Notting Hill Genesis (202511465)

Decision
Case ID	202511465
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	21 January 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat within a block of flats. He has raised concerns about the landlord’s management of the building and the services it is providing. There have also been on-going issues with anti-social behaviour (ASB) and fire safety concerns from a neighbouring building which is not owned or managed by the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Service charge and the level of services being provided.
   2. ASB.
   3. Fire safety concerns.
   4. Communal repairs and scaffolding.
3. We will also investigate the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Service charge and the level of services being provided.
   2. ASB.
   3. Fire safety concerns.
5. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Communal repairs and scaffolding.
   2. Associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. There has been a significant delay in the landlord producing its final accounts which has meant the resident has been unable to fully scrutinise his service charge costs or financially plan for potential deficits.
   2. The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s concerns about the lack of services provided and whether this would be reflected in the following years accounts.
   3. The landlord failed to demonstrate it took appropriate steps to investigate and resolve the ASB and fire safety concerns within the complaints procedure.
   4. The landlord failed to update the resident on why the scaffolding for the communal repairs was still up or provide timescales for when it would be taken down.
   5. Although the landlord responded to the complaint within its agreed timescales, it failed to address all the issues the resident raised in its responses.

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: A senior member of staff provides the apology. 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 18 February 2026

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £800 made up as follows: £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the service charge. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of ASB. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of fire safety. £100 for time and trouble caused by its handling of the communal repairs.  £50 for the time and trouble caused by its complaints handling. 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 18 February 2026
3	Update order The landlord must write to the resident providing him with an update on: Service charges 2023/24 and 2024/25 final accounts: The landlord must provide invoices, receipts and all supporting documents showing the costs it incurred for repairs and services. If the final accounts are not yet available, it must explain the reason for the delay and provide a timescale for when they will be issued. Cleaning services gap (May 2024 – Sept/Oct 2025): The landlord must provide evidence that it considered the period where no cleaning service was provided in its 2024/25 accounts, and whether the 2025/26 estimates reflect this. If not, it must explain why. Lack of a property manager: The landlord must respond to the resident’s concerns about the periods from 2023 to 2025 when no property manager was in post and confirm whether this was taken into account when calculating the management fee for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 accounts. The landlord must explain what measures are in place to support property managers in producing accurate service charge estimates. Cleaning and gardening services: The landlord must confirm that these services are now being delivered to the required standard and explain how it is monitoring them. ASB ASB related communal repairs: The landlord must provide a timescale for completing the repairs to the communal areas. Community trigger: The landlord must provide the resident advice on the community trigger process. Fire safety Fire doors: The landlord must explain what measures are in place, or planned, to ensure the fire doors are kept in working order, including: how repairs will be reported and actioned promptly, and whether any short‑term measures have been considered to prevent ongoing damage.   The landlord must provide a written update to both us and the resident by the required date.	No later than 04 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 February 2025	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. He raised concerns about: Poor communication and management of the building. Service charge increases and cleaning and gardening services not always being provided. The landlord’s handling of ASB and fire safety concerns in the communal areas.   Water ingress issues with the building and abandoned scaffolding.
12   March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and upheld the complaint. It: Acknowledged staffing issues since August 2024, noting difficulties maintaining a property manager. It apologised for the impact. Noted a decrease in service charges and accepted that the current charges had not been clearly explained. It would review this. Confirmed ongoing ASB from children in a neighbouring block managed by another landlord, said the situation was being monitored and warning letters issued. It apologised for the inconvenience. Explained that multiple contractors were reviewing the interconnecting fire doors and that fire safety checks would be carried out. Said water ingress repairs had been completed and asked the resident to report any further issues. Acknowledged historical cleaning and gardening issues. It confirmed contractors had been changed, and said regular inspections would now take place. It apologised for the inconvenience.
1 April 2025	The resident escalated his complaint because he felt the landlord’s response did not address the issues he had raised and failed to provide a plan or timescales for resolving them.
9 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and upheld the complaint. It: Asked the property manager to contact the resident by 17 June 2025 to agree regular communication. Advised that any challenge to service charge reasonableness must be through a service charge dispute or the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). Confirmed the section 20B notice did not set a deadline for finalising accounts; the delay was poor service but not a service failure. Asked the resident to continue reporting ASB and water ingress issues. Confirmed it would update him on the interconnecting fire doors by 30 June 2025. Apologised for poor scaffolding communication and a four‑month lapse in cleaning services.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us for investigation because he was unhappy with the landlord’s final response.

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	Service charge and the level of services being provided
Finding	Maladministration

7. We will not consider complaints that relate to the level of rent or service charge, or to the amount of a rent or service charge increase. We also will not consider matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective for a remedy to be sought through the courts, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), or another statutory procedure.
8. It is therefore outside our jurisdiction to determine the level of the resident’s service charge or whether any increase was reasonable. Instead, this investigation considers whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and complaint about the service charge, and whether it treated the resident fairly in the circumstances.
9. The legal basis for charging a service charge is set out in the lease, which is a legally binding contract. As a matter of fairness, the lease must clearly explain the services the landlord is required to provide and the costs the resident can be charged for those services.
10. The resident’s lease allows the landlord to charge a variable service charge for estate and block maintenance. This includes costs for services such as cleaning, gardening, and employing staff in connection with the management and upkeep of the property. The lease also permits the landlord, where necessary, to appoint managing agents to carry out these functions.
11. Throughout his complaints the resident consistently stated that he had not been provided with sufficient information to understand the service charge. The landlord’s annual service charge letters provided a breakdown of the variable service charge, including costs for the external managing agent and the management fee. The information accompanying these letters explained what services were covered by these charges and what residents were paying for. This was consistent with the landlord’s service charge policy.
12. In May 2024 the managing agent changed, and the landlord told us it had provided residents with a breakdown of the services they provide and the estimated costs for these. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence to demonstrate they have done this. At the time of this investigation the resident told us he has not received any information from the landlord to explain the service charge costs.
13. The landlord’s service charge policy states that estimated service charge figures will be produced by a local officer and that it will provide residents with clear and concise records throughout this process. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said its property manager had not provided an explanation of how the charges were calculated or why they were set at the levels applied. However, it did not clarify the period of time this statement related to. It was unreasonable for the landlord to direct the resident to contact the property manager for further information. Given that the resident had formally disputed the charges, the landlord should have carried out its own investigation to establish whether the estimates were accurate and then provided the resident with a clear explanation of its findings. The landlord failed to do this.
14. The resident asked the landlord to provide a full breakdown of the service charge for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 years, including both estimated and actual costs. In its stage 2 response dated June 2025, the landlord said it had not yet finalised its accounts for 2023/24 or 2024/25. The landlord has issued Section 20B Notices to residents to preserve its right to recover costs once the accounts are finalised. While this is legally compliant, the landlord failed to explain the reason for the delay or manage the resident’s expectations on when he would receive this information.
15. Late provision of service charge information causes uncertainty for residents as to charges for which they may be liable. It also undermines both their and the landlord’s ability to appropriately scrutinise and challenge the method used to calculate the charges so long after the event. It is our opinion that the longer the delay to providing this information the greater the possibility of unfairness to the resident. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to limit this delay.
16. When asking us to investigate her complaint, the resident said that there had been a number of property managers with long periods of no one employed in that role, so there was no continuity or traction in addressing resident issues. The landlord has acknowledged that these staff changes have contributed to its poor communication and delays in it providing the accounts.
17. Staff leaving its employment, or changing roles internally, is something that is beyond the landlord’s control. However, it would reasonably be expected to have appropriate handover processes in place. These ensure continuity of service for residents and avoid the landlord losing sight of ongoing unresolved issues. The evidence shows the landlord introduced regular updates from the property manager, which seemed to have improved the communication. However, when we spoke to the resident in December 2025, he informed us the property manager had left in November 2025 and had not been replaced.
18. In his complaint the resident also raised concerns that the cleaning and gardening services were not always being provided. He said the cleaning was poor and in May 2024 was not provided for 4 months. In the stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that the cleaning and gardening services had not met the expected standards. It said it would speak to the contractors and would conduct regular inspections to monitor their performance. In August 2025 the landlord stated that it had met with the contractor, however, the landlord has not provided us with evidence that demonstrates it has or intends to conduct regular inspections.
19. The landlord’s service charge policy states it will not alter estimated service charges as a result of temporary breakdown or failure to provide a service. The difference between estimated and actual costs will be identified in the financial year end service charge accounts. There was no evidence the landlord explained this to the resident or confirmed that it would or has considered this when calculating the 2024/25 estimates.
20. In summary, the landlord was responsible for maladministration. It failed to fully investigate all the resident’s concerns and there has been a significant delay in providing its final accounts. The resident has been unable to fully scrutinise the actual service charge costs incurred by the landlord or financially plan for potential service charge deficits. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping, which led to the resident pursuing the landlord repeatedly for updates. Although the landlord apologised for its communication failures, it is our view that this was not suitable redress for the failings identified in this investigation and the impact on the resident.
21. An order has been made for the landlord to provide the resident with information about his 2023/24 and 2024/25 service charge. We have also ordered the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases with maladministration and reflects the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint	ASB
Finding	Maladministration

22. The resident has informed us that ASB has been taking place in the communal areas of his building for a number of years. Due to the passage of time, it has not been practical for some issues to be investigated by us. Therefore, while the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation will focus on the ASB reported from July 2023 to the end of the resident’s complaint in June 2025.
23. The resident and his neighbours reported ASB from tenants from a neighbouring building. These tenants were breaking through fire safety doors in the interconnecting walkway between the 2 buildings. They were causing damage to the communal hallways in the resident’s building, as well as littering and making residents feel unsafe.
24. Our role is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
25. The evidence shows the landlord did not keep accurate and complete records in relation to the reports of ASB in the communal areas. Although it kept records of what ASB was reported, it did not always show its responses to these reports. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of ASB reports, its responses, investigations, and communications.
26. The landlord’s ASB policy defines anti-social behaviour as conduct that causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm, or distress, or conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance in relation to residential premises. It also highlights the importance of multi-agency collaboration.
27. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that the perpetrators of ASB had been given a warning and it was monitoring the situation. Although we understand the landlord was limited in the action it could take due to the perpetrators being non-tenants, it did not provide us with any evidence that it had opened an ASB case, carried out its own enquiries, monitored the situation, engaged with the other landlord, or took any action to prevent the situation from escalating.
28. The evidence shows the landlord relied on residents reporting further ASB. There was also an over reliance on the neighbouring landlordto take action to resolve the situation, rather than considering what duties it owed as a landlord and the actions it could take in line with its ASB policy. The resident was left with no agreed actions which caused him distress as he could not see any form of resolution.
29. In his complaint the resident said he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response to the ASB over the last few years. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to promote the community trigger in line with its ASB policies and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2014. The landlord provided no evidence that it considered this course of action. This was a missed opportunity to review the case and explore different avenues to resolve the issue. This would have also reassured the resident that the landlord understood what he was experiencing and was committed to finding a suitable resolution.
30. After the complaints procedure the landlord contacted and shared information with the neighbouring landlord and the police. It asked the neighbouring landlord to inform all its residents they cannot enter its building and worked with them to support it in taking action against the perpetrators. In August 2025 the landlord updated all resident’s on the action being taken and said it had seen a reduced number of ASB reports. This was reasonable and showed the landlord had learnt from the complaint and was taking pro-active steps to try to resolve the situation. However, the landlord should have taken effective action to resolve the complaint while it was live.
31. The resident has told us that the damage caused to the communal areas by the ASB, such as cigarette burns in carpets and smashed lights has not been rectified by the landlord. The landlord’s repairs policy states that communal repairs will not always be carried out within its usual repair timescales, but it will communicate a timeframe with residents. It is clear from the reports of ASB that the landlord was clearly aware of the damage caused, but there was no evidence it has communicated timescales for the repairs with the resident.
32. In summary the landlord failed to demonstrate it took reasonable steps to investigate and resolve the ASB issues within the complaints procedure. There was evidence of poor communication and record keeping. It has not provided any update regarding repairs to address the damage in the communal areas. The landlord failed to acknowledge these failures and therefore did not take sufficient action to put things right.
33. We have made a finding of maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to apologise, update the resident and pay him £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases with maladministration and reflects the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint	Fire safety
Finding	Maladministration

34. Throughout his complaint the resident raised concerns about fire safety. The reported ASB was resulting in repeated damage to the interconnecting fire safety doors between the 2 blocks of flats. Perpetrators were also smoking in hallways, putting out cigarettes on communal carpets leaving burn marks. The resident repeatedly highlighted the risk of fire and the fact that fire safety doors were not always in working order.
35. The evidence suggests that the 2 buildings are seen as one in terms of fire safety and emergency escapes. Both landlord’s have a responsibility to ensure the interconnecting fire safety doors are in working order.
36. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that several contractors were needed to fix the fire safety doors, which was causing delays. It provided evidence that engineers were called out in September 2024 to fix doors on floor 4 and 6. Contractor notes indicated that parts were required and a specialist engineer was needed. However, the landlord has not provided evidence that these repairs were completed.
37. The fire safety records provided to us by the landlord point to failures in effective record keeping. Complete and accurate records would reasonably be expected given the on-going fire safety concerns.
38. Evidence shows the landlord relied on residents to report issues with fire doors. The resident raised concerns that this caused delays and left periods where fire doors were not operational, putting residents at risk. Engineers in September 2024 noted that “children were constantly activating the break glass for access in and out of the building.” There is no evidence the landlord carried out a risk assessment or investigated preventative measures. It was not until June 2025 that records show the landlord considered fitting an alarm to the doors to prevent delays in reporting issues. No evidence has been provided that an alarm system was installed.
39. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged poor communication, apologised, and promised to update the resident on actions by 30 June 2025. It failed to meet this commitment. Evidence shows all residents were updated on 19 August 2025, almost two months later.
40. The evidence shows that the landlord recognised that repeated repairs to the fire safety doors were costly and ultimately recharged to leaseholders. A structural condition survey was completed in June 2025, followed by a retrospective fire strategy in July 2025. It is positive that the landlord was exploring a long-term solution. In August 2025, the landlord informed all residents that it was considering quotes for a new interconnecting door system but could not provide a timescale. As this would be a major planned project involving multiple landlords and management companies, it is reasonable to expect that implementation would take considerable time.
41. On 22 August 2025, the property manager told the resident that this was “not intended to resolve existing issues but rather implement a new system that residents have asked for.” The landlord did not explain whether it was taking any interim actions to ensure the fire safety doors were functional, that repairs were reported and carried out promptly, or whether it had considered short-term measures to prevent damage to the doors. This lack of clarity likely caused the resident confusion and frustration. It was also not the update the landlord had promised in its complaint responses.
42. In summary, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it managed repairs in line with its repairs policy or that it fully investigated the fire safety concerns. Although it took steps toward a long-term solution, it did not provide the promised updates to the resident. The landlord showed no insight into the failings identified or their impact on the resident. It also failed to take adequate steps to put matters right or demonstrate learning from the complaint.
43. We have made a finding of maladministration. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident, update him on the actions it is taking to resolve the fire safety concerns and pay him £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for cases with maladministration and reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Complaint	Communal repairs and scaffolding
Finding	Service failure

44. In his complaint, the resident raised concerns about ongoing water ingress issues and scaffolding that had been in place since 2023. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that works had been completed to resolve the water ingress and tests showed no issues within the resident’s property. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident to report any further problems.
45. The resident explained that he wanted to sell his flat but was concerned that the scaffolding would affect the sale price. He asked the landlord for timescales for removing the scaffolding and an explanation for why it remained in place if communal works were complete. The landlord failed to provide this information in its complaint responses, leaving the resident without a resolution.
46. The landlord did not provide records relating to the scaffolding. It is unclear when it was erected or why it remained in place for such a long period. Evidence shows that in June 2025, internal emails were sent asking why the scaffolding was still up. This demonstrates that poor record keeping likely contributed to delays in resolving the issue.
47. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for poor communication about the scaffolding and acknowledged that it had not provided monthly updates to residents as promised. However, it showed no learning from this complaint, as it continued to fail to provide updates to the resident.
48. We have found service failure. Although it apologised to the resident, it did not take steps to put things right or show learning from the complaint. The resident confirmed the scaffolding was removed in December 2025. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

49. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. A formal response should then be issued within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
50. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and escalation within the required timescales. Although there were delays in issuing the stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord contacted the resident within the agreed timescales to extend the response dates. This was in line with its policy and our Complaints Handling Code.
51. The landlord’s complaint responses were vague and did not fully address all issues raised. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss the complaint before issuing its responses, which was a failing given the complexity of the case. As a result, the resident was left without a satisfactory resolution.
52. We have found service failure. The landlord did not recognise where its handling fell short and therefore failed to take steps to put things right. An order has been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

53. The landlord’s records lacked detail and were often incomplete. They did not capture the full repair process or provide reasons for delays. Communication with the resident and third parties was not consistently recorded. This poor record keeping undermines transparency and contributed significantly to the failings identified in this investigation.
54. The landlord should assess its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. It should also review its staff training to ensure its staff understand the importance of maintaining accurate and comprehensive records.

Communication

55. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout the complaint process, requiring the resident to repeatedly chase for updates. The landlord should ensure residents receive timely, proactive updates until issues are resolved. It was positive to see the property manager introduce regular update emails to all residents; however, the resident has informed us that this manager has since left. The landlord should consider how it can maintain consistent communication and positive relationships with residents during staff changes.