Notting Hill Genesis (202340423)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bed ground floor flat. The property was transferred to the current landlord on 20 October 2023. The landlord sent the resident a copy of the tenancy agreement in December 2023. It also sent rent arrears notifications to the resident that month. The resident said the missing rent had been paid by Universal Credit (UC) to her previous landlord during the transfer period and asked the landlord to recover the payment. The tenancy ended in November 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Providing a copy of the tenancy agreement to the resident.
   2. The management of the resident’s rent account.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of providing a copy of the tenancy agreement to the resident.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
   3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Providing a copy of the tenancy agreement to the resident

4. The landlord delayed in sending the tenancy agreement to the resident. The resident repeatedly chased the landlord, which caused her inconvenience. However, the landlord acknowledged its delays, apologised, and offered compensation that reflected the impact on the resident.

Handling of the rent account

5. There were failings in the landlord’s record keeping in relation to its handling of the resident’s rent account. It did not provide us with evidence of when it returned the housing cost verification form to UC. This hindered our ability to confirm whether or not the landlord returned the forms within a reasonable timeframe, or whether it contributed to the rent not being paid to the landlord. It also provided confusing information about pausing arrears notifications, which added to the resident’s concerns.

Complaint handling

6. There were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not acknowledge either the stage 1 or 2 complaint. It delayed in responding to the stage 1 complaint. The landlord apologised for its delay and offered compensation that reflected the impact on the resident and was sufficient to put things right.

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. The resident’s property transferred to the landlord on 20 October 2023. On 15 November 2023 the resident said she had received the tenancy agreement, but her daughter’s name was spelt wrong. She asked the landlord to resolve it that day. However, the landlord did not send the corrected agreement until 6 December 2023, almost 7 weeks after the transfer. During this period, the resident chased the updated agreement. She later said in her complaint that, had the agreement been provided on time, her rent would have been paid.
8. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the delay, explaining that it resulted from the transfer of 600 tenancies, which made issuing agreements promptly difficult. It apologised and offered compensation for the impact on the resident.
9. The £200 compensation offered was appropriate and proportionate to the inconvenience and distress caused by the repeated delays. This amount falls within the range suggested in our Remedies Guidance for maladministration. Together with the learning the landlord said it would take, particularly around communication during tenancy changes, these steps were sufficient to put things right.

10. The landlord’s website confirms that it is the resident’s responsibility to pay rent to the landlord. It will send notifications to residents if an account falls into arrears. It advises residents to contact their housing officer as soon as possible so it can help resolve arrears quickly.
11. We’ve seen evidence that UC sent the landlord a housing cost verification form on 1 November 2023. Although the landlord said in its stage 2 response that it returned the form within 7 days, we’ve not seen evidence confirming when this happened. We have, however, seen evidence that the form was forwarded to the housing officer on 6 December 2023. The housing officer said the form was completed but did not confirm the date. This lack of clear records amounts to a record keeping failure. We cannot verify when the landlord returned the form to UC, or whether this contributed to rent being paid to the previous landlord.
12. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 December 2023 and said she owed rent arrears of £2265.16. The resident asked the landlord to stop sending notifications about outstanding rent. She said that UC had sent the payment to her previous landlord and it was not her error. This was a reasonable request by the resident given the circumstances. The landlord told her on 11 December 2023 that notifications were automated, but that it could pause notifications for 1 month. We’ve not seen evidence of when the landlord paused payments, and another notification was sent on 14 December 2023. However, we’ve not seen any further notices being sent after this and it is therefore likely that the landlord paused notifications after this.
13. The landlord told the resident its benefits welfare advisor could help resolve the UC issue, but it needed her consent. This was a positive and resolution focused step. However, the resident declined in her email on 9 February 2024 saying it was not her responsibility to retrieve the payment. The landlord again offered to recover the payment on her behalf, provided she gave permission. This offer went beyond its obligations, as noted earlier, the resident is ultimately responsible for paying her rent.
14. In its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for sending arrears notifications and confirmed they had been stopped. It said it would improve its service and resolve any issues within 10 working days. While this was positive, it did not specify what improvements it would make, or which issues it would address. However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had changed its processes for contacting transferred residents about tenancy changes and rent referrals, showing it had taken learning. It also said it had paused notifications for 8 weeks. Although this was positive, it differed from the earlier 1-month timeframe it had given. This likely caused confusion to the resident.
15. Under our dispute resolution principles landlords must act fairly, put things right, and learn from outcomes. In this case the landlord took reasonable steps to help the resident resolve the arrears, including offering support from its benefit welfare advisor. It also explained that it had resolved similar issues for other residents. It was appropriate for the landlord to send arrears notifications when it did not receive rent, and given they were automated. However, it later paused arrears notifications when the resident said they were causing distress, showing it had considered her circumstances and recognised that the arrears were not her fault. It also said it had taken learning from the complaint.
16. Although the landlord acknowledged some extent of inconvenience, it did not acknowledge its poor record keeping or the confusion caused by giving different timeframes for pausing notifications. It also did not offer compensation, missing an early opportunity to put things right.

What we have not investigated

17. The resident told us that the landlord contacted her again in July 2025 about rent arrears and she had left the property in November 2025. For fairness, this investigation only considers issues the resident raised with the landlord and that the landlord had the opportunity to respond to. The resident told us she received a stage 2 response to those concerns in October 2025. The resident can bring this complaint to us for investigation within 12 months of the date of the stage 2 response.

18. The landlord’s complaints policy says it must acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 2 working days. It should respond to stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timeframes, it can extend both stages with explanation.
19. The landlord did not acknowledge either the stage 1 or 2 complaints. It should have acknowledged the stage 1 complaint by 14 December 2023 and responded by 2 January 2024. However, it did not respond until 12 January 2024 which is 10 days outside its complaints policy timeframe. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 20 February 2024 which was within its complaints policy timeframe.
20. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation. The delay and the lack of acknowledgement did not have a considerable affected on its handling of the substantive issue or the resident. The compensation was sufficient to put things right for the failures we have identified and the impact on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord did not provide us with evidence of when it returned the housing cost verification form to UC. Without proper records, the landlord cannot consistently evidence its actions, investigate thoroughly or address the impact on residents.

Communication

22. The landlord was not proactive in communicating with the resident about her tenancy agreement. The landlord said in its complaint responses it would improve how it communicated with residents following tenancy changes. This is a positive step.