Notting Hill Genesis (202432279)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202432279 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Notting Hill Genesis |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
18 May 2026 |
Background
1. In 2020, the Local Authority (LA) allocated the resident a flat from the landlord’s stock as suitable for her child who is a wheelchair user. The LA later decided, in April 2022, the property could not be adapted and both it and the resident contacted the landlord about rehousing options. She was unhappy with the time it took the landlord to add her to its transfer list and the support it gave her with rehousing. She also complained about its handling of kitchen and hallway repairs following a leak in late 2023.
What the complaint is about
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- The resident’s transfer request.
- Damp and mould repairs to a kitchen and hallway.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
3. We found:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.
- Reasonable redress was given for its handling of the damp and mould repairs.
- Service failure in the handling of the associated complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
Transfer request
4. The landlord did not follow its relevant policies and procedures when it became aware that the resident wanted to move because the property was unsuitable.
Damp and mould repairs
5. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to remedy the impact of delays and poor communication around the repairs. This included taking interim measures to improve the resident’s living conditions, temporarily rehousing them during the works, and paying sufficient compensation.
Complaint handling
6. The landlord largely followed its complaint policy timescales and procedure. However, its responses did not address all aspects the resident had raised and it missed an opportunity to apologise for not advising her of the need for more time to investigate.
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:
|
No later than 16 June 2026 |
|
2 |
Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £475 compensation, made up of:
This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. |
No later than 16 June 2026 |
|
3 |
Specific action order The landlord must consider if there is a sustainable way it can keep the resident updated on what is doing to help locate a suitable property within its own properties and any other actions (such as reapproaching the LA). If so, it must confirm to the resident how frequently this will be. Alternatively, it must confirm a direct contact that the resident can use for requesting updates and information about her rehousing options. |
No later than 16 June 2026 |
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
The landlord should pay the resident the £200 compensation it awarded for the impact of its handling of the damp and mould repairs. Because it was partly on this basis that we made a finding of reasonable redress. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
28 October 2024 |
The resident complained that:
The resident asked to be rehoused, compensated, and for an acknowledgement of the landlord’s failings. |
|
2 December 2024 |
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said:
|
|
7 March 2025 |
The resident escalated her complaint because she was unhappy with the work completed the day before, which uncovered mould under the kitchen and hallway floors. She said she was unable to use her kitchen for 2 days and had been told the family would need to be temporarily rehoused. She said she was seeking compensation for the stress and costs she had incurred as a result, in addition to the lack of progress on her housing transfer application. |
|
10 April 2025 |
The landlord responded at stage 2. It said:
|
|
After the complaints process |
The resident issued a pre-action for disrepair in April 2025. The landlord engaged with that process including completing a disrepair inspection and schedule of works in May 2025. This recorded the cause of the damp as being from a historical leak from a flat above. It moved the resident’s family into temporary accommodation in late July 2025. It completed repairs in October 2025. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said her living situation has caused a deterioration to her family’s health and considerable distress and increased costs. She is seeking to be rehoused, more compensation, and an acknowledgement of failings. |
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 |
Transfer request |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
What we have not looked at
7. The resident told us that her daughter’s health has deteriorated because the property is unsuitable and unable to be adapted. She also said that she had incurred costs, such as for medical equipment, in a bid to improve the situation. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury or liability claim. The courts or liability insurer are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause and length of any injury. So, we have not investigated this further. We have considered if the landlord should pay compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.
What we have looked at
8. The resident complained about the landlord’s responses to her reports about the suitability of the property, and her requests for it to move her, over four years. We may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. However, the landlord considered the November 2021 assessment and sent evidence dating back 4 years. So, we have also used our discretion in this case.
9. According to the landlord’s transfer procedure, it was required to inform residents looking to be moved to complete a transfer application. The landlord’s lettings and allocation policy also recognises its duties under the Equality Act 2010, in part because one of the reasons it would prioritise someone for rehousing was based on a medical need. The landlord also has an obligation to make adaptations to a property for residents with protected characteristics. These are usually determined by the LA.
10. An occupational therapist assessed the resident’s daughter for the LA in November 2021. They recommended that the family be moved in the long term to a larger and more accessible property. They also recommended some adaptations to improve things in the interim, including a hoist. We were unable to see when the landlord received the report. However, we saw that the LA contacted the landlord in April 2022 about its decision that the property was unsuitable for the resident’s daughter’s long-term needs. And it advised that there were no adaptations that could be made. We also saw correspondence from the resident and professionals involved with the family to the landlord. This included an email from a social worker on 1 April 2022 stating that the family’s health was being negatively impacted and asking for advice about what action would be taken.
11. Given the landlord’s obligations, it should have contacted the resident about applying to its internal transfer list. And have offered any other support or advice about her housing options. We saw no record that the landlord responded to the LA’s first email, other than to say it had passed on the query to the relevant area. Or that it responded to the resident’s queries. It also missed a further opportunity in July 2022, when the LA contacted it again about considering rehousing options under the reciprocal agreement. The landlord has not demonstrated that it followed its transfer policy, which is a failing. It has also not demonstrated that it had due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010.
12. The landlord’s failure to act in 2022 meant the resident missed the opportunity to apply for an internal transfer around 10 to 11 months earlier than she did in February 2023. However, we are unable to say that this caused the resident to lose a specific opportunity to move. The failure likely caused her distress and inconvenience from her repeated requests for it to provide advice and support. She also had to chase updates on her application, which it confirmed was successful on 28 June 2023, 4 months after she applied. This was not fair as it had reached a decision 2 months earlier. The landlord did not address this specific issue in its responses so has not taken any steps to put right the impact of its delay and poor handling.
13. The landlord’s transfer procedure requires it to manage residents’ expectations based on their banding and housing needs, and to encourage other rehousing options. The evidence shows from mid-2023 onwards the landlord was clear about the limited availability of suitable properties within its stock. It advised the resident to continue bidding as the most suitable route, liaised with the LA under its reciprocal agreement, and explained that no suitable properties were available there either. It also discussed the option of mutual exchange but explained this was unlikely to succeed given the property required. We are satisfied the landlord acted in line with its policy by managing expectations and providing appropriate advice.
14. Records show the landlord responded to enquiries from the resident and her representatives in late 2023 about why she had not been allocated a property. It confirmed it was checking its database weekly, in line with its procedure for Band A cases. The procedure did not require it to provide regular updates, so it was reasonable for the landlord to respond when contacted, particularly given it had set expectations about availability. And the importance of the resident bidding on the transfer system. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to offer periodic updates, for example through the housing officer. We recommend the landlord consider this to reassure the resident that it continues to search for suitable properties.
15. Given the above, while the landlord’s later actions mitigated some of the impact of its failings, its overall response to the resident’s reports amounted to maladministration. We have awarded compensation within the range (£100-£600) our compensation guidance recommends for impacts that are significant but not expected to be lasting.
|
Complaint |
Damp and mould repairs to the kitchen and hallway |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
What we have not looked at
16. The resident advised us that she believes the landlord did not complete an effective repair to her kitchen floor when the problem first occurred in October 2023. We have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the earlier report because the resident did not raise concerns about this in her original complaint. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. As such, we have focused our investigation on the resident’s report of the recurrence in October 2024. We have given consideration to the fact the problem recurred.
What we have looked at
17. In the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord recognises its legal obligation to repair and maintain the structure of the building. The repairs policy confirms this would include the resident’s floors but not floorcoverings. Landlords are expected to complete repairs within a reasonable time. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to attend to urgent issues within 24 to 48 hours and complete non urgent repairs within 20 working days.
18. After the resident first reported that the kitchen floor felt unsecure in October 2023, the landlord found the sub-floor was damp but there were no leaking pipes. It was unclear if it determined the cause at that time. The landlord then used a dehumidifier to dry the floor and replaced the damaged floorboards. On 7 October 2024 the resident reported that the kitchen floor was again feeling unstable. It was unclear from the repair records what priority the landlord gave the repair. However, its contractors attended on 9 October 2024 which suggests it considered the problem potentially urgent. This was appropriate given the problem had reoccurred and the vulnerabilities in the household.
19. The landlord’s contractors reported that the kitchen flooring had dried and swollen and needed to be replaced. It recommended the landlord inspect for possible major works, which it said would include removing kitchen units. Clearly the repair was complex and potentially costly. However, it took around 105 working days from when the resident reported the problem had reoccurred for the landlord to start any meaningful work on 6 March 2025. This was significantly over its routine timescale, at around 85 working days.
20. We accept that there were some reasons this repair would take longer to investigate and coordinate, based on the contractor’s findings. It was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the damage itself and to then appoint suitable contractors to complete the repairs. Both added to the time it took. However, the records show there was a delay in acting on its contractor’s recommendations. This was despite the contractor chasing the matter again on 12 and 28 November 2024. The resident also chased the landlord 3 times during this period. This contributed around 36 working days to the time it took to progress the repairs and caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience.
21. We saw no record of the landlord’s inspection on 29 November 2024, as referred to in the stage 1 response, although the resident did not dispute that it took place. We also saw no evidence of communication about the repairs until 6 February 2024, when it told her the kitchen sub-floor only would be replaced. It told her that the hallway floor covering, however, would not be replaced because it was her responsibility. This was only after the resident sent 2 chasers for updates and asked for its repairs report, which both went unanswered for some time. While the landlord was not required to share the report, it should have responded sooner to explain what the repairs would involve. Its failure to communicate effectively was unreasonable, particularly as the resident had been advised the works would be extensive and may affect use of her kitchen.
22. We recognised in our 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould that sometimes the causes can be complex. It can take multiple investigations and this can extend the time it takes to resolve the issue. It was therefore not necessarily an indication of a failing that the damp was found to have reoccurred and worsened. In such cases, a landlord would be expected to take proportionate and appropriate steps to try and resolve the issue as quickly as possible. It should also communicate with residents about the actions it is taking and consider their vulnerabilities.
23. The records show that when the contractors uncovered the mould under the vinyl floor, the landlord took some appropriate steps to help improve the conditions for the resident. This included cleaning the mould, using a dehumidifier, and laying temporary flooring in under 2 days. This was in keeping with its urgent repair timescale. It then reinspected promptly on 18 March 2025, when it assessed that the resident’s family would need to be temporarily rehoused.
24. On 7 March 2025 the resident complained that the landlord’s communication about how it intended to deal with the mould was poor and she had to chase things up herself. She said the situation caused her stress and she was unable to use her kitchen for nearly 2 days. She also highlighted the vulnerabilities in the household which she said put her family at more risk of harm. Records support that she contacted it for advice and support after the contractors had left on the first day. The landlord also acknowledged in its final response its overall communication had been poor. It took accountability generally for not dealing with the repairs more urgently given the household’s vulnerabilities. This was appropriate in the circumstances set out above.
After the complaint process ended
25. The landlord completed the repairs to the kitchen and hallway flooring in mid-October 2025. This was nearly a year after the resident reported the issue. We recognise this was a long time. However, we also understand that the repair was complex and required the family to be temporarily rehoused, which it did in late July 2025. It was also apparent from the records that locating a suitable property proved challenging. The resident also started the disrepair pre action protocol process in April 2025 which required the landlord to take certain actions, such as agreeing a schedule of repairs. These all contributed to the time it took.
Conclusion
26. The landlord took appropriate actions to put right the impact of its failings in completing temporary repairs to limit the potential harm to the family. Through the complaints process it also acknowledged failings, apologised, and took learning. It also awarded compensation of £200 within the range (£125-£250) its compensation guidance states it would pay for the most serious impacts. However, the landlord’s final response made no reference to the resident being without use of her kitchen for nearly 2 days. The landlord’s compensation policy has a provision for awarding compensation for the loss of use of a kitchen if it is for 48 hours or more. As such the resident did not qualify for separate compensation under its policy.
27. Given the above, and that the amount of compensation awarded falls within the range our compensation guidance recommends (cited above), we have not seen more compensation is warranted.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Service failure |
28. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process that follows the timescales and principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It will acknowledge a complaint and escalation within 5 working days. It will then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If the landlord is unable to meet these it will agree an extension of up to 20 working days.
29. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 28 October 2024 within its timescale. However, it did not then follow its process in updating the resident of the need for more time. This led to her chasing a response on the date the response was due. The landlord then advised that it would respond within 10 working days, as its policy allowed. It did then meet this by responding on 2 December 2024, taking 24 working days in total. While the landlord responded within the time allowed under its policy, it should have recognised its failure to update the resident and taken action to put right the impact. Such as apologising.
30. Again, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request of 7 March 2025 within its timescale (on 13 March 2025). It then responded within its stage 2 timescale on 10 April 2025.
31. The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints should be made within 12 months of an issue occurring. But it does not give this as a reason it would not investigate a complaint under its list of exclusions. The Code requires a landlord to explain why it is not investigating a complaint and to address all aspects of a complaint clearly.
32. The resident complained about matters dating back 4 years but the landlord only commented on events after the transfer application was approved in May 2023. And the stage 2 response referenced the November 2021 assessment, but did not comment on anything else specifically, other than the events referred to in its initial response. The landlord did not then follow its policy or the Code in explaining what period it was investigating. This failing will have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience. Because she feels the landlord has not acknowledged that it handled her requests for support and transfer application poorly.
33. The resident told us the landlord falsely stated in its final response that she had declined offers of temporary accommodation because she wanted to be moved permanently. We agree this was not entirely accurate. Available records show the resident did at times state she would prefer to be moved permanently. However, we also saw that she found the accommodation that was offered was not suitable for the family’s needs. We have not identified this shortfall as a failing because it was not inaccurate information and we saw no evidence of a negative impact on the resident.
34. As such, we have ordered it to pay compensation to reflect its failings within the range (£50-£100) our compensation guidance recommends for low impacts.
Learning
Transfer requests
35. The landlord should ensure that its staff follow its current transfer policy and procedures when someone has a need to move.
Complaint handling
36. The landlord should ensure it follows the requirements of the Code to explain its decisions clearly. This includes if it has excluded any aspects raised for being brought to it outside of its 12-month time limit.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
37. We largely found that the standard of records in this case was good. However, not all the inspections and repairs were included in the records. It also recorded some, but not all, contractor work on its centralised records. Though this was not a barrier to this investigation, we encourage the landlord to consider reviewing its record keeping practices to ensure consistency.
Communication
38. The landlord recognised its need to improve communication around repairs in its complaint responses.