Notting Hill Genesis (202449521)

Decision
Case ID	202449521
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	31 October 2025

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started in May 2010 and she lives in a 3-bedroom flat on the first floor of a purpose-built block. The resident advised the landlord that both she and her daughter are registered disabled. She reported that the lift was out of order on various occasions and that the landlord had delayed carrying out communal repairs to fencing and paving slabs. As part of her complaint, she raised other issues, including seeing signs of rats in the communal bin store, delays in the landlord providing service charge information and concerns about the landlord’s record-keeping. The resident asked us to investigate as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A lift breakdown.
2. Missing fence panels.
3. Defective paving slabs outside the bin shed.
4. A rat infestation in the communal areas.
5. A lack of fire treatment for her front door.
6. Concerns about the allocation of housing officers for her property.
7. Concerns about the notes kept on its systems.
8. A stolen wheelchair.
9. Delays in giving her a copy of the communal electricity bills.
10. Delays in giving her a full breakdown of the service charges.
We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lift breakdown.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of missing fence panels.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective paving slabs outside the bin shed.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in the communal areas.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of fire treatment for her front door.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the allocation of housing officers for her property.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the notes kept on its systems.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a stolen wheelchair is outside of our jurisdiction.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in giving her a copy of the communal electricity bills.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in giving her a full breakdown of the service charges.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found that the landlord:
1. Delayed repairing the lift, which had a significant impact on the resident’s family. It also did not communicate effectively with the resident during the period of delay. The landlord apologised and offered compensation, however, the amount offered was not proportionate to the failings we identified in our investigation.
2. Delayed repairing the fence panels and did not communicate effectively with the resident.
3. Delayed repairing the defective paving slabs and did not communicate effectively with the resident.
4. Arranged for a pest control contractor to monitor the area for rodent activity and the contractor reported there was no evidence of activity.
5. Did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding her enquiries about the fire treatment to her front door.
6. Confirmed that the same housing officer managed all of the properties in the resident’s block and gave her the name of the housing officer.
7. Investigated the resident’s concerns about the wording on its system and advised her of its findings.
8. Did not provide the resident with a copy of the electricity bills within a reasonable timescale, even though it agreed to do so.
9. Gave the resident reasonable information regarding the service charges as part of its annual rent and service charge notification letter.
10. Did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint within an appropriate timescale, however, it apologised for this and offered her reasonable compensation to put things right.

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	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 28 November 2025
2	Compensation orders The landlord must pay the resident £650, inclusive of the £300 offered at stage 1, made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lift breakdown. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of missing fence panels. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective paving slabs. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of fire treatment for her front door. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in giving her a copy of the communal electricity bills.	No later than 28 November 2025
3	Repair orders Carry out a further inspection of the fence panels and the paving slabs and write to the resident to confirm plans to carry out any repairs needed to them.	No later than 28 November 2025
4	Other orders The landlord must write to the resident to: Confirm it has ordered a new front door and advise her of the anticipated timescales for manufacturing and fitting the door. Advise her whether it considers it necessary to carry out any fire treatment to the existing door in the interim while the new door is being manufactured. Agree an appointment for the interim works if it considers these necessary. Provide the resident with a copy of the electricity bills as agreed during the complaints process.	No later than 28 November 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should reoffer the resident the £50 offered in its stage 1 reply for its complaint handling if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress for the failure in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Our recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £50 offered in its stage 1 reply for its complaint handling if this has not already been paid.

Our finding of reasonable redress for the failure in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
11 December 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord to make a complaint about: lift breakdowns missing and loose fence panels loose paving slabs rat droppings in the communal bin shed there was a service charge for a concierge even though this service was not provided to her block She requested copies of the last 3 communal electricity bills and a full breakdown of the service charges.
14 January 2025	The resident wrote to the landlord about her complaint and said she had lodged a stage 2 complaint 12 days ago.
21 January 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 reply in which it said: The lift had initially been reported as out of order on 25 November 2024, however, the managing agent attended and did not find any faults. It was then reported on 2 December 2024 and a fault was found. The lift was repaired on 8 January 2025. The landlord said the delay in repairing the lift was unacceptable and that the resident’s daughter had not been able to leave the property due to the defective lift. The loose paving slabs had been reported to the landlord in May 2024 and were resecured in January 2025. It said the fence would be repaired on 23 January 2025. It accepted that there had been a delay in carrying out the repairs. The resident had reported a rat infestation in the communal areas in May 2024. It said that regular pest control visits had been taking place, however, no signs of rodent activity had been found by the pest controller. The landlord attached a copy of the service charge breakdown to its complaint response and said it had requested a copy of the electricity bills from the managing agent. It confirmed that the resident was not being charged for a concierge service, however, there was a charge for a caretaker who provided services to the block. The landlord said the resident had not provided access for it to investigate her enquiry about fire treatment to her front door. It provided details of the housing officer for the resident’s block. It said it had not found any evidence on its system that its staff had referred to the resident as being “challenging”. It said it had previously issued a complaint response regarding the resident’s reports of a stolen wheelchair. The landlord said it was partially upholding the resident’s complaint due to delays in dealing with the defective lift, the paving slabs and the fence. It offered compensation of £300 for stress, inconvenience, time and trouble. It also offered £50 for complaint handling.
23 January 2025	The resident contacted the landlord to say she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response and wanted to escalate her complaint because she said: The issues regarding the wooden fence and the paving slabs were reported 2 and 3 years ago respectively and the landlord did not repair them. The landlord had not provided the service charge breakdown nor the 3 years of electricity bills she had requested. The lift had continually broken down since 2019. She had made her complaint in December 2024 and the landlord did not reply to it. The fire treatment had involved coating the front doors with a substance and therefore access had not been required to the properties. The landlord had refused to liaise with the police regarding the stolen wheelchair. The caretaker covering the block was a cleaner. She would be withholding payment of the service charges, apart from a nominal sum of £20. The bin shed was usually dirty with rat droppings present.
27 March 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response in which it said: The fence had been repaired on 23 January 2025. It was still waiting for the electricity bills from the managing agent and apologised for the delay. It was happy to arrange the fire treatment to the front door and asked the resident to contact the housing officer to arrange this. It said the resident should continue paying the service charges as the paving slabs and fence had been repaired. It apologised that it had not acknowledged the stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and had not responded within a further 10 working days. The landlord said it agreed with the offer of £350 made at stage 1.
27 March 2025	The resident contacted us to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s response because the paving slabs had not been repaired and the wooden panels on the fence were loose and unstable. She also said she did not understand the service charges and electricity bill information she had been sent and said she was dissatisfied with other aspects of the response.

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 resident’s reports of a lift breakdown.
Finding	Service failure

The resident had reported concerns about the reliability of the lift over a long period of time. However, the focus of her stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2024 was that the lift had been broken for 2 weeks at the time of her complaint. Consequently, the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses concentrated on the lift breakdown that occurred during December 2024 and January 2025. Therefore, we consider it fair and reasonable to focus our investigation on the same period.
On 25 November 2025, the resident reported that the lift was out of order. The landlord reported this to the managing agent and, as result, a contractor attended. The contractor found the lift was working when it attended. The landlord had therefore arranged for a lift contractor to attend within a reasonable timescale and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s findings that the lift was working.
On 2 December 2024, the resident again reported that the lift was out of order. The contractor attended to check the lift, which was appropriate. The landlord’s stage 1 reply stated that during this visit, the contractor found the safety edges needed replacing. However, due to the Christmas closure of its office, the managing agent did not receive the contractor’s report until 6 January 2025. The delay in progressing the repairs due to the Christmas closure was unreasonable. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will provide an out of hours emergency service. In this case, given the impact of the lift breakdown on the resident, we consider the repair should have been progressed over the Christmas period regardless of office closures.
The landlord said in its stage 1 letter that on 6 January 2025 the managing agent became aware that other parts were needed for the lift. It therefore ordered these parts and the lift was repaired on 8 January 2025. The landlord carried out a site visit on 16 January 2025 and confirmed that the lift was working. Given the length of time the lift had been out of order, it was reasonable for the landlord’s housing officer to visit the site to ensure the lift was functioning correctly.
The evidence shows that overall the lift was out of order for over a month between 2 December 2024 until 8 January 2025. During this period, the resident had reported the defective lift to the landlord on different occasions. For example, she had reported it on 2, 4 and 11 December 2024 and on 7 January 2025. She had also submitted a stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2024 in which she advised the landlord that the lift had not been working for 2 weeks. The resident explained that this meant her daughter was housebound as she could not safely carry her downstairs.
The overall time taken to repair the lift was inappropriate as the landlord was aware from previous lift breakdowns the impact it would have on the resident. For example, during a previous lift breakdown in July and August 2023, the landlord was aware that the resident had been unable to take her daughter to hospital as she could not use the stairs.
The landlord accepted in its stage 1 response that the delay in repairing the lift had had a “severe impact” on the resident and her daughter. It said that being housebound for such an extended period was “an unacceptable situation”. The landlord also accepted that there had been a lack of communication with the resident about the lift and that it should have given her regular updates about the status of the lift and the plan for repairing it.
The landlord apologised for its failings and said it would be finalising a quote for the replacement of the lift. It said that the quote would be shared with residents of the block. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £300 for the distress, inconvenience time and trouble experienced by the resident.
When there are 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.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in relation to the lift breakdown and its communication. It also acknowledged the severity of the impact on the resident and her daughter. It sought to put things right by apologising to the resident and offering compensation to reflect her distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. Finally, it demonstrated some learning by giving a commitment to progress the replacement of the lift and to consult with residents as part of the process.
The landlord’s offer of £300 was in line with its compensation policy for failings that have had a high impact on the resident and where there has been a serious failure in service delivery which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience. We agree that it was appropriate for the landlord to award a sum that reflected a high level of impact and a significant level of distress and inconvenience on the resident. However, we do not consider the offer of £300 was a proportionate offer to put things right because:
1. The evidence shows that the delay in repairing the lift had a significant impact on the resident and her daughter due to her daughter’s vulnerability. The resident said her daughter was unable to leave the property during the period.
2. The landlord was aware from previous lift breakdowns of the impact such a delay would have on the resident and her daughter and we have seen no evidence that it took this into account during the period the lift was out of order.
3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 December 2024 and emphasised that her daughter was housebound while the lift was not working. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss how it might be able to help the resident and her daughter while the lift was out of order.
4. There was a lack of communication with the resident about the status of the lift and when it would be operational again.
We have therefore made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the lift breakdown and ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation. This brings the total compensation to £400, which we consider is more reflective of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident due to the landlord’s failings. Our finding is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord has made an offer of compensation but it does not reflect the detriment to the resident and is not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of missing fence panels.
Finding	Service failure

Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it has 2 categories of repairs. Emergency repairs are attended to within 4 hours to make safe and repairs are completed within 24 hours. All other repairs are categorised as standard repairs and the landlord aims to complete them within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 January 2022 to report that large wooden fence panels had fallen and were on the communal walkway. The landlord raised an order to repair the fence and its contractor completed the work on 11 March 2022. The landlord therefore took 2 months to replace the fencing after the resident reported it. The evidence shows that during this period, the landlord was obtaining quotes from contractors because the fencing had to be custom made on site. The photos taken after the contractor completed the work confirm that the fencing was renewed rather than repaired.
Although it took a month longer to renew the fencing than the target for standard repairs, we consider the time taken was not unreasonable given that the fences had to be custom made. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 February 2022, apologised for the delay in renewing the fences and offered her £30 compensation as a goodwill gesture. In our view this was a reasonable gesture to acknowledge the delay.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2024 and asked when the communal fencing would be repaired as it had been outstanding for months. She followed this up with emails on 19 April 2024 and 16 May 2024 to chase the outstanding repair. She then included the issue in her stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2024. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord took steps to address the reports of damaged fencing between April and December 2024, which was inappropriate. Furthermore, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not provided any updates to the resident about its plans for repairing the fence.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised the resident that its housing officer had visited the estate on 16 January 2025 and had reported the damaged fence to the managing agent. It apologised for the delay in addressing it and said the fence would be repaired on 23 January 2025. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply that it had repaired the fence on this date. The landlord had therefore taken about 10 months to repair the fence after the resident raised the matter in April 2024. This was unreasonable as the delay resulted in the resident spending additional time and trouble raising the matter with the landlord on various occasions.
We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of missing fence panels. Our finding reflects the delay in the landlord addressing the repairs and its lack of communication with the resident regarding the fence. However, we have taken into account that the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 1 response to acknowledge and apologise for the delay in repairing the fence. It also offered compensation to recognise the resident’s time and effort in pursuing various issues, including the repairs to the fence. We have taken into account the compensation offered by the landlord, however, we consider it appropriate to order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 to reflect the time and trouble she spent pursuing the defective fencing.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of defective paving slabs outside the bin shed.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord raised an order on 16 December 2022 to repair a raised and uneven paving slab outside the bin shed of the resident’s block. A contractor attended on 26 January 2023, which was a reasonable timescale as the landlord had raised the job as a standard repair. However, the job notes state that the contractor was unable to find the paving slab in question and passed the job back to the landlord.
The landlord’s records show that it tried to arrange a meeting with the resident on 31 March 2023 so she could help identify the raised/uneven paving slab, however, she advised the landlord on 29 March 2023 that she was unavailable due to other commitments. As the contractor had not been able to locate the defective paving slab, it was reasonable for the landlord to request a meeting with the resident so it could check the location of the defective paving slab.
On 16 May 2024, the resident again reported the defective paving slabs. The landlord’s housing officer responded on 22 May 2024 to say she had been on site but had not been able to locate the defective paving. The housing officer met with the resident on 24 May 2024 and the resident showed her the defective paving. It was reasonable that the housing officer had inspected the paving to try to find the defective paving slabs. Having been unable to locate them, it was reasonable that she then met with the resident to check the location of the defective paving slabs.
The housing officer said she would report the defective paving to the managing agent so repairs could be carried out. However, we have not seen any evidence to show that the matter was followed up after the meeting. This was inappropriate as the landlord had agreed with the resident that it would arrange the repairs (through the managing agent). The original job raised in December 2022 had stated that someone could trip on the paving slab and injure themselves. Therefore, it was incumbent on the landlord to ensure the repairs were completed within a reasonable timescale.
In her complaint dated 11 December 2024, the resident said that the loose paving slabs had not been addressed, despite her raising the matter with the landlord multiple times. The landlord visited the estate on 16 January 2025 and identified 2 loose paving slabs, which it reported to the managing agent. The landlord’s records state that repairs were carried out on 17 January 2025. It was reasonable that the landlord had visited the estate on 16 January 2025 to identify the loose paving and had arranged for them to be repaired on the next day.
In its stage 1 response dated 21 January 2025, the landlord confirmed that the paving slabs had been repaired but accepted that it had failed to follow up the matter after the meeting with the housing officer in May 2024. It apologised for the delay in carrying out the repairs and said it had taken steps to improve its response times.
We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective paving slabs outside the bin shed. Our finding reflects the delay in the landlord addressing the repairs, the lack of follow-up after the contractor was unable to locate the defective paving slabs and its lack of communication with the resident. However, we have taken into account that the landlord acted fairly by using its stage 1 response to acknowledge and apologise for the delay and lack of follow-up action. It also offered compensation to recognise the resident’s time and effort in pursuing various issues, including the loose paving slabs. We have taken into account the compensation offered by the landlord, however, we consider it appropriate to order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £50 to reflect the time and trouble she spent pursuing the defective paving slabs.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in the communal areas.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2024 to report that she had seen rodents in the bin shed. She requested the signed reports showing the dates the landlord’s contractor had visited to lay bait. The landlord’s records show that its pest control contractor visited the estate on 8 April 2024 and checked the various bin sheds. It reported that no rodents had been found and there was no evidence of rodent droppings. It also confirmed that previously laid bait had not been taken. The contractor had therefore visited the estate within a reasonable timescale following the resident’s reports of rodents. As the contractor had checked the bin sheds and reported no signs of rodent activity, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of the contractor.
The landlord’s housing officer met with the resident on 24 May 2024 and during the meeting they inspected the bin shed. It was agreed that the housing officer would monitor the bin shed and that the landlord’s pest controller would continue to visit the estate regularly. It was reasonable that the housing officer had jointly inspected the bin shed as the resident had reported seeing rodents. This would enable the resident to point out any signs of rodents, such as droppings. It was also reasonable for the housing officer to have reassured the resident that she would monitor the bin shed and that the pest control visits would continue.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 May 2024 and provided her with a copy of the latest report from the pest controller, which was reasonable to reassure her that the visits were taking place.
The resident said in her stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2024 that she had seen rat droppings in the communal bin shed. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 reply that regular pest control visits were taking place and the pest controller had not seen any evidence of rats. It encouraged the resident to submit any evidence of rats, such as photos so it could carry out further investigations. The evidence shows that the bin shed for the block was checked on 24 February 2025 by a pest control contractor and it did not find any evidence of rat droppings. The pest controller’s report states that there were no signs of any rodent activity and bait that had previously been left had not been taken. The report stated that it would monitor the area on a monthly basis.
As the resident had reported seeing rat droppings in the bin shed, it was appropriate that the landlord had arranged for its pest control contractor to lay bait and to check for evidence of rats. Having checked the bin shed and found no evidence of rodent activity, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s findings. It was also reasonable for the contractor to monitor the area on a monthly basis to check for future evidence of rodents and for the landlord to ask the resident to provide any evidence of rat droppings, such as photos. Such evidence might help the pest controller to target its future investigations.
We have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a rat infestation in the communal areas because it had arranged for a pest control contractor to monitor the area and the contractor had reported seeing no evidence of rodents in the bin shed.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of fire treatment for her front door.
Finding	Service failure

The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions to say that her front door had not received the same fire treatment as other front doors in the block. For example, she wrote to the landlord on 13 November 2023, 24 January 2024, 31 October 2024 (via her MP), 14 January 2025, 23 January 2025 and 5 February 2025. In its stage 1 reply dated 21 January 2025, the landlord said the resident had not provided access for it to investigate the matter and asked her to email a time and date when it could carry out an inspection.
Despite the resident raising the matter on various occasions, we have not seen any response from the landlord which provided information about the fire treatment work, what was involved, why the resident’s property may have been omitted and how the landlord intended to rectify the situation. This was unreasonable as the resident had made it clear in her emails that she was concerned about the fire safety implications.
We do not consider the landlord’s response that the resident had not provided access to have been satisfactory. The landlord’s surveyor had inspected the property on 3 April 2024 and his report did not mention fire treatment work to the front door, even though the resident had previously raised the matter.
We have not received any information from the landlord regarding the fire treatment work that the resident said had been carried out in 2023. We have therefore had to limit our assessment to the landlord’s communication on this matter. We have found the landlord’s communication in relation to the resident’s enquiry about the fire treatment work was poor. As a result, she was unaware of how critical the work was in terms of fire safety and why the landlord had reportedly omitted her flat.
We have made a finding of service failure due to the landlord’s lack of communication and its failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the fire treatment work. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to reflect her time and trouble pursuing the matter. It also reflects her distress in not knowing whether the work was important in terms of fire safety.
The landlord’s records show that it visited the property on 28 May 2025 to measure for a new front door as it had noted the existing door had some gaps. The landlord did not consider the gaps to be high risk but the inspector recommended the landlord replace the door. The new door was ordered in October 2025, however, as the contractor has to specially make the door, the lead–in time is 12 weeks. We have ordered the landlord to write to the resident to explain that a new door is on order and to confirm the anticipated timescale for fitting the door. The landlord should also advise the resident whether it considers it necessary to carry out any fire treatment to the door while the new door is being manufactured.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the allocation of housing officers for her property.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident advised us on 27 May 2025 that she was unhappy because she believed she had been allocated a housing officer to deal specifically with her because she had raised complaints. She said that other residents in her block had a different housing officer. She was also concerned about the high turnover of housing officers.
The landlord stated in its stage 1 response dated 21 January 2025 that the same housing officer was responsible for managing all of the properties in the resident’s block. The landlord provided the resident with the name of the housing officer. It was reasonable that the landlord had reassured the resident that the same housing officer managed the entire building, including the resident’s property. It was also helpful that the landlord had confirmed the name of the housing officer.
In terms of the turnover of housing officers, this is often outside of the landlord’s control as staff may choose to leave or move to a different part of the organisation.
We have noted that the annual rent statements sent to residents provides the name and contact details for the housing officer covering the property. We consider this to be good practice as the housing officer is an important point of contact for residents.
We have not seen any evidence to show that the resident had a different housing officer to other residents in her block. Therefore, based on the evidence seen, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the allocation of housing officers for her property.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the notes kept on its systems.
Finding	No maladministration

As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord said the resident had concerns that one of its staff had referred to the resident as “challenging” on its system. The landlord said it had checked its system and could not find any evidence that its staff had referred to her as challenging. It asked the resident to send any evidence she had about this.
It was reasonable that the landlord had investigated the resident’s concern by checking its system to see whether any of its staff had described her as challenging. As it did not find any references to this, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to provide any evidence to support her concerns.
As the landlord had investigated the resident’s concerns, advised her of its findings and given her the opportunity to provide any evidence, we have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of concerns about the notes kept on its systems.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a stolen wheelchair.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We may not consider complaints which, in our opinion “seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”. We previously investigated the resident’s complaint about a stolen wheelchair under case reference 202345841.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in giving her a copy of the communal electricity bills.
Finding	Service failure

The evidence shows that the resident had been requesting a copy of the communal electricity bills for a considerable time and the landlord had agreed to provide them. For example, the landlord wrote to the resident on 18 December 2019 and said it had requested the information from its rents and service charges team. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2024 and in her stage 1 complaint dated 11 December 2024 and requested copies of the communal electricity bills for her block. The landlord said in its stage 1 reply dated 21 January 2025 that the managing agent had requested copies of the electricity bills from its accounts team. The landlord then said in its stage 2 reply dated 27 March 2025 that it was still waiting for the managing agent to provide copies of the bills. It apologised for the delay in obtaining them.
The resident had therefore been asking for copies of the electricity bills for some time and although the landlord had agreed to provide them, it had failed to do so. This was unreasonable as the resident had spent time and trouble repeatedly requesting the information. The landlord had correctly pointed out in its stage 1 reply that the service charge for electricity was based on anticipated/estimated costs, rather than actual costs and therefore the service charge would not directly reflect the actual bills. Nevertheless, as it had agreed to provide copies of the electricity bills to the resident, it should have done so within a reasonable timescale.
We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a copy of the communal electricity bills. We have ordered the landlord to provide copies of the bills and to pay the resident compensation of £50 to put things right in terms of the time and trouble she had spent requesting the bills. The sum ordered is within the range of awards recommended in our remedies guidance for service failures.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in giving her a full breakdown of the service charges.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident pays a fixed service charge, which means it is set for the year ahead based on the known costs and estimated costs. The service charge is not re-calculated at the end of the year to reflect the actual costs.
The landlord sends each resident an annual notification letter of the rent and service charges for the forthcoming year. The letter explains how the service charges have been calculated, provides a breakdown of the charges and explains what each charge is for. As part of our investigation, we have reviewed the annual notification letters for 2021/22, 2022/23, 2023/24, 2024/25 and 2025/26 and in our view the letters provide a reasonable level of detail about service charges and how they are calculated.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 April 2024 and requested a copy of all service charges. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this request. We consider this to be a shortcoming on the landlord’s part. However, we have not identified this as a service failure because on 20 February 2024 the landlord had already sent her the annual notification letter for rent and service charges for 2024/25. This provided her with a breakdown of the service charges, including the annual estimated cost for each charge, the percentage that applied to the resident and her estimated share of each service charge.
As part of her stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2024, the resident asked for a full breakdown of the service charges and mentioned that she was being charged for a concierge, even though there was no concierge service for her block. In response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of the service charges, the landlord attached a copy of the annual rent and service charge notification letter to its stage 1 response. This was reasonable as the letter provided the resident with a breakdown of the service charges for the year. The landlord also explained that the service charges shown in the notification letter were based on estimates rather than actual costs. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this to the resident so she was aware of how the service charges were calculated.
In terms of the resident’s question about a concierge service, the landlord confirmed in its stage 1 response that the resident was not being charged for a concierge service as the block did not have a concierge. This was reasonable as the annual notification letters for the resident’s property do not show a service charge for a concierge.
The confusion may have arisen because each year, the landlord attaches supplementary information to the annual notification letters and we note that in the ‘answers to common questions’ leaflet, it says: “service charges include items such as cleaning, concierges/caretakers…”. However, this is for general information only and is not intended to show that the resident is being charged for a concierge service.
In her email dated 2 April 2024, the resident said the previous caretaker had left the organisation and asked for the name of the current caretaker. In 2019, the landlord advised the resident that it had stopped providing a caretaking service to the block and had replaced the caretaker with a cleaning service delivered by the managing agent. However, in its stage 1 response dated 21 January 2025, the landlord said that the block had a caretaker. This was not consistent with the earlier advice it had given to the resident in 2019, nor with the annual rent and service charge notification letter, which showed a service charge for cleaning rather than caretaking. It was a shortcoming that the landlord had referred to a caretaker rather than a cleaning service in its stage 1 reply. This created confusion for the resident who said in her stage 2 complaint dated 23 January 2025 that there was no caretaker for her block.
Overall, we consider the service charge information the landlord gave to the resident in the form of the annual rent and service charge notification was reasonable. The resident pays a fixed service charge (rather than a variable charge) and therefore is not covered by the provisions in section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which allows tenants who pay a variable charges the right to access detailed accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the service charge summary. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of delays in giving her a full breakdown of the service charges.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding. However, it will agree any extension with the person raising the complaint and provide regular updates. The extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 11 December 2024, however, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 14 January 2025, which was over a month later. This was inappropriate as it was not in line with its policy to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The delay led to the resident chasing the landlord for a response in January 2025 and therefore involved her in additional time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 21 January 2025, which was 5 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. The landlord therefore responded within an appropriate timescale after acknowledging the complaint.
The resident advised the landlord on 23 January 2025 that she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and wanted to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 30 January 2025, which was appropriate as it was within the 5-working day timescale set out in its policy.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 March 2025, which was 40 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. This was longer than the 20-working day timescale set out in its policy. However, the landlord had written to the resident on 27 February 2025 to apologise for the delay in responding and to advise her that it needed to extend the response deadline to 27 March 2025. The landlord’s email of 27 February 2025 explained to the resident that she had the option of approaching us if she was unhappy with the extension of time. This was reasonable as it was in line with our complaint handling code.
Although the resident was unhappy with the landlord extending the time to respond to her stage 2 complaint, we consider the landlord responded within a reasonable timescale because:
1. It responded within the maximum timescale allowed in its policy for stage 2 complaints, which is 20 working days plus a further 20 working day extension.
2. It wrote to the resident to apologise for having to extend the timescale.
3. It informed the resident that she could approach us if she was unhappy with the extension.
Overall, we have found that the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint reasonably, apart from not acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint within an appropriate timescale. This failing resulted in the resident spending additional time and trouble pursuing her complaint. As part of its stage 1 reply, the landlord apologised for not meeting its service standards in dealing with the stage 1 complaint and it offered compensation of £50. We consider the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation to have been fair and proportionate to put things right in terms of the additional time and trouble experienced by the resident in pursuing her complaint. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Learning

Communication

We have found the landlord’s communication with the resident to have been poor in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Lift breakdowns.
2. Missing fence panels.
3. Defective paving slabs outside the bin shed.
4. A lack of fire treatment for her front door.
5. Delays in giving her a copy of the communal electricity bills.