Notting Hill Genesis (202534680)

Decision
Case ID	202534680
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Applicant
Date	24 April 2026

Background

1. A representative has supported the resident throughout her complaint. For ease of readability, we refer to both as “the resident” and “she” and “her” in this report. The resident has mobility and health issues. She complained that the landlord withdrew a property offer after acceptance without clear or timely communication, and sought an explanation, and reinstatement of the offer or alternative housing.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of and response to the residents:
   1. Concerns about the withdrawal of a housing offer.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable remedy in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the withdrawal of a housing offer.
   2. Service failure in the landlords handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Withdrawal of housing offer

4. The landlord withdrew the conditional offer in line with its policy once verification of the property’s suitability failed. It explained this in its responses and acknowledged a short delay in its communication with the resident, which it addressed through an apology and improvements to the process.

The complaint

5. The landlord delayed its stage 2 complaint response without agreeing an extension or providing a revised deadline, and it did not acknowledge the delay or offer a remedy.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint. 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 22 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 October 2025	The resident complained that the landlord withdrew an offer of a flat after she had accepted it, signed tenancy documents, and paid rent, without providing timely written notice or a clear explanation. She asked for the reasons for the withdrawal, reinstatement of the offer or a similar property, and a review of her housing priority.
30 October 2025	The landlord responded. It said the offer had been conditional on council verification of the property’s suitability. During the application process the council had refused the verification because the property was unsuitable for the resident’s medical needs, meaning the tenancy could not proceed. It acknowledged that it did not provide clear and timely written confirmation of the withdrawal and apologised. It said it could not reinstate the offer or allocate another property and advised on re‑housing options.
30 October 2025	The resident escalated the complaint, stating that poor communication left her without accommodation and required emergency housing. She asked the landlord to acknowledge the impact, review her housing priority, offer compensation, and provide clear next steps.
2 January 2026	In its final response, the landlord maintained that the offer was appropriately withdrawn following failed verification, again apologised for delays and communication failures, identified learning, and said it would continue to support the resident but could not reinstate the offer.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the matter to the Ombudsman, stating that the landlord’s handling had led to a deterioration in her physical and mental health, and requesting the landlord further review of the suitability of her current placement.

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	Withdrawal of a housing offer
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

6. Some of the issues raised by the resident relate to the actions of the council. The resident also told us that she wanted the landlord to review the suitability of her current placement. However, the resident has no relationship with the landlord other than her application for the property in this complaint. Any matters other than that application, including the council’s decision fall outside our remit and will not be considered as part of this investigation.
7. As part of her complaint, the resident said that the landlord’s actions led to a deterioration in her physical and mental health. If she believes the landlord’s actions or inaction have affected her health it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have therefore not investigated this further.

What we have investigated

8. The resident was referred to the landlord by her local council for one of the landlord’s properties. She subsequently complained to the landlord that it had withdrawn the property without explanation or written notice, despite her having accepted the offer, signed documents, and paid rent. She asked the landlord to explain why the offer was withdrawn, whether it could be reinstated or replaced with an alternative property, and whether her housing priority could be reviewed.
9. The landlord responded on 30 October 2025. It explained that the offer was subject to council verification, which the council refused on 1 October 2025 because the property was on the third floor, had no lift, and therefore did not meet the resident’s recorded medical and mobility needs. The landlord said it could not proceed without verification, confirmed that the rent had been refunded, and apologised for not clearly confirming the withdrawal of the offer in writing. It said it could not reinstate the offer or allocate another property and advised the resident to continue bidding through the council’s system and seek a reassessment of her housing needs.
10. The resident escalated her complaint. She said that poor communication caused her to lose her previous accommodation and require emergency hotel accommodation. In its final response on 2 January 2026, the landlord reiterated its previous explanation. It apologised again for communication shortcomings and said it would review its processes and work with the council to identify what had gone wrong and improve practice.
11. The records show that the landlord began the sign-up process on 25 September 2025 and sought verification from the council shortly afterwards. On 1 October 2025, the council refused verification because the property was medically unsuitable (it is not clear from the evidence if this could or should have been identified by the council earlier). On 7 October 2025, the landlord asked the council to contact the resident and explain this decision. On 8 October 2025, the council confirmed to the landlord that it had contacted the resident and removed the offer status from her application, which had then allowed her to bid for alternative properties.
12. On 9 October 2025, the landlord asked the resident to provide her bank details so it could refund the rent she had paid. The records also show that, on 2 January 2026, the landlord acted on its earlier commitment to liaise with the council about its verification processes, with the aim of reducing the risk of similar issues occurring in the future.
13. The offer was made on a conditional basis, subject to successful verification by the local authority. When verification was refused, the landlord could not proceed with the tenancy, and the offer did not progress further. While this caused understandable inconvenience and frustration for the resident, the preconditions for granting a tenancy were not met. Although the sign-up process had begun and rent had been accepted, no tenancy relationship was formed. Importantly, the resident never disputed that the property was unsuitable for her circumstances.
14. The time between the landlord finding out the verification issue and informing the resident was approximately 5 working days. The landlord felt it should have communicated more promptly than that. Its apology and remedial actions were reasonable in that circumstance, given the shortness of the delay, and the fact that the unsuitability of the property was not disputed. However, nothing in the evidence indicates a failing in its actions in stopping the application.
15. Overall, the landlord acknowledged the communication delay, apologised, refunded the rent paid, and provided a clear explanation of the verification process through the complaint’s procedure. It also followed through on its commitment to liaise with the council about verification processes in order to improve it. Taken together these were reasonable remedies for the small delay informing the resident.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Service failure

16. The landlord’s complaints policy aligns with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in regard to the definition of a complaint and the relevant response timescales.
17. The resident complained on 14 October 2025. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 October 2025, within its policy timescale, and the resident escalated the complaint the same day.
18. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 January 2026, 44 working days after escalation and exceeding its 20-day timescale. Although it notified the resident of a delay, it did not provide a revised timescale, agree an extension, acknowledge in the response that it was late, or offer a remedy. The landlord therefore met its obligations at stage 1 but did not comply with its complaints policy at stage 2.

Learning

Communication

19. The landlord should consider reviewing the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaint handling. The report explains that delays, poor communication, and lack of ownership can escalate issues unnecessarily. It recommends clear accountability, timely responses, and proactive engagement to resolve problems early and maintain trust.