Notting Hill Genesis (202508707)

Background

1. The resident reported long‑term rainwater exposure had saturated brickwork over many years, which she says has contributed to persistent damp and mould inside the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not act within its expected timescales, keep proper records, or progress essential repairs, resulting in the resident living with unresolved damp and mould for an extended period.
6. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales.

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 asked us to consider the impact on her health. She explained that she experienced repeated chest infections and was undergoing cancer treatment during this period. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident stated that defective gutters on the neighbouring property caused the damp and mould. The neighbouring building is not owned by the landlord and consists of leasehold flats. In this situation, we expect the landlord to address damp and mould within its property and take reasonable steps within its power regarding any external causes. This includes liaising with any other involved parties and working with them to ensure matters are progressed.
9. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises and building. This includes the drains, gutters and external pipes.
10. In May 2024 the resident reported severe damp and said the side wall became saturated during rainfall. The landlord appropriately arranged an inspection that month. It completed follow‑on works in June 2024, including mould removal, drying, damp proofing, filling, sanding, priming, painting, and cleaning. Completing these works within one month was a reasonable timeframe given their nature and extent.
11. Despite these works, the resident reported ongoing damp and mould in July 2024, including peeling paint in the bathroom. A further inspection identified:
    1. Damp affecting the kitchen, bathroom, WC, and bedroom.
    2. Rotting kitchen floor and worksurface.
    3. Suspected water pooling beneath the property and drain flies.
    4. Both the landlord’s and the neighbouring property’s damaged gutters were likely to have caused the water penetration.
12. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it has a zero‑tolerance approach. It also aims to identify and address the root cause of damp and mould. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord re‑inspected the property.
13. The landlord arranged for its contractors to attend regarding the suspected pooling beneath the property. However they were unable to attend which resulted in further delays and the landlord sourcing a separate contractor on 13 September 2024. This contractor inspected the property on 18 September 2024 and advised that they would need to cut an access hole in the communal hallway to further investigate if there was pooling beneath.
14. The evidence confirms that the resident did not want the contractor to cut an access hole for health and safety reasons and requested that this be done when contractors were completing a repair to the subfloor.
15. The landlord completed the subfloor repair and replaced the kitchen vinyl. However it is unclear whether the landlord completed the necessary access works. The lack of clear documentation makes it difficult to confirm whether the landlord investigated or resolved the issue. The lack of clarity is unreasonable because the landlord should keep accurate records of the steps taken.
16. Between June and September 2024, the landlord corresponded with the neighbouring managing agent and internally regarding scaffolding permission. It is unclear from the records whether the landlord granted consent or whether it considered interim measures. This lack of documentation is unreasonable given the ongoing damp issues.
17. There is also no evidence confirming whether the landlord erected the scaffolding. Given that the landlord’s own gutters were reported as damaged in the July 2024 inspection, it would have been appropriate for it to progress repairs within its own control regardless of the neighbour’s position.
18. A repair order was raised in February 2025 to repair the subfloor, replace the vinyl, treat mould, and repaint affected areas. The landlord also advised the resident about ventilation requirements and repaired leaking pipework in the alley. The landlord reported that the works were completed on 21 March 2025, except for the damp treatment due to access issues.
19. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of progress between March and June 2025. The evidence confirms that the landlord arranged a further inspection in May 2025.
    1. The engineer found:
       1. Dampness in the bathroom ceiling, possibly due to poor ventilation or a leak from the flat above.
       2. Brick pointing externally appeared in good condition.
       3. Waste pipes in the alleyway were in poor condition but not leaking.
    2. The engineer recommended:
       1. Inspecting the flat above for leaks.
       2. Erecting scaffolding to inspect the external wall and stack pipe.
20. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated that it was unable to confirm the status of repairs. This is unreasonable, as the landlord should have maintained accurate and up‑to‑date records of repair activity.
21. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the external wall and stack pipe after May 2025. In October 2025 it confirmed that both the resident’s and the upstairs neighbour’s properties had been inspected and that no internal leaks were found. However, the records do not show when this appointment took place.
22. It is important that the landlord keeps clear and reliable records of inspections, as this demonstrates that reports of leaks were acted on promptly and allows the landlord to evidence that it met its repair obligations. The absence of such information in this case makes it difficult to assess whether the landlord responded appropriately or within a reasonable timeframe.
23. After the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the landlord surveyed the resident’s bathroom in December 2025 and agreed to replace it. The works were completed in January 2026, and the resident confirmed that the bathroom issues had been resolved.
24. While it is positive that the landlord replaced the bathroom, it took over a year for the landlord to resolve the resident’s repeated issues in the bathroom. This was unreasonable and outside the landlord’s expected timeframes.
25. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was seeking a permanent solution for the damp and mould issues. However, the resident states she is still experiencing damp and mould in her bedroom.
26. While part of the issue relates to the neighbour’s guttering, which the landlord does not own, the landlord did not demonstrate that it took steps to repair its own gutters or erected scaffolding. This has resulted in continued delays and frustration for the resident and impacted the resident’s property.
27. During a recent conversation with the resident she explained that her metal windows and the gate are now being affected by the rainwater from the gutters. As this was not considered at part of the landlord’s internal complaint process, we have not discussed this in this report. We recommend that the landlord contact the resident to discuss these matters.

Kitchen flooring

28. On 20 June 2024, the resident reported low water pressure and intermittent water flow. Although the water supplier repaired an external leak, the resident suspected an internal leak linked to the wider water ingress and damp issues previously reported. The landlord’s operatives found no internal leak but identified damage to the kitchen floor. The landlord arranged for the flooring to be replaced; however, the work remained outstanding for six months, which was outside its expected timeframes.

Summary

29. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider compensation in its stage 1 response. However the resident continued to experience damp and mould after this point, and the landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken effective or timely action to resolve the underlying causes or prevent the issues from recurring.
30. The landlord’s handling of the repairs demonstrates that it did not fulfil its tenancy agreement obligations to maintain the structure and exterior of the property in good repair.
31. In addition, the kitchen flooring identified as damaged in June 2024remained outstanding for over six months, which further added to the inconvenience and impact on the resident. For these reasons, the amount offered by the landlord does not reflect the extent of the detriment experienced. We therefore find maladministration and order the landlord to pay the resident an additional £350 compensation.

32. The resident raised a complaint on 27 February 2025, which was acknowledged within 5 days. The landlord was delayed by 7 days and provided its stage 1 response on 27 March 2025. This was not in line with its complaints policy. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectation regarding timescales, we can’t see this was done.
33. The resident escalated her complaint on 23 April 2025, which was acknowledged within 5 days. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. However the landlord was unable provide a response in line with its timescales. On 2 June 2025 it explained that it required an extension and would provide a response by 30 June 2025.
34. The landlord should have informed the resident of the need for an extension by 22 May 2025, but it did so 7 days late, which was not in line with its complaint timescales. Subsequently it provided a stage 2 response on 30 June 2025 as promised.
35. While the landlord apologised for the delays, it would have been appropriate to consider compensation for its complaint handling. However this was not done. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, we have made an order of compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. This report has noted concerns around the landlord’s record‑keeping and ensuring that all repair actions and decisions are properly documented. There is learning for the landlord to take from this investigation. In this case, key information was missing, including whether scaffolding permission was granted, whether scaffolding was erected, and when inspections took place. Better records would have supported timely action and clearer oversight of an ongoing and complex repair issue.

Communication

37. The landlord’s internal communication could have been improved in this case so that the status of repairs is clearly understood and consistently shared across teams. The landlord should consider the learning it can take from this.