Notting Hill Genesis (202414839)

Background

1. The resident has lived at the property for over 20 years. Her original landlord was merged with her current landlord in 2018. She said she was unhappy that her property was not included in planned cyclical works, including painting and window repairs, after being told it would be. She also asked the landlord to repair the fence, gate and decking in her rear garden. She felt communication had been poor from the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. the resident’s reports of delays to cyclical works in the property
   2. the resident’s reports of repair issues in the rear garden
   3. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of delays to cyclical works
   2. reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the rear garden
   3. reasonable redress in its complaint handling

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of delays to cyclical works in the property

4. The landlord incorrectly raised expectations around the property being included in cyclical works. It didn’t acknowledge its miscommunication until its stage 2 response despite being aware of the failing. It failed to provide updates on its ongoing cyclical works programme or surveys of the property as it had promised at stage 2.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in the rear garden

5. The landlord failed to complete repairs to the fence within its timeframes. It apologised to the resident and compensated her appropriately. It set out clear explanations for why it would not repair the gate or decking, citing its policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord missed key policy timelines in its responses. It failed to ask for extensions or provide updates on the status of the complaint. It offered reasonable compensation for its failings across both stages of the complaint.

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

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.

7. While investigating the complaint, the landlord acknowledged a member of staff had implied in an email on 12 May 2021 the property would be included in its 2022 to 2023 cyclical works programme. This set an expectation that works would take place, even though the email also stated the property would need to be surveyed to identify if any works were needed.
8. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it acknowledged its member of staff’s statement but said the outcome of the survey found works were not required. It gave a clear explanation for the reason the property was not included in cyclical works. However, it was unreasonable that it did not acknowledge the expectation it had already created. The resident was not given a response to her main complaint about its undelivered promise.
9. The resident mentioned the comments of the member of staff in her escalation request, showing that they formed the basis for her complaint. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that it had unreasonably raised the resident’s expectations of her home being included in its cyclical works programme. It said its staff should not have told her that works would take place between 2022 to 2023 before it had a chance to complete a survey of the property. It was appropriate that it accepted fault and showed it was learning.
10. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by raising her expectations through miscommunication. This was an appropriate level of compensation for its initial failings and showed that it recognised the frustration she had faced as a result.
11. The landlord set out steps it would take for exploring future cyclical works in the property. It told the resident that her property was due to be surveyed again in 2025. It said it would speak to its Planned Assets Team to see if her home could be included in its 3 year programme of cyclical works. This was positive and showed that it was seeking to offer some ongoing resolution to her concern at the time of the complaint.
12. However, the resident told us on 6 January 2026 that she had still not been given any updates on whether her property had been included in the programme. Evidence provided by the landlord shows it did not update her on it progress until 22 January 2026, following the start of our investigation. Given it had been a year since the stage 2 response was given, it was unreasonable the landlord had not updated her. It should have kept her updated on the progress of its survey. She has faced ongoing inconvenience as she was uncertain of whether her property would be included in any upcoming cyclical works. This lack of follow‑up also showed it had not embedded the learning identified at stage 2. A further award of compensation is appropriate to reflect the uncertainty caused by its ongoing miscommunication around cyclical works.

13. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy says it is responsible for unsafe garden fences but that decking in private gardens are the responsibility of the tenant. It says it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days from the date of the repair unless it is more complex. If it needs more time to complete the repair, it will tell the tenant what timeframe it needs.
14. Following the resident’s reports of repair issues in the rear garden, the landlord conducted a survey of the property on 4 June 2024. It found that there were broken fence panels following a storm which had left the boundary unstable. It also said the access gate was broken and the decking had rotted. The detailed survey report shows the landlord was aware of the specific repair issues from this date. The resident raised her complaint 4 days after the survey.
15. Following the complaint, the landlord attempted to identify its responsibility for the boundaries of the property on 16 August 2024. It ordered a further inspection of the rear garden on the same day. However, no further works in the garden were recorded until it gave its stage 1 response. Given that it had known about the repair issues since 4 June 2024, this was unreasonable. It failed to complete repairs within its timeframes and did not communicate what steps it was taking to the resident, as its policy says it will. She faced distress and inconvenience as it failed to show it had properly considered her reports.
16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the repair issues remained outstanding. It referred to its obligations under its policy, along with her tenancy agreement, to identify who was responsible for each item. This was reasonable and showed that it had considered each issue separately.
17. The landlord acknowledged it was responsible for the repair of the fence which was in line with its policy. It also offered to investigate the integrity of the fence on both sides of the garden as it could not prove that the resident’s neighbour was responsible for one side. This was fair and showed that it wanted to help as much as it could since the fence had been badly damaged in a storm. It acknowledged that it had been delayed in repairing the fence and offered £150 compensation, which was appropriate. It apologised for its failings and the inconvenience it caused her.
18. The fence repairs were completed on 5 September 2024, 67 working days after the landlord surveyed the damage. Its compensation and apology sufficiently addressed the delay.
19. The landlord cited its policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement to explain it did not consider itself responsible for the repair of the decking or gate. It noted that the resident had been gifted the deck by her previous landlord and such gifts were the responsibility of residents to maintain. It was reasonable for it to take this position based on its policy and the wording of the tenancy agreement. While it acknowledged this would be disappointing to her, it gave clear and reasoned explanations. It reiterated its position in its stage 2 response which was appropriate and showed a consistent approach to the complaint.

20. The landlord’s complaint handling policy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’.)
21. As can be seen from above:
    1. the landlord responded at stage 1 within 54 working days (10 June 2024 to 23 August 2024) which was not in line with the 10 days allowed in the Code
    2. the landlord responded at stage 2 within 92 working days (23 August 2024 to 3 January 2025) which was not in line with the 20 days allowed in the Code
22. In the landlord’s Complaints Policy, it says it will agree any extensions to its response deadlines with the resident. It says it uses insights from complaints to improve and make positive changes to its services.
23. We notified the landlord after the resident told us that it had failed to respond to her initial complaint. It acknowledged its failing in its stage 1 response and apologised to the resident, offering £125 compensation for the delay at stage 1. The compensation offered was appropriate for the inconvenience caused by the delay.
24. However, the resident then faced a further delay while waiting for the landlord’s stage 2 response. It was not appropriate that it had been given an opportunity to show it had taken learning and improve from its poor timekeeping at stage 1 but failed to do so. The landlord did not ask the resident for an extension to its response deadline at any point in the complaints process as its policy says it will.
25. The resident was put to time and trouble as she had to chase it for a response at both stages. The landlord recorded receiving an email from her on 7 October 2024 chasing a response to her escalation request but did not take steps to respond to her or speed up its stage 2 response. It did not show it was taking learning from its earlier failings. She faced ongoing inconvenience as a result of its poor complaint handling.
26. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered compensation of £250 for its complaint handling. This was an appropriate amount of compensation for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.

Learning

27. The landlord applied its policies well in some areas but poorly in others. It could take the opportunity to review its repairs and complaints processes to ensure all relevant policies are understood by staff and applied correctly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s record keeping was inconsistent. It was able to efficiently recover past emails related to cyclical works but struggled to manage emails related to the complaint. It could review the effectiveness of its record keeping.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication was poor. It could reflect on how more regular communication would have improved the resident’s experience overall.