Notting Hill Genesis (202346956)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202346956

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Notting Hill Genesis

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

30 April 2026

Background

  1. Since at least March 2022 the resident has been in contact with the landlord regarding information about service charges as well as repairs at the property. However, the resident has regularly chased the landlord because it had not responded to her communications within a reasonable timeframe or at all.This led her to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s poor communication on 8 November 2022.

What the complaint is about

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports about her email correspondence.
    2. Requests for information about service charges.
    3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports about her email correspondence.
  2. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of requests for information about service charges.
  3. There was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged its failures relating to its handling of responding to the resident’s emails within a reasonable time. It also offered a reasonable amount of compensation in recognition of this.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its failures relating to its handling of the resident’s request for information about service charges. It also offered a reasonable amount of compensation in recognition of this.
  3. The landlord acknowledged its failures relating to its handling of the complaint and offered a reasonable amount of compensation in recognition of this.

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.

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 is to pay the resident the:

–       £150 compensation offered for its failings related to its handling of responding to the resident’s emails within a reasonable time.

–       £50 compensation offered for its failings related to its handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.

–       £25 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failures through its complaints process.

Our reasonable redress determinations are made on the basis that this amount is paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

8 November 2022

The resident raised her complaint. She provided a list of emails she said the landlord had not responded to within a reasonable time or at all. She also confirmed the complaint was about the landlord’s failure to respond to her communications and not the content of the communications themselves.

1 December 2022

The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged there had been service failings with regard to it responding to the resident’s communication. It apologised for this and offered £150 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.

It also acknowledged it issued its stage 1 response after the extended deadline. In recognition of this it offered £25 compensation.

The landlord said that to improve the service it would:

  • Provide a new housing officer.
  • Address the ‘handover’ of cases when staff go on annual leave to maintain the level of service.
  • Ensure staff have the correct ‘out-of-office’ email message when they are not available.

8 January 2023

The resident escalated her complaint. She said she did not believe the suggestions to improve the service covered all the issues she had raised. She said the issues she raised had continued despite the landlord saying it had addressed them. She said it had continued to not respond to her emails or treat them as urgent when she asked it to. She also said she had found it difficult to have her complaint logged properly.

21 March 2023

The landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord addressed the specific instances raised by the resident where it had not responded to her within a reasonable timeframe or at all. Overall it acknowledged there had been additional service failures with regard to its communication with her. The landlord apologised for these failings and increased the offer of compensation from £150 to £200. It also confirmed that the initial offer of £25 for its late stage 1 response remained unchanged.

Additionally, the landlord proposed the following actions to improve the service:

–       A face to face meeting with the relevant staff member to ‘reset’ the relationship and agree how to resolve any outstanding issues.

–       A review of communication in 3 months’ time to discuss if the situation has improved.

21 June 2024

The resident confirmed she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. She said the communication from the landlord and its complaint handling continued to be poor. She said it had still not provided the information she had requested about the service charges. She also said the ongoing communication issues were impacting her mental health.

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 Times

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The landlord has confirmed that it does not have published response times for responding to emails from residents. However, it has said it aims to acknowledge emails within 24 hours and then respond within 5 working days or sooner if the subject is urgent.
  2. The resident’s correspondence refers to how the landlord’s handling of communication with her has impacted her mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, we can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.
  3. Furthermore, we may not investigate complaints which have not gone through the landlord’s complaints process. When referring her complaint to us, the resident referred to how the ongoing issues with the landlord had impacted her in 2024. Any events after the landlord’s stage 2 response have not gone through its complaints process. This means while we may refer to those events for context, we will not make orders related to the landlord’s actions after its final stage 2 response (21 March 2023) as part of this investigation.
  4. Through its complaints process the landlord acknowledged there had been delays and failings with its responses to the resident’s emails. Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. In its stage 1 response the landlord addressed the instances raised by the resident where it had failed to respond to her communications. It acknowledged there had been a lack of responses to the resident’s emails and apologised for the impact this had had on her. In recognition of the impact, it offered the resident £150 compensation. It also said that to try and repair its relationship with the resident it would:
    1. Provide a new housing officer.
    2. Address the ‘handover’ of cases when staff go on annual leave to maintain the level of service.
    3. Ensure staff have the correct ‘out-of-office’ email message when they are not available.

It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its failings, offer compensation and suggest steps to improve its service.

  1. In her escalation request the resident said she felt the landlord had not taken full accountability for the issues raised and had not addressed her complaint points in enough detail. She also said she was continuing to experience issues with the landlord not responding to her emails.
  2. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it agreed with the findings outlined in the stage 1 response. It said it believed it had taken accountability for the issues raised but agreed it could have done more to capture all aspects of the complaint. It apologised the resident was still experiencing communication issues and acknowledged the possible confusion caused by her speaking with multiple members of staff.
  3. In recognition of the additional service failures, it identified the landlord increased its initial offer of compensation to £200. However, it did not provide a detailed breakdown of how this amount was split between the various issues raised by the resident. As such, it is our understanding that this amount was split evenly between the 4 issues where the landlord found in her favour. It also recommended a face-to-face meeting to agree how to resolve any outstanding issues and to review communications in 3 months time. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the additional failings, increase the compensation offered to reflect this and suggest steps to improve its service.
  4. Having taken into consideration the failures and impact on the resident, we find the total amount of £150 offered for the landlord’s communication failures is proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This does not include the £50 offered for its failure to provide the service charges information the resident requested, this will be addressed separately. The £150 offered is in line with our compensation guidance, which suggests awards in this range where there have been failings by the landlord which did not have a lasting impact on the resident. As such, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Complaint

Service charges information

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. On 25 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord following the receipt of a service charge letter for March 2020 to 2021. She said she believed there were several issues with the charges and asked the landlord to address her concerns.
  2. The landlord responded to this email on 31 March 2022. It answered the questions posed by the resident and confirmed that some of the charges she had mentioned were wrong. It confirmed these incorrect charges would be removed. It was reasonable for the landlord to address the resident’s concerns in this way, and it responded within 4 working days of her email.
  3. The resident replied to the landlord’s email on 4 April 2022. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s explanation and asked for more detailed information about how it calculated the service charges.
  4. The landlord acknowledged this email on 5 April 2022 and said it would ask the service charges team for the requested information. It then updated the resident on 29 April 2022 and apologised for the delay in providing this information. It said it should provide her with the requested information by the following week. However, the resident chased the landlord for the requested information on 26 September 2022and 31 October 2022 following a visit.
  5. The evidence seen indicates the landlord did not respond to the resident’s queries about service charges until 1 December 2022. In this email it confirmed the incorrect service charges had been removed from her account and provided a new rent statement. It also provided the information the resident had asked for regarding apportionment of service charges and the number of properties on the estate. Based on the evidence seen, the landlord has not explained why it took so long to provide the requested information. As such, it was unreasonable for it to take around 8 months to respond to the resident’s information request about service charges.
  6. In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised that the resident was still waiting for some of the service charge information she had requested in March 2022. It acknowledged this delay was a significant service failure and offered £50 compensation (as part of the £200 total compensation offered) for the impact caused. It also recommended a face-to-face meeting to agree how to resolve any outstanding issues and to review communications in 3 months time.
  7. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £50 offered for this failing is proportionate to the circumstances of the case. Our published compensation guidance suggests an award of up to £100 may remedy service failures which did not have a lasting impact on the resident. As such, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.
  8. We are aware that in December 2022 the resident continued to chase the landlord for outstanding information about the service charges and says the landlord did not respond. However, this is the subject of a separate complaint and therefore we will not address these in this report.

Complaint

The handling of the complaint

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The landlord’s complaints policy (August 2022) says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days and issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It also says the landlord will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 2 working days and issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement. The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage, the landlord will explain this to the resident and inform them of the expected timescale for its response. This is in line with our Complaint handling code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 8 November 2022, and the landlord acknowledged it on the same day. A copy of the landlord’s communication with the resident requesting more time to investigate the complaint and providing a new deadline has not been seen. However, on 1 December 2022 the resident chased the landlord for its stage 1 response. In that email she said it had told her it would provide its response by 30 November 2022. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 1 December 2022. This was not in line with its complaints policy timescales.
  3. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged it had failed to issue the stage 1 response within its policy timescales. In recognition of this it apologised for the service failure and offered £25 compensation. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and offer compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 January 2023. However, on 10 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord to call her to discuss its stage 1 response. The evidence seen indicates this call was arranged for and took place on 19 January 2023. The resident then confirmed on 20 January 2023 that she still wanted the complaint to be raised at stage 2.
  5. On 31 January 2023 the new case handler contacted the resident and asked to speak to her about the complaint. Between 31 January and 6 March 2023 there were multiple attempts to arrange a call between the resident and the landlord. However, this was not possible until 6 March 2023 due to the resident’s circumstances. Following this call the landlord issued is stage 2 response on 21 March 2023.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response outside of its complaints policy timescales. That said, it was appropriate for it not to progress the resident’s escalation request until it had discussed its stage 1 response with the resident at her request. Additionally, it was appropriate for the landlord to want to discuss her escalation request with her before issuing its stage 2 response. Therefore, under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to issues its stage 2 response outside its complaints policy timescales.
  7. Overall, we find the total amount of £25 offered for the landlord’s complaint handling failures is proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because it is in line with our published compensation guidance for failings which did not impact the outcome of the complaint or have a lasting impact on the resident. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. The landlord’s records were accurate and comprehensive enough to allow us to carry out our investigation.

Communication

  1. The landlord must ensure it acknowledges and responds to resident emails within a reasonable timeframe. It must also ensure it has systems and processes in place to ensure this happens even if staff are off for leave or illness.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord must ensure its complaint responses are issued within its complaints policy timescales. It must also ensure that it communicates with the resident if it needs more time to issue its response.