Notting Hill Genesis (202416680)

Background

1. The resident applied to succeed her late partner’s tenancy in December 2022. Her representative later raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the rent account, the succession application, and damp and mould in the property. The landlord was informed of the resident’s vulnerabilities. In this report, the terms ‘the landlord’ and ‘the resident’ follow our standard reporting style and do not indicate any findings about their legal status.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Rent account.
   2. Succession application.
   3. Reports of damp and mould.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.
4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Succession application.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the rent account

5. The landlord failed to manage the rent account appropriately and did not acknowledge or correct several significant errors. These failings caused the resident prolonged distress and inconvenience.

The handling of the succession application

6. The landlord did not demonstrate that it handled the succession application in line with the law or its own policies. While it accepted some failings, it did not address all of them, and the ongoing delays were not appropriate.

The handling of the damp and mould

7. Although the landlord took some steps to address the damp and mould, it did not act with urgency or consider the resident’s vulnerabilities. Its later lack of action was not appropriate.

The handling of the complaint

8. The landlord’s complaint handling involved significant delays and omissions. It acknowledged only some of its failings and did not fully address the issues raised.

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.

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.

9. The landlord’s succession procedure states that:
   1. Anyone remaining in the property after the tenant’s death, whether a potential or unsuccessful successor, may be charged “use and occupation” fees.
   2. Charges begin when the Notice to Quit (NTQ) expires.
   3. A use and occupation letter should be issued as soon as the landlord is notified of the death.
   4. Charges should be added to the deceased tenant’s rent account using the correct code, and the applicant should be given payment details.
   5. The deceased tenant’s rent balance should be transferred to a sundry account.
10. The landlord’s income policy says it offers extensive support to all residents and will work with anyone who shows a genuine commitment to clearing their debt.
11. Under its procedure, the landlord should have issued an NTQ and a use and occupation letter when notified of the tenant’s death and the succession application on 20 December 2022. There is no evidence it did so. This was a failing.
12. The landlord did not issue a NTQ until 24 October 2023, 10 months later, which was not appropriate and would not have managed the resident’s expectations. There was still no clarity at this point in relation to the use and occupation charges.
13. On 26 October 2023, the resident’s representative told the landlord that the resident’s daughter had been making rent payments after the tenant’s death. They explained the resident had dyslexia, dyspraxia, no income, and had become financially and emotionally vulnerable following her daughter’s death in June 2023. They asked the landlord to allow time for the resident to receive support and to agree a manageable payment plan.
14. On 10 November 2023, the landlord said the resident was not liable for the late tenant’s arrears but was liable for charges accrued since the death and after the NTQ. The representative replied to the landlord the same day and said the resident was now in receipt of Universal Credit. They requested an updated rent statement so she could begin clearing arrears.
15. The landlord did not respond. Even if charges were owed to the account, the landlord had a duty to manage the account effectively. When told that missing information prevented payment, it should have provided clear instructions, and an updated statement as requested. Its failure to do so caused significant distress and inconvenience.
16. The representative chased the landlord for the information on 29 November 2023, 19 January 2024, and on 5 February 2024. They expressed that the delay in providing the necessary information for the resident to make payments was resulting in preventable arrears and an overwhelming financial strain on the resident.
17. On 12 February 2024 the landlord responded to say it had previously served a use and occupation to the resident and provided her with details of how to pay. It said she also had a rent card which she could use. It said as she had previously made payments, she should have no issues doing so. It said it would send a new rent card out to her. It said it assumed the resident’s recent access to public funds would cover her housing costs.
18. This response was unhelpful and lacked empathy. It did not acknowledge that previous payments were made by the resident’s daughter, who had since died. There is no evidence of any earlier agreement with the resident. The representative had repeatedly explained what they required to make payments which was proof of occupation, an updated statement, and payment details. The landlord did not provide this to them. This was a failing.
19. The representative then raised the issue of the landlord’s duties under the Equality Act 2010. We cannot determine whether the landlord breached the Act, as this is for the courts. However, the landlord has not demonstrated it considered the resident’s needs. Once informed of her learning difficulties and bereavements, it should have considered the reasonable adjustments and support required. Instead, it insisted she already had the information and means to pay the charges, which did not demonstrate an accessible service or a willingness to offer “extensive support” as per the landlord’s income policy.
20. The landlord’s supporting statement for its tenancy approval panel on 6 March 2024 further demonstrated poor practice. It said the resident had no bank account and had made no payments, with arrears totalling £18,639.18. It said she was receiving third party support but she had not received any in relation to the rent account. It said considering the current arrears there were strong grounds the resident could not afford the property or be able to clear the arrears should it grant succession.
21. The landlord’s statement showed a failure to act fairly and reasonably. We are aware the resident’s daughter had previously made some payments. Although in the absence of a statement it is unclear where those payments went. The representative had shown great efforts to assist the resident with the arrears, but was hindered by the landlord’s lack of communication, information, and support. The resident’s distress in being unable to make payments was made clear and likely aggravated by her vulnerabilities and overall circumstances.
22. On 8 March 2024, the representative requested an update. They repeated that the resident could not access benefits without proof of occupancy. They also said contributions made towards the late tenant’s rent would not count towards the resident’s own charges. They again requested the use and occupation agreement. They said the delay was causing long‑term financial and physical harm. After no response, they raised the issue in the formal complaint and chased this again on 12 April 2024.
23. There was no further information from the landlord until the stage 1 response on 20 December 2024. This was a substantial delay which prolonged the significant impact on the resident, later worsened by the landlord’s failure to provide an explanation in its complaint responses. It confirmed arrears of £16,946.28, which differed from the higher amount stated 10 months earlier. It said irregular payments contributed to the arrears but it did not address the repeated concerns that the missing information prevented payment. It said the resident had been signposted to her housing officer, but we have seen no evidence of this. Given the representative had been requesting this information for over a year, the response was not sufficient.
24. The landlord has provided us with an undated copy of a “confirmation of use and occupation” letter addressed to the resident. It stated charges commenced on 28 November 2022 and set out the weekly amount. It said further information and a payment reference would follow. The landlord says it sent this on 31 October 2023 but the resident said she never received it. In the absence of further evidence from the landlord, we cannot confirm when or if it was sent.
25. If it sent the letter on 31 October 2023 as stated, given the resident’s known learning difficulties at the time, it would have been appropriate to send a copy to the representative. In not doing so, the landlord has not demonstrated it applied any reasonable adjustment to ensuring the resident had access to the information. There is also no evidence that further information or a payment reference was ever issued as stated in the letter. Without this, it is unclear whether payments made since the late tenant’s death were applied to the late tenant’s arrears or the resident’s use and occupation charges. A statement, as repeatedly requested by the representative, could have clarified this.
26. The tone of the landlord’s communication throughout the period investigated was dismissive and lacked empathy. It showed no regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities. The representative made clear that the resident was struggling, yet the landlord offered no reassurance or support as outlined in its policies. Its responses were vague, and delays in providing essential information prevented the resident from understanding, challenging, managing, or paying the charges owed. This caused her significant distress and inconvenience. The situation remains unresolved and we have made orders with the aim of putting things right.
27. To conclude, the landlord had opportunities to identify and address its failings during the complaint process and it did not do so. It has not demonstrated any learning or taken steps to put matters right. Its actions represented serious failings, marked by a lack of regard for the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is why we found severe maladministration.
28. After issuing its stage 2 response, the landlord served a third NTQ on 18 July 2025, following legal advice that its earlier notices were defective. This notice required the resident to vacate the property by 15 August 2025 or by the end of the four‑week rental period. We have not examined why the previous notices were defective. However, the landlord must clarify, if the 2023 and 2024 notices were invalid, meaning the late tenant’s tenancy had not legally ended, whether the resident was liable for any charges during that period.

29. The late tenant’s tenancy agreement stated that, on the tenant’s death, the tenancy would pass to their spouse or civil partner if they were living in the property as their only home at the time of death. The landlord’s succession policy defines a cohabitee as a long‑term partner living with the tenant. For assured tenancies, it says a cohabitee is treated the same as a spouse or civil partner.
30. The succession procedure requires the landlord to complete the succession process within 28 working days of being notified of the death. It sets out four steps: issue an NTQ, notify the Public Trustee, refer the claim to the tenancy approval panel (from June 2024), and provide an outcome.
31. The late tenant passed away on 27 November 2022. The exact date the landlord learned of the death is unclear. The stage 1 response said the succession request was raised on 13 April 2023. However, the landlord likely knew of the death by 10 December 2022, when it received the succession application. Under its procedure at the time, it should have issued an NTQ, notified the Public Trustee, and provided a succession outcome within 28 days. There is no evidence it took any of these steps, which was not appropriate, and left the resident without clear information.
32. There is no evidence of further action by the landlord until 17 August 2023, 8 months later where it appears to have completed a form for its tenancy approval panel. The form said it related to statutory succession. The housing officer wrote in it that during their annual visit the previous year, the late tenant introduced the resident as their partner and confirmed she lived at the property. The landlord has not provided information to support its decision making or the outcome of the panel at that time. This was a further failure in progressing the claim.
33. The landlord issued an NTQ on 24 October 2023. The resident’s representative emailed 2 days later. They said the resident had applied to succeed the tenancy the previous year and had provided evidence meeting the policy and legal requirements. They also notified the landlord of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
34. On 10 November 2023, the landlord said the resident had not met the succession conditions, stating the phone bill she provided was insufficient because she was not the account holder.
35. This was the landlord’s first clear statement of its position on the succession. This communication, paired with its knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities was not appropriate. Its policy states it will liaise with support services for advice and offer them an assessment of their need for support. It says that would not be a reason to refuse a succession claim. There is no evidence of the landlord doing this. Succession rights are matters of some complexity. Given the importance of succession decisions to an applicant’s housing status and security, it is vital that these are communicated clearly, in an accessible manner, and are well-reasoned.
36. It did not specify whether it was assessing statutory or discretionary succession, it did not provide the panel outcome, and it did not explain what further evidence was required. It also did not show consideration to its earlier confirmation that the resident lived at the property at the time of death.
37. Following the representative’s subsequent email citing legislation which supported automatic succession of the tenancy, the landlord said it would refer the matter to the tenancy approval panel. The representative continued to request updates and raised concerns about delays. The landlord replied on 12 February 2024 and said it awaited a background check. The check dated 1 March 2024 showed the earliest known date of the resident’s occupation of the property as 1 January 2019. It showed no other linked addresses from that date. While it did not provide a position on the succession, the information indicated that the property was the resident’s main residence at the time of her partner’s death.
38. The landlord submitted a form to the tenancy approval panel on 6 March 2024. It said the resident’s arrears, debts, and limited income created strong grounds that she could not afford the tenancy. It said the housing manager had decided to deny succession. It also said there was insufficient evidence of the resident’s relationship with the late tenant or her residence at the property. It said it was sending the case to the panel to “cover all bases” before court action.
39. The landlord has not provided the panel’s outcome. However, the landlord’s supporting statement was concerning and inconsistent with earlier information provided. The housing officer had confirmed knowledge of the resident’s relationship with the late tenancy and residence at the property. The background check also suggested she had resided at the property since 2019. The landlord relied on the resident’s finances for its decision, but financial assessment was not relevant to the criteria for statutory succession, as outlined in its policy. The landlord did not demonstrate fairness in its handling of the resident’s application.
40. Despite the formal complaint and repeated requests, the landlord provided no further correspondence until October 2024. Another third‑party organisation contacted it on behalf of the resident and said the landlord had asked the resident for 4 years of phone bills, which she had since gathered. They asked how the landlord wanted to receive the information. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities, this would have been a task which caused her considerable time and effort. We have seen no policy basis for this request or evidence the landlord responded at the time. This again failed to manage expectations and likely caused distress, time, and trouble to the resident.
41. The landlord issued another NTQ on 24 October 2024. The landlord said it issued a “no eligibility” letter in October 2024, but we have not seen evidence of this. The only similar letter provided is dated October 2025 which could have been an error but we cannot see that it was sent to the resident’s representative at the time.
42. The landlord’s complaint responses said it denied succession because the resident did not provide sufficient evidence of 12 months’ residence. It said it told her this was essential. We have not seen evidence of the landlord raising this with the resident prior to its complaint responses. It also has not explained why the evidence it already held was insufficient.
43. Overall, there were multiple failings in the landlord’s handling of the succession application, which amount to maladministration. The landlord accepted delays and poor communication and it offered £100 compensation. But this did not address the full extent of the failings. It did not consider the considerable delay from December 2022 onwards. It did not show how it reached its decisions in line with its policies and legislation. It did not take the resident’s vulnerabilities into account when communicating key information. This likely caused her significant distress and inconvenience. It is troubling that the matter remains unresolved, 4 years later.
44. It remains unclear what the landlord’s current position is and what evidence is outstanding for it to reach a decision. The resident has supplied bills, GP letters, testimonies, and other documents predating the tenant’s death. A housing officer also confirmed knowledge of the relationship and residence. It is not for us to determine entitlement to succession. That is a matter for the court. However, the landlord should have provided a clear and reasoned explanation of why it did not consider the evidence provided to be sufficient to succeed the tenancy.
45. We have seen correspondence after the stage 2 response in which the landlord’s legal team stated the resident met the criteria for automatic succession in November 2022. It is therefore unclear why the decision is still being withheld. We have also seen recent correspondence where the landlord requested further information about the resident’s immigration status to help determine succession. The landlord should consider that if the resident had a right to automatically succeed in 2022, the relevant status to consider should be that at the date of her late partner’s death.

46. The resident said the landlord’s handling of damp and mould affected her health. Personal injury claims are better addressed through the courts. Courts can rely on independent medical evidence to determine causation and impact. We have therefore not investigated personal injury. We can, however, assess whether compensation is due for distress and inconvenience.
47. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says all initial reports will be prioritised as urgent, with vulnerabilities considered. It says it will make contact within 5 working days and a visit arranged within 10 working days. It requires a report setting out findings, recommendations, and required repairs.
48. On 18 September 2023 the resident’s daughter emailed the landlord. She said the resident was struggling with the mould in the property, provided photographs, and asked the landlord to look into the issue. The landlord did not respond at the time which was not appropriate or in line with its policy.
49. On 26 October 2023, the resident’s representative reported the property was in a state of disrepair with damp and mould in the bedroom, entrance, and hallway. They said it was having an adverse effect on the resident, particularly her asthma. The landlord raised a repair the same day to attend, treat, and report on any follow works in relation to the reported mould. It then scheduled the appointment for 15 January 2024, almost 3 months later. This was not appropriate and there is no evidence the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when arranging that appointment. If it had done so, we would expect it to have raised the works for much sooner.
50. The resident’s housing officer contacted the resident’s daughter on 9 November 2023 and asked to visit to look at the reported issues. They also contacted the resident’s representative on 10 November 2023 and said they would cold-call on the Wednesday if no date to visit was agreed by then. While this contact was not made within the timescales outlined within its policy, it was an appropriate next step given the length of time which had already passed.
51. On 20 November 2023, the housing officer confirmed they carried out a cold call to the property but there was no answer. We appreciate that the lack of access at the time would have delayed the landlord in carrying out the necessary actions. Its damp and mould policy states that in the event of failed access for damp and mould, it will continue to engage with the customers. We have not seen evidence which demonstrates a calling card was left at the property, or other attempts made to contact the resident following that visit.
52. The next record is the mould treatment completed on 15 January 2024. As stated, and in the absence of further information, the time taken to complete the works was not appropriate or in line with its policy.
53. On 15 March 2024, the representative reported significant disrepair and health impacts to the resident. Following no response, the representative contacted the landlord again asking it to confirm when it would complete repairs as they were causing a significant deterioration of the resident’s health. It is a failing that the landlord did not respond to those emails or take action to ensure the property was in a suitable condition for the resident.
54. In its stage 1 response 7 months later, the landlord said it had addressed the matter, with no follow up work needed. It said if there was ongoing damp and mould to let it know immediately and it would reassess the situation. Given the time which had passed and the concerns raised, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have asked for more information or inspected the property. This would have been a proactive response, taking into account the potential risks posed to the resident.
55. The representative escalated the complaint and said the resident, an “elderly asthmatic”, was living in significant disrepair and suffering loss of belongings and health impacts. The landlord should have carried out an urgent inspection at this stage, but it did not do so.
56. In its stage 2 response the landlord said an annual visit on 9 October 2024 found no damp or mould. We have not seen records of this visit. Without records, it is difficult to assess the reasonableness of that position. However, it was not appropriate for the landlord to rely on previous findings rather than assess the current reports and condition. This caused further delay.
57. The stage 2 response acknowledged the delay between 26 October 2023 and 15 January 2024 and awarded £250 compensation. It also provided insurance details for claims relating to belongings or injury, which was reasonable. However, it did not acknowledge the earlier delay following the daughter’s report in September 2023. It also did not demonstrate it took appropriate action after the March 2024 complaint, leading to unnecessary delays in resolving the matter. We therefore do not consider the landlord put matters right.
58. The representative has said the landlord has still not carried out any action despite ongoing reports. They said the worsening condition remains the resident’s main concern as it continues to affect her health.

59. The landlord’s complaints policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
60. The resident’s representative made a complaint on 15 March 2024 and requested a formal response under the complaints policy. The landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It did not respond. This was not appropriate.
61. On 12 April 2024, the representative chased the complaint and requested urgent action. The landlord again failed to reply. A stage 1 response was not issued until 20 December 2024, 9 months later and only after our intervention. This was a significant failure.
62. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had not received a formal complaint but accepted it should have logged the resident’s verbal dissatisfaction. It apologised and awarded £100. This did not put matters right. The representative had submitted a clear formal complaint and highlighted this in the stage 2 escalation. The landlord did not consider this or demonstrate learning in its stage 2 response, which appeared dismissive.
63. The landlord said there was a 2-day delay in acknowledging the complaint. We have not seen an acknowledgement, and the representative said they did not receive one. The landlord said it sent an email on 19 February 2024 extending the stage 2 deadline but we have not seen this either. The stage 2 response took 44 working days overall. Without the acknowledgement or extension request, we cannot conclude that the landlord acted in line with the timescales outlined its policy or the Code.
64. The representative said the landlord sent the stage 1 response to the resident by post and she did not receive it until 7 January 2025. They also said the landlord failed to send a copy to them despite being the authorised representative. They said they had told the landlord the resident was illiterate and it had not met its duties under the Equality Act 2010. As stated, we are not able to determine if a landlord has breached its duties under the Equality Act 2010. However, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, failing to send the response to the representative was not appropriate and again did not show consideration to the resident’s needs.
65. The landlord offered £100 for complaint handling failures. However, the responses contained errors, did not address all issues raised, and did not show learning. The landlord did not consider the earlier complaints, did not demonstrate effective complaint handling at stage 2, and did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or reasonable adjustments. These were significant failings that likely caused further distress and delayed the resident in bringing the complaint to us.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

66. As outlined in this report, the landlord’s record‑keeping was inconsistent and incomplete. This contributed directly to delays, poor decision‑making, and distress for the resident. Improving record‑keeping in this case may have ensured:
    1. Decisions were evidence‑based.
    2. Vulnerabilities were properly considered.
    3. It handled the complaints in line with the Code.
    4. The resident received clear, timely communication.
    5. The landlord could demonstrate compliance with its policies.

Communication

67. Tenancy succession and the benefits system can be complex, so it is essential that landlords communicate clearly and accurately. The landlord has not demonstrated that it did so in this case. Its policies indicate that support was available, yet it did not show it provided any such support to the resident.
68. As the issues remain unresolved, the landlord may wish to appoint a single point of contact for the resident and their representative. Regular updates from 1 officer could help provide oversight of the issues, a coordinated approach, and help manage expectations.