Notting Hill Genesis (202401102)

Decision
Case ID	202401102
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	24 April 2026

Background

1. The resident had an allocated housing officer. In July 2023 she and the officer had a verbal altercation. After this incident she asked the landlord to allocate a new officer, which it declined. She complained to it in January 2024 as she felt it had not handled her concerns about the officer’s conduct sufficiently and disagreed with its decision. She was unhappy with its response and referred her complaint to us.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. concerns about the conduct of her housing officer.
   2. complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of her housing officer.
4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of her housing officer

5. There is no evidence of failings in the landlord’s decision about the resident’s housing officer. However, the landlord it did not keep or provide records of its investigations or how it reached its decision.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. There was a delay in the landlord’s stage 2 response. It appropriately acknowledged the delay, apologised and offered a reasonable amount of compensation.

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	Review Order The landlord must complete a review of its record keeping in this case to identify why it was not able to provide the relevant records, and how it intends to ensure it can do so for any future complaint. It should provide its findings, and any learnings, in writing to us by the deadline provided.	No later than 22 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
16 January 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She felt it had not considered her concerns about the housing officer’s conduct sufficiently. She also disagreed with its decision to not allocate her a new officer.
28 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It felt it had handled the July 2023 incident correctly and said it was not aware of any prior issues between her and her housing officer. It stood by its decision to not allocate her a new officer but suggested other ways she could contact it should she not wish to engage with her officer.
28 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she had been reporting issues with her housing officer to the landlord before the July 2023 incident. She felt she was left without access to an allocated officer she felt comfortable contacting.
2 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It maintained it had handled the July 2023 incident appropriately but accepted there had been delays in updating the resident about its decision not to allocate a new officer. It apologised and offered £150 compensation. It confirmed it would not change her officer and said it had offered alternative ways for her to access its services if needed. It also acknowledged a delay in issuing its stage 2 response, apologised and offered a further £50 compensation.
Post complaint	The landlord notified us that the housing officer has since left its organisation and the resident now has a new allocated officer.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us.  She felt the landlord’s response had not offered her a reasonable resolution to her concerns about her housing officer. She wanted it to apologise for, and offer compensation, for the distress caused. She also wanted it to provide a written explanation as to why it did not allocate her a new officer at the time of her complaint.

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	Landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her housing officer’s conduct
Finding	Service failure

7. The resident complained that the landlord had not adequately handled her concerns about the conduct of her housing officer. She said that following a verbal altercation in July 2023 she felt unable to continue engaging with the officer. She also said there had been ongoing issues with the officer before the incident which she had been reporting to it. She felt it had not taken account of this history, her vulnerabilities or the impact the situation had on her when it decided not to allocate her a new officer, which was the outcome she sought.
8. In response the landlord maintained its decision not to allocate the resident a new housing officer. It acknowledged there had been a verbal altercation between the two in July 2023 and said it handled the incident correctly by meeting with both parties. It said it had no record of her raising any concerns before July 2023 and decided the working relationship was repairable, so it did not change the allocation. However, it offered alternative ways for her to access its services should she no longer wish to engage with the officer.
9. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged a delay in confirming its decision in writing. It said this took three months, from its meeting with her in September 2023 to when it informed her of its decision in December 2023, due to staffing changes. It apologised for the delay and offered £150 compensation.
10. The actions the landlord said it took were all relevant to the issue and incident the resident was complaining about. It was appropriate that it also acknowledged its delay notifying the resident, apologised, and offered compensation which was broadly in line with our compensation guidance for a failing of that nature and scale.
11. However, the landlord has not provided for this investigation any evidence supporting the explanations it gave. There are no records of the meetings with the resident or the officer, nor any evidence showing how it assessed the information before deciding not to allocate a new officer. Basic good practice in the face of a staff conduct complaint is to keep records of the investigation including the evidence gathered, interview notes, and records of deliberations in order to justify and explain whatever decision is reached. The lack of such information in this case means we cannot assess the landlord’s explanations and decisions against the evidence.
12. Decisions about staffing, including the allocation of housing officers, sit with the landlord, and are not in our remit to determine. However, we can look at how a landlord handled a complaint about staff conduct. In this case, while we have not seen anything suggesting the landlord’s response to the resident was not sound, it should have kept records of its investigation of her concerns, and should have been able to provide them. Its failure to do so was not reasonable.
13. Given that this failing has not had a clear material impact on the resident we have not made a further compensation order.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

14. When the resident referred her complaint to us, she said she first raised her complaint to the landlord in July 2023. When it did not respond, she then re-raised her complaint in January 2024. As such she felt its responses in 2024 were unreasonably delayed.
15. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised this issue in her complaint in January 2024 or her stage 2 escalation. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

What we investigated

16. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response exceeded the 10‑day timeframe set out in its policy and the Code. However, the delay arose because the resident, and her support worker, asked for additional time to submit supporting evidence as she had been unwell.
18. The landlord issued its stage 2 response 23 working days after receipt. This was outside its 20 working day timeframe. It acknowledged this delay, apologised and offered £50 compensation. This was reasonable given the minor delay caused and the compensation offered was in line with its compensation guidance.

Learning

Communication

19. As the landlord already identified, it took too long to notify the resident of its decision following its investigation. However it appropriately addressed this in is response. Other than this, its communication was robust overall.