Notting Hill Genesis (202514789)

Background

1. The resident reported ongoing problems with damp and mould in her property in the years leading up to her complaint. She said the living conditions affected hers and her son’s health, and damaged belongings. The landlord did significant repairs, but the resident complained her property was still damp. She asked the landlord to resolve the issues and compensate her for the belongings she said were damaged.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

1. Repairs and damp.
2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and damp.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs and damp

4. The landlord did not complete the window repairs or inspect the resident’s reports of damp within its policy timeframe. When it did inspect her property, it did not provide an outcome of its findings or explain if it would do further works. It therefore failed to fully resolve her complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord apologised for its initial delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint and offered compensation. However, it failed to define her escalated complaint and consequently did not address her outstanding issues. This was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not considered

6. The resident reported problems with damp and mould several years before complaining to the landlord. Although this relates to the resident’s complaint, we have not assessed the landlord’s handling of past issues. This is because we expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords and escalate to us within a reasonable timeframe. This is usually within around 12 months of the matter arising.
7. The resident raised concerns about the impact she said the issues had on her and her child’s health and wellbeing. We cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. Therefore, the courts are the most effective place to raise these issues. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident. If she wants to pursue a personal injury claim she may wish to seek independent legal advice.
8. The resident said there were other issues she wanted to raise in her complaint, and she has new issues. This includes an electrical fault causing a fire. We can only consider the issues the resident raised in her complaint to the landlord on 17 January 2025. The resident can make a new complaint to the landlord about new issues and escalate to us, if necessary, after following the landlord’s complaint’s process.

What we have considered

9. We considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that past damp and mould damaged her belongings. The landlord’s final complaint response to this matter was reasonable. It explained its policy did not normally cover these types of claims but offered £500 compensation as goodwill. It referred her to making a claim from its insurers. As the resident believes this was not enough to cover her previous losses, we recommended the landlord supports the resident with making this claim.
10. We also considered events from 30 October 2023 which is when the landlord inspected the resident’s property after doing repairs to tackle damp and mould. The inspection report dated 15 November 2023 said it had completed most of the repairs. However, it said the following works to the windows were outstanding:
    1. Supply and fit restrictor studs to the existing ferrules.
    2. Supply and fit two lifts to bottom sash of bathroom window.
    3. Replace cracked single glazed glass to the top middle pane of the bottom sash in the lounge.
11. The landlord’s policy says it will complete most repairs within 20 working days. It says where this is not possible it will provide the resident with an expected timeframe for completion of the repair. The landlord did not schedule the window repairs within its policy timescale or let the resident know when it would complete them.
12. Landlords should keep accurate records so they can manage their residents’ housing needs and provide a good service. In this case the landlord’s records were limited and unclear. They suggest the resident chased the outstanding repairs and reported ongoing damp in her property in June 2024. The landlord inspected her property later that month and updated its previous inspection report. It said works to the windows were outstanding, but it did not find damp. However, it missed another opportunity to schedule the window repairs and manage her expectations about when it would complete them.
13. The council’s Environmental Health Officer visited the resident’s property on 18 June 2024. They wrote to the resident on 25 June 2024, noting her concerns about damp on the back wall and a potential under floor leak. They said there was no evidence her flat was “too damp to reside in” and the recent refurbishment appeared to have resolved the damp issue. They said they would close the resident’s enquiry.
14. Four months later, in October 2024 the resident reported a wet smell, excessive condensation, and coldness in the loft space. The landlord said it would arrange to visit the resident within 10 working days, but there is no evidence it did. Several days later its records show the resident reported a leak from her boiler and damp on the flooring, but the landlord closed the repair. The landlord did not promptly investigate the resident’s further report of damp. This was not in line with its policy which says it will inspect properties to assess if it needs to carry out repairs.
15. The landlord acknowledged its service failed in its first complaint response in February 2025 and attempted to remedy the complaint. It apologised and offered £300 for her time and trouble and the distress and inconvenience it may have caused. It said it booked the window repairs for 25 February 2025. It also agreed to visit her property about the damp and to raise any necessary repairs.
16. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether the redress the landlord offered was in line with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. We considered the events following its final complaint response and whether the landlord ‘put things right’. This includes whether it completed the repairs to the windows and inspected her concerns about damp, within its policy timeframe.
17. The landlord did not reinspect the resident’s property promptly following her complaint. The resident’s support worker chased the landlord between May and June 2025 and offered to help to ensure the visit took place. The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 3 June 2025. Following this it issued a warning letter to the resident on 10 June 2025 about her behaviour during the visit. It said it had inspected her property and found no significant damp or mould issues, with a few exceptions. The landlord has not provided a report confirming the outcome of this inspection or explained whether it will carry out any of the repairs it identified.
18. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and damp. The landlord has not shown it completed works to the resident’s windows. It did not promptly inspect her ongoing concerns about damp. When it did inspect the property, it did not clearly explain what repairs, if any, it would do. We have ordered the landlord apologise and carry out actions to put things right. We ordered it to pay an additional £400 compensation. This is to recognise the resident’s time and trouble chasing the issues and the distress and inconvenience it may have caused. This amount is in line with the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance.

19. The landlord’s policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s policy says it may extend its response time by an extra 10 working days at stage 1. These response timeframes comply with the Code. However, the stage 2 extension timeframe outlined in its policy is unclear and not in line with the Code. We have recommended the landlord amends this to align with the Code.
20. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint via its automated system, but it failed to formally acknowledge her complaint within 5 working days. This was not in line with its policy. On 31 January 2025 the landlord told the resident it would extend its response time by 10 working days. However, it did not provide the details of our Service as the Code advises. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures in its initial response. It acted in line with its policy when it apologised and offered £50 compensation.
21. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint on time. It agreed to respond within 20 working days but extended this by 20 working days on 25 March 2025. It provided details of our Service. Although its policy around its extension timescales is unclear, its procedure was in line with the Code, which says “any extension must be no more than 20 working days”.
22. The landlord failed to define the reasons why the resident escalated her complaint within its acknowledgement email to her. It therefore did not clarify her outstanding concerns and subsequently failed to address them in its final response. This was not in line with the Code which says landlords must acknowledge, define, and log complaints at stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
23. We found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not define and clarify her reasons for escalating her complaint when acknowledging it. This meant it missed an opportunity to address the resident’s outstanding issues in its final response. This was not in line with the Code and represents a failure. It is clear from the communications that followed that the resident was distressed that the issues had been unaddressed. We therefore ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100 for the distress this caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

24. The landlord did not follow its repair timescales, keep clear records, or provide timely updates. As a result, window repairs were left unfinished, and the resident’s ongoing reports of damp were not inspected promptly. The landlord would benefit from better record‑keeping, clearer communication, and stronger oversight of repairs so residents receive a timely and reliable service.
25. The landlord’s complaints policy is unclear around its extension of stage 2 complaint responses. The landlord should revisit this and ensure its extension timeframe is clearer and in line with our Code. The landlord would also benefit from ensuring it defines escalated complaints, particularly where resident’s have sought assistance from a representative.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. The landlord’s records were limited in this case. Its repair records were unclear and did not show it completed works to the resident’s windows. It also failed to provide records of its telephone and face to face contact with the resident. The landlord would benefit from keeping more thorough records to ensure outstanding repairs are completed and to provide an efficient service for residents.

Communication

27. The landlord showed some good practice in its first complaint response to the resident. It offered her a named contact and provided a telephone number. It also communicated with her support worker on occasions. However, it failed to manage the resident’s expectations by offering clear explanations to her or her support worker about the actions it had taken and would take to resolve all the repair issues. The landlord would benefit from improving its communication to ensure repairs are better managed and completed in line within its policies.