Notting Hill Genesis (202518230)

Decision
Case ID	202518230
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident and her daughter live in a ground floor flat. The resident is registered blind. She raised concerns about a leak in the bathroom and black mould in the kitchen. She said the property was not suitable for her needs because of her visual impairment and because the mould was impacting her and her daughter’s health.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs in the bathroom.
   2. Damp and mould in the kitchen.
   3. The resident’s request for adaptations.
   4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress which resolved its failures in its handling of:
   1. Repairs in the bathroom.
   2. The associated complaint.
4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the kitchen.
5. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the bathroom

6. The landlord did not respond as promptly as it should have when the resident reported leaks and damage in the bathroom. However, it later completed the necessary repairs, acknowledged the delays, apologised, and offered reasonable compensation to put matters right.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the kitchen

7. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s report of kitchen damp and mould within the timescales set out in its policy, taking over 8 months to carry out an inspection despite ongoing reports that the mould was worsening and affecting health. Although it offered compensation and later completed mould treatment, this did not adequately put things right given the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations

8. The landlord correctly advised that an occupational therapist assessment was needed to decide whether adaptations were appropriate or feasible.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

9. The landlord did not respond to one of the issues at stage 1 and was late it its stage 2 response. However, it acknowledged these failings, apologised, and offered reasonable compensation to put things right.

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 05 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 (including the £275 already offered) in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in the handling of damp and mould in the kitchen.	No later than 05 June 2026
3.	Consideration of reimbursement order The landlord must review the information that the resident has provided regarding damage to belongings. It should then either confirm whether it will offer any reimbursement towards the items or provide the relevant information to make a claim via its insurers.	No later than 05 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it hadn’t already done so, we recommend the landlord pay £375 in compensation, as previously offered, divided as follows: £250 for its handling of a leak in the bathroom. £125 for its complaint handling.
We recommend the landlord contact the resident regarding her concern about the bathroom floor being a tripping hazard. It should then be clear with the resident about whether it will take further action about her concerns.
We recommend the landlord inspects the hissing sound in the bathroom wall. Although at present there are no signs of leaking into the bathroom, if there is a small leak in the pipes in the wall, this could cause damage in the future.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 July 2025	The resident raised a complaint. She said:  There was a leak in the bathroom that had caused mould growth and damage to the bathroom floor. She had reported black mould in the kitchen on 27 May 2025, but the landlord had not addressed this. The kitchen was inaccessible and cramped and not able to be adapted to her current needs as her eyesight continued to deteriorate.
21 July 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident to say it needed an additional 10 working days, until 11 August 2025, to investigate and respond to the complaint.
11 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It acknowledged the delays in inspecting and completing repairs. An inspection was scheduled, and repairs would be raised following this. It apologised and offered £200 in compensation for the inconvenience caused.
12 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: No inspection had been scheduled as stated in the stage 1 response. The landlord should not have placed her in the property in 2022 while she was pregnant without ensuring it was safe and suitable for her health needs. She and her child had been placed at serious risk due to damp, mould, and outstanding repairs. Exposure to mould had continued to worsen her asthma.
15 October 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It follows the Decent Home Standard when letting properties to ensure they are safe. It had recently replaced the bathroom subfloor and vinyl flooring. The resident’s concerns about mould in the kitchen had not been addressed at stage 1. It would complete an asset inspection to investigate damp, mould, and any remaining concerns, and proposed appointments on either 16 or 21 October 2025. It had not received a request to adapt the property, and this would require an assessment by an occupational therapist. Its communication about transfer options had been poor. It provided a housing application form and offered support. It apologised and offered £650 in compensation, made up of: £150 for poor communication. £50 for complaint mishandling. £150 for delays in repairs and incomplete stage 1 review. £200 for distress and inconvenience (previously offered). £100 additional for distress and inconvenience in line with its vulnerability policy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to our Service. She said: The landlord had ignored mould in the kitchen. There were outstanding bathroom repairs. The kitchen layout did not meet her needs. She wanted us to consider the landlord’s actions at this property and at her previous address.

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.

Landlord’s offer of compensation

10. Some of the compensation the landlord offered is for more than one complaint issue. For the purposes of this investigation, including where we have considered whether the landlord’s offer was reasonable, we have apportioned the total amount between the different complaint issues. Of the £650 offered, we have attributed £250 to the handling of the leak in the bathroom, £275 for the handling of damp and mould in the kitchen, and £125 for handling of the associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

11. The resident asked us to consider the landlord’s actions at her current property, where she moved in 2022, and her previous property. We can investigate issues that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and we normally consider events within a reasonable period of time, usually within 12 months of a formal complaint.
12. In this case the resident raised a formal complaint in July 2025. We have therefore not considered events prior to July 2024. We have also not considered the resident’s concerns about her previous home because these were not matters that the landlord considered in its own complaint replies.

Complaint	Handling of repairs in bathroom
Finding	Reasonable redress

13. In July 2025, the resident formally complained about the poor state of the bathroom, including leaks and damage to the floor. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged it had not arranged an inspection in response to these concerns, as it should have done.
14. The landlord installed new bathroom flooring on 8 September 2025. The resident raised concerns, saying there was black mould beneath the flooring and that a leak was ongoing. It was reasonable for the resident to question whether installing new flooring was appropriate if the underlying issue had not been resolved. The landlord did not do enough, at this point, to determine if there was an ongoing leak.
15. When the landlord inspected on 17 November 2025, it did not find an active leak. However, it noted a quiet ‘hissing’ sound behind the wall or floor and said this could indicate a possible internal issue, although there were no visible signs of water damage.
16. The landlord repaired a water pipe in the bathroom on 22 December 2025. It is not clear from the records whether this repair related to the earlier concerns or to a new issue.
17. At a further inspection in February 2026, the landlord identified minor mould growth, such as in the grout, and said this was unlikely to pose a health risk. It did not identify damp or mould beneath the flooring. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional opinion of its surveyor in reaching this conclusion.
18. Subsequent inspections did not identify any leaks, and the landlord completed treatment of the damp and mould in the property. The resident told us that she was concerned about the hissing noise and said that a section of the new bathroom flooring had been lifted by a contractor, creating a potential trip hazard.
19. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the repair delays in handling the bathroom repairs. We have attributed £250 of the compensation offered to the distress and inconvenience caused by these delays. This amount is reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance, as the failures caused inconvenience without permanent impact. We have recommended that the landlord pay this amount if it has not already done so.
20. We have also recommended that the landlord contact the resident to address her concerns about the flooring and confirm whether further action is required to remove any potential trip hazard. In addition, we have recommended that it consider further investigation of the reported hissing noise, as an unresolved internal issue could lead to future damage.

 

Complaint	Handling of damp and mould in the kitchen
Finding	Maladministration

21. The resident told us that the damp and mould in the property has impacted her and her daughter’s health. We recognise her concern. However, determining liability for health impacts or awarding damages falls outside our role. Such matters are more appropriately considered by the courts, which can rely on independent medical evidence. We have therefore not investigated health impacts further. We can consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
22. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will inspect a property within 10 days of receiving a report of damp and mould. At the initial visit, it will assess the severity of the issue and, where possible, identify the cause. Where repairs are needed, it will arrange these and follow up to confirm completion. For more severe cases, it will arrange a surveyor inspection within 10 days. The policy also says it will consider evidence of health impacts when prioritising its response.
23. On 27 May 2025 the resident reported black mould behind a kitchen cabinet. The mould was first identified during a pest control visit. As the issue was not addressed, she raised a formal complaint in July 2025. In its stage 2 response, dated 15 October 2025, the landlord said it would arrange a surveyor to inspect, and it raised a job to provide a dehumidifier for 2 weeks.
24. The landlord inspected the kitchen on 6 February 2026 and confirmed the presence of damp and mould. Although there were some initial difficulties arranging a suitable appointment, this does not explain the overall delay. There is no evidence the landlord proactively rescheduled when the initial dates offered in October 2025 did not work for the resident. It was not reasonable for the inspection to take more than 8 months from the initial report, particularly as the policy says inspections should take place within 10 days.
25. During this period, the resident reported the mould worsening and said it was affecting her asthma. There is no evidence that the landlord initially considered this when prioritising its response, although it later acknowledged the resident’s health issue shortly before it arranged for mould treatment.
26. After the February 2026 inspection, the resident declined immediate mould treatment as she believed there was an active leak. The landlord inspected and did not identify a leak. It completed mould treatment and redecorated the affected kitchen area on 25 March 2026.
27. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the kitchen. Although the landlord acknowledged delays in its stage 2 response and offered compensation, this did not reflect the length of the delay or the impact on the resident. Further delays occurred after the stage 2 response.
28. The resident provided photographs and information to both the landlord and this Service showing mould damage to items, including a chopping board, toys, plates, cutlery, and some clothing that could not be cleaned. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the issue of damaged belongings. We have therefore ordered the landlord to review the information that the resident has provided regarding damage to belongings. It should then either confirm whether it will offer any reimbursement towards the items or provide the relevant information to make a claim via its insurers.
29. In line with our remedies guidance for failures that were not fully acknowledged or put right, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £500 in total (including the £275 already offered), to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and mould in the kitchen.

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s request for adaptations
Finding	No maladministration

30. The resident has said the kitchen was outdated, did not meet housing standards, and could not accommodate a full-sized refrigerator. She said it was cramped and increasingly difficult for her to use as her eyesight deteriorated.
31. The resident also said the size and layout of the kitchen meant it could not be adapted to meet her needs. In its complaint responses and other correspondence, the landlord said it would require an occupational therapist assessment to determine whether adaptations were appropriate or feasible.
32. This was accurate and appropriate advice for the landlord to give. As it handled the request for adaptations in line with the correct process, we have found no maladministration.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

33. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. Where additional time is needed, it will notify the resident and extend the timescale by no more than 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with our Complaints Handling Code.
34. The landlord responded within its timescales at stage 1, although it later acknowledged that one issue had not been addressed. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 12 August 2025, but the landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 15 October 2025. There is no evidence that it informed the resident of an extension, which meant the stage 2 response was around 1 month late and this would have caused frustration.
35. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged failures in its complaint handling. It offered £50 specifically for complaint mishandling and £150 combined for delays in repairs and the incomplete stage 1 response. We have attributed £125 of the compensation to the complaint handling failures, with the remaining £75 attributed to repair delays.
36. The £125 in compensation for complaint handling is in line with our compensation guidance for time and trouble caused by these failures. We have recommended that the landlord pay this amount if it has not already done so.

Learning

37. In this case, the landlord showed improvement in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Although it did not initially prioritise the reports or take account of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it did so from January 2026.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

38. Health concerns and vulnerabilities were raised, but the records did not consistently show how this information influenced prioritisation or decision-making. The landlord could improve how it records and flags vulnerability information, so it is visible and considered across repairs, damp and mould, and complaint handling teams.

 

Communication

39. There were periods where communication was unclear or inconsistent. The landlord could improve how it explains what action it will take, when it will happen, and when timescales change, to reduce the need for residents to chase updates.