Notting Hill Genesis (202502555)

Decision
Case ID	202502555 and 202527107
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 January 2026

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom second floor flat with her adult son. She has vulnerabilities related to medical conditions and a disability. The resident referred 2 complaints to us about leaks affecting her home. We have decided to investigate these together because the second complaint is a continuation of the main issue raised in the first complaint.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with her:
1. Reports of leaks.
2. Requests for the reimbursement of expenses.
3. Reports of damage to health and belongings.
4. Complaints.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of leaks.
We have found there was service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with the:
1. Requests for the reimbursement of expenses.
2. Reports of damage to health and belongings.
We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaints.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord responded to individual reports of leaks. However, it ignored its own recommendation in March 2024 to investigate the leaks, and there was no investigation until September 2025, which was 30 months after the first report. It did not follow its damp and mould policy when the resident raised concerns about the effect of mould on her health. There are outstanding repairs.
When the resident complained the landlord had not reimbursed her costs, it asked her to provide receipts that she already appeared to have sent. It is unclear whether it reimbursed her.
The landlord clearly explained that it would not deal with claims related to damage through its complaints process. However, it has not replaced the floor tiles as promised in September 2025.
The landlord did not meet its timescales throughout the 2 complaints processes. It accepted its failings, apologised, and offered £225 compensation, which was reasonable.

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 found in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures found in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,527.70 compensation for failures in how it dealt with reports of leaks made up as follows: £2378.70 for failures in how it dealt with reports of leaks. £50 for failures in how it dealt with requests for reimbursement. £100 for failures in how it dealt with reports of damage to health and belongings. 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 made.	No later than 24 February 2026
3	Repairs order The landlord must provide the resident and us with a schedule of works showing any outstanding repairs related to the leaks. This must include clear timeframes on when it will complete any outstanding repairs, including replacing the flooring. It must also provide details of the position with the leaks. If there is still work it needs to do, it must provide details including a clear timeframe on when it will complete the repairs.	No later than 24 February 2026
4	Expenses order The landlord must review the expenses paid to the resident related to the leaks and temporary accommodation to ensure they are correct. It must confirm details of payments made to the resident and us. If there is a shortfall in expenses paid, it must arrange to pay this by the due date.	No later than 24 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reoffers the £225 compensation it offered for complaint handling failures if it has not already paid it to the resident. This is in addition to the £2,527.70 ordered above. We have made a finding of reasonable redress on the basis that this payment is made.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 April 2023	The resident reported a leak affecting her home. Because of the leak, the landlord moved her to a hotel on 19 April 2023. Following a second leak, the resident moved to a hotel again on 17 July 2023.
26 July 2024	The resident complained that since 12 April 2023, there had been 6 leaks that caused damage and affected her health. She said the landlord told her a surveyor would visit and it would replace her damaged carpet, but it had not done this. She wanted the landlord to assess the damage and replace her carpet.
4 September 2024	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had not told the resident it would replace the carpet, and she needed to claim through insurance. It offered £75 compensation for the late complaint response.
16 September 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it had told her it would replace the carpet.
23 October 2024	In its final complaint response, the landlord said it would look at the damage and asked the resident for dates when it could visit. It accepted that it should have arranged a plumber to trace the leaks and said it had now raised a job. It offered £500 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused. On the carpet, it said it had no evidence it told her it would replace it.
15 March 2025	Following further leaks, the resident complained again. She said there had been 8 leaks since April 2023, which damaged her home, belongings, and health. She said the landlord had refused to investigate or compensate her for losses. She wanted compensation for damaged items, effect on her health, and inconvenience. She also wanted it to repair damage and investigate the cause of the leaks.
22 April 2025	In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the frustration caused by the lack of an investigation. It said after the last leak, it offered to recarpet the whole property. However, it said as the resident had put tiles in the living room, it would not be able to replace these. It offered the equivalent cost of the carpets, which was £1,400. It said it had found the source of the latest leak but needed to investigate further. It said it upheld the complaint as it should have been more sensitive to her situation. It offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
22 April 2025	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said it had not acknowledged damage caused to her personal property, or the effect the leaks had on her health.
3 September 2025	In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had already responded to events up to 23 October 2024. It said the resident was not home when it called as arranged on 29 October 2024. It said it should have followed this up and offered £50 compensation for not doing so. It said after she made a disrepair claim, it did an inspection on 10 June 2025 but then had difficulties arranging work. It accepted there had been delays. It apologised and offered £500 compensation for the inconvenience and distress this caused. On reimbursement of costs, it asked for receipts. On damage to health and personal items, it said the resident could contact its insurance team. It said it would replace the floor tiles. It accepted failings in the way it dealt with the complaint and offered £150 compensation for these.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In her escalation to us, the resident said the landlord’s failures had affected her health, finances, and personal belongings. She said she “lived in fear” of the next leak. She wanted the landlord to apologise and find the cause of the leaks.

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	How the landlord dealt with reports of leaks
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord has a responsibility under the occupancy agreement to repair and keep water pipes in the block of flats in good working order.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will deal with emergency repairs that pose an immediate health and safety risk within 24 hours. The policy says it will complete standard repairs, which do not require an urgent response, within 20 working days.
A leak in a communal water pipe affected the resident’s home on 12 April 2023. We have seen the landlord arranged to wet vacuum her flat and provide a dehumidifier but have not seen what work it did to stop the leak. The resident reported a leak from a kitchen tap on 28 May 2023, which the landlord appears to have fixed the same day.
We have not seen a further report of a leak, but the landlord’s records say the resident moved to a hotel due to a leak on 17 July 2023. Following this leak, it told her on 10 August 2023 that it would clean her carpets as a “goodwill gesture”. We have not seen a record of what action it took to stop the leak.
Another leak appears to have happened on 14 September 2023, as the landlord arranged to wet vacuum the carpet and provide a dehumidifier. Again, we have not seen a record of what action it took to stop the leak. The resident reported a further leak that wet a carpet on 21 March 2024. The landlord again arranged a wet vacuum. Its records on 22 March 2024 said it needed to send a plumber to trace the leak.
Following a further leak from the kitchen sink on 4 July 2024, the resident complained on 26 July 2024 that she had had 6 floods since April 2023. She said these had caused damage to her carpets, which had an “unpleasant smell” and mould growth that affected her breathing condition. She said the landlord had told her a surveyor would visit to look at the damage, but this had not happened.
In its complaint response on 4 September 2024, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns about mould or give any assurance that it was looking into the cause of the repeated leaks.
It is our view that this was a failure by the landlord as it should have followed up the resident’s report of mould in its complaint response. Its damp and mould policy in place at the time of the complaint said it would prioritise as urgent all reports of damp and mould and consider any vulnerabilities. It said it would contact the resident within 5 working days and make an appointment within 10 working days. During the appointment, it would assess the cause and discuss any actions it could take. When the resident raised concerns about mould and the effect on her breathing, the landlord should have followed its policy. We have seen no evidence it did this. The complaint response should also have said what it was doing to trace the cause of the repeated leaks following the recommendation on 22 March 2024 that a plumber should attend.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 16 September 2024. She said it was ignoring her concerns about repeated leaks.
In its final complaint response on 23 October 2024, the landlord accepted it made several callouts for leaks and apologised for the inconvenience and distress this caused. On the repairs, it asked the resident to give it her availability so its housing officer could do a pre-inspection. It said after this, it would share the findings with its surveyor. It apologised for not arranging a plumber to trace the leak in March 2024. It said it had now arranged for this to happen. It offered £500 compensation for the failure to follow-up the plumber appointment and for distress and inconvenience caused.
It is our view that there was a significant failing up to this time in how the landlord dealt with the reports of leaks. Although the records we have seen do not always show what action the landlord took to resolve each leak, it appears it did attend in a reasonable time after each report. It also acted to clear up the effect of leaks by wet vacuuming and providing dehumidifiers.
The landlord’s significant failings relate to the lack of action to find the cause of the repeated leaks and not following its damp and mould policy. By the time it said it needed to send a plumber in March 2024, there had been 5 leaks. It then did not follow up the recommendation to send a plumber. In its stage 1 response, it ignored the resident’s concerns about mould and did not follow its policy.
In her complaint, the resident said the leaks had caused damage to her home and the damp and mould affected her respiratory condition. She also told us she had to move to hotels because of the leaks. In January 2026, she said that she and her son faced significant inconvenience from living in different hotels, miles from her home. We acknowledge the landlord accepted its failings, apologised for these, and said it would arrange appointments. This was reasonable. It also offered £500 compensation. It is our view that this was not sufficient in the circumstances, as we consider there was also a loss of enjoyment of her home.
At the same time the landlord sent its final response, its records say it contacted the resident to arrange a plumber appointment, but the resident told it she had no “active leak”. Because of this it cancelled the appointment. It is our view that the landlord should have continued with its investigation into the leaks, as it is our understanding that some of these were from communal pipes.
The landlord arranged a visit with the resident for 29 October 2024 to assess damage. However, its records say that when it visited at the agreed time, she was not at home. It emailed the resident on 7 November 2024 and asked her to let it know when it could visit. It emailed again about an appointment on 12 November 2024. We have not seen any evidence of a response.
The resident reported a new leak on 13 March 2025. She said water was coming up from under the flooring. On 15 March 2025, she complained about leaks since April 2024 that had damaged her property, belongings, and health. She said the landlord had refused to investigate the cause. She said there was mould in her home, and it had left her in an “uninhabitable environment” with no support. She wanted an investigation into the cause of the leaks.
In its complaint response on 22 April 2025, the landlord said it would only investigate events since October 2024, as it had dealt with earlier events through its complaints process. We will comment on the landlord’s approach to the complaint investigation in the section on complaint handling. However, as our investigation is covering 2 complaints, we will consider the landlord’s earlier response alongside its new response.
The landlord said in its complaint response that as there had been a reoccurrence of leaks since the last complaint, it would inspect the resident’s home and communal areas. It accepted it should have done a home visit to assess damage and should have been “more sensitive” to her situation. It said it had done repairs within its timescales but could have taken steps to prevent the leaks reoccurring. Because of these failures, it offered £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
It is our view that this response would have been reasonable in the circumstances of a single leak. However, there had been several leaks over a 2-year period. The steps the landlord now proposed were reasonable, and it accepted it should have acted sooner. In mitigation, after its response in October 2024, it appears the resident told it there was no leak, and it did not need to attend. However, it is our view that it would still have been reasonable for it to have investigated why there were regular leaks in communal areas.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 22 April 2025. She said the landlord had not traced and repaired all earlier leaks. She said there was damp and mould in her home and she wanted it to investigate the cause of the leaks.
Although we have not seen records of what the landlord did after each report, it is our view that it is reasonable to assume it did work to stop individual leaks. This is because there were no reports of leaks between July 2024 and March 2025, and there were gaps between the reports before this time. However, the regular leaks over a 2-year period suggest it did not do sufficient work to find the cause.
The resident made a disrepair claim related to the leaks in April 2025. On 1 May 2025, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord and said it must send it all communications relating to the claim, unless it needed to arrange an inspection or do repairs.
Following the disrepair claim, the landlord did a survey on 10 June 2024. This found water coming up through the living room and hall floors, which had loosened floor tiles. It recommended an investigation of the communal pipes to find the cause of the leaks. It also recommended taking up loose floor tiles to allow drying and replacing them with laminate. It said the works were the landlord’s responsibility and would take 2 to 3 weeks to complete, but there was no need to move the resident to temporary accommodation.
The landlord contacted the resident on 28 July 2025, which was 6 weeks after the survey, to arrange for its contractor to attend before any works took place. The resident replied on 4 August 2025 and said she had made an appointment for 15 August 2025, but the landlord had not given her the outcome of the survey or told her what work it would do.
On 14 August 2025 the resident cancelled the appointment due to illness. She told the landlord on 21 August 2025 that she would confirm a new appointment when she felt better and asked it to provide the scope of works. The landlord replied on 26 August 2025 and said it could not give details until after the contractor’s site manager had attended. It said she could get the surveyor’s report from her solicitor.
It is our view that as the resident had engaged a solicitor, who had clearly asked the landlord to send communications through them, it was reasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to her solicitor.
On 1 September 2025 the landlord asked a specialist leak contractor to investigate the cause of the leaks. The contractor arranged an appointment for 5 September 2025. This was over 4 months after the landlord said in its complaint response that it would inspect the resident’s home and communal areas.
In its final response on 3 September 2025, the landlord said after its stage 2 response in October 2024, it had agreed an appointment to assess the resident’s home but there was no access when it visited. It accepted it should have followed up the appointment and offered an apology and £50 compensation for this failure. It is our view that this was a reasonable amount for a missed appointment, especially as there is some evidence the landlord tried to contact the resident.
The landlord said following the disrepair claim, a surveyor inspected the resident’s home on 10 June 2025, and it gave the works to its contractor on 22 July 2025. It said on 11 August 2025, her solicitor told it that they had closed the disrepair case. Following this, the contractor said it was having difficulties arranging an appointment. The landlord said it was unable to share the scope of work until its contractor had visited. It asked the resident to contact its contractor to arrange an appointment. It accepted there had been “poor handling” of the repair, with a delay in arranging a survey and giving work to a contractor. It apologised for this and the inconvenience and distress caused. It offered £500 compensation for the poor handling of the repair and inconvenience caused.
A leak detection survey took place on 5 September 2025. This found no leaks or faults in the water supply to the resident’s flat. It said high water pressure in neighbouring flats was the likely cause. It recommended a further leak detection survey of neighbouring flats. Following attempts to contact the neighbours, a second leak detection survey took place on 23 September 2025. This found neighbouring flats were not the cause of the water damage in the resident’s home. It recommended further investigations into the flat above. From the information we have seen, it is unclear whether this took place.
In January 2026 the resident told us the landlord had not resolved the situation. She said contractors attended her home on 20 January 2026, but she was unclear what work the landlord had authorised or whether it had fixed the underlying cause of the leaks. She said the situation was distressing, and the landlord had not been in “direct communication with [her] for months”. She said it had not put the bathroom back together after leak investigations in September 2025.
In October 2025 the landlord arranged to move the resident to temporary accommodation while it did repairs to the flooring. Its records said it had fixed the repeated leaks. It is unclear from the information we have seen what action it took.
Overall, we have found there were significant failings by the landlord between April 2023 and September 2025, which amount to maladministration. Although the landlord appears to have responded to individual reports of leaks in a reasonable way, we have seen no record of an investigation into the cause until September 2025, which was 30 months after the first report.
In mitigation, the reports of leaks were intermittent, with some significant gaps in-between. However, the landlord ignored its own recommendation in March 2024 to do an investigation, and this did not happen for another 18 months. The landlord also did not follow its damp and mould policy, and we have seen no evidence it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Between April 2023 and September 2025, the resident faced considerable distress and inconvenience. She and her son had to move out of their home and live in hotels several times, and she was worried about the effect the mould could have on her breathing conditions. The leaks also regularly affected her home and belongings. In addition, she had to regularly report leaks and chase the landlord for updates. In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted there had been significant delays, it did not follow up appointments, and it did not consider the resident’s situation.
We must consider that the landlord apologised and offered compensation totalling £1,050 for failings in how it dealt with reports of leaks. This substantial offer has prevented a finding of severe maladministration. However, it is our view that this was insufficient as the resident also had a loss of enjoyment of her home.Because of this, we have decided that compensation based on rent is appropriate.
We consider that a 10% rent reduction is reasonable for 76 weeks (from the recommendation of leak investigation on 21 March 2024 until 5 September 2025, when an investigation started). Records provided by the landlord show weekly rent was £163.35 from 21 to 31 March 2024, £175.93 from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025, and £180.68 from 1 April to 5 September 2025. The landlord must pay compensation as follows:
1. 1 week at 10% of £163.35 = £16.36.
2. 52 weeks at 10% of £175.93 = £914.84.
3. 22 weeks at 10% of £180.68 = £397.50.
4. £1,000 previously offered for inconvenience and distress.
5. £50 previously offered for a missed appointment.
6. Total = £2378.70.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with requests for reimbursement of expenses
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

The Ombudsman’s Scheme says we may not investigate matters that a resident did not refer to a landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. As the first complaint about reimbursement of expenses was on 22 April 2025, we will not investigate how the landlord dealt with requests for reimbursement of expenses before April 2024.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s relocation policy says when it requires a tenant to temporarily move, it will pay all reasonable agreed expenses. It says when it provides accommodation without a kitchen, such as a hotel, it will pay £30 per person to cover food expenses if the hotel cannot provide meals.
When the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 22 April 2025, she said she wanted reimbursement for food and internet costs when she was in temporary accommodation and the running costs of dehumidifiers. We have not seen a copy of the documents, but in her email the resident said she had attached copies of receipts for internet costs and electricity bills.
We have seen no further communication about this until the landlord sent its final response on 3 September 2025. In this it asked the resident to send receipts, which it appears she had already done. It is our view that this was a service failure as it did not acknowledge the information the resident had already provided.
It is unclear from the information we have seen whether the resident provided further receipts. However, we have seen documents from the landlord dated March and April 2025, which include details of payments made to the resident for food expenses for 2 adults while staying in hotels. These documents include no references to internet or electricity costs. We are unable to say whether these accurately reflect payments the resident should have received.
Because of this, and in line with our remedies guidance, the landlord must pay the resident £50 for the inconvenience caused by the failure to adequately deal her request for reimbursement.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of damage to her health and belongings
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

The resident told us the leaks had damaged her health and belongings. Although we can consider whether the landlord acted reasonably, in this case we cannot assess whether its actions caused ill health and damaged her belongings. This is because we do not have the expertise to assess this and these are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to prove legal liability or whether the landlord was responsible. However, we will consider how it responded to the resident’s concerns.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will not deal with complaints about personal injury or damage to possessions through its complaints process. It says these matters should be referred to insurers.
In her complaint on 26 July 2023, the resident said the regular leaks had damaged her carpets and the mould had made her respiratory issues worse.
In its complaint response on 4 September 2023, the landlord said it had told the resident that she would need to claim for the carpets through her contents insurance. It provided details of the insurance process. In her request to escalate the complaint on 16 September 2023, the resident said the landlord had told her it would replace the carpets. In its final response on 23 October 2023, the landlord said it had nothing on file to say it would replace her carpets. It said if she did not have contents insurance, she could make a claim through its insurance. It also offered a deep clean of the carpets.
We have seen no evidence of any communication saying the landlord would replace the carpets. Because of this, we cannot find that it changed its position or unfairly raised the resident’s expectation. Although its response did not mention personal injury, we have found it was in line with its complaints policy to refer to insurance and give information about the process. It was positive that it offered to clean the carpet. We have not seen whether the resident made a claim through the landlord’s insurance.
In her second complaint on 15 March 2024, the resident said the leaks since April 2023 had damaged her property, belongings, and health. She said the landlord had refused to compensate her for the losses. She also wanted the landlord to replace the damaged flooring. She said mould had affected her health and she had slipped on the water and bruised her arm and hip. Because of this, she wanted compensation for physical injury.
In its complaint response on 22 April 2025, the landlord accepted that leaks had affected the carpet and floor tiles. It said it had arranged to fit bedroom carpets in April 2025 and had offered to recarpet the whole property. However, it said as the resident had put tiles in the living room and hall, it would not be able to replace them. It said, because of this, it had offered her the equivalent cost of carpets, which was £1,400. It accepted the resident was not happy with the offer of £1,400 but said it was the correct amount.
It is our view that this was a reasonable response in the circumstances. The landlord accepted the leaks had caused damage to floor coverings, and rather than making the resident go through an insurance process, it offered to replace them. It explained it could not replace the tiles and made what it said was an equivalent offer. We cannot assess whether the £1,400 was the correct amount for the cost of replacement carpets. However, to show openness, it would have been helpful for the landlord to explain how it arrived at the £1,400 figure.
In her request to escalate the complaint on 22 April 2025, the resident said the landlord had not acknowledged the losses to damaged furniture, bedding, and personal belongings. She said the mould had caused itchy eyes, coughing, infections, and respiratory problems.
In its final response on 3 September 2025, the landlord said that if the resident felt it had been negligent, she should contact its insurance team. It also said that as part of the repairs, it would replace the floor covering with laminate.
Following the final response, the landlord agreed to replace the floor tiles like for like. Its records said it would “gift” the tiles to the resident on completion of work and would not accept liability for the upkeep unless there was a fitting defect. We have found this was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
However, in January 2026 the resident told us the landlord had not replaced the floor tiles as agreed. We have not seen a record from the landlord confirming it did the work. Because of this, we have found there was service failure by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of damage to her health and belongings. It reasonably replaced carpets and explained that it would not deal with claims related to damage through its complaints process. However, it has not replaced the tiles as agreed, which it agreed to do in September 2025.
Because of this, and in line with our remedies guidance, the landlord must pay the resident £100 for the inconvenience caused by the failure to adequately deal her reports of damage to her health and belongings.

Complaint	The handling of the complaints
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The resident first complained about leaks affecting her home on 26 July 2024. We have seen no evidence of an acknowledgement, and the landlord sent its complaint response on 4 September 2024, which was 5 weeks later. This significantly exceeded its policy timescale of 10 working days (2 weeks).
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 16 September 2024. The landlord sent an acknowledgement on 3 October 2024, and its final response on 23 October 2024. While the landlord sent the response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement, the late acknowledgement meant the response took 6 weeks. In its final response, the landlord offered £75 compensation for the delay.
The resident complained again about leaks on 15 March 2025, and the landlord sent an acknowledgement 2 days later. However, it did not send the complaint response until 22 April 2025, which was 5 weeks later and outside the 10 working days in its policy.
In this response, the landlord explained that in line with its complaints policy, it would not reinvestigate matters it dealt with in its final response on 23 October 2024. We agree that this was the correct approach as this is in line with our Complaints Handling Code.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her second complaint on 22 April 2025. Following contact from us, the landlord sent its final response on 3 September 2025, which was over 4 months after the escalation request. In its final response, it apologised for the inconvenience caused and acknowledged the resident had asked for updates which it did not acknowledge. It offered £150 compensation for these failures.
Overall, we have found there were significant failures in the landlord’s complaint handling as it did not meet its timescales on sending responses throughout the 2 complaints processes, and on the second complaint only sent a response after we intervened. We have seen that the landlord accepted its failings, apologised and offered a total of £225 compensation for complaint handling failures. We would have found maladministration, but because the landlord offered a reasonable amount of compensation and apologised, we have found reasonable redress.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it responds to complaints within its timescales. Where this is not possible, it should contact the resident to discuss an extension.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

We have been unable to assess every aspect of how the landlord dealt with the leaks, as we have not seen all repair records. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.

Communication

The landlord accepted it should have been more sensitive to the resident’s situation. Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect, and rights provides guidance that can help the landlord with this.