Notting Hill Genesis (202519472)

Decision
Case ID	202519472
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 May 2026

Background

The resident moved into the flat via a mutual exchange in July 2022. The resident reported several concerns to the landlord after she moved into the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs.
2. Reports of window repairs.
3. Request to move via mutual exchange despite rent arrears.
We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs.
2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of window repairs.
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move via mutual exchange despite rent arrears.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Pest control

The landlord repeatedly closed repair orders without completing the necessary work. It did not act on professional advice and failed to consider whether the infestation was linked to structural issues. It communicated poorly with both the resident and its contractors. Although the landlord accepted these failures, apologised and offered compensation, the compensation was not sufficient to fully put right the impact of its failures on the resident, which continued beyond its final response.

Window repair

The landlord apologised for initial delays raising the window repair and paid compensation to the resident. However, there were further delays, and it did not act in line with its policy by communicating clearly with the resident about appointments which resulted in the repair remaining outstanding.

Mutual exchange

Although some of the landlord’s communication lacked clarity, it acted in line with its policy when it told the resident it would not give permission for a mutual exchange while there were arrears on the rent account.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not follow its complaints policy. It failed to recognise the complaint promptly, delayed its responses at both stages and provided a poor quality stage 1 response. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failures identified.

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 12 June 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £525 compensation in addition to the amount it has already paid. This amount is made up as follows: £300 for its handling of reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs. £150 for its handling of window repairs. £75 for 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 12 June 2026
	Work order The landlord must: Contact the resident to arrange an appointment for the window repair to be completed. The appointment should be planned to take place within 90 working days of the date of this report. Inspect the property and provide the resident with a written action plan setting out how it will address the pest infestation. The action plan should include: Details of any treatments or repairs required to achieve a lasting resolution. Dates for attendance and completion of any work required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to attend the property no later than the due date.	No later than 12 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord contacts the resident to explain what level of rent arrears it would consider acceptable when assessing a mutual exchange application.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
Between 22 March 2025 and 2 April 2025	The resident contacted the landlord several times. She said she had reported pest issues and repairs since moving into the property in 2022, but the landlord had not completed the required work and mouse activity continued.
28 April 2025	The resident repeated her previous concerns. She also said that: in 2022 she was told the window needed to be replaced, however despite chasing this up the landlord had not completed any work the pest control contractor said the kitchen units needed to be removed but the landlord repeatedly closed repair orders without completing any work the landlord provided inaccurate information about the condition of the property during the mutual exchange process in 2022 rent arrears had accrued because of the unresolved repairs she would agree to a payment plan for rent arrears if the landlord activated her Homeswapper account.
31 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It accepted that previous repairs had been closed or allocated incorrectly and upheld the complaint. To resolve the complaint, it: offered £100 compensation provided direct contact details for the resident to obtain further assistance concerning the mutual exchange process said it would raise jobs for the outstanding repairs said it would provide a breakdown of service charges.
13 June 2025	The resident said the landlord had not responded to outstanding issues. She also described the impact of the ongoing pest issue and said she felt ignored.
29 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It: apologised for its poor communication about the resident’s rent account and said it would contact her within 5 working days to agree an action plan to address the arrears apologised for its poor communication and that it had not effectively addressed the pest control issues, it said it would confirm a pest control appointment and arrange for a contractor to attend at the same time to remove the kitchen units apologised for not raising a repair for the window and said it would attend on 3 September 2025 confirmed the resident had access to Homeswapper, however it would not approve a potential mutual exchange unless arrears were cleared or reduced to a level it considered acceptable apologised for failing to acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 within 5 working days, and not promptly informing her it needed more time to provide its stage 2 response offered a total of £675 compensation, broken down as: £50 for poor communication in relation to the resident’s rent account, £500 for its handling of pest control and associated repairs, £100 for its handling of the window repair and £25 for its handling of the complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	On 30 October 2025 the resident asked us to investigate. She said: the repairs remained outstanding the pest issues were ongoing the landlord had not clarified its position on the level of rent arrears it considered acceptable for a mutual exchange she was unhappy the landlord had credited the compensation to her rent account rather than paid directly to her.

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 resident’s reports of a pest infestation and the associated repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not consider

The resident raised concerns about events dating back to 2022, including reports of pests. In its complaint responses the landlord said it accepts complaints made within 12 months of the issue occurring (or the resident becoming aware of the issue). In the interests of fairness, our investigation is focused on a similar period and has considered events from events from March 2024 onwards.
The resident has described the impact of the situation on her physical health and mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for a court or personal injury claim to consider these matters. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. However, we have considered what the resident told us about how the issues affected her, and any distress or inconvenience caused because of any failings by the landlord.

What we did consider

The landlord’s pest control policy that was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint says that it is responsible for the treatment of pests in residents’ homes and should intervene as soon as possible. If a resident reports a rodent problem the landlord will:
1. visit the property, take photos and complete a checklist
2. review the repairs history to check whether it is a recurring problem
3. determine the potential cause of the issue
4. organise the necessary works
5. refer to a surveyor to inspect and raise the relevant works if the issues are likely to be linked to structural problems.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days.
On 24 March 2024 the resident told the landlord its pest control contractor had attended more than 12 months previously and identified repairs it needed to carry out beneath the kitchen units. She said it had not completed the final treatment, and she could still see signs of pest activity (mice). The landlord attended 21 working days later, on 24 April 2024, which was a minor delay to its policy target for standard repairs. Its records say it filled holes behind the bottom level kitchen units. It was inappropriate that despite the resident’s report of ongoing pest activity, the landlord did not log a pest control report.
On 5 September 2024 the resident told the landlord she had seen a mouse and was concerned it had not blocked the holes properly.This was logged as a ‘recall’ to the repair it marked as completed on 24 April 2024. The landlord later rejected the recall request. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it raised a repair on 12 September 2024. However, it has not provided evidence in relation to this repair. This is a record keeping failure which has impacted our ability to accurately assess its actions.
The landlord said it closed the repair raised on 12 September 2024. It said this was being handled under a repair it raised on 25 November 2024, after the resident reported further sightings of mice in the kitchen. However, it later identified that the work had been allocated to the wrong contractor and on 23 December 2024 it cancelled the repair. There is no evidence the landlord re-raised the repair to the correct contractor which is a service failure.
On 22 March 2025 the resident told the landlord it shouldn’t have closed the previous repair because it had not removed the kitchen units or completed pest control treatment. This was again logged as a ‘recall’ to the repair marked as completed on 24 April 2024. On 2 April 2025 the landlord rejected the recall request. It is appropriate that it subsequently asked its pest control contractor to attend. However, it did not explain to the resident what it was doing and why. This caused her frustration and inconvenience as she repeatedly told the landlord it should not close the repair orders.
The landlord’s records show that from at least 1 April 2025, it was aware of ongoing problems with mice affecting multiple properties in the block. This is a reasonable indication that the issue may be linked to structural problems. However, there is no evidence the landlord acted in line with its policy by referring the matter to a surveyor, which is a significant failing.
The pest control contractor carried out the first 2 appointments of a 3‑stage treatment course in April 2025. The treatment reports included:
1. confirmation that the infestation had reduced in severity by the second appointment
2. recommendations to remove the kitchen units to enable an investigation of entry points and renewal of proofing
3. photographs showing an accumulation of rubbish outside the property.
The contractor’s photographs indicated a potential contributory factor to the ongoing infestation.There is no evidence that the landlord assessed or responded to this information. The landlord’s failure to act on professional advice was inappropriate and did not demonstrate a proactive approach to resolving the infestation.
On 28 April 2025, the resident told the landlord it needed to fill the holes behind the kitchen units before the contractor returned for the third appointment. She said the appointment was booked for the following day however she would not be available to provide access. There is no evidence that the landlord told the contractor the resident was unavailable on 29 April 2025. The contractor attended and recorded the appointment as ‘no access’. This is an example of the landlord’s poor communication and record keeping.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would raise the outstanding repairs. It did not contact the pest control contractor until 10 July 2025, which was an unreasonable delay of 28 working days. The following day the contractor asked the landlord to provide a purchase order (PO) to start the treatment programme again. Records of communication between the landlord and contractor say a PO was raised on 26 August 2025. The landlord took a total of 32 working days to raise the PO which was an unreasonable delay. The contractor also told the landlord that improved management of communal areas may reduce the pest issues at the block. Again, there is no evidence the landlord acted upon the contractor’s advice concerning potential contributory factors. This was another missed opportunity to demonstrate a proactive approach to resolving the issue.
On 29 August 2025, in line with its stage 2 commitment, the landlord raised a repair for it to attend with the pest control contractor. However, on 1 September 2025 it cancelled the repair because its ‘hub’ would not remove units. It noted that the work needed to be arranged with the contractor.
On 3 September 2025, following clarification from the contractor, the landlord updated the resident. It said it had closed the repair and would review the contractor’s report and any recommendations following completion of the 3-stage treatment programme. However, it did not tell the resident the treatment programme needed to be restarted. It was reasonable for the landlord to adjust its plan after receiving information from its contractor. However, considering the previous confusion about the repairs and that it had extended its complaint response timeframe, it would have been prudent to clarify the process earlier and clearly explain the situation to the resident.
The contractor attended on 4 September 2025. It told the landlord the resident verbally abused its operative, and it would not return to the property unless the landlord was also present. The resident emailed the landlord the same day and expressed frustration that the contractor did now know what to do because the treatment stage was unclear. The resident emailed the landlord again on 16 September 2025. In its reply the landlord said it would ask the contractor to confirm when the second appointment was booked and closely monitor the matter to ensure completion. We have not seen evidence that it arranged to attend with the contractor and ensure the treatment programme was completed. This was a significant failing.
The landlord’s handling of the matter amounts to maladministration because it:
1. repeatedly closed or cancelled repairs without completing work which contributed to confusion and delays
2. did not communicate effectively with the resident, its contractor or between departments
3. did not have a clear process for handling repairs associated with pest control
4. did not identify that the infestation could be caused by structural problems
5. did not follow up information and advice from the contractor concerning the communal areas.
The resident frequently expressed frustration. She said the landlord was ignoring her and not treating her fairly. She said the issue impacted her in the following ways:
1. she felt uncomfortable preparing food in the kitchen
2. she had been injured due to losing consciousness after seeing mice
3. she had incurred costs by:
  1. paying to stay in hotels to reduce the impact on her sleep
  2. replacing belongings which had been damaged.
In its stage 2 response the landlord accepted it had failed to effectively manage and address the pest issues in line with its policies and procedures. It also acknowledged that it had failed to uphold communication. It apologised and paid the resident £500 compensation in recognition of these failures. This equates to approximately £100 for each month of the complaint period and was a reasonable offer of compensation.
However, the landlord subsequently raised and cancelled another repair order and did not communicate clearly with the resident about the pest control treatment programme. The landlord’s records say that on 6 November 2025 the resident reported pest activity again and it asked the contractor to attend. We have not been provided with any further updates or seen evidence to confirm that the treatment programme and associated repairs were completed.
Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to provide the resident with a written action plan of how it will address the pest infestation and pay the resident an additional £300 compensation in recognition of the continued delays and poor communication.

Complaint	The resident’s reports of window repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not consider

The resident raised concerns about events dating back to 2022, including window repairs. As set out in paragraph 11 of this report, our investigation is focused on a similar period to the landlord’s internal complaint process and has considered events from March 2024 onwards.

What we did consider

The landlord’s repairs policy in place at the time of the resident’s complaint says it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days.
With effect from 16 September 2025, the landlord updated its repairs policy. It introduced a category of non‑standard repairs for works requiring bespoke or specialist parts. Under the updated policy, the landlord was required to:
1. provide the resident with an expected timescale for completion of non‑standard repairs
2. confirm all appointment times in advance.
The resident reported the window repair to the landlord on 1 April 2025. The first recorded appointment was scheduled for 3 September 2025, 108 working days later. This significantly exceeds the landlord’s published timescales for a standard repair. The landlord has not provided us with any records concerning the outcome of the appointment which is a record keeping failure.
The landlord re‑raised the repair on 2 December 2025, describing it as a non‑standard repair and recording a target completion timescale of 90 days. The landlord did not provide evidence to explain any actions it did or did not take between September and December 2025. We have not seen any evidence that, in line with its updated policy, the landlord told the resident when it expected to complete the repair. The additional delay of around two months, combined with a lack of communication, was unreasonable.
The contractor attended on 4 January 2026 and said that the landlord needed to replace the window mechanism, which it described as a specialist repair. The landlord raised a non-standard repair. However, we have not seen any evidence that it told the resident when it expected to complete the repair as required by its updated policy which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s records say that the resident did not provide access on 11 and 25 February 2026. As a result, it closed the repair. The landlord’s policy requires it to communicate clearly with the resident and confirm all appointments in advance. We have not seen clear evidence that the landlord adhered to its policy by notifying the resident of the appointments in advance. In the absence of such evidence, it was unreasonable for the landlord to close the repair.
The landlord has not maintained full and accurate records of its handling of the repair. This includes missing records relating to repair progression, appointment confirmations, and attendance outcomes. This is a record keeping failure which has affected the landlord’s ability to demonstrate that it acted reasonably and in line with its policies.
At the time of our decision, more than 12 months after the resident told the landlord she has been unable to open it since moving into the property, the window has not been repaired. During this time the resident experienced confusion about appointments and the inconvenience of repeated attempts to arrange access.
Although the landlord took some steps to progress the repair, including re‑raising it and arranging contractor attendance, it did not do so in a timely or well‑managed manner. The landlord:
1. significantly exceeded its standard repair timescales without adequate explanation
2. failed to communicate clearly with the resident in line with its policy
3. did not keep adequate records of its actions.

We have not seen evidence that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to complete the repair. These failures caused avoidable delay and inconvenience to the resident which amounts to maladministration.

The landlord accepted and apologised for its failure to raise a repair when the resident reported issues with the window on 1 April 2025. It paid the resident £100 compensation in recognition of this. Given the length of the delay, the ongoing lack of resolution, and the impact on the resident, this amount was not proportionate to the failures we identified. We have therefore ordered the landlord to arrange a repair appointment and pay the resident an additional £150 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the matter.

Complaint	The resident’s request to move via mutual exchange despite having arrears on the rent account.
Finding	No maladministration

Within her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to activate her Homeswapperaccount (an online mutual exchange register) so that she could be considered for a mutual exchange. She said if the landlord allowed her to move then she would agree to a payment plan for rent arrears.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy says the landlord may withhold consent for an exchange until all obligations under the tenancy have been met, including that all rent and service charges have been paid.
In April 2023, a court granted the landlord outright possession of the property due to rent arrears. Whilst the landlord has not applied for an eviction warrant since then, a possession order typically remains valid for 6 years. In line with the grounds for refusal set out in Schedule 3 of the Housing Act 1985, the landlord may refuse permission for a mutual exchange where a court has made a possession order against the tenancy.
The evidence shows that the resident’s rent account was significantly in arrears at the time of the complaint. In its stage 2 response the landlord said a potential mutual exchange would not be approved unless the resident cleared the rent arrears or the arrears were of a value it “deems appropriate”. While its wording lacked clarity, the landlord’s response was in line with its policy and relevant legislation. Overall, the landlord used its complaints procedure to answer the resident’s queries appropriately. Therefore, there was no maladministration.
However, we have recommended the landlord contact the resident to clarify its position on what level of rent arrears it would consider acceptable in relation to a potential mutual exchange application.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to recognise complaints wherever dissatisfaction is expressed, respond within published timescales, communicate clearly with residents about delays, and ensure that complaint responses are clear, accurate, and address the issues raised.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it will:
1. acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days
2. provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement, or within 20 working days if an extension is agreed with the resident
3. provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement, or within 30 working days if any extension is agreed with the resident
4. provide regular updates to the resident if it has extended its response timescale.
Between 22 March and 4 April 2025, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions on 4 occasions. However, the landlord did not recognise the matter as a complaint until 28 April 2025 when the resident submitted a webform, sent an email, a message, and a repair enquiry. This delayed the start of the complaint process and caused the resident inconvenience, time, and trouble in repeatedly pursuing the issue.
The landlord’s records show that it sent its stage 1 response to the resident on 31 May 2025. This was 18 working days after it acknowledged the complaint and exceeded its stage 1 timescale. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident it needed additional time or agreed an extension with the resident as required by its policy. This was unreasonable and caused further inconvenience, including the resident having to contact the landlord on 23 May 2025 to chase the response.
The quality of the stage 1 response was poor because it:
1. was poorly written
2. was incorrectly dated
3. did not set out a clear understanding of the resident’s complaint or how it would be addressed, for example it:
  1. said it would raise the ‘outstanding repairs’ but did not explain what repairs this referred to or what timescales the resident could expect
  2. said it would provide a breakdown of service charges although this was not an issue the resident had complained about
  3. failed to explain the mutual exchange process or any other rehousing options.

As a result, the stage 1 response did not provide the resident with clarity or confidence that her concerns had been properly considered.

The resident emailed the landlord on 13 June 2025. However, it failed to identify the escalation request until the resident contacted it again 12 working days later, on 1 July 2025. This was unreasonable and caused additional delay, inconvenience, time, and trouble.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 8 July 2025 and said it would respond by 5 August 2025. On that date it told the resident it needed an additional 20 working days to provide its response because it was receiving a high volume of complaints. The landlord issued its stage 2 response within the extended timeframe it committed to. However, its poor handling of the complaint amounts to maladministration because it:
1. failed to recognise the resident’s complaint and escalation request in a timely manner
2. did not provide its stage 1 response in line with its policy timescale
3. provided a poor quality stage 1 response
4. did not agree the extension to its stage 2 response with the resident.
Although the landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling and paid the resident £25 compensation, this did not reflect the cumulative delays at both stages of the process, and the impact on the resident in terms of time, trouble, and frustration. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £75 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
The resident told us she is unhappy the landlord paid the compensation to her rent account rather than directly to her. As the landlord’s compensation policy says that it may credit compensation to the rent account where the account is in arrears, and we have seen evidence that the resident’s account was in arrears at the time, this aspect of the landlord’s actions was reasonable and in line with its policy.

Learning

General learning

The landlord did not manage overlapping repair and pest issues in a coordinated way. Improved oversight could have reduced delays and improved outcomes.
It is positive that the landlord’s new pest control policy and procedure, which it introduced on 1 October 2025 sets out clear timescales for intervention, details when and how a pest issue should be referred to a surveyor and clarifies the contractor’s responsibility to complete proofing works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s poor record keeping contributed to the repeated closure of repairs without resolution and limited its ability to demonstrate that it had acted reasonably. Improved record keeping would have enabled better oversight, clearer decision‑making, and more effective management of the repairs process.

Communication

The landlord did not consistently provide clear information to the resident about what actions it was taking, why repairs were closed or re‑raised, or what would happen next. Timely and transparent communication is important in managing expectations and reducing frustration where issues remain unresolved over an extended period.