Notting Hill Genesis (202426393)

Decision
Case ID	202426393
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground floor flat and has mental and physical health issues and disabilities. In August 2024, the resident’s representative reported to the landlord that the resident had experienced previous leaks from above. In October 2024, the resident also reported noise nuisance from his upstairs neighbour. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of these and other issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
   2. Reports of leaks from a neighbouring property.
   3. Concerns about damp issues, smoke alarms, and an overgrown garden.
   4. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
   2. Reports of leaks from a neighbouring property.
   3. The complaint.
4. We have found that we cannot currently consider the resident’s concerns about damp issues, smoke alarms, and an overgrown garden.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not take appropriate steps to fully consider and resolve the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance from a neighbouring property.
6. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s reports of leaks from a neighbouring property and did not adequately record all its visits to inspect his concerns.
7. The landlord delayed providing its stage 2 complaint response and did not communicate appropriately with the resident about this. It failed to identify the extent of it failings in respect of its handling of his reports of leaks. It did not adequately monitor the action to resolve his concerns about his neighbour’s flooring. It did not address all issues raised during the complaints process.
8. The resident’s concerns about damp issues, smoke alarms, and an overgrown garden are yet to conclude the landlord’s complaints procedure.

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 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,050 made up as follows: £450 in recognition of the impact of failings in its handling of reports of noise nuisance from a neighbouring property. This includes the £150 previously awarded. £150 in recognition of the impact of failings in its handling of reports of leaks from a neighbouring property. This includes the £50 previously awarded. £450 for the impact of failings in its complaint handling. This includes the £350 previously awarded. 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 March 2026
3	The landlord must take steps to demonstrate that it has considered the resident’s concerns about the type of flooring his neighbour has and whether this is allowed under the lease. It should visit the resident to consider any reasonable action it can take to reduce any noise transference. It should provide the resident and us with the outcome in writing.	No later than 10 April 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord review whether it has taken all appropriate action to address any leaks into the resident’s property.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 December 2024	We requested that the landlord respond to the resident’s complaint about its handling of his reports of noise nuisance and leaks from above.
6 January 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It identified delays responding to the resident’s complaint and his concerns about noise from his neighbour’s wooden flooring. It said it had not seen his neighbour’s lease but would confirm if wooden floor was allowed. It said its housing officer had not identified a leak in November 2024. However, it said it would visit the resident on 31 January 2025 to check for leaks. It awarded him £250 for its lack of communication about his noise concerns and poor complaint handling.
3 February 2025	The resident’s representative requested escalation of his complaint.
11 February 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request.
19 February 2025	We contacted the landlord. We asked that it provide a response to the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance, leak issues, damp issues, smoke alarms, and an overgrown garden.
11 April 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It addressed the resident’s concerns about noise and leaks from a neighbouring property. It said it would complete an inspection of the neighbour’s flooring and would update the resident within the next 10 working days. It acknowledged delays monitoring the leak. It said this had been checked during the annual inspection on 20 March 2025. The landlord awarded him a further £50 for its poor monitoring of stage 1 actions.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he said that issues with noise and a leak from above were not resolved and that he wanted to move.

 

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	Noise from a neighbouring property
Finding	Maladministration

9. The resident told the landlord on 18 October 2024 of his concerns that his neighbour above had wooden flooring and that noise due to this was disturbing his sleep. The landlord has a domestic noise and neighbourhood dispute policy. This is for disputes where it is not appropriate for it to manage the case under its ASB policy. It sets out its aim to support residents in resolving differences at the earliest opportunity.
10. We published a spotlight report on noise complaints in October 2022. This outlines how flooring, specifically hardwood or laminate flooring, can be problematic, particularly when it is installed in the flat above. It sets out the importance of landlords exploring suitable resolutions. The landlord noted it called the resident on 18 October 2024, telling him it could not remove the flooring. But there is no evidence it considered his concerns that this type of flooring was not allowed, or that it acted to resolve his concerns about noise from this. That was a failing.
11. The resident contacted the landlord several times in November 2024 and December 2024. He expressed his unhappiness about its lack of action towards resolving his concerns about the flooring and noise from this. He said that noise was “intolerable” and was disturbing his sleep. The landlord noted it tried to call the resident on 19 December 2024 to tell him that it could not remove his neighbour’s flooring. But, again, there is no evidence it had considered his concerns that such flooring was not allowed or what he said about the impact of the situation on him.
12. The landlord set out in its stage 1 complaint response that its housing officer had previously told the resident that permission for wooden flooring would be required for general needs tenancies. It said it had also told him that it needed to investigate requirements for the resident’s neighbour, who was a leaseholder. But we have seen no record of this discussion with the resident. The landlord should have made appropriate record of it. That it did not was a record keeping failing.
13. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response of January 2025 that it would confirm if his neighbour was allowed wooden flooring. The landlord raised an internal request to check if lease agreements contained clauses about flooring. But the landlord did not appropriately progress this.
14. When the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response in April 2025 it is clear it had yet to establish the position with his neighbour’s flooring. It said it would complete an inspection of the neighbour’s flooring and would update the resident within 10 working days. It raised a task to monitor this. But, again, there is no evidence of what it did to progress this. The resident told us that the landlord’s housing officer visited him about his neighbour’s flooring. But the landlord has provided no record of this visit. As a result, it is unclear what the landlord had established or discussed. It is also a record keeping failing.
15. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it could look at a management transfer for him. This gives residents priority on the transfer list and is used where an urgent move is needed. The landlord said this was because of what the resident had said about the impact of the issues on his mental health. It said it had not received a response from the resident about this.
16. Records show the landlord had previous made a safeguarding referral for the resident after an antisocial behaviour report by his neighbour. But we have seen no record of its contact with him about a possible management transfer. Therefore, it is unclear to what extent it had considered and explored this with him. The landlord should have made clear record of any discussion with the resident about this. That it did not was a further record keeping failing.
17. Since the stage 2 complaint response the resident has applied for housing transfer on medical grounds. This has been considered and he was awarded a band C transfer in October 2025. We acknowledge that the outcome the resident is seeking is to be moved but this is not an outcome we can order. It is a matter that should be appropriately considered by the landlord through its allocations policies and procedures. The resident told us that he is currently in contact with the landlord about this.
18. The resident made further contact with the landlord in August 2025 and September 2025 about noise from flooring in his neighbour’s flat. In September 2025 it told the resident to make diary notes of noise. But there is no record to show it had appropriately explored the type of flooring the neighbour had or whether it is allowed under the lease. Nor is there evidence it considered any reasonable actions it could take to reduce any noise transference. It should reasonably have done so given what the resident had said about the impact of the situation. In summary, it has not shown that it appropriately responded to the resident’s reports about this since October 2024. We have found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns.
19. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that it had delayed in communicating with the resident about his concerns about noise from wooden flooring. But we have identified additional failings. So far, it has awarded the resident £150. This does not adequately recognise the impact of the failings we have identified. With consideration to all the circumstances we have ordered that it apologise and make a further award of £300. This is aimed at fully recognising the impact of its failings. It is in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance for when such failures have negatively affected the resident. We have also ordered that the landlord take steps to demonstrate that it has considered the resident’s concerns about the type of flooring his neighbour has and whether this is allowed under the lease. It should visit the resident to consider any reasonable action it can take to reduce any noise transference.

Complaint	Leaks from a neighbouring property
Finding	Maladministration

20. The resident’s representative told the landlord on 14 August 2024 of the resident’s concerns that he had experienced previous leaks from above. This communication did not indicate an ongoing leak. But the landlord should reasonably have inspected issues in line with its responsive repairs policy’s 20-working-day target response for standard repairs. There is no evidence it did so and that was a failing which the landlord did not acknowledge during its complaint handling.
21. The landlord later noted during its complaint handling that the resident had called it on 9 September 2024 to report a leak. But it made no clear record of this. That was a record keeping failing. There is no evidence it acted to inspect his concerns about this leak within its target for standard repairs. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that its housing officer had inspected the resident’s concerns about the leak from above in November 2024 and had found no leak. But there is no record of this visit in November 2024. That is a further record keeping failing which means the landlord cannot clearly show how it investigated the resident’s concerns at this time.
22. The landlord told the resident in its stage 1 response that it would attend on 31 January 2025 to thoroughly check for leaks. That was appropriate given the resident’s ongoing concerns. But the landlord did not appropriately progress this. We acknowledge the resident had been admitted to hospital for a period in January 2025. But the landlord should have monitored this to ensure the visit it had agreed in its stage 1 response was progressed when possible. There is no evidence it did so and that was a failing. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response.
23. The landlord noted in its stage 2 response that it had confirmed during its annual visit to the resident on 20 March 2025 that there were no active leaks or repairs required. The record of this visit recorded a repair to the kitchen drawer only. We acknowledge this did not detail specifically that it had considered the resident’s concern about a leak. However, we also acknowledge that the landlord recorded on 10 April 2025 that the resident had told it the leak was not ongoing and was from 10 years before. While that is the case, we have found delays in the landlord’s response to inspect the resident’s reports about the leak to provide reassurance to him. Further, it did not keep appropriate records of all its visits to inspect issues. These failings amount to maladministration.
24. So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £50 for its delay in completing action to inspect the leak following its stage 1 response. However, we have found other failings in its response to his reports. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord apologise and make a further award to him of £100. This in line with the range set out in our remedies guidance for when such failures delay getting matters resolved and is aimed at fully recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings.
25. The resident told us of his ongoing concerns about leak issues from above. The landlord detailed in recent communication to him that he had reported a potential leak on 16 January 2026. The landlord noted it was to visit the resident on 3 February 2026 to discuss his concerns. We have recommended that the landlord review whether it has taken all appropriate action to address any leaks.

Complaint	Concerns about damp issues, smoke alarms, and an overgrown garden
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

26. The resident has raised complaint issues that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. The resident’s initial complaint did not include his concerns about damp issues, smoke alarms, and the overgrown garden. The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses of January 2025 and April 2025 only addressed his concerns about noise and leaks from his neighbour. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the other complaint issues.
27. The landlord has since issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident’s concerns about damp issues, smoke alarms, and the overgrown garden in January 2026. If the resident remains unhappy with this response, he may request that the landlord escalate this complaint to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. He may refer the matter to us once his complaint has concluded the landlord’s complaint’s process.
28. We acknowledge that when we wrote the landlord in February 2025, we asked that it respond to the resident’s concerns about damp issues, smoke alarms, and the overgrown garden. We have addressed its complaint handling below.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

29. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord the relevant Code was the April 2024 edition. We have found that the landlord’s published complaints policy complied with the Code in respect of timescales and the definition of a complaint.
30. The landlord identified that it had not responded to an earlier complaint the resident made by telephone in September 2024, but it has provided no record of this call. That was a record keeping failing which means it is unclear what issues the resident raised at this time. It should have acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint in line with the 10-working-day timescales set out in its policy and the Code. Its £100 award to the resident in recognition of this was appropriate. It also responded to his stage 1 complaint after we asked it to on 18 December 2024 within 10 working days on 6 January 2025. However, it should have done so without us having to ask it to.
31. The resident’s representative requested that the landlord escalate his complaint on 3 February 2025, but the landlord did not provide its complaint response until 11 April 2025. That was 24 working days outside its 20-working-day target response time after its 5-working-day acknowledgement timescale. It apologised for this delay when it responded. But there is no evidence it appropriately communicated about this in advance. That was a complaint handling failing.
32. We have identified other failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not acknowledge or identify all delays in its response to the resident’s reports of leaks. Further, it did not adequately monitored action it had agreed to take in response to the resident’s concerns about his neighbour’s flooring.
33. Overall, we have identified maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered that it apologise and make an additional award of £100. This is in line with the above range set out in our remedies guidance.
34. As previously noted, we contacted the landlord about the complaint on 19 February 2025 and set out 3 other issues the resident had raised concerns about. The landlord did not address these in its later stage 2 response or raise these as a new stage 1 response. That was a complaint handling failing. In line with the Code, it should have done so. The landlord wrote the resident on 23 December 2025 to acknowledge and apologise for this. It also awarded him £250 in recognition of its delay. That was appropriate. As detailed above, it has since provided its stage 1 response to these concerns.

Learning

35. The landlord did not take all reasonable action to investigate and respond to the resident’s reports of noise from a neighbouring property. Nor did it communicate clearly with the resident about this.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord did not make appropriate record of all its visits and communication with the resident. It should have done so to adequately demonstration how it responded to reports in line with its obligations.

Communication

37. The landlord did not communicate clearly with the resident about actions it would take to address his concerns about noise and leaks from his neighbour’s property. It did not communicate appropriately when its stage 2 complaint response was delayed.