Notting Hill Genesis (202331584)

Decision
Case ID	202331584
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 April 2026

Background

1. The resident raised concerns that the landlord had charged for services she said she did not receive. She also reported that foxes were accessing her garden and causing damage, including holes. She asked the landlord to address the entry points and prevent further access. The landlord has recorded that the resident has disabilities, including scoliosis and joint pain.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her garden due to fox activity.
3. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s service charge account.
4. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her garden due to fox activity.
6. We found service failure in the landlord’s administration of the resident’s service charge account.
7. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request for repairs to her garden due to fox activity

8. The landlord initially declined to carry out repairs without considering the resident’s disabilities, contrary to its vulnerable residents policy. Although it later apologised and offered £650 compensation, we have not seen evidence that it completed the repairs recommended by its surveyor following the 13 February 2024 inspection.

Service charges

9. The landlord unreasonably delayed responding to the resident’s concerns about her service charges. Although it later acknowledged it had charged her for services she did not receive, apologised, and offered £125 compensation, the delay was significant. The remedy did not adequately reflect the inconvenience or time and trouble caused, and the landlord’s handling fell short of its service charge policy commitment to maintain accurate records of queries and disputes.

Complaints handling

10. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint when requested and instead introduced an additional step in the complaints process. Its communication was poor, resulting in the resident having to repeatedly chase for updates. The landlord acknowledged these failings, offered £375 compensation, and made improvements to its complaints handling process. Taken together, these actions were sufficient to put the complaint handling issues right.

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 27 May 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection of the garden. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified person. 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.   What the inspection must achieve  The landlord must ensure that the surveyor:  inspects the garden and boundary fencing, including the rear fence and the left‑hand side fence assesses whether the fencing works carried out in July 2025 addressed the recommendations made following the inspection on 13 February 2024, namely: installation of additional gravel boards to the rear fence, requiring excavation to approximately 100mm and backfilling with a soil/ballast mix; and installation of additional gravel boards to the left‑hand side fence near the paving, with associated excavation and backfilling identifies any remaining gaps, entry points, or defects that could allow animal access to the garden.  The survey report must set out:  whether the landlord is responsible for any identified repairs or remedial works, having regard to the tenancy agreement, its repairs policy, and the landlord’s previous commitments to carry out works in this case where responsibility would ordinarily rest with the resident, whether any support, reasonable adjustments, or discretionary assistance is appropriate in light of the resident’s disabilities the landlord’s position on the resident’s request for the garden to be paved over, in light of her reports of the garden condition deteriorating a full and detailed scope of works required to provide a lasting and effective resolution to any issues for which the landlord accepts responsibility, including whether the 13 February 2024 recommendations remain outstanding in full or in part clear timescales for when any identified works will be raised, commenced, and completed by the landlord	No later than 27 May 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,200 made up of: £950 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s requests for repairs to her garden. £225 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its administration of the resident’s service charge account. The landlord may deduct from this the £775 offered in the complaints process if it has already been paid.	No later than 27 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £375 as agreed in the final complaint response.  Our finding of reasonable redress for complaints handling is made on the basis that this compensation is reoffered to the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 March 2023	We do not have a copy of the resident’s original complaint.
9 March 2023	The landlord responded at stage 1 and said it accepted that a member of staff had incorrectly told the resident it would fill the hole in the garden and apologised for this error. It reiterated that garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility.
9 March 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
15 August 2023	In its second stage 1 response the landlord maintained that the resident was responsible for garden maintenance. However, acknowledging her disabilities, it agreed to fill a hole in the garden as a gesture of goodwill. It apologised for delays in responding to her service charge concerns and confirmed it should not charge her for cleaning or gardening, as she has a private garden. It said she remained liable for electricity and refuse disposal charges and confirmed it would remove the cleaning and gardening charges. The landlord also acknowledged its failure to escalate the complaint and offered £100 compensation, along with a further £150 for distress, inconvenience, and delays.
26 September 2023	The landlord recorded that the resident escalated her complaint.
22 January 2024	In its stage 2 response, the landlord reiterated that it should not charge the resident for cleaning or gardening and said it had asked the service charge team to recalculate her charges. It apologised for the delay and said it would confirm the amount overcharged once recalculated. The landlord said its staff had visited the garden in September 2023 and instructed contractors to fill holes. It said it believed it had completed the work but noted the resident disputed this. As it was unclear whether the work had been completed, it said it would arrange a further inspection and offered to provide a fox deterrent. It also offered to meet with the resident to discuss her mental health concerns and update its records. The landlord acknowledged poor communication throughout the complaint, partly due to staff changes, and confirmed it had restructured and introduced a central complaints service. It offered £1,150 in compensation: £125 for delays in processing changes to the resident’s service charge account £125 for not acknowledging her stage 2 escalation £250 for distress and inconvenience  £250 for poor communication. £150 for delay in raising repair to fill holes in garden £250 for poor handling of the complaint and escalations It said it would arrange a garden inspection and meeting with the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that she had been raising complaints since March 2023 and that issues remained unresolved. She sought a refund of service charges from 2020, a formal apology for the landlord’s communication, and substantial compensation. She also requested that the landlord pave her garden and address all fox entry points. She clarified that the request for paving was not solely due to fox access, but because delays in repairing the holes had allowed foxes to repeatedly enter and cause significant damage to her garden, including extensive holes, damage to grass, and fouling. She said paving was necessary to bring the garden to an acceptable standard.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her garden due to fox activity.
Finding	Maladministration

11. The resident said that, when she viewed the property, the landlord told her it would repair holes in the garden to prevent fox access. We have not seen evidence of any agreement prior to March 2023. On 2 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord saying that it had agreed to repair holes in the garden. The landlord asked her to provide evidence of this agreement.
12. On 6 March 2023 the landlord explained that, after speaking to its repairs team and senior management, it would not carry out the repairs as it considered the garden to be the resident’s responsibility. It suggested the resident fill the hole with bricks or rubble. The resident replied that she could not carry out this work due to her disabilities and said she would raise a formal complaint.
13. In its stage 1 response of 9 March 2023 the landlord accepted that a member of staff had incorrectly told the resident it would fill the hole and apologised for this error. It reiterated that garden maintenance was the resident’s responsibility, which was consistent with the tenancy agreement. However, it did not address the resident’s statement that she was unable to carry out the work because of her disabilities, nor did it consider whether reasonable adjustments were required in line with its vulnerability policy. This was a failing.
14. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 15 August 2023. While it maintained that the garden was the resident’s responsibility, it agreed, as a gesture of goodwill, to fill the hole, taking account of the resident’s disabilities. It apologised for the distress caused and offered £150 compensation. This amount was in line with our compensation guidance for a minor service failure and would have been sufficient to resolve the matter had the landlord followed through on its commitment.
15. The landlord arranged a garden inspection for 11 September 2023.  It has not provided any records of what it discussed or agreed. The resident chased progress in October 2023. The landlord obtained a quote from a contractor on 25 October 2023. However, the resident continued to chase for updates in November and December 2023, indicating that no works had taken place.
16. On 14 November 2023 the landlord asked the resident to confirm details about the fencing and the contractor. While this showed an attempt to move matters on, it was inappropriate for the landlord to seek this information from the resident, given it should have retained clear records of its own instructions to contractors.
17. In its final response on 22 January 2024 the landlord said it believed it had competed the agreed works, despite having no repair records to evidence this. It acknowledged delays and poor communication and offered the resident £650 compensation. It also proposed a further inspection to assess what work, if any, it had completed. While the compensation offer was proportionate to remedy the delays and distress identified up to that point, the landlord’s offer was undermined by its inability to confirm what works had been carried out and to progress the agreed repairs.
18. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the garden on 13 February 2024 and recommended additional gravel boards to the rear and left‑hand side fences. It said it would not repave the garden as it considered this an improvement. The landlord confirmed it could raise these works if the resident agreed. The resident responded on 4 March 2024 explaining that the deterioration of the garden and ongoing fox activity was a direct result of the landlord’s failure to act earlier, and that she wanted the landlord to pave the garden. There is no evidence that the landlord responded substantively to this or progressed the recommended works.
19. There is then a significant gap in the landlord’s records until 16 May 2025, when the resident reported fencing repairs. On 27 July 2025 the landlord replaced 5 fence panels to the left‑hand side. It is not clear whether this work addressed the issues identified by the surveyor in February 2024 or whether it carried out any works to the rear fence. The landlord’s poor record keeping means it remains unclear what repairs, if any, were completed earlier and what works remain outstanding.
20. Although responsibility for garden maintenance generally rests with the resident under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities and had agreed to carry out works as a reasonable adjustment and gesture of goodwill. It was therefore required to manage those works effectively. Its failure to keep adequate records, its assumption that it had completed works without evidence, and its prolonged lack of progress were unreasonable.
21. The landlord’s compensation offers in August 2023 and January 2024 were appropriate at the time the landlord offered them and were in line with our compensation guidance. However, the landlord made those offers on the basis that it would also carry out remedial action. The landlord’s subsequent failure to progress the agreed works, together with its continued poor communication, meant that it did not resolve the underlying issues. This amounts to maladministration.
22. It is unclear what works remain outstanding to the garden, despite the landlord having previously committed to repairs and having clear surveyor recommendations. We have therefore ordered the landlord to carry out a further inspection of the garden to establish what work remains outstanding and to set out a clear plan for completion. We have also ordered further compensation to reflect the additional distress caused to the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s administration of the resident’s service charge account.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

23. We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charges. The courts or first tier tribunal are best placed to consider this. However, we have considered whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request for a review of her service charges, including how it administered her account, handled the correction of charges, and processed the agreed refund.

What we have considered

24. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord may provide cleaning and gardening services to tenants which it will charge for. The resident said the landlord has charged for services she did not receive since moving into the property in 2020. The landlord did not provide records of earlier contact, but on 2 March 2023 it acknowledged the resident’s query and said it would investigate and respond within 5 working days. On 6 March 2023, it said it had requested a breakdown of the service charges.
25. The landlord did not provide a substantive response at that stage. The resident chased for an update by telephone on 5 May 2023. In its second stage 1 complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay and accepted that it had incorrectly charged the resident for gardening and communal cleaning services, as she lives in a house with a private garden. It said she was liable for bulk refuse and communal electricity. It said that it had enquired with the service charge team about rectifying and removing the charges and that it would update her once it received a response.
26. However, we have not seen evidence that the landlord contacted the service charge team at that time. The first evidence of later contact with the service charge team was not until 2024. This was inconsistent with the landlord’s service charge policy, which says it will aim to resolve service charge queries through the local officer and provide residents with clear and concise records throughout the process.
27. In its final complaint response dated 22 January 2024, the landlord repeated its acceptance that the charges were incorrect and confirmed it would recalculate the account and process a refund. It also acknowledged delays in responding to the resident and implementing the agreed changes.
28. Despite this, the landlord did not resolve the matter promptly. The resident chased for updates on 20 March 2024, 9 April 2024, 18 April 2024 and 1 May 2024. The landlord responded on 3 May 2024, explaining that it still needed further information from internal teams before calculating the refund. It contacted the resident again on 17 May 2024 to clarify the relevant period, which the resident confirmed the same day as dating back to 2020.
29. Following further chasing by the resident on 18 June 2024, the landlord provided a breakdown of the service charges and confirmed a refund of £134.71. It applied the refund to the resident’s account on 27 June 2024. Although the landlord said in January 2024 that the process might take some time, this resulted in a delay of around 5 months from the final response and over a year from the initial acknowledgement in March 2023. During this period, the landlord did not provide proactive updates, and the resident had to repeatedly chase for information.
30. The landlord offered £125 compensation, which was proportionate when offered. However, the ongoing delay, poor communication, and failure to progress the matter amounted to a service failure. In line with our compensation guidance, we have therefore ordered a further £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is within the range of awards set out in the guidance for situations where the landlord may have made an offer of compensation, but it is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

31. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in identifying and correcting the service charge error, but it failed to administer the resident’s account and refund in a timely and well‑communicated manner, in line with its policy commitments.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

32. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2022) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
33. We asked the landlord to provide copies of the resident’s original complaints and escalation requests. The landlord did not provide these documents and explained it did not have a formal complaints service at the time. While it is positive that the landlord has since introduced a central complaints service, the lack of records made it difficult to assess whether it handled the complaint effectively. This poor record keeping contributed to confusion and delay in its complaint handling, and the landlord did not clearly clarify the complaint process despite the resident sending repeated chasers.
34. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 March 2023 stating she intended to make a formal complaint. It is unclear whether this email constituted the formal complaint, as previous correspondence referred to both the fox and garden issue and service charges. The landlord did not provide evidence that it acknowledged this complaint. It responded on 9 March 2023, which was within its policy timescale of 10 working days.
35. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 9 March 2023. She chased the landlord for a response to this escalation request on 14 April 2023 and 2 May 2023 and called the landlord on 16 May 2023. The landlord recorded that it sent internal chasers. However, there is no evidence that it issued a stage 2 response at this time.
36. Instead, the landlord issued a further stage 1 response on 15 August 2023. This added an extra and unnecessary step to the complaints process. This was contrary to the Code, which requires landlords to progress complaints where escalation is requested. In this response, the landlord addressed both the service charges and fox and garden issues. It acknowledged that it had failed to escalate the complaint as requested and offered £100 compensation for its handling of the complaint. While the landlord should have escalated the complaint, the level of compensation offered was appropriate to remedy the complaint handling failure and related impact.
37. The landlord recorded that it escalated the complaint on 26 September 2023 following a meeting with the resident. However, it did not provide records to evidence the subject of the escalation. The resident chased for a response on 10 October 2023 and 6 November 2023. The landlord recorded on 13 November 2023 that it had sent the escalation to team managers.
38. On 7 December 2023 the resident contacted us for assistance with escalating her complaint. The landlord recorded that it logged the escalation on 12 December 2023. We contacted the landlord on 12 January 2024 to request a response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 12 January 2024, more than 3 months after the resident first requested escalation. This delay was significant and outside the landlord’s policy timescale of 5 working days.
39. The landlord’s internal emails and correspondence with us showed considerable confusion about which aspects of the complaint it should address at stage 2. This confusion stemmed from poor record keeping and inconsistent complaint logging. In contact with this Service, the landlord acknowledged that, before July 2024, inexperienced staff and managers sometimes opened new complaint cases instead of reopening existing ones. It acknowledged that its handling of the matter resulted in confusion and accepted that it had not managed the complaint in a clear or coherent manner.
40. Despite these failures, the landlord’s internal records show that in early 2024 it spoke with several staff members and developed an action plan to address the resident’s complaint. This demonstrated a resolution‑focused approach. The landlord also acknowledged repeat delays and failures to respond to chasers and explained that it had undergone a restructure and introduced a dedicated, central complaints service in July 2024 to prevent similar issues in the future. This showed learning from the complaint.
41. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 January 2024 to request an extension until 9 February 2024. The resident told us that she agreed to an extension until 31 January 2024. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 22 January 2024, which was within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint. In that response, the landlord offered £375 compensation for its handling of the complaint.
42. In line with our compensation guidance, awards of up to £250 are appropriate where complaint responses are delayed by weeks or months and there are significant errors that cause confusion or distress. The landlord’s handling of the complaint involved serious administrative failures, significant delay, and confusion over escalation. The offer of £375 compensation was proportionate to the impact on the resident. Combined with the landlord’s service improvements, this provided an appropriate remedy for the maladministration in complaint handling. We therefore find that the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

Learning

43. The landlord has taken steps to improve its complaints handling processes, which should help keep residents informed about how it manages their complaints. However, this case shows that improving complaints processes alone is not sufficient if the landlord does not support them with effective case management after issuing a complaint outcome. The ongoing garden issues demonstrate that the landlord must clearly record agreed actions, actively progress them, and monitor them to completion. Strengthening this end‑to‑end approach will help prevent issues from recurring and improve resident confidence in the landlord’s service.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. The landlord’s record keeping was inadequate. Records of complaints, inspections, repair instructions, and contractor activity were incomplete and, at times, inconsistent. This meant that the landlord did not effectively track progress, and it could not evidence what actions it took.

Communication

45. The resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates about both the garden repairs and the service charge issues. The landlord’s communication was unclear and inconsistent, leaving the resident uncertain about progress and next steps. This was likely to have contributed to confusion and a breakdown in trust. The landlord should have kept the resident regularly updated, particularly given the prolonged nature of the issues.