Notting Hill Genesis (202424882)

Decision
Case ID	202424882
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of multiple repair issues. These included communal lighting, a communal door closer, a leak into her kitchen, a window repair, and a blocked drain. She said there had been delays, poor communication, and several repairs remained unresolved.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A communal light repair.
2. A communal door repair.
3. A leak.
4. Concerns about communication from a housing officer.
5. A window repair.
6. A drain repair.
7. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a communal light repair.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of a communal door repair.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns about communication from a housing officer.
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a window repair.
6. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a drain repair.
7. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not keep the resident updated or repair the communal light within the required timescales. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the prolonged delay.
The landlord did not keep the resident updated or repair the communal door within required timescales.
The landlord did not manage the leak repairs in line with its policy, and it did not keep the resident updated.
The landlord did not fully investigate the resident’s concerns about communication from her housing officer.
The landlord did not repair the window within its policy timescales and did not meet the commitments it made during the complaints process. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the prolonged delay or detriment to the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the delay attending to the drain repair. It apologised and offered compensation in line with its policy.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings, apologised and offered compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

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 26 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,400 made up as follows. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of the communal light repair. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of concerns about communication from the housing officer. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of window repairs. The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made from this total figure. It must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 26 March 2026
3	Action order The landlord must: Write to the resident to confirm which repairs remain outstanding in relation to the leak, the window repairs, and the communal repairs. It must set out a clear action plan for completing these repairs, including its assessment of any internal damage to the resident’s property, caused by the leaks. Following the inspection, it must set out a clear action plan for completing all necessary works. It must provide a copy of this plan to both the resident and this Service by the due date.	No later than 26 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 £100 compensation it offered through its complaints process for the failures in its handling of a blocked drain. We made our reasonable redress decision on the basis that it has paid this amount. If it has not already paid this, it should pay it directly to the resident.
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered through its complaints process for the failures in its handling of the complaint. We made our reasonable redress decision on the basis that it has paid this amount. If it has not already paid this, it should pay it directly to the resident.
The landlord should consider recalculating the electricity refund on the production of evidence such as utility bills, so it reflects the full period the communal lights were continuously on.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 November 2023	The resident raised a complaint. She said: The landlord took over 3 months to complete a communal lighting repair. There was poor communication and she was unable to speak directly with the team responsible for the repair. She asked for reimbursement for electric costs. The communal door closer took over 2 months to repair, and the issue kept reoccurring. She reported a leak into her kitchen on 5 May 2023, but the landlord had not resolved it. Communication had been poor from her housing officer. A window repair was still outstanding, and she had not received updates. The landlord did not treat her report of a blocked drain as an emergency.
13 December 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It acknowledged delays in completing the communal lighting repair. It offered £25 compensation and a £22.34 electric refund. It accepted it had delayed the door closer repair but considered this reasonable because the repair was not urgent. It had investigated the leak. The delays came from clearing a communal cupboard, arranging further works, and a consultation. It apologised, offered £50 compensation, and said it would provide an update by 5 January 2024. It accepted communication from her housing officer had been poor and offered £50 compensation. It acknowledged delays in completing the window repair. It apologised, offered £25 compensation and said it would provide an update in 5 working days. The reference number provided did not relate to a blocked drain, but a leak. It acknowledged a delay in attending the leak and offered £30 compensation.
18 January 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: She could not contact the leasehold team about the communal lighting repair, which led to delays and no updates. It had also not calculated the electric refund correctly. The landlord gave the wrong account of the door repair and the issue kept returning. It had not resolved the leak repair. It had given incorrect information and its communication remained poor. It had not addressed her concerns about ongoing communication failures. It had given incorrect information about the window repair, and the issue was unresolved. It had not provided a response to her concerns about the blocked drain. It had not met its complaints policy. It had given incorrect information, not answered all the points raised, and missed deadlines.
21 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: Residents must contact their housing officer about repairs. It had calculated the electric refund correctly but asked her for evidence if she still thought this was incorrect. It acknowledged inaccuracies in its stage 1 response about the communal door repair. It apologised and confirmed it had now repaired the door. It accepted its poor communication about the leak. It apologised and offered £100 compensation. It acknowledged its poor communication about the window repair. It offered £100 compensation and said it would arrange a follow up inspection. It acknowledged it had not addressed the block drain repair in its stage 1 response. It confirmed there had been delays with this repair and offered £100 compensation. It did not follow its complaints policy and offered £250 compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She said several repair issues remained unresolved, she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses, and the amount of compensation it offered.

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	Communal light repair
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend standard repairs within 20 working days, and it will keep the resident updated throughout. For communal repairs, such as fixing shared lighting, it may take longer than usual, but it will let residents know the timescales.
On 3 December 2022 the resident reported that the communal lights were constantly on. The landlord acknowledged the report on 5 December 2022 and booked an appointment for 15 December 2022. Between 16 and 20 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord 3 times for an update, but it did not respond. This did not meet its repairs policy to keep the resident updated.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 March 2023 to say the lights were still on and she had not received any updates. It replied on 8 March 2023 and said it had attended on 28 December 2022 and found the lights working, although we have not seen evidence of this visit. It raised a new job on 8 March 2023, inspected the lights on 15 June, and completed the repair on 23 June 2023, 73 working days later. This was outside its 20‑working‑day target for standard repairs, and there is no evidence that it provided updates or expected timeframes.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023. It acknowledged delays and said its leasehold team managed the building and residents should raise repairs through the housing officer. However, it did not explain why it did not provide updates from December 2022 onwards.
The landlord offered £25 for the delay in completing the repair. This amount did not reflect the 6-month period the repair remained outstanding or the time and trouble the resident spent seeking updates. Its compensation policy recommends awards of up to £100 when service failures caused inconvenience, including delays in completing repairs. Given the length of the delay, the lack of updates, and the resident’s ongoing efforts to chase the issue, a higher amount would have been proportionate.
The landlord also offered an electricity refund for a 5-month period, saying it covered the time from the first report to completion. However, the repair remained outstanding for over 6 months. The refund did not reflect the full period the lights were on continuously.
On 18 January 2024, the resident questioned this calculation and said it was incorrect. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 March 2024. It was reasonable for it to explain how it had calculated the amount and ask the resident for further evidence if she still disagreed. However, it did not acknowledge that the refund amount did not cover the whole period the resident had been raising the issue.
In its response, the landlord explained that it had moved the hallway switch because the wiring was faulty and it could not repair it, which was a reasonable explanation of its actions. It also clarified its repairs reporting process, saying residents must raise repairs through the housing officer. However, it did not explain why it did not provide updates between December 2022 and June 2023 or why there had been delays.
Overall, the landlord did not keep the resident updated, did not repair the light within the required timescales, and did not explain the long delays. Its offer of compensation did not reflect the time and trouble the resident spent chasing the issue. As such, we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the communal light repair.
We order that the landlord pay the resident £75 compensation for its failings that resulted in inconvenience and delays for the resident. This is in addition to the £25 offered during its complaint’s procedure. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance when there was a failure which adversely affects a resident.

Complaint	Communal door repair
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend standard repairs within 20 working days. For communal doors, it may complete repairs outside the usual timescales, but it will keep residents updated.
Both parties have not disputed that another resident logged a repair about a faulty door closer on 15 April 2023. The landlord attended on 24 May 2023 and adjusted it. The landlord attended again on 23 June 2023 and completed further repairs.
The landlord took 46 working days to complete these repairs. Although its policy allows communal repairs to take longer, there is no evidence that it updated the residents in the building about the delay. This was not in line with its repairs policy. This failure likely caused inconvenience for the resident, and it did not acknowledge this in its complaint responses.
The resident said in her escalation request that another resident had reported a further door repair on 29 September 2023 and was still outstanding. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain in its stage 2 response that it had completed this repair and to ask the resident to let it know if there were any further issues.
In summary, the landlord did not update residents when it could not complete the repairs within its 20‑day timescale, which was not in line with its repairs policy. It also did not acknowledge this failure in its complaint responses. This likely caused inconvenience for the resident. For these reasons, we found service failure in its handling of the communal door repair.
The detriment to the resident was primarily from a communication failure rather than from a prolonged loss of service or an unresolved repair. We consider an apology is a proportionate remedy to put right the landlord’s failing in this case.

Complaint	Reports of a leak
Finding	Maladministration

The resident reported a leak into her kitchen on 5 May 2023. However, the landlord did not attend until 11 May 2023. This was not in line with its repairs policy, which says it should attend a leak between floors within 4 hours. It also did not acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses.
At the inspection on 11 May 2023, the landlord confirmed there had been a leak but that it was not actively leaking at the time. It could not find the source and requested a surveyor to investigate. However, it did not arrange a surveyor’s visit until 23 June 2023, 30 working days later. This was outside its 20‑working day timescale for completing standard repairs. It did not acknowledge this delay in its complaint responses, which was a failing.
At the June inspection, the landlord found that the leak might be coming from the roof and pipework in a communal cupboard, but by the stage 1 response on 13 December 2023 the repair still had not progressed. There is also no evidence that it kept the resident updated during this time, which was not in line with its repairs policy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise in its stage 1 response in December 2023 for not keeping the resident updated. It explained that the required works were above the section 20 threshold for leaseholders and would need consultation. While it offered £50 compensation this did not reflect the level of inconvenience the resident experienced. By this point, the repairs had been unresolved for 7 months, and it had not kept her updated. Its compensation policy allows up to £250 for service failures that caused distress and inconvenience, so it would have been reasonable to offer a higher amount in this case.
The landlord said it would provide a further update by 5 January 2024, but there is no evidence that it met this commitment. In its stage 2 response on 21 March 2024, it did not explain why it did not provide the update or give any information on the repair status or timescales. Additionally, although the resident specifically asked for an update on the section 20 consultation, it did not address this in its response.
The landlord increased its compensation offer to £100 in its response. However, by this stage the issue had been unresolved for 10 months, significantly outside of the 20 working day timescales set out in its policy. It also had not provided the resident with a clear plan or explanation of how and when it intended to resolve the matter.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord committed to ensuring it kept the resident updated on the repairs. As part of our information request, we asked it for an update on the leak and communal repairs. It said it completed an inspection at the property in June 2023 and that no further work had taken place. The resident has told us that the communal repairs found during that inspection remain outstanding and that she has experienced further leaks into her property.
Overall, the landlord did not manage the repairs in line with its repairs policy. It did not keep the resident updated, despite her repeatedly chasing the issue. It did not provide clear timescales or address key issues. The repairs remain unresolved nearly from May 2023 to date, which is significantly outside its 20‑day repair timescale. For these reasons, we find maladministration.
We order that the landlord pay the resident £500 compensation for its failings that resulted in distress, inconvenience and delays for the resident. This is in addition to the £100 offered during its complaint’s procedure. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.

Complaint	Communication from a housing officer
Finding	Service failure

The resident complained that her housing officer was not providing her with updates or progressing repairs. In its stage 1 response on 13 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged missed deadlines and explained that the housing officer was absent. However, it did not explain why the wider team did not provide updates or why long periods of non‑communication happened.
While it was positive that the landlord offered £50 for poor communication, it did not investigate all the resident’s concerns. The resident said that missed actions, inspections, and updates continued for several months and left issues unresolved. The landlord did not show that it investigated these claims. It is reasonable that this may have reduced the resident’s confidence that it had considered her concerns in full.
In her escalation request, the resident raised further concerns about poor communication and asked why the landlord had not fully investigated her complaint. It did not address these issues in its stage 2 response, which was inappropriate and not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code requires landlords to fully respond to all issues raised and show that it had completed a thorough investigation. This again likely left the resident feeling that it was not taking her concerns seriously.
Overall, the landlord did not fully investigate the resident’s concerns and did not address all the issues she raised, which was a service failure. While it offered £50 for not meeting communication deadlines, it did not explain why delays happened or show that it had completed a full investigation. Its offer of compensation also did not reflect the detriment of ongoing poor communication on the resident, who had repeatedly raised this issue.
The landlord’s compensation policy recommends up to £100 when it has not met its service standards and delays caused inconvenience. The £50 already offered did not reflect the detriment of the ongoing poor communication and lack of investigation in this case. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay an additional £50. The additional amount aligns with our remedies guidance, which says up to £100 is appropriate where there has been a service failure and the landlord has not fully acknowledged this or put things right.

Complaint	Window repair
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it repairs windows. It completes standard repairs within 20 working days. When a window needs replacing or improving, it will provide updates and expected timeframes for the work.
The resident reported that her window was difficult to open and close on 12 December 2022, however, the landlord did not inspect the issue until 22 August 2023. This was significantly outside of its 20-working day timescale for standard repairs as set out in its policy.
At the inspection, the landlord completed a temporary repair on the window but said it may need a window specialist to complete further works. However, by the date of the stage 1 response on 13 December 2023, it had not taken any further action.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for not following up the repair in its stage 1 response. However, the £25 compensation offered did not reflect the extent of its failings. By this point, the issue had been ongoing for a year and remained unresolved, significantly outside the timescales set out in its policy. Although it had carried out an inspection and some works, it did not keep the resident updated or progress the repair when needed. As its compensation policy allows awards of up to £500 for serious, prolonged service failures causing distress and inconvenience, it would have been reasonable to consider a higher amount in this case.
The landlord committed in its stage 1 response to contact the resident and arrange a further window inspection within 5 working days, but it did not meet this commitment. By the time of the stage 2 response on 21 March 2024, the inspection had still not taken place. Although it was appropriate for it to acknowledge further communication failures at stage 2, the £100 compensation offered did not reflect the detriment to the resident. By this stage, the issue had been ongoing for 15 months, remained unresolved, and it had not progressed the inspection or met the commitment it made at stage 1. This may have caused prolonged distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In its response, the landlord said it would arrange for a surveyor to inspect the window. Its repairs policy requires it to complete standard repairs within 20 working days. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to expect the landlord to progress the inspection and any follow‑up works within that timeframe. There is no evidence the landlord met this deadline.
As part of our information request to the landlord, we asked it for an update on the window repair. It told us it closed the repair in January 2023. However, in its stage 2 response it said it was still progressing the repair in March 2024 and was arranging a surveyor’s inspection. This inconsistency shows that it did not keep accurate records. The resident has also told us that it did not arrange a surveyor’s inspection and has still not resolved the repair.
Overall, the landlord did not manage the window repair in line with its repairs policy. It did not keep the resident updated or meet commitments it made through its complaints process. The issue remains unresolved over 4 years after the resident first reported it. These failings caused inconvenience and distress to the resident. For these reasons, we have found maladministration.
We order the landlord to pay £500 compensation for the failings that resulted in distress, inconvenience and additional delays for the resident. This is in addition to the £100 offered through its complaints process. The additional amount is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.

Complaint	Drain repair
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours. It gives an example of an emergency repair as a serious sewage or upsurging drainage issue.
The resident reported a blocked drain on 22 August 2023. The landlord accepts that it took over 11 hours to attend, which did not meet its repairs policy. In its stage 2 response, it apologised for the delay and offered £100 compensation. This followed its compensation policy, which recommends up to £100 when it did not meet its service standards and the delay caused inconvenience. The amount is also in line with our remedies guidance for short‑term service failures that resulted in distress and inconvenience.
The compensation award, together with the apology and actions taken to resolve the issue, were appropriate. On this basis, we find that the landlord provided reasonable redress in its handling of reports of a blocked drain.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The resident raised a complaint on 10 November 2023. The landlord issued its response 23 working days later, on 13 December 2023. This was not in line with the Code. It was inappropriate for it not to acknowledge this delay in its stage 1 response.
The resident raised concerns about a blocked drain as part of her complaint. However, in its stage 1 response, the landlord did not address this issue because the resident had given a different repair reference number. The Code says landlords must understand the complaint, cover all the points raised, and contact the resident if they need clarification. It did not do this and instead responded to an issue she had not raised. This caused unnecessary delays and missed the opportunity to resolve matters sooner. It was appropriate for it to apologise for this in its stage 2 response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 18 January 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 March 2024,45 working days later. It was appropriate for it to apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response. It offered £250 compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy for cases where it did not meet its service standards and this caused distress and inconvenience.
However, the resident said she did not receive the stage 2 response at the time and only saw it when we sent her a copy on 29 January 2025. As there is no evidence showing the landlord issued the response to her in March 2024, we cannot determine or comment on if it sent it.
The landlord did not follow the Code’s timescales, address all points at stage 1, and delayed its stage 2 response. It acknowledged these failures and offered £250 compensation. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, which says an award of £250 may remedy maladministration where there were failures that had an adverse effect. In this case, it has addressed its failings by apologising and offering compensation which provides reasonable redress.

Learning

This case shows that landlords must keep all residents informed when communal repairs face delays. When works go beyond expected timescales, the landlord should proactively update everyone affected, for example by writing to residents in the block or putting notices in communal areas. Clear and shared updates help residents understand the reason for delays, reduce uncertainty, and prevent avoidable complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s inconsistent records, including conflicting information and poor tracking of actions contributed to prolonged delays and unresolved works. This case highlights the need for accurate, timely record keeping and better monitoring of repair commitments.

Communication

The investigation found gaps in the landlord’s communication, particularly in keeping the resident updated during repairs. It did not consistently provide timeframes, explain delays, or follow up after key appointments. This created uncertainty and increased the resident’s need to chase for information.