Notting Hill Genesis (202340096)

Background

1. The property is a one-bedroom flat that the resident has occupied since 2019. The complaint relates to pest control issues, lack of communal bins, and repairs to a communal wall.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of rats in the communal area and the lack of adequate communal bin provision.
   2. Concerns regarding repairs to a communal wall.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of rats in the communal area and the lack of adequate communal bin provision.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding repairs to a communal wall.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of rats in the communal area and the lack of adequate communal bin provision

4. The landlord responded reasonably by arranging pest control promptly and taking steps to address rubbish and bin concerns. Although it failed to follow policy by not advising other residents whose behaviour contributed to the issue, the £150 compensation offered was sufficient.

Concerns regarding repairs to a communal wall

5. The landlord’s offer of £150 compensation for multiple issues was insufficient given that the wall remained un-reinstated for a year and communication was poor throughout. A higher award, including £150 for the wall issue alone, would have been more appropriate.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed in issuing its stage 2 response, but it apologised and offered compensation that was sufficient to 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.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the situation had on her mental health. Where we identify failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. Such matters are best suited to investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s pest control policy says that it is responsible for dealing with pests in the communal area. The local officer must investigate any pest report, obtain a pest‑control quote if treatment is needed, and ensure holes are blocked and treatments carried out (often over multiple visits). Residents should be informed if their actions contribute to the issue, such as improper rubbish disposal. Once treatment is scheduled, the officer must notify residents of the start date and treatment frequency.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy refers to pest control, and while timescales outlined within the policy are not specific to pest‑related issues, it states that the landlord will attend to standard repairs within 20 working days.
10. The evidence shows that the resident’s local MP contacted the landlord after the resident informed them that she had not received a response from the landlord regarding the pest issue and lack of bin storage. The resident explained that an accumulation of rubbish and other items were creating a harbourage for rats and that she felt the landlord should clear it. The landlord contacted the resident the following day, advising that it had visited the property and found the pathway to be clear. It also confirmed that it would arrange for the bin area to be cleared, but this would not be completed on the same day.
11. On 17 November 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. She confirmed that the pathway was cleared, but the items were still affecting the bin store. She said that contractors had blocked part of the path with a makeshift fence, forcing residents to walk past an “unsanitary, rat‑infested mess” every day. On 24 November 2023 the landlord’s pest control contractor attended and noted that there were no signs of rat activity, although rubbish bags were on the floor around the bin area. The contractor recorded that the initial treatment programme was now in place and that bait and treatment had been left on site.
12. The landlord’s actions were reasonable at this stage, as it had visited the area and arranged pest control treatment within 6 working days. Although the landlord’s pest control policy does not specify a timescale for responding to pest reports, this timeframe is considered reasonable. Nevertheless, the policy states that the local officer should determine whether residents need to be advised about the pest control issue. For example, where pests are linked to dumped rubbish, residents should be provided with information about correct rubbish disposal. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted other residents in relation to this, which appears to be contrary to its policy. This is particularly important given that the resident had raised concerns about the lack of adequate bin storage.
13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that it had visited the area and noted 2 black bin bags in the front garden, which it had arranged to be removed. It also advised that it would carry out weekly monitoring of the area to ensure that rubbish did not accumulate again. In addition, the landlord said that it would provide 2 extra communal bins, despite this not being something it would ordinarily do. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took a resolution‑focused approach by addressing the immediate issue, committing to ongoing monitoring, and taking proactive steps to mitigate future problems.
14. On 29 November 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it had cleared the front garden of all rubbish. This was within 8 working days from when it committed to removing the rubbish, and so was a prompt response. Updating the resident on the action it had taken demonstrated that the landlord was actively trying to resolve the matter.
15. On 30 November 2023, the resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She said she had reported rats in the communal area, rubbish accumulation, and a lack of bin provision on 11 November 2023. She explained that the landlord had advised her on 13 November 2023 that she would receive an update within 2 days, but no such update was provided.
16. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction that she had been told during a telephone call that the landlord was responsible for providing adequate bin storage, yet the stage 1 response stated it was not responsible but would provide additional bins on this occasion. She requested clarification on who was responsible for bin provision. In addition, the resident did not consider it reasonable that it took the landlord almost 2 weeks to arrange a pest control attendance.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy provides for standard repairs to be attended to within 20 working days. As the policy makes reference to pest control, it is reasonable in this case to apply the standard response time of 20 working days. The rats were reported as being confined to the communal area rather than inside the resident’s home, and therefore the issue did not constitute an emergency. The landlord arranged for pest control attendance to begin 12 working days after the resident said she had reported the rats. This was within its policy timescale, and we do not consider this to be an unreasonable timeframe.
18. The evidence shows that 2 further pest control treatments were carried out on 11 and 18 December 2023, both confirming no rat activity or bait having been touched.
19. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 March 2024. It outlined the actions it had taken and acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the 2-week timeframe for arranging pest control attendance. The landlord also explained that, in relation to the rubbish removal, it first needed to establish whether the waste was household waste or contractor waste, and it apologised for the time taken to carry out these checks. In addition, the landlord apologised for the conflicting information the resident had been given regarding responsibility for providing adequate bin storage. It clarified that residents must buy extra bins if enough had already been provided, but if provision was insufficient for the number of households, the landlord was responsible for supplying adequate bin storage.
20. The landlord’s response was appropriate, as it acknowledged the resident’s concerns and issued apologies where shortcomings had occurred. It explained the delays, clarified bin responsibility, and overall provided a reasonable attempt to resolve the issues and give the resident the clarity she requested.
21. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for “the poor workmanship and planning in regard to the boundary wall [addressed later in this report], pest control, rubbish removal and bins”. Without a clear breakdown it is unclear how much was apportioned for each issue.
22. On 26 March 2024, the resident reported that rats had returned, and the landlord contacted pest control the same day, later confirming visits for 15 and 22 April 2024. On 16 April 2024, the resident also reported rubbish bags left outside the bins and bricks that could attract rats. The landlord attended the next day, removed the bags, confirmed ongoing pest treatment, and explained it could not move the bricks at that time. The resident thanked the landlord on 18 April 2024 for its “swift intervention”. Further treatments took place, and a final report on 10 June 2024 confirmed only minor activity and that the infestation was under control.
23. Overall, the landlord responded reasonably by arranging pest control within policy timescales, addressing rubbish issues, increasing bin provision, and later acknowledging delays and conflicting information. Although it did not follow policy by failing to advise other residents whose behaviour contributed to the problem, its overall actions were broadly appropriate. The £150 compensation offered was sufficient for the pest control and rubbish‑related aspects of the complaint.

26. The landlord’s repair policy says that it is responsible for repairs to unsafe garden walls. In addition, it says that it carries out some repairs to communal areas as part of its cyclical works programme, rather than as a responsive repair service.
27. On 16 November 2023, the resident reported via her local MP that the communal garden wall had been removed around August 2023 as part of a tree inspection. She was unhappy that, by November 2023, the wall had still not been reinstated. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 November 2023, referring to a telephone call it had held with the resident in which it explained that it could not reconstruct the wall until the structural engineers had completed their assessment of the building and the tree. It added that it would provide the resident with an update once this information had been received. It is good practice to keep residents updated, even when there is no new information. The landlord has failed to evidence it kept the resident updated in the 2 months that followed its telephone call. Its omission evidently caused her some uncertainty and frustration.
28. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 30 November 2023. She explained that she had not been given any prior notification that the wall was going to be removed, and that she had not received any meaningful update about its reinstatement since September 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of communication and the ongoing uncertainty about when the wall would be rebuilt.
29. Between November 2023 and March 2024, there is no evidence to indicate that the resident was provided with updates regarding the reconstruction of the communal wall. This was despite the landlord stating in its stage 1 response that it would keep her informed once further information was obtained from the structural engineers. The absence of any meaningful follow‑up communication over this 4-month period would likely have contributed to the resident’s frustration and a sense that her concerns were not being actively managed.
30. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 March 2023. It acknowledged that it should have provided the resident with clearer and more consistent communication regarding the removal of the wall, including a timeline for when reconstruction was likely to take place. It explained that its contractors were currently monitoring cracks to the main building and would explore whether the wall could be rebuilt in the interim. However, this would require obtaining 3 quotes before any work could proceed. This was a positive and resolution‑focused response, as the landlord recognised its communication shortcomings and outlined a practical interim measure aimed at addressing the resident’s concerns.
31. As noted above, the landlord offered the resident £150 in compensation. However, it did not provide a clear breakdown explaining how this amount had been apportioned to each aspect of the complaint. In the absence of this information, it is difficult to determine whether the compensation adequately reflected the individual failings identified.
32. Nevertheless, even if the £150 had been divided equally between the issues, the amount would not have been sufficient to put things right. The evidence shows that the wall was not reinstated until 15 August 2024. This was approximately one year after its removal. This represents a significant delay, during which the resident received limited communication and experienced prolonged uncertainty about when the issue would be resolved. Given the length of time involved and the clear communication failings previously acknowledged by the landlord, a higher level of compensation would have been more appropriate to reflect the impact on the resident. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation in line with our remedies guidance.

33. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
34. 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.
35. The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage 2 on 30 November 2023. There is no evidence to show that this request was formally acknowledged by the landlord. On 10 January 2024, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that there had been a delay in issuing the stage 2 response and that it was now expected by 22 January 2024. The resident subsequently chased the landlord for an update on 29 January 2024. She also contacted us on 8 February 2024, explaining that she had still not received the stage 2 response.
36. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 March 2024, which was 66 working days after the resident requested escalation. This represents a significant delay and was only provided following intervention from us. The landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised to the resident, and offered £150 in compensation to put things right.
37. Given the circumstances, this offer was appropriate and proportionate. It aligns with our remedies guidance, which recommends financial redress where there have been delays in complaint handling but the landlord has acknowledged its failings and taken steps to resolve the matter.

Learning

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

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

39. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords:
    1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
    2. Maintain regular communication to reassure residents that steps are being taken to resolve the matter, even if there is no new information to share.

Communication

40. 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.