Notting Hill Genesis (202514083)

Decision
Case ID	202514083
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 February 2026

Background

The resident asked her landlord to rehouse her following reports of her having experienced domestic abuse. She also told the landlord that her neighbour had exploited 1 of her children.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for rehousing.
2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rehousing request.
2. Reasonable redress 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 resident’s rehousing request

The landlord took several steps in line with its allocations and lettings policy to rehouse the resident. However, it failed to show what considerations it gave to making a direct offer of accommodation or to working with other housing providers to rehouse the resident in line its policy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord failed to comply with its complaint policy but acknowledged these prior to our investigation. It apologised and offered compensation 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior person. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful, and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 March 2026
2	Direct offer and referrals The landlord must consider whether there are any direct offers or referrals it can make under its allocations and lettings policy. It must write to the resident and us by the due date with its response, including any steps it agrees to take with clear timeframes.	No later than 13 March 2026
3	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in handling the resident’s rehousing request. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 13 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £150 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for complaint handling is made on this basis.
The landlord should review its training of complaint handling staff to ensure that all service requests are recorded, monitored, and reviewed regularly, and that all staff are clear about when to accept a complaint.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 13 October 2023 and 21 February 2024	The landlord said the resident complained to it about her housing situation. The landlord said it “resolved” the complaint without it needing to escalate it to its formal complaint procedure.
11 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord about it not rehousing her. The landlord acknowledged this at stage 1 of its complaint process.
14 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said: it marked the resident’s previous complaints on 13 October 2023, and 21 February 2024 as resolved by “service recovery” it had offered housing advice on mutual exchanges and checked internally if this could be agreed and said it would continue to follow up any of these it also checked its internal vacant property (voids) list it either had to offer most properties to the local council, or it found they were unavailable due to various factors and said while the resident was registered for 5 to 8 bedroom properties these were hard to come by it had awarded the resident a Band A medical priority and had explained why it was still unable to make her a direct offer of accommodation it did not uphold the complaint as it had not found any service failures
13 May 2025	The resident escalated her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to award her a Band A priority for medical reasons. She was also unhappy at the level of support the landlord offered to rehouse her and its compliance with its domestic abuse policy. The resident referred to safeguarding risks between 2019 and 2023.
16 July 2025	The landlord issued the resident with its stage 2 complaint response and said: it acknowledged she had complained about safeguarding issues, but it could not investigate these as she had not raised them within 12 months of the matters arising it awarded the resident a Band A housing priority in September 2019, its highest priority, and last reviewed this on 1 July 2025 it changed the resident’s Band A from a safeguarding to medical categorisation following detailed information from her social worker, but this did not affect the level of priority or how it viewed her situation there were no properties with 5 or more bedrooms which was the primary reason it had not rehoused her and so there was no failure it arranged for a home visit to discuss her housing options on 18 July 2025 as it delayed responding to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaints policy it offered her £150 for complaint handling
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not rehoused her and she wants us to investigate its handling of her rehousing request. She also asked for us to investigate its compliance with its domestic abuse policy and her safeguarding. The resident wants the landlord to rehouse her. It is unclear if the resident accepted the £150 compensation the landlord offered for complaint handling.

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 the resident’s rehousing request
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

The resident told us that she had complained to the landlord about its safeguarding response as part of her rehousing request. The complaints the resident raised between 13 October 2023 and 11 March 2025 related specifically to rehousing. Her escalation referred to dissatisfaction at how the landlord handled safeguarding risks between 2019 and 2023 which was not raised before. We have not investigated the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s response to domestic abuse or safeguarding between 2019 and 2023. This is because this was not raised with the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within 12 months of matters arising.
The resident told us that the landlord’s handling of her rehousing caused her trauma and affected her mental health and the wellbeing of her family. 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.

What we have considered

Instead, we have considered the landlord’s actions in handling the resident’s request for rehousing under its policies. We have found the landlord:
1. Invited the resident to make a transfer application on 4 June 2019 after she disclosed domestic abuse and explained how she could access emergency accommodation.
2. Offered the resident rehousing advice on 13 August 2019.
3. Awarded the resident a Band A priority on 4 September 2019 after it received her transfer application on 29 August 2019.
4. Agreed to continue to check its void properties and send the resident information on a mutual exchange website on 10 November 2023.
5. Offered the resident advice on a mutual exchange on 5 March 2024.
These actions were reasonable and in line with the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had awarded her a Band A medical priority as she felt this affected her rehousing chances. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to make this award as the resident stated that 3 of her children had a disability or illness that affected their housing needs.
The resident has not disputed the landlord awarded her the highest possible priority and she accepted in her escalation request there were no alternative suitable properties via a shared housing register called LOCATA. The landlord explained to the resident that the main cause of the resident’s inability to find alternative accommodation was a lack of available and suitable properties. While this explanation was reasonable, we have found the landlord:
1. Said to the resident on 10 June 2022 it could not make a direct offer if this would lead to overcrowding or if the property it intended to offer was not adapted. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy allowed it to make direct offers on a “like-for-like” basis to the resident’s existing property, with the same number of bedrooms. As the resident’s property was not adapted the “like-for-like” policy did not rule out an offer of a property without adaptations. The policy also did not rule out offers which might have led to overcrowding. There is no evidence to show what considerations the landlord gave to making a direct offer. In these circumstances we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably.
2. Did not consider if it could work with other registered providers as part of a housing reciprocal agreement in line with its domestic abuse policy.
3. Did not consider a referral to the “Housing Moves Scheme” or reciprocal agreement with the resident’s local council in line with the council’s allocations policy. As these were steps the landlord was able to take under its own allocations and lettings policy we cannot be satisfied it acted reasonably.
Although these were failures, we cannot say that had the landlord completed these steps it would have led to the resident’s rehousing, due to the scarcity of alternative suitable properties. In the absence of evidence to show the landlord’s failures significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident we have found service failure.
We have made an order for the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience these failures caused the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance which allows for compensation of this amount where a landlord has not acknowledged its failures, but where they may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. As we do not know the availability of alternative suitable properties, we cannot fairly order the landlord to rehouse the resident. We have made an order for the landlord to consider any direct offers and referrals relevant to the resident’s circumstances. These orders are in line with our dispute resolution principles, to act fairly, and to put things right, where we have found failures.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in our Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with our Code.
The landlord acknowledged the resident complained on 13 October 2023, 10 November 2023, and again on 21 February 2024. It told us it resolved each of these complaints by “service recovery” and so it did not escalate them to a formal complaint. While our Code requires landlords to recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint, we note that the resident expressed dissatisfaction in November 2023 about the landlord’s handling of a rehousing request. This was less than a month from when the landlord said she had previously complained. The landlord ought to have opened a stage 1 complaint at this point as the resident expressed dissatisfaction with its response to her service request.
While the landlord said it did not open a complaint in response to the resident’s complaint on 21 February 2024 it has not provided us with details of the complaint or resolution. We cannot be satisfied that it told the resident how it was dealing with this. This was also a record keeping failure as our Code requires landlords to record, monitor, and review regularly all service requests.
The resident complained on 11 March 2025, and the landlord acknowledged it in line with its policy. However, it did not issue a stage 1 complaint response until 14 April 2024, 24 working days later. This was not reasonable as it was not in line with its complaints policy.
While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on the same day it took it 45 working days to respond (on 16 July 2025), against a target of 20 working days. The landlord requested an extension to respond at both stages of its complaint process. Its request at stage 2 of the complaint process was not in line with its complaint policy as the resident had not agreed the extension.
The landlord apologised for its complaint handling and offered £150 for the likely distress and inconvenience. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles, act fairly and put things right. The compensation offered was in line with our remedies guidance where there are failures that adversely affected a resident. As the landlord’s actions were reasonable to remedy the failures, we have found reasonable redress. We have made a recommendation because the landlord missed an opportunity to learn from its complaint handling failure.

Learning

Our learning from severe maladministration report (May 2024) offers key learning on the importance of maintaining records, logging complaints, and key information.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were lacking in places. It failed to provide us with a copy of the complaint or service request on 21 February 2024.

Communication

The landlord’s communication was satisfactory except for its communication around direct offers which could have been clearer.