Notting Hill Genesis (202315084)

Background

1. The property is in a block of flats. Between April 2024 and June 2024, the resident reported issues to the landlord about the condition of the carpet and graffiti in the communal areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests for the communal area.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord when it identified service failings in its response to the resident’s repair requests for the communal area.
5. There was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord identified a service failing, apologised, and made an offer of compensation that was appropriate in line with its compensation policy and our Remedies Guidance. It also demonstrated learning from the complaint by putting systems in place to reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring.
7. The evidence indicated a failure to identify and acknowledge the complaint and complaint escalation which led to a slight delay for the resident in exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not looked at and why 

8. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to a previous complaint about the condition of the communal area in 2023 and she raised a further complaint about the same issue in 2025. While these complaints have been considered for context, this investigation has focussed on correspondence from April 2024 until October 2024. This is the timeframe of the issues that gave rise to this complaint.
9. When the resident escalated her complaint, she raised concerns about bulk items being left in the communal which caused a fire hazard. As this issue did not from part of the original complaint, this is not something that this we can investigate because the landlord needs to have an opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. They may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied.

The landlord’s response to repair request’s in the communal area.

10. The landlord’s Policy and Estate Management Policy confirms that it is responsible for cleaning of the communal areas. It also states that it employs cleaning contractors to carry out cleaning of all communal areas and will inspect the cleaning of communal areas to ensure it is done to the highest standard.
11. It is evident that the issues reported have been distressing for the resident. There remains a dispute between the resident and the landlord about the condition of the communal area. It is not our role to investigate or assess the condition of the communal area. It is our role to establish if the landlord’s response was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
12. On 19 April 2024, a new housing officer for the landlord emailed several tenants of the block and confirmed that graffiti had been removed from the communal area that day. The landlord said that it had completed a deep clean of the carpet which improved it but it may need replaced after consultation with the leaseholders of the block. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to address the issues in the communal area.
13. Between 7 June 2024 and 10 July 2024, the resident requested updates on the replacement carpet and reported more graffiti causing distress to some residents. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a further carpet clean on 17 July 2024 and removed the graffiti. In its stage 1 complaint response it said that it would need to consult with leaseholders of the block about replacing the carpet and it had emailed a warning to tenants of the block about graffiti. These were appropriate steps to address the issues reported by the resident.
14. When the resident escalated the complaint, she said that despite the deep clean of the carpet, the stain and smell remained. She said it was a health hazard and wanted the carpet removed. She said that the landlord had not contacted all residents of the block about the graffiti because it did not hold email addresses for each resident. In response, the landlord advised that it had inspected the carpet and found that it did not require replacement. It apologised that it had failed to communicate its decision not to replace the carpet and offered £50 for this failing. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
15. After its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord wrote to all tenants of the block to advise that it would not be replacing the carpet but would continue to clean and monitor the condition of the carpet. It requested that tenants dispose of rubbish in a way that would not damage the carpet. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a further deep clean and inspection of the carpet. The post inspection noted “The condition of the carpets is good. There is staining, but nothing major. The carpets are clean to the touch and there are 2 small ash burns however, no scuffs or flares”. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take to address the resident’s issue.
16. In its letter to all tenants of the block, the landlord also advised that it would be carrying out regular inspections to assess the condition of communal areas and would investigate further if it could link the graffiti to an individual property in the block. This was appropriate in the circumstances and demonstrates a commitment to reduce the likelihood of the same issue reoccurring.

17. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 1 complaint response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a complaint escalation should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 2 complaint response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
18. The evidence provided does not show that the landlord acknowledged the initial complaint and the stage 1 complaint response was 3 working days beyond its timescales. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation and although the stage 2 complaint was provided within the relevant timescales, the evidence indicates that this was only actioned after our intervention. While these failings did not have an impact on the handling of the substantive issue, it is an indication that there was an issue with identifying and escalating complaints through its complaints procedure.
19. Despite the above issues, the landlord effectively used its complaint handling process to address the substantive issues and put things right for the resident. The evidence indicates that it followed up on agreed actions of cleaning and inspecting the carpet and issued a warning to residents of the block about graffiti. It also identified a service failing and offered redress which was appropriate in the circumstances. Because the resident failed to identify any learning from the complaint, reasonable redress is not a determination we can make.

Learning

Complaint handling

20. This investigation identified complaint handling practices that did not comply with the Code. We encourage the landlord to review this case against the Code and implement any learning it finds to improve its complaint handling, with specific focus on identifying and acknowledging complaints within the relevant timescales.