Notting Hill Genesis (202423262)

Decision
Case ID	202423262
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	15 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lived in a 3-bedroom house with her non-dependent children. The tenancy started in 2002. The resident told us that she had a physical disability and one of her children had special needs. The landlord told us it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the household. The resident complained to the landlord about the length of time it was taking for it to fully resolve issues with the hot water and heating supply.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the hot water and heating supply.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the hot water and heating supply.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the hot water and heating supply.

4. The landlord’s contractor carried out multiple repairs and offered reasonable compensation for missed appointments. The landlord demonstrated that it considered the merits of replacing the boiler, rather than keep repairing it. But it missed several opportunities later, to reconsider its position, after the resident reported continued issues. The landlord has not fully addressed the prolonged distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, from repeated breakdowns and unresolved issues with the hot water supply. And has failed to demonstrate any meaningful learning.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

5. The landlord failed to follow its complaints policy, with delays, poor escalation practices, and unresolved issues adversely impacting the resident. The landlord identified some of its failings and made an offer of compensation. But its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings we identified.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 12 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £900 made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, by the landlord’s failure to complete a lasting repair to the hot water and heating system between September 2023 and the date of this report. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by failings we identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.   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 in relation to complaint handling.	No later than 12 January 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by someone suitably qualified to complete an inspection of the type needed. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that its suitably qualified person: Inspects the hot water and heating system. And produces a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of intermittent issues with the hot water supply. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the issue. If the landlord is not minded to replace the boiler, it must explain what will be different about the next repair it carries out, given the measures it has already taken. The likely timescales to commence and complete works. How the landlord will satisfy itself that the issue has been fully resolved.	No later than 12 January 2026
4	General Order The landlord must complete a learning review of this case. The landlord must present the findings from this review to its senior leadership team. And then send the resident and us, a summary of the review and explain any subsequent action it intends to take.	No later than 26 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should consider the resident’s request for the reimbursement of expenses incurred, in providing its engineers with parking permits, when carrying out past repairs.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 June 2024	The resident raised the stage 1 complaint. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the length of time it was taking the landlord to fully resolve an issue with the hot water supply. She explained this had been an ongoing issue for over a year and that her family was unable to use the shower. She also raised dissatisfaction concerning roofing repairs.
13 June 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident, expressly stating it was writing to provide an update on her complaint. It set out the steps its contractor had taken to address the resident’s reports about issues with the hot water. It apologised for delays completing works and for a missed appointment, said its contractor would put measures in place to prevent similar issues in the future, and offered £80 compensation (£30 for the missed appointment and £50 for inconvenience caused).
26 June 2024	The resident raised another complaint. She said the landlord should explain why it was taking so long to resolve the issues with the hot water supply and why her complaint had been overlooked.
28 June 2024	The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response. It addressed the residents complaint about the roofing repairs and its complaint handling. It did not address the resident’s dissatisfaction concerning ongoing issues with the hot water supply. It acknowledged that it should have recognised that the resident’s communication from 7 June 2024 was a complaint, for which it apologised. It offered £50 compensation for delays logging the stage 1 complaint and delays associated with the roofing repair.
28 June 2024	The resident told the landlord she was dissatisfied with its response, requested a more detailed reply, and asked for more compensation.
8 July 2024	The landlord emailed the resident, after reviewing the stage 1 complaint response and compensation. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £200, which comprised £150 for delays completing the roofing repair and £50 compensation for complaint handling failure. It said it had logged a complaint with its contractor in relation to delays resolving the issues with the hot water. And clarified that it had asked its contractor to make an appointment to address the issues with the boiler.
15 August 2024	The resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage 2. The resident: Said she was unhappy with the progress the landlord was making to resolve the issues with the hot water. Maintained that it ought to have escalated the complaint to stage 2 after she declined its offer of compensation. Said it should reimburse her for any parking fees she had incurred, on behalf of its heating engineers, when accommodating repair appointments. And provide an explanation for why: Multiple engineers had failed to diagnose the fault, which its contractor’s supervisor had identified in a single visit. Why it had not changed the boiler.
14 November 2024	The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord: Conceded that its heating supervisor had more experience, enabling the fault to be diagnosed, which its contractor’s more junior engineers had missed. Said it had limited influence in relation to the knowledge base of its contractor’s engineers that attended. But would feed back the resident’s dissatisfaction to its contractor. Apologised for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the situation. Increased its offer of compensation for complaint handling failures to £300 (£50 for not logging the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a stage 1 complaint. And £250 for providing an inadequate response about the heating and hot water at stage 1).
30 January 2025	The resident asked us to investigate as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 complaint outcome. She said it should fully repair the boiler or replace it. And compensate for her the continued inconvenience and distress.
28 November 2025	The resident said the landlord had intimated it was willing to increase its offer of compensation to resolve the matter. But said by this time, the case was already being progressed by us. She said the issue with the hot water was never resolved and had in fact worsened, causing ongoing distress and inconvenience.

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 repairs to the hot water and heating supply.
Finding	Maladministration

6. The first formal report of issues with the hot water supply we have seen, was in September 2023. Although the resident states the problems began in July 2023. The landlord was obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement, to maintain any installations for heating and hot water in good repair throughout the tenancy.
7. The landlord’s contractor attended the property multiple times between September 2023 and August 2024 in response to the resident’s reports about intermittent hot water. The landlord’s contractor diagnosed what it thought was the cause of the fault on each occasion, completed repairs, and left the system operational before closing jobs. However, issues with the hot water supply would always reoccur.
8. It is not in dispute that there were some unavoidable delays in the landlord’s contractor completing some of the repairs, due to waiting for parts. We note that there were also some avoidable delays completing repairs, due to poor communication by its contractor, some missed appointments, and due to incorrect parts being ordered. This meant that some repairs were not completed within the 20-working day timescale, set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
9. The landlord paid £80 compensation in relation to a missed appointment in April 2024, and resultant delays and inconvenience during April 2024 and May 2024. Separately, the landlord’s contractor paid £160 compensation for previous appointments missed in October 2023 and January 2024, after the resident complained directly to its contractor. This compensation was consistent with the compensation set out in the landlord’s compensation policy. We will consider whether it was appropriate for the landlord’s contractor to provide redress outside of the landlord’s own complaints process, within our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
10. The landlord’s decision to initially repair the boiler rather than replace it was reasonable given its age (under 10 years). The law requires landlords to keep boilers in an adequate state of repair, so that its properties property remain safe and habitable. There is no set rule on the number of years a boiler must last. But the landlord would be expected to consider replacing the boiler, if repairs were not possible, a repair would be cost-ineffective, or its attempts to repair the boiler had repeatedly failed.
11. It was positive that the landlord requested its contractor to inspect the boiler in July 2024, after the resident reported ongoing issues with hot water, and give an opinion on whether the boiler ought to be replaced. Its contractor’s supervisor suggested it might consider replacing the boiler given the resident’s complaints and the cost of keep replacing parts. But ultimately concluded the boiler could be repaired. The landlord decided not to replace the boiler, on the basis that repairs were still viable. It acted fairly on 13 August 2024 by telling the resident that it would revisit this decision if issues with the hot water persisted.
12. The landlord failed to raise another inspection or consider the merits of changing the boiler (as it said it would), after the resident reported ongoing issues with the hot water supply on 15 August 2024, following the latest repair. This was unreasonable and left the matter unresolved.
13. The landlord acknowledged in the stage 2 complaint response on 14 November 2024 that its contractor’s supervisor was able to diagnose the fault on the boiler due to having greater expertise than previous engineers. While the landlord admitted this difference in expertise, it stated it had limited control over its contractor’s knowledge base. The landlord did not acknowledge its own duty to ensure contractor competency, instead committing only to feedback the resident’s dissatisfaction to its contractor. This in itself, was unlikely to fully resolve the resident’s underlying concern about reliable standards and demonstrates a lack of learning by the landlord.
14. It stated that it was committed to resolving the issue but did not say how it was going to do this or by when. We will consider this later within our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling. However, we note that the landlord did inspect the boiler the day after it issued the stage 2 complaint response, when further faults were identified. The landlord’s records indicate that it decided to carry out one more repair but indicated it would consider upgrading the boiler if this did not resolve the issue.
15. The repairs were completed in a timely manner on 19 November 2024 and the hot water and heating was left in working order. However, the system failed again 10 days later. Subsequent faults were reported through January 2025, which we understand were also attended to. There is no evidence that the landlord reconsidered replacing the boiler. The resident has continued to experience issues with intermittent hot water.
16. Overall, the landlord was generally responsive to the resident’s reports about intermittent hot water supply and it did carry out multiple repairs. But it could have reasonably considered replacing the boiler, after its repeated attempts to achieve a lasting repair failed. We cannot verify the landlord was aware of any vulnerabilities within the household prior to issue of the stage 2 complaint response. But we recognise that the situation was likely to have been more challenging for the resident because of this.
17. Ultimately, the landlord has not delivered a lasting repair, has not fully addressed the prolonged distress and inconvenience caused by repeated breakdowns and unresolved issues with the hot water supply, and has not demonstrated any tangible learning. This is contrary to our Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair, put things right, and learn from complaint outcomes. Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the hot water and heating supply.
18. To remedy the complaint, the landlord is ordered to pay £600 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience to the resident, by its failure to complete a last repair to the boiler between September 2023 and the date of this report. The landlord may reduce this to £520, if it has already paid the £80 compensation it previously offered. This compensation reflects the disruption to the resident and her family over this period, from being unable to fill a bath or use the shower, without the hot water running cold. While we recognise the resident told us that the problem had been ongoing since July 2023, we were unable to evidence this.
19. This compensation is in line with our remedies guidance (published on our website), where there have been failures, which have had a significant impact on a resident, over a prolonged period. And is in addition to the £160 compensation, paid separately by its contractor, for missed appointments.
20. We have also ordered the landlord to arrange an inspection of the hot water and heating system and explain how it will ensure that it delivers a lasting and effective repair.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling.
Finding	Maladministration

21. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. The landlord had published complaints policy, which complied with the terms of the Code in respect of response timescales for stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
22. This means the landlord had to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and issue the stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It had to acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and issue the stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord was permitted to extend these response timescales by a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2, provided it explained to the resident why this was necessary.
23. The resident raised several complaints directly to the landlord’s contractor during the timeframe of the complaint, related to missed appointments and the conduct of engineers. The contractor acknowledged its failings, issued apologies, and provided compensation. The resident told us that she directed her complaints to the landlord’s contractor because a member of the landlord’s staff had suggested this as an alternative resolution route. While this cannot be verified, such advice would be inconsistent with the Code and the landlord’s own complaints policy. Its contractor should have directed the resident to log a formal complaint with the landlord rather than handling the matter under its own complaint policy.
24. The resident raised the stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 7 June 2024. The landlord did not send a complaint acknowledgement. It issued a complaint update on 13 June 2024, in which it apologised and offered compensation for its contractor missing an appointment and resultant delays completing repairs to the hot water system. However, we cannot conclude this was the stage 1 complaint response, as the landlord’s communication did not clearly state this was the stage 1 complaint response. And it did not explain how the matter might be further escalated.
25. The resident was put to avoidable time and trouble on 25 June 2024 chasing the landlord for the formal stage 1 complaint outcome. And resulted in the resident raising a further complaint to the landlord, the next day.
26. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 June 2024 accepting responsibility for overlooking the original complaint. It committed to rectify its oversight by logging a stage 1 complaint and providing redress within the stage 1 complaint response. This was fair.
27. The landlord issued the formal stage 1 complaint acknowledgement on 26 June 2024 and provided the stage 1 response on 28 June 2024, which was within the expected timescale. However, the Code requires landlords to address all points raised and provide clear reasons for decisions. While the subject heading referenced part ofthe complaint was about hot water, the landlord did not address this issue within its assessment and findings. This omission was inappropriate and left this part of the complaint unresolved. The landlord made a reasonable offer of compensation (£50) for overlooking the original complaint.
28. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the stage 1 complaint response on 8 July 2024, citing lack of detail and inadequate compensation. The landlord reviewed the compensation, raised a complaint with its contractor, and requested its attendance to resolve the hot water issue. However, it failed to log a stage 2 complaint in line with the Code and its own policy, which was inappropriate.
29. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 15 August 2024. The landlord told the resident later the same day, that it would contact her once the complaint was allocated to a complaint handler. It did not provide an indicative timescale for this to manage her expectations. The landlord failed to issue a stage 2 acknowledgement or proactively extend the complaint response timescale, which was contrary to the Code and its complaints policy.
30. The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 14 November 2024, which significantly exceeded the expected response timescale. It addressed the resident’s concerns that its supervisor had been able to identify the cause of the fault when other engineers had not. And made an additional offer of compensation (£250) for providing an inadequate response to the “3rd complaint point” at stage 1. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was referring to its response to the hot water issue. But it could have made this clearer.
31. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not reference its delay in issuing the stage 2 complaint response or address all of the points she raised in the complaint (for example, her request for reimbursement of parking fees, an explanation for why it had decided not to change the boiler).While it committed to resolving the issues with the hot water, it did not provide any detail about how and when this would happen. This was poor complaint handing. It also failed to inform her of her right to escalate the complaint to us. This was contrary to the Code and its own complaints policy.
32. The Code states that landlords should continue working to resolve the problem regardless of our involvement. So, it was positive that the landlord has proactively contacted the resident since issue of the stage 2 complaint response, offering to reconsider its previous offer of compensation. It is understandable that the resident declined, given that the case was already being progressed by us at this stage.
33. Overall, there were multiple failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, including delays, omissions, and lack of clarity. These failings are likely to have created significant inconvenience and distress to the resident. When considered cumulatively, these failings amount to severe maladministration. However, the landlord did identify some of the failings we identified during its own complaint investigation. And it did make some attempt to put things right for the resident. Therefore, on balance, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
34. To remedy the complaint, the landlord must apologise to the resident for the failings we identified in its complaint handling. The landlord must also pay the £300 compensation it previously offered for complaint handling if it has not already done so. We have not made an additional order for compensation because the landlord’s offer of compensation was at the higher end of compensation we would have ordered for the failings we identified, in line with our remedies guidance.
35. We have also ordered the landlord to carry out a learning review. We have identified some opportunities for learning and possible improvement within the learning section of this report, which the landlord may wish to consider.
36. A recommendation is made for the landlord to consider the resident’s request for reimbursement of parking permit charges. We have not made this an order, as the resident has confirmed that it was her choice to give parking permits to its contractor’s engineers. But the landlord should take into consideration that the resident was worried that if she did not do this, the work might be rushed and would not be carried out properly.

Learning

37. The landlord did not evidence that it had taken any learning from the complaint.
38. The landlord might reflect on the adequacy of its existing practices, in relation to the following:
    1. Repeated failures to resolve the same issue should trigger a review of whether continued repairs are cost-effective or practical.
    2. Landlords should have a clear escalation criterion for considering replacement of components when repairs repeatedly fail.
    3. Landlords should ensure its contractors follow agreed communication protocols and provide timely updates to residents.
    4. Relying solely on contractor expertise without verifying competency exposes landlords to service quality risks. Landlords ought to have a system in place for checking its contractors have the necessary skills and experience for complex repairs.
    5. Promises to revisit decisions (in this case, the boiler replacement) must be documented and acted upon to avoid damaging its credibility and prolonging resident distress.
    6. Handling complaints and compensation outside of the formal complaints process can lead to gaps in accountability and missed opportunities for systemic learning.
    7. Even if vulnerabilities are not initially known, prolonged service failures should prompt landlords to assess the impact on residents and offer additional support.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

39. Our investigation did not identify any significant issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

40. Our investigation identified some inadequacies in the landlord’s contractor’s communications with the resident. For example, it did not always give the resident prior notice of its attendance, leading to avoidable delay completing repairs.