Notting Hill Genesis (202509674)

Decision
Case ID	202509674
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	15 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in flat within a wider residential block. They are a leaseholder through a shared ownership scheme. The developer who built the building is the superior landlord. There is a known issue with the windows in the building which affects the locking function. The landlord previously repaired windows in the resident’s property in 2020 and 2021.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of a repair to a window in the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a repair to a window in the property.
2. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its complaints handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of a repair to a window in the property:

The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns around the health and safety risks associated with the disrepair.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a timely or detailed explanation of why it felt the resident was responsible for the repair.

The landlord’s complaints handling:

The landlord acknowledged its shortcomings and apologised for the delays to its complaint responses that the resident experienced.

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	Inspection order The landlord must arrange for an inspection to occur to the windows in the property. This inspection is to determine: What the fault/ defect is. If the windows have been installed adequately. Whether the defect is covered by the warranty. Whether there is a category one or 2 hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Who is responsible for the repair under the lease and head lease. If the lock function is not working on any of the windows then the landlord is to consider temporary fixes to make the window safe. The landlord is to outline the findings from this inspection in a report. It must provide copies of the report to the resident and to us.	No later than 12 February 2026
2	Considering the repair The landlord is to contact the superior landlord to discuss who is responsible for the window repairs. The landlord is to consider: The findings from the window inspection. The content of the lease. If the windows, or their installation, are covered by warranty or insurance policies. The landlord is to summarise its position in writing and share this with the resident. If the landlord determines that it, or the superior landlord, is responsible for the repair it is to outline next steps with the resident.	No later than 09 April 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: The £150 previously offered to address the landlord’s poor communication. The £100 previously offered to address the resident’s increased heating costs. The £100 previously offered to address the costs associated with the resident hiring an independent contractor. £50 to address the distress associated with the landlord’s lack of a timely and adequate explanation of its assessment of the lease. £150 to address the distress the resident experienced from the landlord’s failure to address their health and safety concerns. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 12 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Once the landlord has made a firm decision around responsibility for the windows it should inform all leaseholders in the building of its stance going forward.
The landlord should consider contacting the NHBC to see if the window faults can be dealt with under the property’s NHBC policy. The landlord should inform the resident of its decision once made.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. They said: They had been experiencing issues with the property’s windows since they moved in. The windows were not airtight, and this meant the locking mechanisms failed. The locking mechanism had broken on the window in their children’s bedroom. They felt this presented a health and safety issue as their young children could open the window. The window issues were causing the children’s bedroom to be cold. Their housing officer had ignored multiple emails and telephone calls about the window. The matter was also raised with management, but their communications still went unanswered. Engineers working for the superior landlord had fixed the window.
26 February 2025	The landlord sent its stage one response, it said: It apologised for the lack of support and communication the resident had received from their housing officer and said this had been raised with the housing officer and their line manager to ensure steps were put in place to prevent similar delays from re-occurring. It said there appeared to be an issue with the materials used when the windows were installed. The resident purchased the property in 201. At this point the windows became their responsibility. It upheld the resident’s complaint due to its lack of communication. It offered the resident £150 in compensation to reflect its failure to adequately respond to them.
28 February 2025	The resident escalated their complaint as they felt the compensation offered was insufficient when considering the health and safety risks and the costs they had incurred. This included £100 for a private engineer to inspect the windows, and increased heating costs.
19 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: It was pleased that repairs had been completed to the window in the children’s bedroom. After learning of the additional costs the resident had incurred, it offered additional compensation. This included £100 to reflect the increased heating costs, and £100 for the cost of hiring a private engineer. It felt the £150 previously offered was appropriate for its communication failings. It acknowledged there had been complaint handling delays, and it apologised.
25 June 2025	The resident brought their complaint to us. They felt their complaint had not been fully resolved as: They felt the landlord had not acted appropriately after they had highlighted the risks associated with the windows not locking. They felt the compensation offered was too low. They said £1000 in compensation would be a more appropriate figure.

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 a repair to a window in the property.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident’s lease states that the resident is responsible for keeping the property in good repair and condition. The lease defines the property as including windows, window frames, and fittings located within internal areas of the property.
Both parties have said there is a known fault with the windows installed within the building, and the landlord has previously repaired the windows in the resident’s property. In its stage one response the landlord said the fault appeared to be linked to materials the developer used when the windows were installed. During our investigation, the landlord said it now believes the issue relates to the internal mechanism of the window handle.
The resident purchased the lease in October 2016 when the property was newly built. As the property was a new build, we asked the landlord if the windows were under warranties. The landlord has provided the property’s National House Building Council (NHBC) policy which notes the property is insured until 8 June 2027. As there is a known fault with the windows and there may be defect with how the windows were installed we have recommended that the landlord to consider contacting the NHBC to see if this matter could be dealt with under the NHBC policy. The landlord should inform the resident of its decision once made.
On 2 July 2024 the resident reported via the online repair system that the window in their children’s bedroom was not locking. The resident also emailed their housing officer and provided the name of an employee who had previously dealt with the windows. This employee offered to speak with the housing officer about the repair.
On 12 September 2024 the resident chased the landlord for an update. They reported that their child had managed to open the window despite it being in the locked position, thus creating a serious health and safety risk. The resident highlighted a potential hazard under the HHSRS. After learning of this the landlord should have addressed the health and safety risk and considered how this could be made safe.
The resident continued to raise concerns about the safety of their children. This was understandable given the property is on the second floor and the window was in the children’s bedroom. Despite these concerns, the landlord has not provided evidence that it addressed the risks, took steps to mitigate them, or explained to the resident how they could reduce the risks. This was a shortcoming.
The resident chased the landlord via email and over the phone on 18 September 2024. The resident said during this call they were told the matter had been raised with their housing officer’s supervisor. Following this the resident chased the landlord 3 further times, but they did not receive a response.
As the landlord had not responded, the resident escalated the issue to the superior landlord. On 21 October 2024, the superior landlord told the landlord that the matter was a serious health and safety risk. It warned that if the landlord did not contact the resident, it would repair the window and recharge the landlord. Emails between the two landlords show disagreement about responsibility for the repair. The records do not show that the landlord communicated with the resident.
The landlord told us that before 2024 it had been repairing windows in the building. In 2024, it began reviewing leases to determine whether it or residents were responsible for window repairs. It remains unclear what determinations the landlord made in regard to the lease issue. The landlord also said the housing officer was off sick for 2 weeks in September 2024, which contributed to delays.
The housing officer’s sickness absence may have affected their workload. However, the repair was reported in July 2024, so the matter should have been addressed before September. Additionally, we expect landlords to manage staff absence and reassign work where necessary. As other staff had sight of the resident’s emails the housing officer’s absence should not have resulted in unanswered enquiries.
It was reasonable for the landlord to decide to review its obligations under the lease. However, it was inappropriate that it failed to be open with the resident about this work. As the landlord had previously repaired the window, the resident would not have assumed that the landlord was reassessing its responsibilities. Therefore, the lack of communication likely caused the resident to feel their concerns were being ignored.
Despite the uncertainty about the lease, the landlord’s lack of action was unreasonable. The best course of action would have been to inspect the window to assess health and safety risks, and consider short-term measures to make it safe. At this point it could then explain its position on the lease to the resident. This would have ensured the resident was fully informed and able to seek legal advice or arrange a repair.
In its complaint responses, the landlord said it considered the resident responsible for window repairs. It did not explain how it reached this decision. This was poor communication, and likely caused confusion given the landlord had previously repaired windows in the property.
The resident has told us that the window handle is now stuck in a closed position and it cannot open, and they want the landlord to repair the window. As such, the dispute around responsibility for the windows is on-going.
The lease is unclear on this specific issue. Under the lease, the resident is responsible for internal parts of the window, such as the locking mechanism. However, the landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that there are issues with how the windows were originally fitted. This suggests the landlord or superior landlord may be responsible if the fitting impacts the internal mechanism. We have ordered the landlord to carry out a detailed inspection of the windows to identify the cause of the issues. The landlord should then discuss the matter with the superior landlord to determine responsibility if it has not already determined it is responsible for the issue. We recommend that the landlord inform all leaseholders in the block once this decision is made.
The resident repeatedly raised concerns about the safety of their children as their child was old enough to be able to reach the window. Despite the resident highlighting this, the landlord has not provided evidence to suggest it addressed the resident’s concerns, took steps to mitigate the risks, or explained how the resident could mitigate the risks. This was a failing, and the landlord did not address this in its complaint responses.
In its complaint responses the landlord apologised for its lack of communication and offered the resident £150 in compensation. It also offered the resident compensation for their out-of-pocket expenses. This was appropriate. However, we consider that the landlord’s offer of redress did not go far enough as it did not address the resident’s health and safety concerns, or its failure to communicate with the resident about its assessment of the lease. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of:
1. £50 for the distress associated with its lack of action around the health and safety risks.
2. £150 for the distress associated with the landlord’s lack of a timely and adequate explanation of its assessment of the lease.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its timeframes for responding to complaints. It will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of that acknowledgement. If the resident requests escalation to stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge the request within 5 working days and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of that acknowledgement. If the landlord anticipates its responses may be delayed it can request a 10 working day extension at stage one, and a 20 day extension at stage 2.
The resident submitted a complaint on 30 January 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 February 2025, which was 11 working days later and not in line with its policy. However, the landlord issued its stage 1 response within the required timescale.
The resident escalated the complaint on 18 February 2025. The landlord took 37 working days to acknowledge the escalation. On 21 May 2025, the landlord requested a 20-working-day extension for its stage 2 response and provided the response within that extended timeframe.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the delays and explained these were due to a high volume of complaints following the implementation of a new system. The landlord apologised, which was reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

The resident’s complaint highlighted shortcomings in the landlord’s responses to communications from the resident, and the lack of contingency arrangements during the housing officer’s sickness absence.