Notting Hill Genesis (202451578)

Background

1. On 8 January 2025 the landlord’s contractor completed an annual gas safety check on the boiler. Later that day, the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water. The contractor missed a scheduled appointment on 9 January 2025 but attended on 10 January 2025. The engineer was not able to restore the resident’s heating and hot water and advised the boiler required a replacement part. The resident said she had evidence that the engineer who carried out the gas check deliberately took actions that left the boiler inoperable. She was also unhappy with the conduct of the engineer who attended on 10 January 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair.
3. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair.
   2. There was a 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 the boiler repair

5. The landlord failed to investigate the resident’s concerns about the contractor, even though these concerns formed the basis of her request for it to provide an alternative contractor. Its response to the complaint did not offer any resolution to the outstanding repair. Its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failures in its handling of the repair or the impact and detriment caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord acknowledged failures in its complaint handling and offered compensation. However, the amount it offered was not proportionate to the failings we have identified in our investigation.

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.

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 investigated

7. The resident complained about the damage in her neighbour’s property and asked the landlord to address the damage as part of the resolution to her complaint. We are not able to investigate a complaint concerning the damage the resident’s neighbour’s property. This because there is no evidence the resident has been authorised to bring a complaint on behalf of her neighbour.
8. Following the landlord’s final response dated 11 July 2025, the resident submitted another complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs after it subsequently replaced the boiler in October 2025. We have no power to investigate complaints that the landlord has not had the opportunity to address first. At the start of this investigation, there was no evidence that the resident’s new complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, we cannot investigate the complaint concerning the repairs following the boiler replacement.
9. Throughout the complaint and in communication with us, the resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her and her family’s health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

What we have investigated

10. This investigation has looked at the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair. This includes the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the contractor. We will consider the landlord’s responses to the complaint and consider whether its response was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
11. The landlord is responsible for boiler repairs. Its repair policy states the landlord considers a loss of heating and hot water between October and March as an emergency repair. Emergency repairs require the landlord to attend within 4 hours or provide a temporary fix within 24 hours.
12. On 8 January 2025 the landlord’s contractor visited the property to complete an annual gas safety check to the boiler. Later that evening, the resident reported a loss of heating and hot water. The contractor agreed to attend on 9 January 2025, however, it missed the appointment. On 10 January 2025 the contractor attended and advised the boiler required a part.
13. On 10 and 13 January 2025 the resident reported her dissatisfaction with the contractor’s service to the landlord. She said she had evidence the engineer who attended on 8 January 2025, deliberately caused the boiler to fail on the same day as his visit. She also complained that the engineer who attended on 10 January 2025 was unprofessional. She said when she asked him about when the required part would be replaced, he replied ‘next Christmas’ in a sarcastic manner and advised her not to contact the contractor or landlord about the repair. The resident also reported that on 11 January 2025, the contractor agreed to send another engineer, however, it did not and only delivered temporary heaters that day.
14. On 14 January 2025 the resident requested the landlord to arrange for an alternative contractor to address the repair due to the reported issues she had with the existing contractor.
15. Our Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect and rights states that when a landlord receives a report about staff conduct, including contractors, it should investigate and share its findings with the resident.
16. The landlord did not investigate the concerns the resident raised about its contractor’s conduct. Instead the evidence demonstrates the landlord encouraged the resident to book a follow up appointment with the same contractor so it could fit the part required to repair the boiler.
17. The resident reiterated she was not willing to engage with the contractor. The resident’s concerns undermined her trust in the contractor and formed the basis of her request for an alternative contractor. The landlord failed to investigate these allegations or assess whether it was reasonable to expect the resident to engage with the contractor further. Because of this, the landlord disregarded the resident’s legitimate concerns and missed an opportunity to provide a fair and practical resolution.
18. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged it took too long to do the repair and also its poor service. It confirmed it was not able to offer an alternative contractor because its contractors were scheduled based on the availability of materials and staffing considerations. It agreed to provide the resident’s feedback to the relevant team and apologised she was disappointed with the service she had received. The stage 2 response reiterated this position. It incorrectly stated the landlord was unaware if there was an outstanding repair. It partially upheld the complaint for missed appointments.
19. The landlord’s internal records show it knew the repair was unresolved as the last reported appointment was that the resident had refused access to the contractor after 10 January 2025. In addition, the resident made repeated requests for an alternative contractor.
20. The landlord did not take steps to carry out its repair obligation even after it became aware that the resident had refused a follow up appointment to fit the part to the boiler on 22 January 2025. Given the loss of heating and hot water since 8 January 2025, it was unreasonable for the landlord to fail to take steps to reach a resolution during the complaints process.
21. On 8 September 2025 the resident declined an annual gas safety check appointment from the same contractor and reiterated she would not allow it access. On 9 September 2025 the landlord confirmed it had reviewed her concerns and agreed to arrange a different contractor to complete the gas safety check and investigate the boiler which had been unfixed for the previous 9 months.
22. A different contractor attended on 10 October 2025 and recommended the boiler be replaced. The replacement was completed on 20 October 2025.
23. Overall, the evidence demonstrates the landlord failed to take reasonable steps to resolve the repair within a reasonable timeframe. The resident raised legitimate concerns about trust and safety, which the landlord failed to investigate and instead insisted she use the same contractor.
24. The landlord’s lack of investigation or professional curiosity about the situation left the resident’s concerns disregarded and set the conditions for her to be without a functioning boiler and no heating or hot water for 9 months. Its failure to act reasonably led to a missed an opportunity to provide a fair and practical resolution.
25. The landlord’s failures resulted in significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. While the landlord offered compensation for poor communication in its stage 1 response, it did not provide redress in line with its policy for the prolonged loss of heating and hot water. Nor did it offer any resolution to the outstanding repair through its complaint responses.
26. The significant failings by the landlord and failure to provide meaningful redress to put things right lead to a determination of severe maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £1,500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This amount is calculated using our remedies guidance which suggest this amount on occasions where there have been serious failings by the landlord and where the landlord’s response to the failings exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship.

27. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord failed to comply with the timescales set out in its policy. It took 60 working days to issue its stage 1 response and 45 working days for its stage 2 response. While the landlord notified the resident of the need for additional time to respond at stage 2, there is no evidence it informed her of the stage 1 delay. This was inappropriate and not in accordance with the Code.
28. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged the delay and offered £50 compensation. While it was appropriate to recognise the inconvenience, the amount was not proportionate to a significant delay of 50 working days. Given the nature of the complaint concerned the resident’s ability to have access to hot water and heating, the landlord’s delays and failure in its complaint process had an aggravating effect as it subsequently delayed resolution to the overall complaint.
29. The landlord’s offer of compensation was disproportionate to the failings we have identified. We have made an order for the total compensation for its complaint handling to be £100 in order compensate for the impact of the failings upon the resident.

Learning

30. Our Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect and rights emphasises that landlords should take reports of staff or contractor conduct seriously and investigate allegations and share findings with residents.
31. By failing to investigate and insisting on continued engagement with the same contractor, the landlord did not act in line with these principles. This approach disregarded the resident’s legitimate concerns and missed an opportunity to provide a fair resolution to resolve the outstanding repair for several months. The landlord should look to draw learning from this case and ensure this is shared amongst its complaint handling staff.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord has demonstrated good record keeping in relation to the matter we have investigated.

Communication

33. Our Spotlight Report on repairs and maintenance (‘Repairing Trust’) highlights that landlords should adopt proactive communication practices when managing repairs. This includes providing timely updates, anticipating issues, and ensuring residents feel informed and respected throughout the process. In this case, the landlord’s failure to communicate effectively contributed to prolonged distress and undermined trust.
34. The landlord acknowledged poor interactions with its contractor in the stage 1 response, but beyond encouraging the resident to engage with the same contractor it did not seek to discuss alternative solutions.
35. The evidence shows gaps in the landlord’s communication with the resident about the repair. The prolonged periods of no communication on the landlord’s part left the issue unresolved and contributed to frustration and dissatisfaction. The landlord should seek to understand why its service levels were ineffective in its handling of this case and look to draw lessons to improve its service offer going forward.