Notting Hill Genesis (202326665)

Decision
Case ID	202326665
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident reported to the landlord that her balcony floor was uneven, and that the bedroom and lounge windows had damp and mould around them and did not open properly. She was also dissatisfied with the time taken to replace the balcony doors and with the landlord’s handling of a noisy pipe in her property.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony and windows.
2. The landlord’s handling of a noisy pipe in the bathroom.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
We find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a noisy pipe in the bathroom.
We find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord was not proactive in progressing the repairs to the property. The landlord’s unclear position and lack of communication at times caused the resident distress.
We consider that the landlord responded appropriately and made its decision about responsibility for the noisy pipe based on the information it had at the time.
The landlord did not log a complaint when the resident first requested this. This meant the complaint process took longer to complete. It did not provide a stage 2 acknowledgment and its stage 2 response was delayed.

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 February 2026
2	Compensation The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows: £300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the balcony and windows. £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. 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 27 February 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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 February 2026

Compensation

The landlord must pay the resident £350 made up as follows:

£300 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the balcony and windows.
£50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

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

27 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should write to the resident with an update on the lounge window repair. The update should set out the actions the landlord has taken and confirm when the resident will next receive a update.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 January 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint. She said: Her windows were draughty, had black mould, and the property was freezing. She wanted the landlord to inspect the windows. She reported repairs more than 6 months earlier. She asked for job numbers for repairs to the balcony door and floor, and the bedroom and lounge windows.
14 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: The balcony floor would be repaired as part of the cyclical programme and the resident would be contacted that week for access to her property. The bedroom and lounge windows had been inspected, scaffolding was in place, and the windows would be repaired and repainted. It would contact the resident that week to arrange access. Planning permission had been granted to replace the balcony doors, the work had been delayed. The resident would be contacted to arrange fitting.
16 February 2024	The landlord told us it treated the resident’s email to the Chief Executive as her request to escalate the complaint. In that email, the resident said she had visited her GP because damp and mould were affecting her health. She also said the landlord was responsible for replacing inadequate insulation.
27 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: The lounge window sash would be replaced. The wooden frame must remain as the building is in a conservation area. The bedroom window would be replaced with UPVC. It had asked for her windows to be prioritised. The balcony floor would be levelled as far as possible and a waterproof coating applied. The balcony door replacement would be subject to a section 20 process and funded through the sinking fund. The soil pipe had been investigated and the resident should instruct a plumber to inspect the soil stack pipe. It was sorry for any stress, anxiety, and delays in providing information.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In summary the resident told us the property was cold, damp and had condensation. She said there had been a lack of communication from the landlord and she wanted her windows replaced with double glazing.

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 repairs to the balcony and windows.
Finding	Maladministration

In May 2023 the landlord visited the resident to discuss repairs. After the visit it told the resident its window contractor had inspected the windows and found no repairs or replacements were needed. It advised the resident to wipe away damp and mould and said it would seek advice from a surveyor about the balcony floor.
The resident told the landlord the lounge window did not work properly and that poor insulation was causing damp and mould. A surveyor visited on 27 July 2023 and identified repairs to:
1. replace the lead to the front kitchen window as it was sliding down
2. fit draft excluders to the bedroom window
3. renew the felt on the balcony
We acknowledge the resident was unhappy that the landlord chose to repair her windows rather than replace them and to not renew the entire felt on the balcony. In our view, the landlord acted reasonably because it relied on the recommendations from inspections when making its decisions.
The landlord’s communication was unclear and lacking at several points and caused the resident distress and uncertainty. Such as:
1. On 23 August 2023 it told her the windows had not yet been granted planning permission however we have seen no evidence that an application had been submitted. It later told her that no planning permission was required.
2. The landlord did not provide regular updates. Following its email on 23 August 2023, the resident was not updated about the window repair until 22 October 2023.
3. On 6 September 2023 the landlord told the resident she would receive a date for the balcony floor works within the next couple of weeks. This did not happen. The landlord did not meet the resident’s expectations.
4. The landlord told the resident her balcony doors would be replaced. She asked multiple times what the replacement doors would be made of, due to concerns about insulation. The landlord did not answer her question for 3 months, even though the information was available from the planning permission. It missed the opportunity to address the resident’s concerns sooner.
The landlord decided to complete the resident’s repair alongside cyclical works in the block starting on 31 October 2023 as scaffolding was due to be installed. It updated the resident about this decision. A pre-condition survey was completed on 7 November 2023 the outcome of the inspection was:
1. The lounge and bedroom windows had both dropped.
2. The lounge window was draughty and the lock was broken.
3. The bedroom window was stiff to open.
On 31 January 2024 the resident told the landlord that damp and mould was affecting her health. The landlord said it would inspect the windows as a priority and carried out an inspection within 4 working days, this was a timely response. The outcome of the inspection confirmed that no windows required replacement. The landlord completed a further inspection on 14 February 2024 and at the time of the inspection there was no damp, mould and condensation. This shows the landlord continued to assess the resident’s concerns.
Overall we find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. The landlord acted reasonably by relying on inspection recommendations when identifying the repairs needed. However, it did not progress the repairs proactively and the works were delayed. While we acknowledge the landlord needed scaffolding for the balcony and window works and planning permission for the balcony doors, it still did not progress the repairs with sufficient urgency. By the time of its stage 2 response, issued 8 months after the window and balcony floor inspection, none of the repairs had been completed, and the landlord did not acknowledge this in its complaint response. Gaps in its communication also meant the resident had to chase for updates.
In light of our findings, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy where there has been medium impact on a resident.
The resident has told us that all repairs have now been completed, except for the lounge window. The landlord has told us that its planning application for the window was rejected and that it intends to resubmit the application. We have recommended that the landlord provide the resident with a written update setting out the actions it has taken and a clear plan as to when it will next update her.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a noisy pipe in the bathroom.
Finding	No maladministration

The resident’s lease states the landlord is responsible for repair to the main structure of the building. This includes water pipes and drains that are used by other properties within the building.
The landlord’s website states leaseholders are responsible for any pipes which serve only the leaseholder’s property.
The resident had recently undertaken works to her bathroom. During that time, the resident’s plumber told her a noise coming from one of her pipes was caused by a valve in the loft. The landlord responded appropriately and arranged an inspection. The inspection found that there was no valve in the loft. The noise was identified as coming from either the soil stack or the basin waste pipe, the bathroom furniture would need to be removed to confirm the cause.
The landlord updated the resident that the contractor said that the issue was not in the loft or to do with any communal plumbing. The resident was told it was her responsibility to fix. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, as it investigated the resident’s concerns and relied upon the results of the investigation.
The resident disagreed with the landlord’s findings. The landlord asked for a copy of the resident’s plumbers report to review. It was positive for the landlord to consider the resident’s plumber’s findings as the resident disputed the soil pipe was her responsibility. We have not seen evidence the landlord received this.
At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response, the landlord’s position was that it had investigated the issue and that the resident should arrange her own plumber to attend to the issue. Our view is that this was a reasonable response at that time as the landlord relied on the outcome of its inspection findings that it was not a communal pipe.
We note that the resident disputed that she was responsible for the soil pipe and we are aware that the landlord did later complete works to the soil pipe. We appreciate that this must have been frustrating for the resident, however the landlord did seek further information from her by asking for her plumbers report. As we have not seen that the landlord received this information, we consider its position was reasonable, based on the information available at that time.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy states that stage 1 complaints and escalation requests will be acknowledged within 5 working days. Stage 1 responses should be issued within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of escalation.
On 11 June 2023 the resident raised dissatisfaction to the landlord about how the windows and balcony repairs had been handled. She was told a complaint would be logged. We have not seen a contact note of the landlord’s call with the resident following her complaint. The landlord should keep clear contact notes to show the actions it has taken. Because it did not do this, we cannot see why it chose not to log a formal complaint, which was a failure in its complaint handling.
The landlord gave the resident a stage 1 complaint reference number within 3 working days of receiving the resident’s complaint. It issued the stage 1 response 7 working days later, which met its 10 day target.
The Complaint Handling Code states that related issues raised during an investigation should be included in the stage 1 response if it has not yet been issued. The landlord emailed the resident its stage 1 response and, at the same time, provided an update on repair works. This update related to the complaint and should have been included in the formal response. However as both were provided at the same time, we consider that no detriment was caused.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a stage 2 acknowledgement. Although the landlord and resident were in regular contact at that time, the resident was not aware that her complaint had been escalated. The stage 2 response was issued 28 days after it logged the complaint escalation, which was outside the timescale in its policy.
In view of the identified failures in the landlord complaint handling, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As discussed, the landlord could not evidence why it did not log a formal complaint for the resident.

Communication

As discussed, the landlord’s communication was at times poor. If it had provided the resident with an action plan setting out the required works and expected timescales, it may have avoided the inconvenience caused to the resident.