Notting Hill Genesis (202416145)

Decision
Case ID	202416145
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 March 2026

Background

1. The resident initially complained that the landlord failed to suitably investigate her concerns about noise nuisance and potential damage to the partition wall she shares with her neighbour in flat P. The resident has since acknowledged that a different landlord manages flat P, and she complains that this landlord has failed to investigate her present concerns about noise nuisance. The resident also complained that her own landlord failed to address her concerns about service charges or issue compensation it offered in its final response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Noise nuisance.
   2. Service charges.
   3. Potential damage to a partition wall in a neighbouring property.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. The resident’s complaint about noise nuisance is outside our jurisdiction.
   2. There was service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about service charges.
   3. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord handled:
      1. The resident’s concerns about potential damage to a partition wall in a neighbouring property.
      2. The complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

The handling of concerns about noise nuisance

5. Our Scheme sets out that we cannot accept complaints about landlords unless the complainant had a landlord/tenant relationship with the named landlord at the time the matter arose. The resident has explained that her complaint about noise nuisance is about a lack of action by the landlord of her neighbour’s property (landlord Y). The resident does not have a landlord/tenant relationship with landlord Y. Therefore, this complaint is outside our jurisdiction.

The handling of concerns about service charges

6. The landlord failed to address the resident’s queries about service charge overpayments and calculations despite commitments it made to do so at both complaint stages.

The handling of concerns about potential partition wall damage

7. The landlord is not responsible for taking any repairs actions to address the resident’s concerns about potential damage to the partition wall inside flat P. However, it fulfilled its obligations to refer these concerns to the Managing Agent (MA) and the responsible landlord (landlord Y). While it delayed slightly in doing so, it apologised for this and offered appropriate compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

8. The landlord delayed by a total of 45 working days in its handling of the resident’s complaints. However, it has already apologised and offered compensation in line with our remedies guidance to put this right as per our remedies guidance.

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	Payment query order The landlord is to address the resident’s queries about: service charge overpayments the air conditioning aspect of service charge It is to assess whether the resident has overpaid service charges and set out its calculations in writing to us and the resident by the due date. If it finds she has overpaid, it is to reimburse her by the due date.	No later than 27 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord is to pay the resident the £310 offered during the complaints process. 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 from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should address the resident’s current concerns about rent account overpayments of £60.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 July 2024	The resident complained that her neighbour in flat P was repeatedly banging against the partition wall shared with her property. She asked the landlord to advise on next steps if flat P was managed by a different landlord.
22 July 2024	The resident complained about the banging inside flat P. She explained she wanted the landlord to ensure the banging stopped, and to inspect the party wall inside flat P for damage.
14 August 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It explained that it had contacted the MA to investigate her concerns about noise nuisance and potential damage to the party wall inside flat P. It advised it would update her once it received a response.
14 August 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 and reiterated her concerns.
18 September 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It explained that: it was not the landlord of flat P so was not responsible for addressing noise nuisance being generated within it it had contacted the MA and asked it to contact the landlord of flat P to raise her concerns about noise nuisance and potential damage to the wall The landlord also acknowledged a delay in responding to her initial reports and issuing a complaint response. It offered her £60 compensation made up of £30 for each delay.
11 June 2025	The resident complained that the landlord: sent contradictory service charge fee demand letters, and overcharged her £6.59 She asked for clarification on the service charge letters and reimbursement of the £6.59 overpayment.
17 July 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It explained that it would review the reported service charge overpayments and contradictory demand letters by 18 July 2025. It apologised for any inconvenience caused and explained it should have addressed this sooner.
18 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on the basis that the landlord had not responded within the timescales agreed at stage 1.
27 July 2025	The resident elaborated on her stage 2 escalation request. She complained that the landlord had failed to: issue a £151.12 refund as per a letter it sent her on 4 July 2025 confirm the double service charge demand letters were sent in error She also complained that air conditioning was included in her service charge and that this should be removed given she did not have any air conditioning in the property.
22 September 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It explained that it: failed to suitably address her queries about service charges issued the service charge demand letter of 11 March 2025 in error issued a revised demand letter on 28 May 2025 for the correct period charged her only for the correct period would update her about the £151.12 refund, £6.59 overpayment, and air conditioning charges by 29 September 2025 delayed in issuing stage 1 and 2 responses To put things right the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation made up of: £50 for lack of communication £50 for delay of reimbursement £150 for time, stress, and inconvenience
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident advised us that the landlord had failed to pay her: £151.12 as promised on 4 July 2025 £60 rent account overpayment £244.82 in service charge overpayments £250 compensation offered at stage 2 She also complained the landlord had failed to address her request for it to remove air conditioning fees from her service charge. She advised she wanted the landlord to pay her all outstanding sums and address her queries.

 

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	How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

9. In a phone call with the resident on 26 February 2026 she advised that this complaint was actually about the actions of the landlord of flat P (landlord Y). She explicitly noted that her complaint was not about a lack of action by her own landlord. She advised that, to resolve her complaint, she wanted landlord Y to investigate her concerns and ensure the banging from flat P ceased.
10. Our Scheme sets out that we can only consider complaints about landlords from residents who are currently in, or have been in, a tenant/landlord relationship with the named landlord at the time the matter arose.
11. The resident has never had a landlord/tenant relationship with landlord Y. Therefore, we cannot consider this complaint.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about service charges
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

12. Our Scheme states we may not consider complaints about the level of service charge. Therefore, we have not considered the resident’s complaint about whether her service charge should be reduced to reflect what she considers are discrepancies between the fee and the services provided. We have, however, considered how the landlord handled her attempts to seek clarification on this.
13. On 26 February 2026 the resident complained the landlord had failed to reimburse her £60 in rent account overpayments. Our Scheme states we may not investigate complaints which have not exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. The resident has not complained to the landlord about this specific alleged overpayment. Therefore, we have not considered this aspect of her complaint.

What we have considered

Service charge queries

14. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that, if the complainant is disputing the service charge it has set, they can resolve the dispute either directly with it or through the courts.
15. Our own guidance for landlord’s on handling service charge queries sets out that we expect them to:
    1. Respond to enquiries promptly, and
    2. Clearly document the rationale behind decisions and provide this information to residents upon request.
16. The resident first raised queries about the appropriateness of air conditioning fees within her total service charges on 25 July 2025. The landlord agreed to address this query in its stage 2 response on 22 September 2025. However, it then failed to do so. This was not in keeping with its own policy or our guidance. As a result, the resident’s queries remain unaddressed. Therefore, we have ordered the landlord to address this query directly, and to refer the resident to the First Tier Tribunal if she wishes to dispute it.

Service charge overpayments

17. The resident complained that the landlord has yet to reimburse her service charge overpayments of £151.12 and £244.82. She explained the latter figure was previously only the £6.59 which she raised at both complaint stages. However, she explained that further overpayments have accrued since.
18. The landlord agreed to review the £151.12 and £6.59 overpayments at both complaint stages in June 2025 and September 2025. There is no indication it has done so. There is no justification within the records to explain this delay. In the absence of this evidence, we consider it was unreasonable. Its failure to address these queries was not in keeping with our guidance on handling service charge queries.
19. We have not taken a view on whether the resident has actually overpaid on her service charges. However, the landlord should have addressed these queries and clearly set out its calculations on whether she had overpaid as per our guidance. As of 18 March 2026, it had still failed to do so.

Stage 2 compensation

20. The landlord explained that it paid the £250 compensation offered at stage 2 on 19 March 2026. It advised that the delay was caused by difficulties in sourcing the resident’s bank details. There are no records which evidence attempts by the landlord to source these details. However, we have seen emails from the resident in December 2025 and January 2026 chasing the payment and providing her bank details. Therefore, we consider the landlord delayed unreasonably in making this payment by at least 3 months.

Redress

21. The landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s queries about the appropriateness of service charge fees or overpayments. It acknowledged these omissions and its complaint handling delays in its final response. It also offered her £50 for delay of reimbursement, £50 for lack of communication, and £150 for time, stress and inconvenience. The £200 intended to address communication failures and inconvenience caused was also intended to address the complaint handling delays.
22. However, the landlord did not break down how this was specifically allocated per issue. Therefore, we have understood that £100 of this total sum was intended for its omissions in handling her service charge queries, and the other £100 for complaints handling delays.
23. On this basis, the landlord has offered the resident £150 compensation for its failure to address her service charge queries from 11 June 2025 until its final response on 22 September 2025. Our remedies guidance explains that payments of £50 to £100 are appropriate to put right omissions which have caused minor impacts.
24. We recognise the resident incurred inconvenience in chasing responses due to the landlord’s continued omissions post-stage 2. However, we do not consider the impact went any further than this. For this reason, we have not made any further compensation orders. However, we have ordered it to review the alleged overpayments. If it finds she has overpaid, it is to reimburse her.

Complaint	How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about potential damage to a partition wall
Finding	Reasonable redress

25. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that, where it is not responsible for repairs, it will communicate with third parties to ensure successful delivery. It goes onto explain that for properties where the responsibility to carry out the repair does not lie with either it or the resident, it will liaise with the responsible party. Flat P is managed by landlord Y, and therefore the landlord is not responsible for completing any repairs within it. It is, however, responsible for referring the resident’s concerns to the MA and landlord Y.
26. Throughout June and July 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that the she considered the occupant of flat P had damaged their side of the party wall. She explained that she wanted it to inspect the wall inside flat P and reassure her that there was no structural damage.
27. We can see the landlord raised the resident’s concerns with the MA on 14 August 2024. The MA responded that the concierge was not aware of any issues. The landlord then complained to landlord Y and asked it to inspect flat P’s side of the party wall for damage on 19 September 2024 and 14 January 2025. Landlord Y did not respond.
28. These actions went as far as was appropriate for the landlord to go given it is not responsible for damage to a party wall within a property it does not lease. We note the landlord slightly delayed in raising the resident’s concerns with the MA given it took over a month to do so. However, it has already apologised for this and offered the resident £30 compensation. This delay does not appear to have caused any meaningful impact to the resident or the ultimate outcome. Therefore, this minor sum combined with an apology is sufficient to put this minor delay right.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

29. The landlord’s complaint policy requires it to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It is required to acknowledge stage 2 escalation within 5 days and respond within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timescales, the landlord must explain why and provide updated timescales. This is line with our Complaint Handling Code.
30. The resident complained about the partition wall with flat P on 8 July 2024. The landlord did not acknowledge this and issued its response 22 working days late. The resident escalated her complaint which the landlord acknowledged within policy timescales. It was then 2 working days late in issuing its final response.
31. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her service charge queries on 11 June 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge this and was 11 working days late in issuing its stage 1 response. The resident escalated this complaint to stage 2 which the landlord acknowledged within its timescales. However, it was 21 working days late in issuing its final response.
32. Therefore, the landlord’s total complaint handling delay across the entire period was 45 working days. However, we note that it has apologised for each delay and offered the resident a total of £130 compensation.
33. We consider this sum is appropriate to put right the likely inconvenience this caused the resident as per our remedies guidance. Therefore, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord’s record keeping was sufficient. It clearly recorded its attempts to raise the resident’s concerns with the MA and landlord Y.

Communication

35. The landlord’s communication was generally poor. It repeatedly failed to honour commitments it made to address the resident’s service charge queries. It also failed to address her further requests for it to do so after its final response in December 2025 and January 2026.