Notting Hill Genesis (202531549)

Decision
Case ID	202531549
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 June 2026

Background

1. The resident said a leak led to damp and mould in her property. She complained about how the landlord handled her reports of damp and mould. The resident is neurodivergent. The landlord is aware of this. She also lives with her child.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould following a leak.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould following a leak.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould following a leak

4. There were significant delays in the landlord resolving damp and mould. It did not respond to the resident’s concerns about it closing repairs without completion. It failed to assess a further report of damp and mould as a potential material change. Although it acknowledged some failures and offered compensation at stage 2, this was insufficient to remedy the situation. Repairs remained outstanding after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, resulting in the resident experiencing a prolonged period of disruption, distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. There was a delay in the landlord responding at stage 1and a significant delay in it responding at stage 2. It acknowledged some failings at stage 2 and offered some compensation. It attempted to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. However, it did not acknowledge the delay at stage 1.

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 10 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,250 made up as follows: £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould following a leak £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct any of the £400 offered in its stage 2 response of 12 December 2025 from the total figure if it can evidence it has paid this.	No later than 10 July 2026
3	Inspection order The landlord must inspect the property. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by a suitably qualified surveyor. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor inspects the property for damp and mould. The survey report must set out: whether there is an emergency or significant hazard under the Hazards in Social Housing (Prescribed Requirements) (England) Regulations 2025 – based on the conditions in the property and the household’s health and circumstances whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the mould whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective resolution to the damp and mould (if the landlord is responsible). the likely timescales to commence and complete the work. whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works. The landlord must ensure it provides the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of its report by the due date or within the timescales set out in Awaab’s Law if there is a prescribed hazard.	No later than 10 July 2026
4	Specific order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities in her household. It should ensure it updates its records to reflect these. It must provide evidence of the updated records to us and the resident by the due date.	No later than 10 July 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 October 2024	The resident complained that damp covered her walls. She said paint peeled off the walls and the landlord had not resolved the damp stain in her kitchen. She added that the landlord closed repairs, despite not completing the work and often ignored her when she followed up.
11 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it would provide its response in 10 working days.
9 December 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said it had informed the resident’s housing officer and operations manager about outstanding repairs. It said it would raise a damp and mould repair once it agreed a date to take photographs of her home. It apologised for the delay and offered £200 compensation for delays, stress and inconvenience.
12 December 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because she said the landlord kept cancelling outstanding repairs. She said damp issues continued, and she frequently had to repaint due peeling walls. She also said the landlord attended several times to take photographs but was delaying further by requesting more.
20 December 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It said it would provide its stage 2 response by 27 January 2025.
27 January 2025	The landlord informed the resident that it needed additional information to investigate her complaint. It said it would respond by 24 February 2025.
3 June 2025	The landlord provided a stage 1 response under a separate complaint. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about damp and mould but said access issues delayed resolution. It said it tried to contact her that day but could not reach her. It confirmed it had raised an inspection, and her housing officer would follow up to arrange repairs. It also said it linked the issue to a previous complaint to address the immediate effects of the damp and mould. It said it would assess its handling of the damp and mould to ensure a long-term solution as part of its stage 2 response to the October 2024 complaint.
12 December 2025	The landlord provided two stage 2 responses. The first stage 2 response In the first stage 2 response, it apologised for the delay in resolving the damp and mould. It said it raised a case on 8 December 2025 and aimed to respond to reports as soon as possible under new guidelines. It said its contractor attended that day but was unable to complete works as the affected area was substantial. Adding that it raised follow on works for 18 December 2025 and would provide next steps if required after completing these. It also apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response. In addition to the £200 offered at stage 1, it offered £50 for stress and inconvenience caused and £150 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response and poor communication following escalation. The second stage 2 response In the second response regarding a separate complaint, the landlord said it instructed its contractor to complete damp and mould works following its stage 1 response in June 2025. However, the resident confirmed on 6 June 2025 that she cancelled this job as she was happy with work completed by another contractor. It said it tried to email her to request a visit to assess the ongoing mould issue and asked her to contact it to arrange this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said the landlord had not completed repairs to address the damp and mould. She wanted it to complete repairs or offer her a safe property.

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 the resident’s reports of damp and mould following a leak
Finding	Maladministration

6. On 12 July 2024 the landlord raised an investigation due to damp in the basement and gas meter cupboard. It is unclear when the resident reported this. It updated the resident on 17 and 22 July 2024 and explained her housing officer would arrange to inspect so it could raise relevant repairs. It asked the resident to upload photographs. The landlord assigned a contractor to the job on 22 July 2024. Due to limited records, it is unclear whether the housing officer or contractor attended within the 10 days set out in its damp and mould policy to determine the severity of the issue. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
7. The landlord raised a job to remove mould in the property on 21 August 2024 due to an error assigning it. It completed this on 21 September 2024. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says if the issue required a minor repair, it would complete this in line with its repairs policy. There is no evidence the landlord assessed the risk to prioritise the work in line with its damp and mould policy. However, the overall time taken to complete the repairs did not align with its aim to complete standard repairs within 20 working days as stated in its repairs policy.
8. The landlord raised a further job on 5 November 2024 relating to damp patches on the walls and ceilings. This was because the resident said it had not addressed the damage caused by a leak. It is unclear whether this job was to complete a repair or an inspection. The landlord cancelled the job on 11 November 2024 marking the work as complete. It is unclear why it did this, because on 11 and 12 November 2024 it exchanged emails with the resident to arrange to attend the property and take photographs. The resident raised concerns about the landlord closing repairs without completing them. The landlord did not confirm when it would attend or respond to her concerns.
9. The resident told the landlord on 9 December 2024 she was still waiting for it to arrange to take photographs. The delay of over 1 month in the landlord attending the property did not align with its damp and mould policy. This says it will attend the property and determine the severity of the issue within 10 working days.
10. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it would arrange to take photographs to enable it to raise an accurate damp and mould repair. It did not do this. In her escalation request the resident said her walls continued to peel due to damp. She provided text messages showing she reported damp on her wall and ceiling 5 times between 12 July and 5 November 2024. There is no evidence the landlord logged all these reports.
11. On 3 June 2025 the landlord raised a damp and mould inspection, mould wash and redecoration works. Its records show this inspection was still outstanding. On 4 June 2025 the landlord completed works including repairing cracks on external walls, plastering, redecoration and damp proofing on the kitchen and hallway walls. However, there was over a 6-month delay from when the landlord initially raised a job for damp patches on the walls and ceilings, to it completing works. This did not align with its aim to complete standard repairs in 20 working days.
12. The landlord raised a further job for mould removal due to damp in the resident’s child’s bedroom on 9 December 2025. This related to a different area in the property. The landlord was required to consider if this was a new report under Awaab’s Law given it was a new area affected by mould, or a material change in circumstances – namely that the damp and mould in the property had spread to a new area indicating the issue had become worse. The landlord was required to have regard to the definitions of emergency and significant hazards under Awaab’s Law given the resident said there was a risk to her child.
13. Specifically, when the landlord received the report in December 2025, it ought to have triaged the report and considered if the damp and mould:
    1. was a potential emergency hazard – which is a hazard that poses a significant and imminent risk to the health and safety of the household, which a reasonable landlord with knowledge and information about the property and residents would want to make safe within 24 hours.
    2. was a potential significant hazard – which is damp and mould which poses a significant (but not imminent) risk to the health and safety of the household, which a reasonable landlord would want to make safe, but not necessarily within 24 hours.
14. Although it referenced “new guidelines” in its stage 2 response there is no evidence it assessed the report or triaged it considering the definitions. This was a failure. Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord communicated whether it considered the mould to be a significant or emergency hazard to the resident. Its stage 2 response shows its contractor attended on 12 December 2025 and was due to reattend on 18 December 2025 due to the extent of the required work. We have not seen any record of this.
15. Throughout the complaint the landlord failed to keep the resident updated about any potential delays. The resident told the landlord she is neurodivergent. However, there is no evidence it has recorded this on its systems. It also noted a reasonable adjustment to update the resident when raising the inspection on 3 June 2025. However, it did not note this when raising any other works. The landlord’s failure to consider the reasonable adjustments did not align with its equality, diversity and inclusion policy to tailor services to meet individual circumstances of residents.
16. The landlord’s repair records show that work to address the damp and mould was outstanding as late as March 2026.The landlord completed some works in June 2025. However, it took over 6 months to do this. It is unclear whether the outstanding work was related to the report from December 2025 as the landlord recorded these under the inspection raised in June 2025. The resident told us the landlord had not addressed the damp and mould as it covered most of her property and repairs remained outstanding. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to inspect the damp and mould and outline actions to address this.
17. There were significant delays in the landlord completing damp and mould repairs and it did not respond to the resident’s concerns about it cancelling repairs. The resident told it she felt ignored. She explained the distress caused and her concerns about being exposed to damp over a prolonged period. She told us that the landlord’s failure to keep her updated, in line with reasonable adjustments, caused further stress and anxiety. We have made an order for the landlord to contact her about vulnerabilities in her household.
18. The landlord acknowledged some failures and made some attempt to put matters right, but its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. Our compensation guidance allows for payments where failures had a significant impact on the resident. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £1,000, in line with our finding of maladministration. This includes the £250 compensation it offered at stage 2 of its complaints process.

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

19. The landlord’s complaint policy, at the time the resident complained, aligned with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) introduced in April 2022.
20. The landlord took 26 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. This did not align with its complaint policy to respond within 10 working days. It also failed to respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement despite saying it would do so.
21. The landlord took 28 working days to inform the resident that it needed an extension. It should have done this within the 20 working days required by its complaint policy to provide its stage 2 response from the escalation request. Overall, the landlord took 225 working days from when it told the resident it needed an extension to provide its stage 2 response. During this time the resident chased a response to her complaint. The landlord addressed damp and mould twice at stage 1. The Code sets out that if a complaint was not resolved to a resident’s satisfaction the landlord should progress this to stage 2.
22. The landlord acknowledged the delay in providing a response at stage 2 and poor communication. It offered £150 compensation. The landlord attempted to put things right and offered compensation that aligned with our compensation guidance when the complaint response was delayed by months. However, it did not acknowledge the delay in responding at stage 1. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to pay an additional £100 compensation in line with our finding of service failure.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. Good record keeping allows landlords to demonstrate they have acted in line with their policies and procedures. In this case, the landlord’s lack of clear records meant it could have missed an opportunity to apply Awaab’s Law. It was also evident that the resident referred to works which the landlord had no record of. On occasion it was unclear when the resident contacted the landlord or the action it took, if any. At times this made it difficult for us to assess its actions. Compliance with the recommendations in our spotlight report on knowledge and information management might have avoided the failures in this case.

Communication

24. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions without response. It did not keep her updated. Our free online learning centre provides bitesize training on the importance of timely communication.