Notting Hill Genesis (202518910)

Decision
Case ID	202518910
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	6 March 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor 1-bedroom flat. She reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the landlord of loud noises coming from the flat above followed by an alleged assault. She also reported faulty extractor fans, damp and mould and an infestation of mice.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Reports of damp and mould and associated damage.
   3. Reports of a pest infestation.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Reports of damp and mould and associated damage.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a pest infestation.
   2. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

5. The landlord failed to complete risk assessments and action plans in line with its policy. It also did not always contact the resident or take appropriate actions in line with its policy. There were also record keeping failures and poor communication.

Reports of damp and mould and associated damage

6. The landlord delayed installing a dehumidifier and removed it inappropriately. It also delayed inspecting the damp and mould and delayed raising and completing repairs. There were also record keeping failures of raising the incorrect repair jobs.

Reports of a pest infestation

7. The landlord delayed attending and further delayed completing necessary work. However, it apologised and offered suitable redress.

The associated complaint

8. The landlord did not identify all its failures in its stage 1 complaint response. It also delayed issuing its stage 2 complaint response. However, it apologised and offered suitable redress.

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 07 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,600 made up as follows: £400 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for its failings in how it handled reports of ASB. £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident for its failings in how it handled reports of damp and mould and associated damage. 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.	No later than 07 April 2026
3	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the repair works for the ventilation system, extractor fans and towel rail are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 07 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £250 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response of 27 October 2025 to acknowledge its failures in how it handled reports of a pest infestation.
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £150 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response of 27 October 2025 to acknowledge its complaint handling failures.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 20 May 2024 and 9 April 2025	The resident made several reports of ASB about an upstairs neighbour including noise nuisance and an alleged assault. She requested repairs for extractor fans and the ventilation system and reported subsequent damp in the property. She also reported an infestation of mice.
10 April 2025	The resident raised a complaint. She said the ventilation system and extractor fans did not work, and mould was spreading through the property. She said a neighbour had attacked her and caused lots of noise disturbance. She also said mice had infested her home for over 4 months.
15 April 2025	The landlord issued an acknowledgment of the complaint.
1 May 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident and said it needed to extend the deadline by 10 working days. It said it would respond by 16 May 2025.
15 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It apologised for delays dealing with pest control and extractor fans. It said it would arrange appointments for both. It would inspect the damp and mould within 10 working days. The ASB case remained ongoing, and it would take appropriate steps. It offered £125 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by delays with repairs and pest control, and £125 for the time and effort chasing repair issues.
12 June 2025	The resident emailed the landlord and said it had not resolved any of the complaint issues.
19 June 2025	The landlord issued its escalation acknowledgement.
15 July 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident and said it needed to extend the deadline by 20 working days. It said it would respond by 14 August 2025.
24 October 2025	We wrote to the landlord and asked it to provide a stage 2 complaint response to the resident.
27 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for the delay responding. It said it had resolved the pest control issue in August 2025. It said it would book follow on work to repair the ventilation system. It also acknowledged it could have manged the ASB better. It also acknowledged failures in its complaint handling. It offered £1,000 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays with repairs, £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of pest control, £250 for its handling of ASB and £150 for its complaint handling failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the resident brought her complaint to us, she wanted all matters resolved. She has since told us all matters remain outstanding except for the mice infestation, which has been resolved. She also told us the landlord had not paid any of the compensation it had 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	Reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

9. The resident reported ASB on 20 May, 5 June and 23 August 2024. She reported a lot of noise from the property above affecting her health. In cases relating to ASB, it is not our role to decide if ASB occurred. We consider how a landlord has dealt with the reports it received, and if it followed its policies and good practice. The landlord’s ASB policy says it aims to contact the resident within 1 working day of receiving a report. It telephoned the resident within 1 working day on each occasion, which is appropriate. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will complete a risk assessment and develop an action plan. There is no evidence it did this, which is a failure.
10. The landlord visited the alleged perpetrator on 4 September 2024 and discussed the noise issue. The alleged perpetrator explained it was a young child running around the house. The landlord told them to ensure it did not happen in unsociable hours and that they should put carpet down. This was appropriate.
11. The resident reported more noise issues on 1 November 2024. The landlord did not contact the resident within 1 working day and did not complete a risk assessment, which is a failure. It contacted the alleged perpetrator to discuss the issues on 6 November 2024, which was within a reasonable time.
12. It then emailed the resident on 6 November 2024 and said it had opened an ASB case and made a referral for mediation. Its ASB policy says its early intervention tools include risk assessments, meditation, warning, and acceptable behaviour contracts. It was therefore appropriate to make a referral for mediation.
13. The landlord spoke with the resident on 7 November 2024. She said the noise was a child running around the property and was worse when her neighbour had guests. She confirmed the noise was usually in the morning and no later than 8pm. The landlord completed an action plan and said it would visit the alleged perpetrator to ensure carpet was on the floor and ask them to be more considerate. The next day it emailed a link to contact its noise nuisance team and further information about reporting noise nuisances, which was appropriate.
14. The landlord visited the alleged perpetrator on 15 November 2024. This was within a reasonable time. It confirmed they had put a rug down on the floor and advised them to be more considerate of noise. The resident then reported more loud noise on 18 November 2024. Although the landlord attempted to contact her the next day, it took no further action, which is inappropriate.
15. Mediation took place on 9 January 2025. The resident and her neighbour exchanged phone numbers and agreed to communicate about issues peacefully. They also agreed that in any absence of a response via phone, they would knock on each other’s door to communicate.
16. The resident reported being assaulted on 6 March 2025. She said after experiencing over 4 hours of loud noises, she knocked on her neighbour’s door. She said the neighbour pushed her down the stairs and hit her. She had reported it to the police. The landlord telephoned her back the same day to complete an interview and agree an action plan. This is appropriate. It agreed to contact the police about the issue. It asked her to send a diary of incidents and would keep her updated every 2 weeks. It then completed a risk assessment on 14 March 2025 and recorded the issue as medium risk.
17. The landlord provided an update to the resident on 31 March 2025. This is outside of the agreed 2 weeks from the action plan and is a failure. It said it had not received the report from the police. It also said it would get a surveyor to check if it could do anything to reduce the noise from upstairs. It then investigated this, but it could not take any further steps.
18. The landlord provided a further update on 11 April 2025. This was within the agreed timescale and was appropriate. It said the police report stated the resident would not provide a statement or any information about the alleged suspect. The police therefore closed the case. The landlord said it could not take any further action and would close the ASB case. Under the landlord’s ASB policy, it says it can close a case where it is unable to gather sufficient evidence to enable it to take any action. As the police closed the report of an assault with no evidence or information provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to close the ASB case due to insufficient evidence.
19. In its stage 1 complaint response of 15 May 2025, the landlord said an ASB case remained open. It said it had asked a housing officer to investigate further and ensure appropriate steps were taken. As it had previously stated that it had closed the ASB case for the alleged assault, it could have been clearer about what case remained open to avoid confusion.
20. On 29 May 2025, an internal system note shows the landlord reopened an ASB case due to reports of ongoing daily banging. It states the noise was audible on its visit but does not clarify when that was. This is a record keeping failure. It also shows it completed a risk assessment and recorded the issue as high risk.
21. The resident reported the noise issue was still ongoing on 12 June 2025. The landlord emailed her on 25 June 2025 and asked for further information. This was not in line with the timescales of its ASB policy.
22. The landlord then tried to arrange to visit the resident throughout July 2025 but was unsuccessful. On 1 August 2025, it arranged a joint visit to the resident and her neighbour’s property on 5 August 2025 to investigate the noise issue. It attended as planned and recorded there were no loud noises while there. It recorded there were faint sounds heard from children. It asked the neighbour to try to limit noise from children. This was appropriate.
23. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 August 2025. It said about the alleged assault the police report stated the resident did not support police action, no visible injuries were seen, no other party was spoken to, and the crime was closed without further investigation. It said regarding the noise nuisance that as it was the sound of children playing during daytime hours, it had not identified any ASB. It said it would therefore close the ASB case. This was appropriate given the evidence and information available to the landlord at the time. However, it provided diary sheets to record any future incidents and a link to report noise nuisance.
24. In its stage 2 complaint response of 27 October 2025, the landlord acknowledged it could have managed the reports of ASB better. It apologised and offered £250 for the inconvenience caused.
25. In summary, the landlord failed to complete a risk assessment for any of the reports of noise in 2024. It delayed completing an action plan by almost 6 months for the reports of noise in 2024. It did not always contact the resident or take action in line with its policy. There were also record keeping failures and poor communication regarding whether ASB cases were open or closed.
26. As a result of the failures highlighted above, we have found maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies’ guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould and associated damage
Finding	Maladministration

27. The resident reported faulty extractor fans on 23 August 2024. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for repairing all air vents, extractor fans and humidity fans. It says it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days from the date reported. The landlord’s contractor attended on 19 September 2024, which was within 20 working days, however it could not gain access to the property.
28. In the meantime, the resident reported damp issues on 13 September 2024. The landlord raised a repair to install a dehumidifier. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will assess what level of response is required upon receipt of a report of damp and/or mould. Its assessment will take into account who is living in the home and what health conditions they have, and the severity of the damp and mould. If the hazard is not an emergency or at risk of causing significant harm, it will deal with the issue in line with its repairs policy and associated timeframes.
29. The landlord’s contractor attended again on 1 October 2024 to repair the extractor fans. It again could not gain access. The records do not show if the failed appointment dates were agreed with the resident, or the reasons why it could not gain access. This is a record keeping failure.
30. The landlord installed the dehumidifier on 21 October 2024. This was 26 working days after the initial report of damp and a failure.
31. The landlord transferred the repair job for the extractor fans to a different contractor who attended on 25 October 2024. This was 45 working days from the date of report and a failure. It recorded the problem was not with the extractor fans, but the ventilation system. It said the ventilation unit was non-functional and recommended that the landlord replace it.
32. The landlord raised a request to its contractor on 21 November 2024. It asked the contractor to investigate all extractor fans in the property and carry out any necessary repairs. It is unclear why it delayed by almost 1 month to raise the request. This is a failure. It is also unclear why it raised a job to repair extractor fans. It had already identified that the problem was not with the extractor fans, but the ventilation system. This is a record keeping failure.
33. The landlord asked its contractor to remove the dehumidifier from the property on 2 December 2024. It is unclear why it did this as the issue with poor ventilation and condensation remained ongoing. The resident later bought a dehumidifier herself. It was not reasonable for the landlord to remove the dehumidifier before resolving the root cause of the issue.
34. The contractor did not attend the property until 26 March 2025 to investigate the extractor fans and ventilation system. This significant delay is a further failure. The contractor reported it would need to source the required parts before it could repair the ventilation system.
35. The resident did not report any further damp or mould issues until her complaint of 10 April 2025. She said black mould was spreading in the flat due to a lack of ventilation and her and her husband had breathing difficulties. She said damp was everywhere in the bathroom and had ruined the towel rail. She also said a crack had appeared in the bathroom ceiling. According to its damp and mould policy if there is risk of a significant hazard, it will complete an investigation within 10 working days. If there is a significant hazard, a contractor will attend and complete relevant works within 5 working days of the investigation concluding. The landlord did not raise an inspection until 15 May 2025. This delay is a failure.
36. The landlord attended on 27 May 2025. This was 29 working days after the report and a failure. It completed a mould treatment and determined the damp and mould was caused by condensation due to poor ventilation and the extractor fans not working. The ongoing failure to complete repairs to the ventilation system was therefore having an ongoing impact on the damp and mould in the property.
37. The landlord did not raise repairs for the damage to the towel rail and bathroom ceiling until 24 October 2025. This was over 6 months after the resident’s report and a significant failure. It confirmed with the resident on 24 October 2025 she had no more damp and mould.
38. In its stage 2 complaint response of 27 October 2025, the landlord confirmed it had raised repairs for the towel rail and bathroom ceiling. It offered an overall £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays to repairs. It did not specify how much was for delays repairing the ventilation system and extractor fans and how much was for delays dealing with damp and mould or the resulting damage. It completed repairs to the bathroom ceiling on 5 November 2025. However, there is no evidence the landlord has completed any repairs to the towel rail or ventilation system. The delay in resolving these issues is a significant failure.
39. In summary, the landlord delayed raising the appropriate work and failed to complete repairs for the ventilation system. There are also record keeping failures with the landlord raising repairs raised for extractor fans instead of the ventilation system. The lack of sufficient ventilation in the property has caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord also delayed installing a dehumidifier by 6 working days. It removed the dehumidifier before resolving the root cause of the issue. It delayed inspecting the damp and mould by 19 working days. It delayed repairing the bathroom ceiling by almost 7 months and has failed to repair the towel rail.
40. As a result of its failure to appropriately deal with reports of damp and mould and the associated damage over a prolonged and sustained period, we have found maladministration. We order the landlord to pay the resident £1,200 compensation. This is within the range of awards set out in our remedies’ guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	Reports of a pest infestation
Finding	Reasonable redress

41. The resident reported a mice infestation on 24 January 2025. The landlord’s pest control policy states it will attend within 10 working days. It attended on 11 February 2025 to complete proofing work and put bait down. This was 12 working days later and a failure.
42. The landlord attended again on 4 March 2025. Its policy does not specify timescales for return visits, but we consider this to be within a reasonable time. It recorded mice were still active, and it put further baits down. It also recorded plinths needed to be removed in the kitchen to treat behind them.
43. The landlord attended 5 times between 19 March and 11 September 2025. It did not treat and block behind the kitchen units until its final visit. Implied into every lease is the covenant of quiet enjoyment. This means that the resident’s enjoyment / use of their property should not be unreasonably interrupted by the actions or inactions of the landlord. This is also supported by paragraph A.2 of the tenancy agreement. This states the landlord agrees not to interfere with or disturb the tenant’s quiet occupation of the premises. The time taken of almost 6 months to resolve the mice infestation was not reasonable and interfered with the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
44. In summary, the landlord delayed attending by 2 working days. It also delayed removing units in the kitchen to affect lasting repairs by almost 6 months. However, it apologised and offered suitable redress for its failures. We have therefore found reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

45. The resident first raised a complaint on 10 April 2025. Under our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s complaint policy, it should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 April 2025. This is compliant with the Code.
46. Under the Code and the landlord’s complaint policy, it should issue a full response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. It can extend the timescale for a further 10 working days providing it informs the resident. It wrote to the resident on 1 May 2025 and said it needed to extend the deadline by 10 working days to 16 May 2025. This is compliant with the Code.
47. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 15 May 2025. This is compliant with the prescribed timescales of the Code including the extension. In its response, the landlord addressed all complaint points, did but not find any issues with its handling of ASB other than challenges reaching the housing officer. It also gave dates for completing all outstanding issues, which it did not adhere to. This is inappropriate.
48. The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the complaint response on 12 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request in line with its policy. However, it did not respond to the complaint at stage 2 until 27 October 2025. During that time, it wrote to the resident once to explain the delay, but it gave its response 51 working days beyond the new deadline given. It apologised for the delay responding to the complaint and offered £150 for its complaint handling failures.
49. In summary, the landlord failed to acknowledge any ASB handling failures in its stage 1 complaint response. It also significantly delayed issuing its stage 2 complaint response by 51 working days after the extended timeframe. However, it apologised and offered suitable redress for its complaint handling failures. We have therefore found reasonable redress.

Learning

50. The landlord’s communication with its contractors was poor, which negatively affected its ability to carry out repairs. It also demonstrated a lack of oversight of its contractors, which may have contributed to the failings identified.  It should consider reviewing its contractor communication processes to ensure it is effectively monitoring outstanding responses.
51. The landlord failed to deal with reports of ASB in line with its policy on a number of occasions. It should ensure staff are familiar with its ASB policy and what steps to take after each report of ASB, particularly the importance of completing risk assessments and action plans.
52. The landlord significantly delayed dealing with the resident’s complaint. It should ensure staff are familiar with the requirements of the Code, particularly the importance of acknowledging complaints and issuing responses within the prescribed timescales.
53. It is good practice for landlords to be explicit in their compensation awards. It should highlight the specific amount of compensation it has awarded to each element of the complaint. The landlord should consider this learning in its future complaint responses.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

54. The landlord has not provided evidence of all inspection reports or completed works. Some of its repair records are unclear and do not detail the nature or outcome of the works completed. At times, this has affected our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

55. The landlord did not contact the resident to provide updates on when it would carry out repairs. The resident had to chase for updates. This lack of communication contributed to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. There were also several instances where the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s contact. The landlord should explore ways to maintain consistent contact with residents while repairs are ongoing. It should also look for opportunities to learn from this complaint to improve its customer service.