Notting Hill Genesis (202510180)

Decision
Case ID	202510180
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

1. Following reports of roof leaks affecting her property, the landlord carried out temporary repairs to the roof and the adjoining parapet wall in February 2024. The resident said the landlord did not carry out any follow-up work and the roof was still leaking. The landlord’s records show that the resident has asthma and sciatica.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks and associated damp and mould.
   2. How the landlord responded to the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks and associated damp and mould.
   2. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in how it responded to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. There were delays in the landlord inspecting and carrying out repairs to address the reported roof leaks. The action taken by the landlord to resolve the reported leaks was ineffective as the leaks continued. The landlord apologised for its management of the roof repairs and offered the resident proportionate compensation. However, at the time of its stage 2 response, it had not put things right by resolving the reported roof leaks.
5. The landlord apologised for the delays in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint and offered 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 30 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident the £850 offered at stage 2 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks and associated damp and mould if this has not already been paid.	No later than 30 January 2026
3	Other order The landlord must provide the resident with a written plan that includes timescales for resolving the roof leaks, any associated internal remedial works and the outstanding issues involving the adjoining property.	No later than 30 January 2026

 

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £150 offered in its stage 2 reply for complaint handling if this has not already been paid. Our finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
The landlord should consider paying additional compensation to the resident for the period after its stage 2 response until the date all remedial works are completed and write to the resident with its decision.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 October 2024	The resident made a stage 1 complaint about roof leaks that were affecting her property. She said that despite visits and assurances from the landlord, the leaks had not been repaired and were now affecting various rooms. She said she was particularly concerned about her safety because some of the leaks were near electrical sockets.
28 October 2024	The landlord’s notes show that it phoned the resident to acknowledge the stage 1 complaint but there was no answer.
25 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint in which it said: Its records showed that the resident had reported leaks in 2023 and it acknowledged that she had experienced significant distress and inconvenience. It had raised an order to inspect the roof and clear out the gutters. Its contractor had attended on 8 November 2024 but had experienced access difficulties. It apologised that the contractor had not made appropriate access arrangements with the resident. The landlord had not met its service standards and therefore upheld the complaint because the repair had taken longer than it should have. It apologised and offered the resident compensation of £300.
17 December 2024	The resident wrote to the landlord and said she was dissatisfied with its stage1 response because: The problems had persisted for almost a year and the lack of resolution had caused her significant disruption and hardship. The situation had affected her health and she was now taking medication. She had been forced to stay elsewhere because of the cold and damp. The landlord had not acknowledged the damage the leaks had caused to her belongings. She said the compensation offered by the landlord was inadequate given the impact on her health, the time she had taken off work and the damage to her belongings.
24 January 2025	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint and said it would respond by 21 February 2025.
2 April 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response in which it said the following: It had carried out roof repairs on 19 December 2024 and carried out other remedial works on 24 January 2025, however, the resident had subsequently reported that the main bedroom, living room and kitchen were still damp. It had instructed one of its surveyors to contact the resident in the next 10 working days to inspect the property. It accepted that it had not managed the resident’s repair concerns effectively and that she had contacted the landlord several times to ask for updates. It apologised for the overall delays, distress and inconvenience and offered compensation of £1,000, which included a discretionary payment of £100 towards the reported damage to her belongings and £150 for its complaint handling. It provided details of its insurance team and said the resident could submit claims for personal injury and damage to her possessions if she wished to do so. It had updated its records to show that the resident had reported having asthma and sciatica.
12 June 2025	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint because she said that although the contractor had attended to one of the roof leaks, there were other ongoing roof leaks affecting her property. She said she wanted the landlord to repair all of the leaks and offer appropriate compensation.

 

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 response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks and associated damp and mould
Finding	Service failure

6. The resident advised us on 12 June 2025 that the roof was still leaking into her property. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response on 2 April 2025. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
7. Under the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it has 2 categories of repairs: emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours and all other repairs are categorised as standard repairs and are completed within 20 working days.
8. The landlord raised an order on 4 January 2024 to carry out repairs to address leaks through the bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s notes show that a plumber attended on 23 January 2024 instead of a roofer. It was inappropriate that the landlord had sent a plumber as it would have been reasonable for it to have clarified the nature of the leak with the resident when it raised the order. Furthermore, a housing officer had attended on 17 January 2024 and it would have been reasonable for them to have identified that a roofer was needed because the leak was coming through the bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s error meant there was a delay in repairing the leak.
9. A roofing contractor attended on 9 February 2024 and carried out temporary works. The contractor noted there were defects to the parapet wall and the roof of the neighbouring, privately owned property. It said these defects were contributing to the damp in the resident’s property. As the contractor had identified the need for more extensive works to the roof, including to the neighbouring property, it was reasonable that it had at least carried out some temporary repairs and notified the landlord that the neighbour needed to repair the roof and wall on their side.
10. In its stage 2 reply the landlord said that, although it had not carried out permanent repairs to the roof, it had closed the job in error in July 2024 as part of a bulk reconciliation exercise. Given that the contractor had only carried out temporary repairs, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not followed this up and arranged permanent repairs to its side of the roof. It was also unreasonable that it had closed the order without first notifying the resident or checking whether the roof was still leaking, including checking whether the neighbour had repaired their side of the roof.
11. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 September 2024 to ask for an update as she said the leak had not been resolved. The landlord’s records show that it raised an order on the same day to repair the roof. In its stage 1 reply, the landlord said that a contractor had attended on 8 November 2024 but had not been able to obtain access to the resident’s property to inspect the roof. It accepted that the contractor had not pre-arranged the visit with the resident. Given that the resident had contacted the landlord on 23 September 2024 to report the ongoing leak, it was unreasonable that it took almost 7 weeks for the contractor to attend to inspect the roof. Furthermore, it was unreasonable that the visit had not been pre-arranged with the resident. These failings resulted in further delays and frustration for the resident.
12. In her stage 2 complaint dated 17 December 2024, the resident said that damage from the leaks had now spread to the living room. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not carried out repairs to address the reported leaks over a month after the contractor had attended on 8 November 2024. The contractor attended on 19 December 2024 and carried out works to the chimney stack and the parapet wall. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the work carried out by the roofing contractor.
13. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 December 2024 and said that the damp and mould in the property were causing her to feel sick. The landlord raised an order on the same day to carry out mould treatment. The landlord’s contractor carried out the treatment on 24 January 2025, which was 18 working days after the order was raised. As the work was raised as a standard repair, the landlord carried out the mould treatment within an appropriate timescale.
14. The resident contacted the landlord on 15 January 2025 to report there were still leaks affecting her property. The landlord raised a further order on 14 March 2025 to inspect the main roof, the flat roof and guttering. We have not seen any evidence explaining why it took the landlord 2 months to raise an order for the inspection after the resident had reported further leaks on 15 January 2025. We have therefore found that the time taken by the landlord to raise the inspection order was inappropriate. The contractor attended on 20 March 2025 and found there were signs of leaks around the extractor pipe in the loft and cracks on the lower roof. The contractor sealed around the pipe and sealed the cracks on the roof. The contractor had therefore attended within an appropriate timescale after raising the order.
15. The landlord spoke to the resident as part of its investigation of her stage 2 complaint and she advised that the leaks were still ongoing. The landlord said it had therefore asked one of its surveyors to contact the resident to book a further inspection. As the resident had reported ongoing leaks, it was reasonable that the landlord had arranged for one of its surveyors to carry out a further inspection.
16. We understand that it can sometimes be difficult to trace roof leaks, particularly where defects to an adjoining property may be contributing to the leaks. We also understand that it can take more than one attempt to resolve leaks. However, in this case, the landlord accepted that it had not been able to manage and address the resident’s repair concerns effectively in line with its policies and procedures. Similarly, we have found it was unreasonable that 15 months after the landlord had first raised an order on 4 January 2024 regarding the roof leaks, the resident was still reporting problems with leaks at the time of its stage 2 reply on 2 April 2025.
17. During this period, the resident contacted the landlord on various occasions to request updates. For example, she contacted the landlord on 29 January, 9 February, 23 September, 21  and 22 October 2024, December 2024, and 15 January and 3 March 2025. The resident’s emails show that as well as the distress and inconvenience caused by the reported leaks, she was also frustrated by the landlord’s lack of communication. We have found that the landlord’s lack of communication regarding the reported leaks was unreasonable as it meant that the resident was often unaware of whether the landlord was making arrangements to address the reported leaks.
18. We have also found there were problems with the landlord’s record keeping. For example, it should not have closed the order in July 2024 knowing that its contractor had only carried out temporary repairs in February 2024. The landlord also failed to use its records to follow up outstanding issues relating to the roof. For example, we have not seen any evidence that by the time of its stage 2 reply it had taken effective steps to ensure the neighbour carried out repairs to the roof above their flat. This was unreasonable as the contractor had advised the landlord on 9 February 2024 that repairs were needed to the neighbour’s roof and wall.
19. Overall, we have found the following failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of roof leaks and associated damp and mould:
    1. It initially sent the wrong tradesperson to repair the leak in February 2024.
    2. Although it had carried out temporary repairs in February 2024, it did not follow this up and arrange permanent repairs.
    3. It closed the job in July 2024 without telling the resident and without checking whether the roof was still leaking.
    4. There was a delay in the contractor attending after the resident contacted the landlord in September 2024 to say the roof was still leaking and the contractor did not pre-arrange the visit with the resident.
    5. There was a further delay in the landlord arranging a further inspection of the roof after the resident reported it was still leaking in January 2025.
    6. At the time of its stage 2 response, the landlord had not resolved the roof leaks some 15 months after the resident reported the problem in January 2024.
    7. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and this meant she had to chase the landlord for updates.
    8. There were problems with the landlord’s recordkeeping, such as closing the job in error in July 2024 and not following up the need for the neighbour to repair their roof.
20. The landlord was made aware during the complaints process that the resident had medical conditions, such as asthma. Therefore, it should have prioritised the need to address the leaks, given that the resident had advised the landlord in October 2024 that she was worried about the potential impact of mould in relation to her asthma. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
21. 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.
22. In this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings and the distress and inconvenience they had caused. It also acknowledged its error in terms of closing the order in July 2024 and the communication issues that had led to the resident having to request updates on a number of occasions. It sought to put things right by apologising for its failings, offering compensation (including a contribution towards her damaged belongings) and providing her with details of its insurance team so she could make claims for personal injury and damaged belongings.
23. The landlord demonstrated some learning during the complaints process by saying it would:
    1. Provide clear and consistent communication with residents regarding repair updates.
    2. Ensure repairs are scheduled to match residents’ availability.
    3. Prioritise safety risks, such as exposure to mildew.
24. In terms of the level of compensation, the landlord offered £850 which was made up of £750 for its handling of the repairs and £100 as a discretionary payment for damage to the resident’s belongings.
25. The evidence shows that the landlord’s failures had a significant impact on the resident and caused her distress, inconvenience and frustration, as well as considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates. The landlord’s offer of £750 is within the range of sums recommended in our remedies guidance for situations where a failure has had a significant impact on the resident. The offer was also above the amount shown in the landlord’s compensation and goodwill policy for situations where there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience.
26. We consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to have been proportionate to recognise the failings we have found during our investigation. We also, consider it was a reasonable gesture for the landlord to offer an additional £100 towards the cost of the damaged items, given it had provided the resident with details for claiming against its insurance policy. We have also taken into account that the landlord’s contractors tried to address the leaks by carrying out works in February 2024, December 2024 and March 2025 and it carried out mould treatment in January 2025.
27. However, we have not made a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ in this case because the repairs were still outstanding at the time of the stage 2 response and we have not seen any evidence that the leaks have been permanently resolved.
28. Our decision not to make a finding of reasonable redress is in line with our outcomes guidance, which says we would not make this finding where the substantive issue remains outstanding – regardless of the level of redress offered or the extent of future actions agreed. The substantive issue must have been resolved before we can say that the landlord has adequately addressed the issue.
29. We have made a finding of service failure, which recognises that the landlord had made an offer of compensation that was fair and proportionate at the point of sending its stage 2 response and had tried to address the leaks on different occasions.
30. As we have not seen evidence that the landlord has resolved the issues, we have ordered it to produce a plan with timescales for addressing the leaks and any associated internal damage. The plan must include proposals for resolving the outstanding issues involving the adjoining property.
31. As we consider the landlord’s offer of compensation to have been fair and reasonable at the time of its stage 2 reply, we have not ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation. However, we have recommended that the landlord considers paying the resident compensation for the period after its stage 2 response up to the date it resolves the leaks and internal damage.
32. We have noted that the landlord offered the resident an additional £250 on 9 October 2025 to acknowledge its “poor handling” of the outstanding repairs. We have not assessed this offer as the landlord made it after its final complaint response and only after our involvement.

Complaint	How the landlord responded to the associated complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

33. 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.
34. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 22 October 2024. The landlord phoned the resident on 29 October 2024 to acknowledge the complaint. The landlord had therefore acknowledged the complaint 5 working days after receiving it, which was appropriate and in line with its policy.
35. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2024 and said it needed to extend the response deadline by 10 working days. It then sent its stage 1 reply on 25 November 2024, which was 19 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. As the landlord had advised the resident that it needed to extend the deadline, we have found that it responded to the stage 1 complaint within a reasonable timescale.
36. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 December 2024 and said she wanted the landlord to escalate her complaint. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 24 January 2025, which was 25 working days after receiving the complaint. This was inappropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s policy or our complaint handling code. The delay resulted in the resident chasing the landlord on 15 January 2025 for an update regarding her complaint.
37. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 2 April 2025, which was 48 working days after acknowledging the complaint. The time taken for the landlord to respond to the complaint was inappropriate as it was much longer than the 20-working day target in its policy and it had not written to the resident to extend the timescale. The delay resulted in the resident chasing the landlord for a response on 3 March 2025. It therefore meant she experienced additional time, trouble and inconvenience in seeking a response to her complaint.
38. The landlord used its stage 2 response to apologise for the delay in replying and offered the resident £150 for its complaint handling. The amount offered was the maximum allowed in its compensation policy for poor complaint handling. Given the additional time, effort and inconvenience experienced by the resident in pursuing her complaint, we consider the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation to have been fair and proportionate to put things right in relation to its complaint handling failings. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress in terms of how the landlord responded to the associated complaint.

 

 

 

 

Learning

39. The landlord should ensure there is clear ownership of complex repairs, such as non-straightforward roof repairs.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord should ensure it has appropriate systems in place for tracking and monitoring complex repairs so that repairs are completed within appropriate timescales and any follow-on actions are tracked.
41. The landlord should not close or cancel orders without notifying the resident and checking that the reported defects have been repaired.

Communication

42. The landlord should ensure that residents are advised and kept updated if there are delays in completing repairs.