Notting Hill Genesis (202214589)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214589

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

25 September 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The level of service charges associated with the property.
2. The landlord’s communication about service charges.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder through a shared ownership scheme. They have held the lease since 2017. The landlord is a housing association.
The property is a one-bedroom flat within a block, and the property is located within a wider estate. The landlord manages the resident’s block, and a management company manages areas of the estate.
On 4 August 2021 the resident asked the landlord for a full breakdown of their service charge costs. The resident chased this enquiry several times, and they also asked to be provided with additional information around specific elements of their service charge.
On 16 June 2022 the resident chased the landlord for a response to an email they had sent on 24 May 2022 where they sent a list of questions about their service charges and cited concerns about the quality of the communal services. The resident said they wanted the matter dealt with as a complaint.
On 6 October 2022 the resident contacted us and said the landlord was uncommunicative and would not respond to their complaints or enquiries. On 18 November 2022 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to register a complaint. The landlord decided to handle a list of concerns the resident had sent to it as a complaint, including:
1. They wanted a full breakdown of the management agent’s charges.
2. They wanted clarification on if they had been charged for maintenance of pathways and roads that had been incorporated by the council.
3. They wanted further details around what specific charges related to, and for the landlord to outline what services they received from the charges.
4. They asked the landlord to provide insurance and liability documents which were relevant to their property.
5. The resident also cited the following concerns:
  1. The service received from the communal cleaning contractor was poor, and the contractor had not conducted a deep clean.
  2. The communal emergency lighting kept breaking, and the resident suggested it might be more cost effective to change the lighting to LEDs.
  3. They were unhappy that the landlord had created a parking permit system for the estate and had instructed an enforcement company.
In its stage one response dated 1 December 2022 the landlord said:
1. The resident had not received a breakdown of costs from the management agent as this company manages the entrance to the estate, for which the resident paid a contribution to, as well as an area of the estate which the resident does not pay into.
2. Its cleaning company should conduct a deep clean annually. However, one had not occurred in 2022. The next deep clean was scheduled for 13 February 2023.
3. Leaseholders were not informed of lighting works as it only formally notifies leaseholders if the repair cost is greater than £250 per household.
4. It had begun enforcing parking rules as residents had not been using their designated parking bays, and this had created issues on the estate.
5. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the delays they had experienced.
On 27 February 2023 the resident escalated their complaint as they felt the landlord had not addressed their concerns that they were being charged for maintenance to areas which had been incorporated by the council. The resident also asked for the landlord to explain how elements of the service charge had been calculated.
In its stage 2 response dated 29 November 2023 the landlord said:
1. The lease allows for residents to be charged for services conducted by the landlord and the freeholder.
2. There is a transfer agreement between itself and the freeholder, this passes down certain responsibilities to the landlord.
3. The transfer agreement says the landlord’s managing agent is to provide an estimated cost in advance of the financial year, and it will then provide its accounts later in the year. It uses this information to calculate costs.
4. The management agent is responsible for maintenance, repair and renewal of areas owned by the freeholder. This does not include council adopted areas.
5. It would ask the resident’s housing officer to send the resident invoices from cleaning and gardening companies for the resident to review due to their concerns about the quality of the services provided.
6. It was the landlord’s responsibility to manage communal lighting under the terms of the lease. If the resident had alternative suggestions for the communal lighting it would consider these, but it had no duty to implement such suggestions.
7. Leaseholders who live in the estate have an obligation under their lease to park in designated bays, and it was at the landlord’s discretion to enforce the terms of the lease.
8. The resident had first contacted the landlord on 4 August 2021 about their service charges, but it had not responded to the resident until 1 December 2022. It had also taken 10 months for it to provide the resident with a stage 2 response. It apologised for the delays the resident had experienced.
9. It offered the resident compensation of £250 for its failure to respond to the resident’s original enquiry, and £250 for its complaint handling failures.
On 29 October 2024 the resident brought their complaint to the Ombudsman as they felt miss-led by the landlord’s commitment to get to the bottom of the service charges.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme notes as follows:
1. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge.
The resident has raised concerns about the level of their service charges. In particular that it does not represent value for money. Determinations about the reasonableness of service charges and the obligation to pay are better suited to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), or to the courts.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the scheme, the resident’s concerns about the level of service charges associated with the property are outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
The resident has the option to seek legal advice if they wish to pursue this concern.

Scope of investigation

In usual circumstances the Ombudsman does not consider matters not brought to the attention of the landlord via a complaint within a reasonable period. This is normally considered to be 12 months. In this instance we have extended the 12-month period to include events which occurred from August 2021 for the following reasons:
1. The resident brought matters to the landlord’s attention, but the landlord did not proactively respond to the enquiries which led to delays.
2. The landlord has addressed this period of time in its complaint responses.
The resident has cited concerns about the communal services they receive, this included their concerns around maintenance and parking enforcement on council owned roads. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has jurisdiction over council incorporated roadways. As such, we will only consider the communal services the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to consider. This includes services such as communal cleaning and gardening services which were the landlord’s responsibility.

The landlord’s communication with the resident about their service charges

The landlord’s service charge policy says when a property has an associated service charge it will appoint a lead officer to manage the contract and handle resident enquiries. The lead officer should aim to resolve issues and will act as an advocate for resident issues which involve multiple departments, management agents and external companies.
The landlord’s service charge policy says it will be transparent with residents when they enquire about their service charges. If a resident has any queries about an external provider the landlord will endeavour to work with the provider to ensure the enquiry is appropriately responded to.
Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to provide a summary of their service charges to residents. They are to provide this within one month of a request or within 6 months of the service charge period ending. Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 provides the resident with the right to inspect supporting documents which have been used to calculate a service charge payment. Once a request has been made the landlord is to allow for the inspection of documents, or to provide copies/extracts of documents, within 2 months of the request.
The resident has told us that from 2021 to 2022 they contacted the landlord multiple times about their service charges. The resident said they only received a response from the landlord twice, and on both occasions, this was not a full response. This was not in-line with the landlord’s policy.
In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged it did not respond to the resident’s service charge enquiry, made on 4 August 2021, until it provided a stage one response. This delay was extremely poor customer service from the landlord. Additionally, the landlord’s failure to respond shows it did not appropriately consider its obligations under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
In their communications with the landlord the resident has frequently cited concerns about the quality of the communal services they receive. This includes concerns about communal cleaning, gardening services and repairs services.
In its stage 2 response the landlord explained why the resident had not been notified about communal lighting repairs and said it would consider the resident’s views about the lighting. This was reasonable.
In its stage one response the landlord said its cleaning contractor conducts yearly deep cleans in the block, but a deep clean did not occur in 2022. It said the contractor was scheduled to clean the communal areas weekly, but it did not give specifics around the level of cleaning this involved. The landlord did address if residents of the block had been charged for the deep clean that did not occur. The landlord’s communication about the cleaning services could have been improved.
In its stage one the landlord also told the resident that gardeners attended the block monthly in the winter and fortnightly in the summer. This was appropriate so the resident understood how the landlord delivered this service. However, the landlord could have taken additional steps to understand what the resident’s specific concerns were around the communal services. Doing so would have better addressed the resident’s concerns, and it would have assisted its understanding if the services provided required improvement. Failing to do so was a missed opportunity.
At stage 2, the landlord also said it would provide the resident with invoices from the gardening and cleaning services. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest this occurred, which was a further failing.
The resident told us that it is very challenging to communicate with the landlord about their service charges, as there is a high turnaround of staff that manage the estates service charges. The Ombudsman does not consider staff changes to be a reasonable explanation for the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident. Staff changes can be challenging, but such changes can be anticipated. With adequate planning the landlord would have been able to meet the standards set out in its service charge policy.
The resident has told us that they feel the landlord has not been transparent with their communication around service charges. They said the landlord has not:
1. Provided a full breakdown of their individual charges.
2. Provided a breakdown of the management agent costs for the areas of the estate that they pay into.
3. Fully addressed the resident’s concerns that they may have been charged for areas of the estate which the council manages.
4. Detailed its expectations around the communal cleaning of the block.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for its lack of communication with the resident, and it offered £250 in compensation to address this. While it was positive that the landlord identified its own failings, the Ombudsman does not consider the compensation offered to be reasonable when considering the significant effort the resident went to try and obtain details from the landlord. Additionally, the landlord did not appear to identify that it had not met its requirements under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. As such the Ombudsman considers maladministration occurred, and we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500.
To address the resident’s concerns around their service charges, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to conduct the following actions:
1. Appoint the resident a single point of contact who can deal with enquiries around their service charges.
2. Offer to meet with the resident in person to discuss their concerns about service charges. Following any meeting or discussion with the landlord is to facilitate the disclosure of documentation which the resident may request access to in-line with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
3. The landlord is to provide the resident with full yearly breakdowns of their service charges from 2021 to 2025.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it considers a complaint to be an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process which commits to:
1. Acknowledging a resident’s complaint within 5 working days.
2. Providing a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
3. If a resident escalates their complaint to stage 2 of the process the landlord will acknowledge this within 5 working days.
4. Providing its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement.
The resident told us that they complained to the landlord three times in 2021, and they did not receive any formal complaint responses. The landlord has not disputed this.
Evidence shows the resident complained to the landlord on 2 February 2022, and the resident’s housing officer responded to this complaint informally, and not via a stage one complaint response. This was inappropriate, as it was not in-line with policy. The housing officer offered the resident £100 in compensation for their failure to respond to complaints the made in 2021. As the offer of compensation was made outside of its complaints processes, the landlord is unsure if the £100 in compensation was paid to the resident.
As the housing officer did not provide the resident with a formal complaint response, the resident was not given information about how to escalate their complaint, or about their right to go to the Ombudsman. The handling of this complaint was poor, and it was inappropriate.
Evidence suggests the resident also attempted to progress a complaint on the following occasions:
1. On 16 June 2022, when the resident chased the landlord for a response to an email sent on 25 May 2022. The resident asked for this email to be handled as a complaint.
2. On 7 September 2022, when the resident forwarded the 16 June 2022 complaint onto their housing officer to progress.
3. On 16 November 2022, when the resident made an online complaint about their housing officer not responding to emails. The landlord closed this complaint on 18 November 2022 after the housing officer responded to the resident via email. In this email the housing officer asked the resident if they wished to pursue a complaint. The resident confirmed they did, but a complaint was not progressed.
The landlord’s actions described above were inappropriate, and not in line with its policy. The landlord’s lack of action to progress complaints would have caused the resident to feel frustrated and ignored. Additionally, its lack of responsiveness likely caused the resident to lose faith in the landlord’s abilities.
Regarding the complaint that was dealt with under the landlord’s policy, the resident escalated their complaint on 23 February 2023 as they were not satisfied with the stage one response. The landlord acknowledged this 3 working days later on 27 February 2023. On 6 June 2023 the housing officer assigned to the resident’s complaint said there had been delays in producing the stage 2 as they were awaiting further information from external companies.
The resident chased the landlord about the complaint 3 times in July 2023. On 23 August 2023 the resident emailed the housing officer to ask for an update. The resident received a notification that their email was undeliverable, as the email address they had contacted no longer existed. The resident was later told that the housing officer no longer worked for the organisation, and a manager was taking over the resident’s complaint.
On 25 August 2023 the new stage 2 officer contacted the resident and asked if the resident wanted their complaint to progressed to stage 2. This was unreasonable, as the resident had been waiting for a stage 2 response for 6 months at this point. The stage 2 officer also told the resident they were unable to access documents which had been gathered by the previous stage 2 officer. This was unreasonable, and it suggests the landlord’s record keeping required improvement. To address this the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to conduct a review and to assess if it requires any improvement in this area.
On 13 November 2023 the Ombudsman instructed the landlord to provide the resident with a stage 2 response after the resident sought our assistance. The landlord produced its stage 2 on 29 November 2023. This was 194 working days after the resident escalated their complaint. This response time fell far outside of the timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy.
At stage 2 the landlord offered the resident £250 in compensation for the delays they had experienced in progressing the matter to stage 2. While this amount appropriately reflects the impact of the failings identified, the landlord did not acknowledge the failings relating to the previous attempted complaints or seek to identify any learning, as identified above. A finding of reasonable redress cannot therefore be made in the circumstances. As such, a finding of service failure has been made.
While the amount of compensation has not been increased, additional orders have been made for the landlord to:
1. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
2. Conduct a review of its handling of the resident’s complaint, and consider if any changes to its policies, processes, or its staff training are required.
3. Pay the resident the £100 in compensation it offered to the resident following the 2 February 2022 complaint, if it has not previously paid this amount.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme the resident’s complaint around the level of service charges is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident around its service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the determination the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £500 in recognition of the distress experienced from the landlord’s communication with the resident about their service charge. The previous offer of £250 in compensation can be deducted from this amount if already paid.
Within 4 weeks of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified by the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident the compensation of £100 it offered outside of its complaints process if it has not yet paid this amount.
3. Appoint the resident with a single point of contact for them to discuss their service charges.
4. Arrange to with the resident in person to discuss their concerns about their service charges. After any meeting or discussion with the resident the landlord is to facilitate the disclosure of documentation which the resident may request access to. It is to complete this in-line with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act.
Within 6 weeks of the determination the landlord is to Conduct a review of its handling of this complaint. It is to consider if any changes are required to its policies, processes or its staff training. The landlord is to share the findings of this review with the resident and the Ombudsman.
Within 8 weeks of the determination the landlord is to provide the resident with full breakdowns of their service charges dating back to 2021. This is to ensure the resident has full and complete records dating back to their original request made in August 2021.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 8 weeks of the determination date.