaints process on 1 July 2024.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord appropriately provided us with clear records relating to the case.