Notting Hill Genesis (202539929)

Decision
Case ID	202539929
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 April 2026

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of multiple issues at her property, including boiler repairs, lighting, other internal repairs, damp and uneven paving. She told the landlord she had arthritis and had undergone knee replacements. She said this increased the impact of cold conditions and the risks caused by uneven surfaces.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a lack of heating and hot water and repairs near the boiler.
   2. Reports of poor lighting in the kitchen and request to install a skylight.
   3. Reports of damp and various internal repairs.
   4. Reports of uneven paving at the front and back of the property.
   5. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water and repairs near the boiler.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor lighting in the kitchen and request to install a skylight.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and various internal repairs.
   4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of uneven paving at the front and back of the property.
   5. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Response to the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water and repairs near the boiler

4. The landlord did not fully recognise the impact of the heating issues on the resident or respond to her ongoing concerns.

Response to the resident’s reports of poor lighting in the kitchen and request to install a skylight

5. The landlord did not acknowledge its delay in responding the resident’s request and did not clearly evidence any action taken to address poor lighting.

Response to the resident’s reports of damp and various internal repairs

6. The landlord delayed in inspecting and completing some reported repairs. It did not respond to others. Its communication was poor.

Response to the resident’s reports of uneven paving at the front and back of the property

7. The landlord delayed in inspecting the reported hazard. It did not consider whether to take action to address the uneven flooring in the back garden.

Complaint handling

8. There were some minor delays in the landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement and response. It did not respond to all the reported issues at stage 2.

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 25 May 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £770.14 made up as follows: the £50.14 it offered for the loss of hot water/heating and an additional £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of a lack of heating and hot water and repairs near the boiler £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of poor lighting in the kitchen and request to install a skylight £520 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of damp and various internal repairs £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to her reports of uneven paving at the front and back of the property 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 of the £300.14 it offered in its complaint responses if it can evidence that it has already paid this.	No later than 25 May 2026
3	Specific action The landlord must write to the resident and: respond to her concerns that the hot water system is not operating properly provide an update on her improvement request confirm whether it completed any works to improve the lighting in the kitchen confirm whether it replaced a window handle confirm whether any remedial action is required to address the uneven paving in the back garden, considering her vulnerabilities It must provide us with a copy of this letter by the due date.	No later than 25 May 2026
4	Inspection order We have made an inspection order because the landlord has not evidenced that it inspected the damp, water damage, or unit hinges in the kitchen. What the landlord must do The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the damp, water damage, and unit hinges in the kitchen. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. A suitably qualified person must complete the inspection. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.	No later than 25 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord discusses the resident’s ongoing concerns about the boxing-in below the boiler with her.
We recommend the landlord: confirms the basis for its decision that only 3 rows of paving at the front of the property required repairs/replacement to the resident re-offers to complete repairs to address the uneven paving at the front of the property

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 June 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: it had not resolved the lack of hot water and heating boxing-in below the boiler obstructed contractors’ access to pipes it had not responded to her request to install a skylight and there was a lack of natural light a top floor window would not close window gaskets were damaged throughout the property a kitchen sink pipe was leaking, creating damp and water damage deteriorated sealant around the kitchen sink caused water to spread the kitchen units had deteriorated and had broken hinges that were unsafe the kitchen extractor fan and shower head were broken paving at the front and back of the property was a trip hazard the impact on her of uneven paving and exposure to the cold was increased due to her arthritis
18 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It said it had completed works to the boiler and she had not reported that other works were required before raising a complaint. It agreed to an inspection of the property, covering all the reported issues.
5 November 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: it had failed to complete the repairs or address the hazards she reported at stage 1 and had not responded to her skylight request the boiler was unreliable and she often had no hot water or heating after inspecting, it had ignored works requiring immediate attention it had not confirmed which works it would complete and why she had not declined works or refused access
10 December 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it had not repaired the top floor window as she was unhappy with the extent of proposed works, but it had re-raised this repair it had raised works to inspect all the windows, repair the kitchen sink leak, surrounding sealant, kitchen extractor fan, and uneven paving it would monitor these repairs and inspections to completion the kitchen was not due for renewal, but she should report any repairs it would contact her within 10 working days about her skylight request the shower head was her responsibility it noted her health condition and provided signposting for support no works were required to the boxing-in below the boiler and contractors would raise further works if required for access it had offered £300.14 compensation including £50.14 for disruption to her heating system over 23 days and £250 for poor handling of repairs and the associated inconvenience
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not completed some repairs and had refused others without explaining why. She wanted it to inspect and complete the outstanding repairs it was responsible for. She wanted it to complete extensive works to the front paving. She wanted it to communicate clearly and update her on her skylight request. She also wanted additional compensation.

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	Response to the resident’s reports of a lack of heating and hot water and repairs near the boiler
Finding	Service failure

9. The resident reported a loss of hot water and heating on 3 June 2025. The landlord said it was unable to gain access to the property on 3 and 11 June. The landlord did not provide evidence of the visits it said it attempted, which limited our ability to assess its response. Although the repairs were completed around 26 June 2026, the gaps in the landlord’s records affected our assessment of its handling of the repair.
10. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 July 2025 to check whether the boiler issue was resolved and did not receive a response. When the resident reported ongoing issues with the boiler in her complaint escalation, the landlord did not respond. Nor did it address this in its stage 2 response, which was unreasonable.
11. In its stage 2 response, it made some attempt to put things right. It offered reasonable compensation based on its compensation policy for the period it said the resident’s hot water/heating was disrupted in June 2025. However, it did not consider the increased impact due to her vulnerability. Nor did it respond to her reports that there were ongoing issues with the hot water/heating. It reasonably explained why no work was required to the boxing-in below the boiler, though the resident told us she still has concerns about this.
12. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 January 2026. It said it had recently spoken to her, and she had confirmed the boiler was operational and there were no issues with it. The resident told us she has to run the water a long time for it to heat which she said wastes water.
13. Given the communication failures outlined above, we have made orders in line with our compensation guidance. This is for a failure where the landlord’s offer of compensation did not quite reflect the detriment to the resident and it did not acknowledge all its failures. This includes the £50.14 it offered for a loss of hot water/heating, £25 for the additional impact due to her vulnerability and £25 for its failure to respond to outstanding issues at stage 2.
14. We have also ordered the landlord to respond to the resident’s outstanding concerns about the hot water. We have recommended that it discusses her concerns about the boxing-in beneath the boiler with her.

.. Complaint	Response to the resident’s reports of poor lighting in the kitchen and request to install a skylight
Finding	Service failure

15. The resident requested to install a skylight in the kitchen around August 2024 as she said there was a lack of natural light and it impacted her energy bills. The landlord did not respond and did not acknowledge its initial failure to respond in its complaint responses.
16. The landlord inspected around 5 August 2025 and agreed to lighting works. It is unclear whether this was a response to the resident’s concerns about a lack of natural light. It is also unclear whether the landlord completed any works to improve the lighting. It did not initially respond to her request for a skylight.
17. In its stage 2 response, the landlord reasonably explained that the installation of a skylight was considered an improvement. However, the landlord did not contact the resident about the improvement request within the timescale agreed at stage 2. It sent her an improvement request form on 12 January 2026 which she completed and returned.
18. It is essential for landlords to break down compensation offers so residents can understand whether they have acknowledged the impact of each failure. It is unclear whether any of the £250 it offered for poor handling of repairs related to this complaint element. For the purpose of this investigation, we have assumed that £50 was for this element.
19. The resident said she spent time chasing the landlord and struggled to complete tasks in the kitchen due to a lack of natural light. She told us she still has concerns about the lack of natural light and has not received a response to her request.
20. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our compensation guidance for a low impact failure which the landlord did not acknowledge. This includes orders to pay £75 compensation, update her on her skylight request and confirm whether it completed works to improve the kitchen lighting.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s reports of damp and various internal repairs
Finding	Maladministration

21. The resident’s complaint was the first time she reported repairs to a top-floor window, window gaskets, a leaking sink pipe causing damp and water damage, and a shower head. It was also the first time she reported repairs to the sealant, unit hinges and extractor fan in the kitchen. On 2 July 2025 she reported the leak had not been resolved.
22. A contractor inspected around 5 August 2025, outside the landlord’s standard repairs timescale. The landlord did not provide inspection records. This limited our ability to assess whether it inspected as agreed.
23. The landlord said the resident refused kitchen sealant and window handle renewal works on 19 September 2025. The resident disputed this. The landlord provided insufficient evidence of this visit, so we could not assess this. The landlord did not clearly explain to the resident which repairs it was responsible for or when it would complete them. It did not contact the resident about the works again until 28 October 2025.
24. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, its confirmation that the shower head was the resident’s responsibility was in line with its repairs policy. However, it had delayed in confirming its position on this. It was unreasonable for it not to respond to her reports that the kitchen unit hinges required repairs.
25. After its stage 2 response, the landlord completed some repairs to the kitchen extractor fan, sink leak, kitchen sealant, and worktops in January 2026. It said it repaired kitchen hinges but has not evidenced this. It further delayed window inspection/ repair works before inspecting and repairing window gaskets and the top floor window in February and March 2026. It did not respond to the resident’s reports of damp and water damage.
26. It is unclear whether the landlord renewed a window handle as agreed. The resident told us it is still difficult to close one of the top floor windows. She said repairs are outstanding to the kitchen unit hinges and the unit doors do not close properly. She told us that damp and water damage from the leak remain in the kitchen.
27. The landlord made some attempt to put things right by offering compensation. It is unclear what proportion of the £250 it offered for poor handling of repairs related to this complaint element. For the purpose of this investigation, we have assumed that £150 was for this element.
28. The resident said the windows were draughty, the kitchen had poor ventilation and was in a bad condition. She said she spent time chasing the repairs and the delays caused her distress and inconvenience. The compensation the landlord offered was not proportionate to the failures identified and their impact on the resident.
29. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. This is in line with our compensation guidance for multiple failures which had an adverse impact on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay £520 compensation, to inspect the damp, water damage, and kitchen unit hinges. We have also ordered it to confirm whether it completed a window handle renewal.

Complaint	Response to the resident’s reports of uneven paving at the front and back of the property
Finding	Service failure

30. The resident’s complaint was the first time she reported uneven paving. When notified of trip hazards, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have assessed the risk and determined its responsibility. It delayed in inspecting the paving. Despite its agreement to inspect at stage 1, it did not evidence that it inspected until 22 December 2025. This was more than 6 months after the resident reported the issue. It found that slabs were uneven, creating trip hazards at the front and back of the property.
31. The landlord internally discussed that the back garden was the resident’s responsibility but delayed in confirming this to her. It did not consider whether it should take any steps to mitigate the hazard. This was despite the resident’s reported vulnerabilities.
32. When the landlord attempted to complete works to 3 rows of paving at the front of the property on 5 January 2026, the resident refused the works. She said she wanted it to complete more extensive paving works. We do not have enough evidence to assess the extent of the works required to resolve the trip hazard at the front of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to make its own conclusions about the repairs required based on the evidence it had available to it. Itcould have improved its communication by explaining the basis of its decision to the resident.
33. The resident confirmed the trip hazard remains at the back of the property and she was worried about tripping. The landlord did not acknowledge all its failures. It is unclear whether any of the £250 it offered for poor handling of repairs related to this complaint element. For the purpose of this investigation, we have assumed that £50 was for this element.
34. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right in line with our compensation guidance for a low impact failure. This includes a compensation order, and an order for the landlord to confirm whether any action is required to address the uneven paving in the back garden. We have recommended it reoffers works to the uneven paving at the front entrance and confirms how it decided the extent of the works.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

35. The Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord’s complaint policy timescales were in line with the 2024 Code, except it required a stage 2 response to be issued within 20 working days of escalation.
36. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in 5 working days in line with its complaints policy. On 1 July 2025 it extended the time for it to respond. It then issued its stage 1 response within 19 working days of its acknowledgement. This was in line with its complaints policy.
37. The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 within 6 working days. This was 1 working day outside its complaints policy, which it acknowledged in its stage 2 response. It responded within 19 working days of acknowledgement and 25 working days of escalation. Although this was a few days outside its policy timescale, it was in line with the Code and within the timescale set out in its acknowledgement. It therefore likely had no impact on the resident.
38. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of ongoing boiler issues at stage 2. We have considered the impact of this in our compensation order relating to this substantive complaint element. Due to the minor failures identified, we have found service failure. We have made an apology order and set out some learning in line with our compensation guidance for a failure which had minimal impact.

Learning

39. Landlords should respond to all elements of a resident’s complaint, in line with the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord did not provide detailedrepairs records, including its inspection on 5 August 2025. Nor did it evidence the basis for its decisions about which repairs were required. This impacted our ability to assess its actions and is a learning opportunity for the landlord to improve its record keeping.

Communication

41. The landlord’s communication was poor, which it acknowledged at stage 2. It did not explain which works it had agreed to or respond to the resident’s request for further information after a contactor inspected. Landlords should have adequate oversight of their outsourced services and agree repair actions and timescales with residents.