Notting Hill Genesis (202446729)

Background

1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block with a courtyard. She raised a complaint about several issues including damp and mould in areas of her property, the fact that the location of a water shut-off valve was unknown, and the replacement of her bathroom was outstanding. She also complained about the handling of her requests for pigeon proofing at the block and for plants in communal areas. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, she said that the landlord had not resolved the issues, communicated poorly, and offered insufficient compensation. She also raised concerns about the general level of communication by the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Request for a bathroom replacement.
   3. Request for pigeon proofing.
   4. Request for plants in communal areas.
   5. Request for information about a water shut-off valve.
   6. Concerns about the communication of housing officers.
   7. Report of a repair to a communal tap.
   8. Complaint about the above issues.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a bathroom replacement.
5. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for pigeon proofing.
6. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for plants in communal areas.
7. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for information about a water shut-off valve.
8. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the communication of housing officers.
9. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her report of a repair to a communal tap is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
10. There was maladministration by the landlord in the handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

11. The landlord treated mould in the bathroom. It delayed in treating the mould on the living room window but offered proportionate compensation for the delay.
12. The landlord followed its procedure when considering the resident’s request for a replacement bathroom. It also carried out repairs in the bathroom.
13. The landlord delayed in considering and resolving the resident’s reports about the lack of effective pigeon proofing.
14. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s request for plants in communal areas.
15. The landlord has not found the water shut-off valve and did not update the resident.
16. The landlord did not fully address the resident’s concerns about the communication of housing officers. This includes issues arising from changes of housing officer.
17. The resident’s complaint about the communal tap repair did not complete the complaints procedure.
18. The landlord delayed in handling the resident’s complaint. Its compensation award was not clear in part. It did not offer proportionate compensation for its complaint handling.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

1. 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.

19. The landlord’s Damp and Mould policy states when damp and mould is reported the housing officer visits every resident in their home to inspect and understand the issue. If minor repairs are needed the housing officer will order them and ensure they have been completed and that the issue is resolved long term.
20. In line with the policy, the then-housing officer arranged works to treat damp and mould in June 2024. The landlord’s repair records show that she raised an order on 28 June 2024 to carry out a mould wash in the bathroom and in the living room, around the window and wooden cill. The housing officer that month had also arranged for a curtain rail above the living room window, that had fallen off due to damp, to be replaced.
21. The contractor carried out a mould wash on 1 August 2024. However, it did not treat all the mould on the living room window as the frame was too rotten, and it could not renew the sealant. The contractor reported the windows had aluminium grilles and parts and there was condensation on the frame. This was leading to damp and mould on the cills. The landlord was not proactive in resolving this issue and the resident had to pursue a response, including a phone call on 14 October 2024.
22. The landlord did not visit until 15 November 2024. This was 3 months after the contractor’s visit which was an unreasonable delay. On 18 November 2024, it approved works completed by the contractor to renew some beading and paint the cill.
23. However, the landlord decided the only solution to prevent damp and mould on the cill was to replace the living room window. The landlord did not advise the resident whether it would replace the window, and the circumstances and timeframe when it may do so. This was a missed opportunity given it had identified that the aluminium windows caused the damp and mould.
24. After the resident reported that damp and mould had returned in the bathroom, the landlord took appropriate steps to resolve it. It re-raised an order on 20 February 2025 to upgrade the extractor fan after the contractor could not gain entry to the block on 12 February 2025. It completed the works on 21 March 2025. The landlord had raised an order to renew the bathroom extractor fan the previous year, on 31 July 2024. However, its records show that the resident declined as she wanted the fan replaced at the same time as her bathroom.
25. The landlord offered a total of £200 compensation for its handling of the resident’s damp and mould reports. This was in line to its Compensation Policy which states it may pay up to £250 in cases of medium impact where the service has markedly failed to meet service standards and this failure has caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable to the resident. The offer was proportionate given the length of the delay in resolving the damp and mould and the fact that damp and mould in the living room was localised around the window.

26. The landlord has a Kitchen and Bathroom Renewal procedure. This confirms that it undertakes programmes to ensure that its “tenants’ homes are maintained to a good standard and that the Kitchens and Bathrooms provided are modern and safe… A provisional programme is created based upon stock data …, taking into consideration the age of the Kitchen or Bathroom. An assessment will then take place to compare the condition of the Kitchen / Bathroom against the qualifying criteria for replacement.”
27. When raising her complaint, the resident requested the landlord to replace her bathroom as it was 27 years old. It was in line with its procedure that the landlord stated it would assess whether to replace the bathroom after carrying out a stock condition survey.
28. The landlord has not provided evidence of its stock condition survey for the resident’s flat. However, the resident has confirmed it has told her the bathroom is due for replacement in 2027 as it is expected to last 30 years. The landlord has therefore managed the resident’s expectations as to when the bathroom will be replaced. We recommend the landlord confirm to the resident whether this time frame still applies.
29. The landlord has an obligation to ensure the resident’s bathroom was maintained to a good standard pending a bathroom renewal. It is evident that it sought to complete necessary repairs to the bathroom. On 1 August 2024, it raised an order to renew the bath, although on 30 August 2024, the resident refused the works. On 4 April 2025, it replaced the bath, bath panel, and mixer tap with attached shower. On 17 April 2025, it renewed the flooring in the bathroom which had become rotten. On 23 June 2025, the landlord raised an order to make good a wall in the bathroom which had been damaged by a leak. The resident has advised us that the contractor has completed the works and painted a wall.

30. The resident in her complaint said that pigeon proofing for her building had not been fully reinstalled after previous cyclical works. She advised pigeons were nesting outside her property and were generally causing nuisance and mess. The landlord’s Pest Control policy states that it “deal with pest control issues both in an individual’s flat and the communal areas”. It will “also attend calls when reported infestations of … pigeons”. The landlord therefore has a responsibility to prevent pigeons nesting and causing nuisance at the block.
31. The evidence indicates that the landlord delayed in addressing the resident’s reports about pigeons. It acknowledged its failure in its stage 1 response. Furthermore, in her response to the stage 2 response on 25 February 2025, the resident advised that the cyclical works occurred 2 years previously. She advised she reported the lack of effective proofing at the time. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm when the cyclical works occurred; however, it did not dispute the timeframe.
32. The policy states the Local Officer should first investigate reports of pests in the block to determine what action is required. If there are structural problems with the building, “the case will need to be referred to a Surveyor in the Assets Team, to carry out an inspection and determine what work is needed.” It was appropriate that the landlord agreed that a housing officer and property manager should visit the block on 15 November 2024, in response to the resident’s complaint. However, there is no evidence that it proactively provided an update to the resident afterwards. Nor is there evidence that it provided an update after the stage 2 response within 10 days as promised.
33. It was not until 7 April 2025 that the landlord discussed options with its pest control contractor. This was 5 months after its visit which was an unreasonable delay. The delays were particular unreasonable given that pigeons were nesting outside the resident’s property, and the associated health risks.
34. We award the resident £250 compensation for her distress and inconvenience regarding this issue. This is based on our Guidance on Remedies for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
35. On 8 May 2024, the landlord agreed with the contractor to fly a hawk on the estate. This started on 14 July 2025. On 15 July 2025, the landlord opted for the installation of wires on the balconies as opposed to spikes. The resident has confirmed that the works were completed during early September 2025. However, she states that the contractor did not ask residents where the proofing should best be installed or where the pigeons were roosting. We therefore recommend that the landlord recall the contractor and ask it to review the effectiveness of its works. This may include seeking feedback from the resident.

36. The evidence indicates that the landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s request for plants to be placed in communal areas prior to her complaint. In her complaint, the resident advised that the previous year, a previous housing officer had agreed this and to complete required forms. The landlord has not provided evidence of the request but did not dispute the resident’s version of events.
37. The landlord further delayed in responding to the request after the resident’s complaint. There is no evidence that it confirmed its position regarding plants in the communal areas after the visit of 15 November 2024. The resident highlighted this in her response of 25 February 2025 and when referring her complaint to us in July 2025. In August 2025, the landlord advised us that residents had begun adding plants to communal areas. There is no evidence that it made a formal decision on this that it communicated to the resident.
38. We award the resident £50 compensation for her distress and inconvenience regarding this issue. This is based on our Guidance on Remedies for cases where the landlord may have made an offer of action/compensation, but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident and is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

39. Landlords and resident should know how to close off the water supply to their flat in case there is a leak or if certain plumbing and heating works are required. In her correspondence to the landlord, the resident mentioned a leak to her airing cupboard in 2023; however, the plumber could not find the valve to shut off the water supply to her property. In her complaint, she noted the landlord had not located the water shut-off valve after a year and a half. The landlord did not dispute this. As such, it delayed in locating the valve. In fact, there is no evidence that it took proactive measures to locate the valve.
40. The landlord committed to locate the shut-off valve in its complaint responses. In fact, it stated the housing officer would liaise with the property manager. However, there is no evidence of this or that the landlord otherwise took action to locate the shut-off valve. Ultimately the landlord failed to locate the shut-off valve.
41. The resident noted there had been a previous leak to her property. She also noted that landlord’s failure to locate the shut-off valve had prevented it from installing a new boiler. Furthermore, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations but did not update her on the issue after the stage 2 response. This indicates that the distress and inconvenience to the resident from the landlord’s failure to locate the shut-off valve was heightened.
42. We award the resident £250 compensation for her distress and inconvenience regarding this issue. This is based on our Guidance on Remedies for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

43. The landlord considered a complaint specifically about the communication of the housing officer, aside from the other substantive issues raised. This was a reasonable approach as the stage 1 response noted there was a contact agreement for fortnightly updates which the current housing officer did not uphold. The landlord further noted the resident made numerous attempts to engage with the housing officer in July and August 2024, but did not receive a response. The landlord offered £150 compensation at stage 1. However, the resident noted a frequent change of housing officer contributed to issues being unresolved. In focussing on the current housing officer, the landlord overlooked the resident’s wider concerns about the communication of the previous housing officers.
44. The stage 1 response also committed the housing officer to contact the resident every 2 weeks until all outstanding issues were resolved. It is not evident that this arrangement was consistently kept. The landlord offered another £50 compensation in the stage 2 response. This was not proportionate to the further poor communication.
45. We award the resident £300 compensation for her distress and inconvenience regarding this issue. This is based on our Guidance on Remedies for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

46. Under paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
47. The resident has raised a complaint about a broken communal tap on her floor. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident escalated the complaint about the communal tap to stage 2. She also did not mention this issue in her response of 2 February 2025 to the stage 2 response. As the complaint about the communal tap did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure, we have not investigated this issue.

48. The landlord’s complaints procedure confirms it will acknowledge complaints and stage 2 requests within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working day of the acknowledgment. This follows our Complaint Handling Code.
49. The landlord did not meet the required timeframe for responding to the resident’s stage 1 response. There is no evidence that it agreed an extension with her for responding. The landlord did not send the stage 2 response until around a month after the 20-working day timeframe, taking account of the end of year break. Again, there is no evidence that it sent a holding response.
50. When escalating her complaint on 9 December 2024, she noted that the landlord did not return 12 calls she made after 14 November 2024 to discuss the stage 1 response. She made clear she wished to discuss her complaint as soon as possible as she was neuro-diverse. However, the landlord did not discuss her complaint until 19 February 2025. There is also no evidence that landlord considered possible adjustment to their contact standards and arrangement in the light of the residents advising it of her additional needs.
51. The landlord’s compensation offer in the stage 2 response was not clear. This is because it offered £100 for its handling of the water shut-off valve, pigeon proofing and plants; however, it did not break down the award.
52. The landlord offered £50 compensation for its complaint handling. This was not proportionate to the combined delays, and the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in pursing her complaint. We award the resident £100 compensation for these issues. This is based on our Guidance on Remedies for cases where the landlord may have made an offer of action/compensation, but it does not quite reflect the detriment to the resident and is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Learning

53. We’ve asked the landlord to conduct a learning review. Our observations are:
    1. The landlord delayed in responding to and proactively updating the resident at times. It needs to consider whether changes in housing officer contributed to this and how this can be mitigated in the resident’s block and more widely.
    2. The landlord did not follow up on promises – indicating relevant staff did not take responsibility for seeing through the promises.
    3. The landlord does not appear to have provide all relevant records related to the issues complained of. This includes the stock condition survey and the advice provided to the resident about the bathroom replacement, the cyclical works, the visit of 15 November 2025, file notes, and phone contact. The landlord should review its record keeping and ascertain whether it can better collate, cross-reference and retrieve records on particular issues.