Notting Hill Genesis (202401032)

Decision
Case ID	202401032
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	13 May 2026

Background

1. The resident contacted the landlord with queries about her service charges. She also reported that she could not access the landlord’s customer portal. Later, the resident raised further concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s surveyor and the quality of communication from its housing officers. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s investigation and response into these issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about staff communication.
   2. Concerns about its surveyor’s conduct.
   3. Service charge queries.
   4. Reports she was unable to access its portal.
   5. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion resolved the errors in its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff communication.
4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion resolved the errors in its handling of the resident’s concerns about its surveyor’s conduct.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports she was unable to access its portal.
7. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord acknowledged there were delays and errors in communication from its housing officers. It offered proportionate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
9. The landlord acknowledged there were delays and errors with its surveyor’s communication and conduct. It offered proportionate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
10. The landlord provided an adequate response to the resident’s service charge queries and complied with its service charge policy.
11. The landlord sent the registration link to the resident to register for the portal on several occasions. It also acted reasonably by asking her to contact her housing officer if she was experiencing issues with registering.
12. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaint about the surveyor’s conduct when she first raised this issue in her initial complaint. It failed to acknowledge this, and the associated distress and inconvenience the resident was caused, and as a result, did not put things 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 its delay in addressing the resident’s complaint point about her concerns about the surveyor’s conduct. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision and is meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 10 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident its original offers if it has not already done so, of: £750 made in its stage 2 complaint response of August 2024; and £475 made in its stage 2 complaint response of December 2024.  The Ombudsman’s finding of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff communication and the conduct of the landlord’s surveyor are based on the understanding that this compensation will be paid.
We recommend the landlord arrange for a staff member to contact the resident to help her register and access the portal.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 March 2024	The resident complained that the landlord did not respond to her queries about service charges, including charges for internal and external cleaning. She also said she could not access the landlord’s customer portal and therefore could not view relevant information.
29 April 2024	The resident sent an additional email to the landlord and complained about the conduct of the landlord’s surveyor. She also raised concerns about the communication from her previous housing officer and her current temporary housing officer.
17 May 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It acknowledged a lack of communication from its previous housing officer. It confirmed the officer had several periods of absence and was currently on long-term leave. Another housing officer was temporarily covering the previous housing officer’s patch since mid-February 2024. It apologised if the resident felt distressed by her interaction with the temporary housing officer about his request to arrange an annual visit at her property. The service charge summary the resident received for the financial year of 2024/2025, included communal electricity charges which were an estimated cost based on the previous year’s usage. It did not provide a regular cleaning service to the building and explained that the resident and other residents were not paying for this in their service charge. As per the year end service statement for 2021/2022, it did undertake a one-off clean of the communal parts of the building in 2021, totalling £468 of which the resident’s individual share was £103.99. It apologised that the resident did not have access to the landlord’s customer online portal. It said it had resent an invitation link to her email, so she could register for access to the online portal.   The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation to recognise the communication failures from its housing officers. It also offered £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its late stage 1 complaint response.
17   May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said her previous housing officer had not responded to her for over 1 year and she considered this unacceptable. She also said the landlord had not addressed her concerns about the surveyor’s conduct or the lack of communication from the temporary housing officer. The resident further stated that if the cleaning charge was a one-off payment, she did not understand why the landlord continued to apply this charge monthly.
31 May 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response relating to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s surveyor’s conduct. It said: It had spoken with its surveyor and referred the concerns to their manager, who spoke with them around their communication. It aimed to provide the best possible customer experience in keeping with its values and said it was sorry that the resident feels that this was not her experience on this occasion. It would ensure that its communication with the resident, met its standards and would work with her to promote a positive relationship.
5 August 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response, relating to the service charge queries, communication from its housing officers and access to the portal. It reiterated its comments about the resident’s previous housing officer. In relation to the new temporary housing officer, it apologised about the annual visit and the query about the resident’s injury if it caused her distress. It said it did not believe that the housing officers’ line of questioning was unreasonable or professional. It also said: Residents such as her who pay variable service charges are sent a summary of accounts showing expenditure for the previous financial year reconciled with the estimated budget that shows where there is a surplus or deficit balance. The resident was currently subject to a deficit charge of £1.81 per week for the combined financial years of 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 which due to reactive cleaning works that took place during those years. It previously sent the resident an email invitation to register for the landlord’s customer online portal. However, it said it could see she had not yet registered. It had sent a further email invitation to her this week and stated if she was experiencing issues registering, to contact her housing officer. The landlord offered the resident revised compensation of £750. This included £500 to recognise the communication failures from both its housing officers and £250 for a delayed stage 1 and 2 complaint response.
3 December 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response, relating to her concerns about its surveyor’s conduct. It said:   It acknowledged there was a delay of 3 months between the initial referral from its surveyor and the first scheduled appointment, followed by another 3 months of no communication. When its surveyor contacted the resident in November 2023, it noted that the conversation escalated and voices were raised. It said this resulted in the surveyor concluding the call and escalating the matter to their manager and requesting reassignment to another surveyor. It apologised if the resolution of the call left the resident feeling dissatisfied. It had discussed the matter with its surveyor and their manager to ensure improved communication practices in the future.   The landlord offered the resident £475 compensation which included, £150 for the initial delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and £325 for the impact and prolonged resolution time about her concerns raised about the landlord’s surveyor’s conduct.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to adequately address the issues she raised in her complaint and correctly recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors.

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 response to the resident’s concerns about staff communication.
Finding	Reasonable redress

13. The resident raised concerns about communication from both her previous housing officer and the temporary housing officer in post at the time. She said her previous housing officer did not respond and that communication was lacking. She also expressed dissatisfaction with her interactions with the temporary housing officer, stating that some of his questions were intrusive.
14. The landlord confirmed that it did not have a staff conduct policy in place at the time of the complaint or service level agreement timescales for housing officers to respond. It has since introduced a staff conduct policy, which is positive to note. As this was not in place at the time, we have considered whether the landlord’s response and actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
15. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. It explained that the previous housing officer was in post between August 2023 and February 2024 and then went on long-term leave. It also acknowledged that the housing officer had several periods of absence during the time they were in post.
16. We recognise the staff absence would have been outside of the landlord’s control. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange another staff member to monitor the housing officer’s email box whilst she was absent from work. The landlord acknowledged this was a failing.
17. The landlord also explained it had reviewed all the resident’s telephone contact requests for the previous housing officer which it had on its systems. It said its records indicated that the housing officer responded to these requests. The landlord provided us with copies of its system records to support this position. However, we recognise the landlord did not have a copy of the call recordings. These would have assisted in verifying whether the housing officer responded appropriately to the resident’s telephone contact requests. However, the landlord’s investigation into the resident’s concerns was proportionate.
18. In February 2024, the landlord appointed a temporary housing officer to cover the previous officer’s area. This was an appropriate step to maintain service provision. The landlord stated in its complaint response that the temporary housing officer contacted the resident to arrange an annual visit. The resident explained that she could not proceed with the visit at that time due to an injury. The evidence shows that the temporary housing officer asked further questions about the resident’s injury and continued to try to arrange the visit. This approach was not considerate of the resident’s circumstances and caused her distress.
19. The landlord took appropriate steps by speaking to the temporary housing officer about their interactions and reminding them of the importance of professional language and communication. It also acknowledged that its temporary housing officer did not respond to a number of the resident’s email enquiries in a timely manner. The landlord confirmed a new permanent housing officer started in July 2024.
20. It is evident that the communication from the landlord’s housing officers could have been better. However, the landlord acknowledged there were communication errors and offered the resident £500 compensation to recognise these errors. The landlord’s offer was proportionate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its errors. It was also fair and consistent with our compensation guidance, which is available on our website and recommends awards of up to £600 where failings had no permanent impact on the resident.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s surveyor’s conduct.
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The resident raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s surveyor. She said the surveyor was rude during a telephone conversation and that there were delays in communication. As referenced above, the landlord did not have a staff conduct policy in place at the time of the complaint. We have therefore considered whether the landlord’s response and actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
22. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication from its surveyor between the end of August 2023 and November 2023. It acknowledged that lack of contact and updates was unacceptable. It is positive that the landlord recognised this communication error.
23. The landlord acknowledged that during a call in November 2023 between the resident and the surveyor, the conversation escalated and voices were raised. It said the surveyor ended the call and escalated the matter to their manager. Given the absence of a call recording, the landlord then assigned a different surveyor to the case. It also took steps to discuss the interaction with the surveyor and their manager. This was a reasonable step in the circumstances.
24. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns and took proportionate steps to investigate matters further. It also offered £325 in compensation to reflect the impact on the resident. This amount was fair and consistent with our compensation guidance and proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries.
Finding	No maladministration

25. The resident raised in her complaint that she was unhappy about the level of service charge costs. We do not investigate complaints about the level or increase of service charges. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is best placed to consider this matter, given its powers and expertise. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to the concerns that were raised by the resident.
26. In March 2024, the resident emailed the landlord about queries relating to her service charges. She explained that she had received a notice increase of £7.79 per week for service charges from 1 April 2024 onwards. The resident also queried the annual communal electric bill and stated she was being charged for communal and external cleaning but did not receive this service. The resident’s query request was in line with the landlord’s service charge policy, which states all residents that have variable service charges have the right to inspect and check the landlord’s accounting for service charges and any supporting documents.
27. The landlord first responded to the resident’s service charge queries in its stage 1 complaint response sent to the resident on 17 May 2024. Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states a landlord must respond within 1 month of the resident’s request or, 6 months after the end of the accounting period (whichever is later). In this case, the end of the accounting period was later. Therefore, the landlord’s response time was reasonable. The landlord also provided a further detailed response in its stage 2 complaint response.
28. In both complaint responses, the landlord explained that the estimated communal block electricity charge for the 2024/2025 financial year was £563.02. It said this figure was based on the previous year’s usage and changes in national energy prices. The landlord provided the resident with a copy of the previous year’s communal electricity charge statement for reference, which was reasonable. The landlord also confirmed that as the charge was an estimate, any underspend identified when the final accounts for 2024/2025 become available would be refunded to the resident as a previous year balance. The landlord’s response was reasonable, and it took appropriate steps explaining how it had calculated the estimated communal electric charge.
29. The landlord confirmed that the resident was not currently being charged for cleaning or estate services as this was not a regular service provided to the block. However, it explained it previously carried out a one off clean of the communal areas of the building in 2021, and this was charged in its service charge statement for 2021/2022, and it provided the resident with a copy of the statement for her reference.
30. The landlord then noted from the resident’s escalation request that she was querying a cost of £1.81, which it stated she was being charged weekly for the service charge balances of the previous financial years 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. It explained that residents with variable service charges were sent a summary of accounts. This showed expenditure for the previous financial year reconciled with the estimated budget that showed where there was a surplus or deficit balance. The landlord stated that if there was a deficit at year end, the resident would be charged a weekly amount. If there was a surplus, the resident would receive a weekly credit.
31. In this case, the landlord confirmed the resident was charged a weekly deficit of £1.81 for the combined financial years 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. It said part of this related to reactive cleaning works carried out during those years. The landlord explained that in 2021/2022 there was a one-off, unbudgeted cleaning cost of £468.00. However, as other costs were lower than budgeted, there was an overall service charge surplus of £29.32. This resulted in a weekly credit of £0.56 applied to the resident’s account. It also stated that in 2022/2023 there was a further one-off, unbudgeted cleaning cost of £559.99. Therefore, in that year there was an overall service charge deficit of £123.45, which translated to a £2.37 per week deficit towards the resident’s service charges.
32. Therefore, it explained that the combined surplus and deficit figures for these two years equated to the £1.81 per week that the resident was currently paying. The landlord’s response was detailed and included a breakdown of how the charge of £1.81 per week was calculated.
33. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge queries was reasonable and it told the resident she could contact The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) if she wanted to challenge the reasonableness of her service charges. This was appropriate.

Complaint	The resident’s reports she was unable to access the landlord’s portal.
Finding	No maladministration

34. The portal allows a resident to report repairs, check their rent/service charge account balance and make other requests. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response, sent in May 2024, that it had resent an invitation link by email for the resident to register for the portal. In its stage 2 complaint response, sent in August 2024, it stated that its records still showed the resident as unregistered and confirmed it had resent the invitation link again. It also advised the resident to contact her housing officer if she was experiencing issues registering her account.
35. In April 2026, we contacted the landlord to confirm whether the resident had been able to access the portal. The landlord stated that the resident had still been unable to register and use the portal. We recognise the resident not being able to access the portal would have inconvenienced her. However, the landlord did inform the resident that she should contact her housing officer if she was experiencing issues with the registration link, which was reasonable. As the resident has been trying to register on the portal for a considerable period of time with no success, we recommend the landlord arrange for a staff member to contact the resident to help her register and access the portal.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

36. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy are the same as the timescales in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaints processes. The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
37. There were some failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, including:
    1. The landlord providing its stage 1 response 27 working days outside the timescale set out in its policy and the Code.
    2. Its failure to respond to all of the resident’s concerns within its initial stage 1 complaint response and had to issue further correspondence to address her concerns about the surveyor’s conduct.
    3. The landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response dated 5 August 2024, 35 working days late and also providing its stage 2 complaint response dated 3 December 2024 late, and outside the timescales set out in its policy and the Code.
38. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response sent in August 2024 that there were delays in providing its initial stage 1 and 2 complaint responses and offered the resident £250 compensation to recognise the delays. It also acknowledged that there was a delay in providing its second stage 2 complaint response relating to the resident’s concerns about the surveyor’s conduct and offered the resident £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
39. It is positive that the landlord recognised some of its complaint handling errors and offered the resident compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to address the resident’s complaint about the surveyor’s conduct when she raised it in her initial complaint. Therefore, it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for this error. The apology is in line with our compensation guidance (published on our website). The compensation guidance states for complaint handling failings where there was minimal impact caused, an apology is appropriate.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate its overall handling of the complaint.

Communication

41. The landlord’s communication was limited in relation to the resident’s concerns about staff communication, surveyor’s conduct, and the resident not being able to access the landlord’s portal. There were also delays in the landlord’s communication during its complaints process.