From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Notting Hill Genesis (202202911)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202911

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 April 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of reports regarding the communal lights and concerns about the associated service charges.
    2. The landlord’s decision to issue TORT notices following a fire risk assessment.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has several other cases with us that relate to separate complaints he made to the landlord. This investigation focuses on the complaint addressed between February and April 2023. This investigation will not comment on other matters due to be addressed under separate case references.
  2. The resident raised concern about a separate visit related to the communal lighting in November 2023. This matter occurred following the complaint under consideration and will not be addressed under this investigation. The landlord needs the opportunity to respond to his concerns formally under its complaints process before we can investigate.
  3. The resident raised concern about the level of service charge as a factor in his complaint. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is better suited to consider the reasonableness of, or liability to pay. service charges. We will consider whether the landlord’s communication regarding the service charge was reasonable in the circumstances but do not audit service charge accounts or determine a resident’s liability to pay the service charge.
  4. The complaint indicated that other residents in the building were affected by the issues raised. While the landlord agreed to reductions in the service charge for all residents within its responses, it offered compensation for inconvenience the resident experienced as an individual. We have considered his complaint as an individual rather than a group complaint. The resident may choose to show this determination to the other affected residents should he wish to do so. We have also included a recommendation below.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a flat within a building containing similar properties.
  2. We have seen evidence to show that residents reported issues with the communal lights as early as 2020. Following communication from neighbours within the block, the resident contacted the landlord on 26 January 2021 to report that, despite a visit that week, it had not repaired a number of lights in the communal areas. At the time, the landlord said it was waiting for parts.
  3. On 11 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and attached several historic emails regarding the communal lights. He expressed concern at a history of poor customer service and said he would not chase repairs. Other residents also contacted the landlord about the communal lights from September 2022.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 February 2023. He noted that another resident had informed it of lighting issues within the communal area on 22 September 2022. It had fitted a light above their door the previous day but not repaired all lights and there were still lights that did not function in various areas. He forwarded several emails from other residents which included concerns about the lights, and the landlord’s placement of TORT notices and intention to remove items from the communal area. He said he intended to invoice the landlord for copies of emails he provided.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2023 as it had not responded. He said that one of the lights previously fixed on 1 February 2023 had failed. He was unhappy with “constant failings”, “mismanagement” and the landlord’s inability to complete repairs. He was concerned about wasted call out charges and asked who he should invoice for information he provided.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 February 2023 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 March 2023. It said:
    1. That the lighting issues were reported to a staff member on 22 September 2022 but were not repaired until 17 February 2023. The delay was due to a contractor initially cancelling the work due to staff shortages. It recognised that the delay was unacceptable and established this was a service failure.
    2. It attended on 1 February 2023 to repair one of the lights, but this broke again very shortly after the contractor attended. This repair also did not address other lights which had been broken since September 2022. It then completed a survey of the affected lights and resolved the issues. It said it would continue to monitor the repairs to ensure the lights remained in working order. Due to the delay, it offered all residents a 10% reduction in the management fee for the year, amounting to £110.
    3. It apologised that the staff member did not respond to several emails about the outstanding repairs. It had spoken to them and reminded them of the importance of staying on top of email correspondence. It would ensure that it had a clear action plan to improve its communication and provide regular updates to residents moving forward in the form of a newsletter. It would also arrange a meeting with residents to discuss any outstanding issues. It offered £150 compensation in view of the inconvenience caused by delayed responses.
    4. Following a fire risk assessment, it left a TORT notice on personal items left in the atrium. This was not done by its individual staff member but by the fire risk assessor and was not intended to cause distress. It explained the purpose of the fire risk assessment and that it had a zero-tolerance approach to the storage of any flammable items on a balcony in the building, or close to a building, to comply with fire safety regulations. It said this was why the TORT notices were placed.
    5. The stage 1 complaint response was delayed due to the need to wait for dates for repairs and due to an unexpected sickness. It offered £150 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 29 March 2023. He said:
    1. It had not repaired or touched the lights he and his neighbour had originally reported despite saying it had. He said he initially reported these on 26 January 2021, his neighbour reported these on 22 September 2022, and it had not actioned either request. He and other residents also reported other lights, but these were yet to be repaired.
    2. He was concerned about the cost of call outs and charges. He asked for an external audit of all financial and accounting records related to the estate management.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 30 March 2023. It apologised if the information it provided was incorrect and said it had arranged for a manager to visit the following day to complete an audit of all the lights on the estate. It noted his request regarding the service charge accounts as a Section 22 request. It explained that it previously provided the invoices for the 2020 to 2021 financial year. It had made residents aware of a delay in finalising the accounts for the 2021 to 2022 financial year by issuing a section 20B notice. Once it had the invoices, it could put in his request.
  9. Between 18 and 21 April 2023, the resident and landlord continued to discuss the lights. The resident confirmed that the landlord replaced a bulb on 31 March 2023, but this failed shortly after the visit, and other lights were not repaired. He also raised concern that the landlord did not replace the spotlights with LED bulbs. The landlord arranged a further assessment and asked its operative to communicate with its electrician to determine whether there was a wider electrical issue. It established that some lights could not be replaced with LEDs as there was not an LED alternative. It noted that the colour of LEDs could vary and said it would swap out the warmer lights with cool colour lights so that they matched. It confirmed it would review the service charge accounts and remove any charges it felt were unreasonable.
  10. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 April 2023 and explained the following:
    1. It recognised that a light failed shortly after the repair on 1 February 2023. It attended with a number of staff on 31 March 2023. It found 3 bulbs were out of service and left all lights in working order. It had referred the matter back to its team following reports that a bulb failed shortly after.
    2. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by the lighting issues. It appreciated that there could be a more widespread problem in that the lighting repairs did not seem to last. It had instructed its team to speak with an electrician about this.
    3. It reviewed the current expenditure for light repairs in the 2022 to 2023 period and found the charges were currently at £660 for 2 repairs. It explained that the more recent visit on 31 March 2023 fell under the next accounting year. It agreed to cover a £300 charge related to a call out in November 2022 as the attendance did not fix the lights for a significant period. It would write this off the service charge accounts.
    4. It confirmed that it had not yet finalised the accounts for the 2021 to 2022 period but would submit his request for invoices once the accounts were served. It upheld its previous offers of a 10% reduction in the management fee for that year for all residents, £150 compensation for delayed responses from a member of staff, £150 for the delay in responding at stage 1, and agreed to write off a £300 lighting repair cost from the service charge account.
  11. The landlord inspected the lights on 25 April 2023 and replaced the warm coloured LED bulbs with cooler LEDs. It did not find any other problems and left all spotlights within the atrium in working order. On 9 May 2023, the resident said that it had not changed one light that was faint, and another light was also flickering. On 19 May 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had attended that week to replace the flickering light. It completed a survey of the lights in the atrium and across the wider estate, replaced any lights that were out of order, and left all lights working.
  12. In his communication with us, the resident said that more lights failed since his complaint and he was concerned about the quality of the landlord’s inspections. He had continued concerns about the service charge and the cost of continued call out charges for the lighting. He was also unhappy with the level of compensation offered. He added that the landlord had removed items from the communal areas due to it deeming the items a fire hazard, which multiple leaseholders in the building had challenged.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports regarding the communal lights

  1. The lease confirms that the resident is responsible for reporting to the landlord repairs that they are not responsible for. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the common parts of the building, and for keeping the common parts adequately cleaned and illuminated. The resident is responsible for paying a proportion of the cost of repairs to the building under the service charge.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy confirms that it completes routine repairs within 20 working days of a report. Some communal repairs in the same scheme/group of properties might be collated to be completed together. These batched repairs would not be completed within the usual target. The landlord would inform residents when it does this, and the timescale for the work.
  3. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to provide evidence related to the complaint, including repair records, inspection reports and maintenance logs. While the landlord provided some evidence, this did not include clear information regarding the communal repair history or the dates of visits. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies.
  4. The landlord has not disputed that there was a delay in repairing the communal lights from 22 September 2022, and that several lights failed shortly after an initial repair on 1 February 2023. It also recognised that a staff member did not respond to several emails. It apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused and offered a 10% management fee reduction for the 2022 to 2023 financial year for all residents, and £150 to the resident to apologise for the distress and inconvenience caused by poor communication. It also agreed to write off a call out charge of £300 for a visit in November 2022 that did not resolve the lighting issues at the time.
  5. Where a landlord admits to failings, our role is to consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  6. While the landlord considered reports from September 2022 in its investigation, it is evident that the resident, and other residents, reported issues involving the communal lighting for several years prior to this. It is not uncommon for lights that are in constant use to fail. However, given the lack of available evidence, it is unclear whether the landlord completed repairs to the atrium lights between the resident’s report of unresolved problems in January 2021, and its attendance on 1 February 2023. As such, it is unclear whether the landlord adequately considered the history of reports.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord and forwarded previous emails on 11 May 2022. While the email did not specifically indicate whether repairs were needed at the time, he expressed dissatisfaction with the history of poor customer service and said he would not chase repairs. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have queried this at the time and raised a formal complaint under its complaints process to address his concerns. The landlord has not demonstrated that it responded to this email or acted at the time.
  8. Following contact from another resident, the landlord confirmed that it would raise a job for several atrium lights on 23 September 2022. The landlord has suggested that it attended in November 2022 within its complaint response on 21 April 2023. It noted that there were 2 repairs in the 2022 to 2023 period, totalling £660 costs. However, it has not provided any evidence to us, or within its responses, regarding when it raised the repairs, when it attended, or what it did on the visit.
  9. While it said that it would not charge the resident’s £300 for the November attendance (as this visit did not fix the lights for any significant period), it has not provided clear evidence to document that the £300 charge related to an attendance in November 2022. The lack of clarity was likely to cause the resident frustration and uncertainty regarding the service charge despite its reasonable intention not to charge residents for this call out.
  10. The landlord has not disputed that there were unreasonable delays. However, it initially said that the reason for the delay in repairing the lights between 22 September 2022 and 17 February 2023 was due to a contractor cancelling the work because of staff shortages. Its previous communication to residents in January and February 2023 referenced there being a delay due to the need to order parts. Within its communication to the resident on 6 February 2023, it also referenced needing a tower to reach specific lights.
  11. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint lacked transparency around the reasons for the delays or attendance dates, resulting in additional frustration. It also said that the lights were repaired on 17 February 2023 but has not provided evidence to confirm this attendance, and the resident disputed that this was the case. The landlord apologised if it had not provided the correct information in its stage 2 acknowledgement email on 30 March 2023 and acted reasonably by arranging an audit of the lights the following day.
  12. In his complaint, the resident specified that there were lights out in the car park and block as well as the atrium. The landlord said the visit on 31 March 2023 would be to audit the lights and pick up on any other issues across the estate. However, its later communication suggests that it only completed work in the atrium. We have not seen reference to any other lights on the estate until its communication on 19 May 2023 where it said it replaced any failed lights that it found.
  13. While residents are responsible for reporting communal repair issues, the landlord should also complete regular estate inspections to proactively identify repairs and health and safety issues. It is of concern that the landlord has not provided records related to routine inspections and had not proactively identified that lights were not functioning without the need for resident involvement. This indicates that there are issues with the quality of the landlord’s estate inspections as it did not identify and resolve the lighting issues for a significant time (alongside reports from various residents).
  14. The landlord acted reasonably within its responses by confirming that it would continue to monitor the lighting issues. It also said there may be a more widespread problem in that the lighting repairs did not seem to last, and that it would investigate this. While it took some steps to proactively update the resident on 19 May 2023 (following the complaint), it has not evidenced that it investigated why the lights continued to fail or continued to monitor the lights long term.
  15. The resident has told us that some lights failed again after the complaint and continue to be out of use. He has added that he and other residents have given up reporting these directly because the landlord did not act on reports. He is concerned that the landlord does not identify issues during routine estate inspections. Despite the history of the lighting issues over a considerable time, the landlord has not evidenced the steps it has taken to ensure that the lights remain in working condition. We have considered this within the orders made below.
  16. The landlord acted reasonably by investigating a staff member’s communication failures, speaking to them, and confirming that they had reiterated the importance of staying on top of email correspondence. It also said it intended to create an action plan to improve its communication in the form of a newsletter. It has not demonstrated that it did so or explained if it had changed its mind. The resident has said he has not received any form of newsletter, and the landlord has not evidenced that it has done what it said it would. This is likely to add to the resident’s frustration.
  17. The resident asked the landlord to complete an external audit of the accounts for the estate within his stage 2 escalation request on 29 March 2023. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining that it had not yet finalised the accounts for the 2021 to 2022 financial year so it could not provide relevant invoices. It confirmed that it would submit his request for invoices as a section 22 request once it had finalised the accounts.
  18. While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it could not currently provide him with the invoices, it did not comment on his request for an external audit. In addition, despite the request made during the complaint, the resident has said that he has not received invoices related to the communal lighting and visits to date. We have not seen evidence to confirm that the landlord processed his request when it was able to.
  19. The landlord has provided evidence to confirm that it provided the resident with a service charge dispute form in September 2023 following communication about arrears but the resident did not want to complete this. He maintained that a previous staff member said they would investigate the service charge account but did not provide a response. As set out above, the First Tier Tribunal (property chamber) is best suited to handle disputes regarding the reasonableness of, or liability to pay, service charges. It is evident that the resident disputes the entirety of the service charge in view of his experience and may wish to consider approaching the First Tier Tribunal if this matter remains unresolved.
  20. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports regarding the communal lights and concerns about the associated service charges. The landlord did not dispute unreasonable delays in repairing the communal lights or poor communication with the resident. However, it has not demonstrated that it has taken adequate learning from the complaint or completed actions it said it would following the complaint.
  21. The landlord offered a 10% management fee reduction for the 2022 to 2023 financial year to recognise the inconvenience caused to residents as a result of its handling of the lighting issues. It said that this would amount to £110. It also agreed to remove a £300 charge associated with a call out in November 2022. The resident disputes the management fee and service charges, and we cannot say that its offer sufficiently puts things right in view of the lack of evidence provided about visits and associated charges. However, if it has not already processed the reductions, it should do so as agreed.
  22. The landlord offered the resident £150 to apologise for the individual distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication. While this goes some way to put right the failings in this case, it does not fully account for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing a lasting resolution. We have made several orders below.

The landlord’s decision to issue TORT notices following a fire risk assessment

  1. The lease agreement confirms that the resident agrees not to leave anything in the common parts of the building, and to comply with regulations the landlord makes for the purpose of securing the safety of the building.
  2. The landlord’s fire safety policy confirms that the landlord has a zero-tolerance approach to the storage of items in common areas as a fire prevention measure. Where found, these would be removed in line with its disposal of goods policy. The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 allows landlords to dispose of goods legally. The landlord must issue a TORT notice allowing the owner time to remove the item or recover these from the landlord where they have been placed in storage where there is an immediate safety risk. If the goods are not claimed or removed within this time, then the landlord may dispose of them.
  3. We have not seen evidence to show that the resident specifically referred to the issuing of TORT notices as a factor in his complaint on 2 February 2023 or escalation. He did, however, include emails sent by other residents to the landlord within his complaint. These included concerns about TORT notices placed in the communal area in September 2022. In his communication with us, he noted that the landlord removed items, deeming them a fire hazard, which some leaseholders challenged.
  4. While the resident did not raise specific concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm its position within its complaint responses to him. The landlord has a legal obligation to implement preventative fire safety measures within its buildings in line with fire safety regulations and offered a clear explanation.
  5. The landlord’s zero tolerance approach to items left in the communal areas is not unreasonable and it suitably set out that it would allow metal tables and chairs, and terracotta plant pots. We have not seen evidence to suggest that the landlord acted inappropriately by permanently removing items without issuing a TORT notice.
  6. It is understandable that some residents may wish to place items in the communal area and dispute that items were a fire risk. Common areas are not part of an individual property or leasehold premises. As the owner of the building, it would be the landlord’s discretion as to what items it allows in the common areas while also considering its fire prevention obligations. We have found no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this aspect of the complaint and there is no evidence that this impacted the resident individually at the time.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the resident’s complaint states that it aimed to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. It aimed to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Where there is a delay, the landlord is expected to communicate with the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide an expected response timeframe.
  2. The landlord has not disputed that there was a delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. The resident initially raised a complaint on 2 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 February and issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 March 2023. This was a period of 20 working days and outside of its policy timescales. It subsequently responded at stage 2 on 21 April 2023, following the resident’s request on 29 March 2023. This was within its timescales.
  3. While its records indicate that it extended the timeframe of the stage 1 complaint internally, the landlord did not proactively update the resident on the reason for the delay which meant that he spent additional time chasing this. While we note that there was a delay due to waiting for information, and due to staff absence, the landlord should have systems in place to ensure that it provides updates when its staff are absent. The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging the delay, explaining the reasons for the delay, and offering £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused within its stage 1 complaint response.
  4. The resident asked the landlord to move the complaint to stage 2 twice on 1 March 2023. At the time of the complaint, our Complaint Handling Code (2022) set out that landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage 2 once it has completed stage 1 and at the request of the resident. As the landlord had not yet provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2023, it was reasonable for it not to escalate the complaint at the resident’s request.
  5. Within his complaint and further communication on 6 February and 1 March 2023, the resident set out that he intended to invoice the landlord for the time needed to provide copies of emails. We recognise that any resident pursuing a complaint with their landlord will incur a certain amount of time, trouble and minor costs (such as phone calls). We may order that the landlord pays compensation to recognise the impact on the resident for their time and trouble in pursuing their complaint where this was significantly more than would be reasonably expected.
  6. The landlord should have addressed the resident’s request within its responses; however, we would not usually compensate residents for the time spent making a complaint. We do not dispute that compiling previous emails may have taken some time, and there were service failures that impacted the resident. However, we do not agree that the landlord should pay £500 for his time in forwarding emails for the purpose of the complaint.
  7. The landlord’s offer of £150 compensation to account for the delay at stage 1 is in line with our own remedies guidance (available on our website). The guidance states that amounts in this range are appropriate where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident, but where there was no permanent impact. Its offer is considered proportionate, and we have found that it made a reasonable offer of redress which resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of reports regarding the communal lights and concerns about the associated service charges
  2. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to issue TORT notices following a fire risk assessment.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation in relation to its complaint handling, which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified.
    2. Pay the resident £250 for the inconvenience, and time and trouble he spent pursuing a lasting resolution for the communal lighting issues. This includes its previous offer of £150.
    3. Process the service charge reductions as previously agreed within its stage 2 complaint response on 21 April 2023, if it has not already done so. It should provide evidence that it has processed the reductions to both us and the resident.
    4. Complete a survey to identify any current problems with the lighting on the estate. It should keep a record of lights that have failed and determine whether there is a pattern that could indicate a wider issue.
  2. Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to provide the resident with a list of its attendances related to the communal lighting between January 2021 and March 2024 alongside information about the work completed and any costs passed on to residents. If the resident has any concerns related to specific call outs or charges, he may wish to raise these directly with the landlord.
  3. Within 12 weeks, the landlord is to complete a case review to establish points of learning from the complaint. It should consider:
    1. How it monitors the communal areas in view of the historical issues. This should include the quality and frequency of estate inspections and whether it has sufficient systems in place to identify and resolve communal repair issues.
    2. Whether it maintains adequate records of estate visits and communal repairs.
    3. Its communication with residents in the block as previously referenced within its complaint response on 21 April 2023, and how it can improve the landlord/tenant relationship with its residents.
  4. The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance within these timescales.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend:
    1. That the landlord pays the resident £150 as previously offered for its complaint handling as the finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis that it paid this.
    2. That the landlord considers whether any other residents were also impacted by communication failures related to the communal lighting reports between September 2022 and April 2023. It should consider offering suitable redress to these residents where appropriate.
    3. That the landlord contacts the resident regarding his concerns about a sensor light outside his front door.
  2. The landlord should confirm its intentions within 4 weeks.