Notting Hill Genesis (202331347)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom second-floor flat that the resident has occupied since 2014. The resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s response to his report of Japanese knotweed, including delays and a lack of clear treatment or monitoring plan.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns regarding Japanese knotweed.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding Japanese knotweed.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns regarding Japanese knotweed

4. While the landlord initially responded promptly, there were subsequent failings in the way it handled the matter. However, the compensation it ultimately offered was proportionate and appropriate to put things right.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord initially complied with its complaints policy at stage 1, but failed to meet the required timescale for issuing the stage 2 response. It did not acknowledge its delay or offer redress to put it 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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The Invasive Non-Native Specialist Association (INNSA) is the UK industry body for companies that manage invasive non‑native species. The INNSA Code of Practice offers best‑practice guidance for contractors, developers and planners dealing with Japanese knotweed, but does not set out legal obligations.
7. INNSA recommends having a formal Japanese Knotweed Management Plan (JKMP), ensuring staff are able to identify knotweed and understand their responsibilities, and appointing a clerk of works to oversee its management. Where Japanese knotweed infestations are present on site, it further recommends that these are fully documented.
8. The evidence shows that the landlord was notified about reports of Japanese knotweed on 28 July 2023. On the same day, it contacted its contractor and requested an inspection to be carried out “asap”. On 4 August 2023, the landlord followed up with the contractor, asking it to examine the surrounding area after further concerns were raised by residents. The landlord’s immediate actions were consistent with the timely response recommended in the INNSA Code of Practice.
9. On 16 August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay in arranging an inspection and confirmed that it had approached an alternative contractor. On 24 August 2023, the landlord provided a further update, advising the resident that a contractor would be attending the following week and requesting access.
10. In September 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had contacted its original contractor, which confirmed the knotweed could be removed under a 10‑year warranty, but the staff member responsible was on annual leave, causing a delay. The landlord explained that using an alternative contractor would incur service charge costs, which it wished to avoid. Later the same month, the landlord updated the resident again, explaining that the original contractor had refused the works under the warranty because the knotweed was not in the previously treated area. As a result, the landlord said it would now contact another contractor to arrange a survey and removal of the knotweed.
11. On 22 September 2023, the resident submitted a formal complaint, expressing dissatisfaction that no action had been taken to address the Japanese knotweed. Correspondence dated 28 September 2023 shows that the contractor which previously carried out the works advised that it held no records confirming any monitoring of the site, and that the staff member responsible had left the company, leaving it unable to verify this.
12. It is strongly recommended that any contractor engaged to treat or remove Japanese knotweed is a member of a recognised professional body, such as INNSA or the Property Care Association (PCA). Although such membership is not a legal requirement, it is an important indicator of a contractor’s competence, professionalism, and adherence to established industry standards for the safe treatment and disposal of this controlled waste.
13. The landlord referred to a warranty from a previous contractor, which indicates that Japanese knotweed had been treated on the site before and that the landlord was therefore aware of its presence. In this context, it is concerning that neither the landlord nor its contractor was able to produce any documented evidence relating to the knotweed’s location, monitoring visits, or ongoing management. Proper record‑keeping is a core element of good practice, as it allows for continuity of treatment and ensures that future issues can be managed effectively.
14. Furthermore, the landlord’s contractor was not a member of INNSA or the PCA. While again this is not a legal obligation, the absence of professional accreditation combined with the lack of management records highlights the importance of appointing competent specialists to manage Japanese knotweed. This is especially crucial where infestations have been present historically and require structured, well‑documented, and compliant management.
15. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that after Japanese knotweed was first reported on 28 July 2023, it contacted its contractor the same day to request a survey, though securing an appointment took longer than anticipated. During this period, the landlord also contacted the previous contractor in the hope that the works could be undertaken under an existing warranty, and contacted an alternative company to arrange a survey when delays continued. When the original contractor later confirmed it would send a specialist, the landlord paused the alternative contractor in an attempt to avoid passing service‑charge costs to residents. Further delays occurred because the specialist was on annual leave. When the contractor eventually attended, it confirmed that the knotweed on site was not the same infestation previously treated and therefore was not covered under warranty. The landlord then returned to the contractor to progress the necessary survey and treatment. It acknowledged the delays, the volume of resident communication, and the need to arrange surveys immediately in future rather than relying on potential warranty coverage.
16. In recognition of these failures, the landlord offered compensation in the form of a 10% reduction in the management fee for 2 months. It also committed to improving communication with residents and providing more timely updates on issues across the estate. While the landlord recognised its shortcomings, the level of redress was not proportionate to the prolonged inconvenience caused to the resident and the failure to proactively manage a known invasive species. It is evident that the landlord was attempting to manage the situation and took steps to arrange inspections and progress the issue. However, its approach was largely reactive rather than proactive, falling short of the level of systematic planning and ongoing management recommended by INNSA.
17. In October 2023, the contractor attended the site without prior notice and reported difficulty accessing all areas of the property. Communications indicate that the contractor applied a herbicide treatment and commented that the “targeted weeds should now die down.” This is concerning, as Japanese knotweed is not an ordinary weed but an invasive non‑native species that requires a structured, specialist management approach. The description provided by the contractor suggests a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the issue and the need for an appropriate, evidence‑based treatment strategy.
18. Furthermore, the documentation supplied by the landlord does not demonstrate that its contractor had the necessary expertise, or that it fully appreciated the urgency and risks associated with Japanese knotweed. Effective management typically requires a detailed plan, monitoring, and clear record‑keeping, none of which are evident in the information provided. This raises significant concerns about the adequacy of the contractor’s approach and the landlord’s oversight in ensuring the infestation was handled competently.
19. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2, saying that he was concerned about poor communication, delays, missing records, and confusion over which contractor was responsible. He also believed that the landlord had mismanaged the issue over several years, including awarding landscaping contracts without proper site information, potentially risking further spread of the knotweed.
20. In November 2023, the landlord liaised with its contractors, requesting that the Japanese knotweed be investigated as soon as possible and that a survey be carried out. The landlord also asked for a report and invoices for the works required to address the infestation. The landlord attended a site visit with the contractor which advised that removal and herbicide treatment would not be able to be completed until May 2024 at the earliest.
21. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 23 February 2024. It reiterated its response at stage 1, outlining the events that took place. It acknowledged that several months had passed without a clear plan of action, and no treatment having been carried out. The landlord also acknowledged significant delays, poor follow‑up, lack of urgency, and gaps in staff training. It confirmed it would request both contractors to revisit, produce next steps, and monitor progress weekly. In recognition of its failings, the landlord offered a 20% reduction in the management fee for the full 2023/2024 year, £250 compensation for the delay in contacting the original contractor (to be shared among leaseholders), and a further £250 for delays in arranging alternative contractors. It also appropriately confirmed it would cover all costs of Japanese knotweed treatment and removal, with no charges to residents.
22. In summary, while the landlord initially responded promptly to reports of Japanese knotweed by contacting contractors on the day the issue was raised, its overall handling of the matter demonstrated significant shortcomings. Although efforts were made to pursue inspections, explore warranty coverage, and avoid unnecessary costs to residents, the landlord’s approach was ultimately reactive rather than systematic. Prolonged delays, poor communication, inadequate follow‑up, and confusion over contractor responsibilities led to months without a clear treatment plan.
23. The absence of historical records, lack of accredited specialists, and evidence of insufficient oversight further amounted to failings in the management of a known invasive species. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged these deficiencies, committed to improving communication and staff training, and took responsibility for the situation by confirming it would cover all treatment and removal costs. In recognition of the disruption caused, the landlord also increased its compensation offer at stage 2 and confirmed to us that it did not charge the resident any management fee for the full financial year 2023/2024. The evidence we have seen confirms this alone was a substantial financial benefit, in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where a failing significantly impacted the resident. It also offered an additional £500 to be shared among leaseholders. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s share of the £500 amounted to £26.32. Overall, the landlord’s compensation package was proportionate to put things right.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days of receipt. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
25. The landlord adhered to its complaints policy by acknowledging the resident’s formal complaint within the required 5 working days and issuing its stage 1 response within the 10-working-day timeframe.
26. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 1 November 2023. There is no evidence that his request was acknowledged. In addition, the stage 2 response was issued on 23 February 2024, which was 79 working days after the escalation request and significantly outside the landlord’s policy timescale. The landlord did not identify this delay in its response, and therefore failed to apologise or offer any redress.
27. We would expect the landlord to have clear oversight of its complaint-handling deadlines, to proactively recognise when service standards have not been met, and to take appropriate steps to put things right. Despite the positive aspects of the complaint responses – which were appropriately detailed and apologetic – the omission to acknowledge and address the significant delay has resulted in a finding of maladministration. We have awarded a corresponding level of compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

28. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s record keeping was poor. It should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained, and that records are stored centrally to mitigate against staff turnover. Our spotlight reports on complaints about repairs and knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

30. The landlord should review how it applies its complaints policy to ensure it issues responses within the required timescales. In doing so, it may find it helpful to refer to our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord may also wish to utilise the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and give consideration to arranging staff attendance at our workshop on complaint handling.