Notting Hill Genesis (202219947)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219947

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

31 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs and maintenance within the communal areas of the block.
2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB) from gangs congregating in and around the block.
3. The resident’s concern that he was paying for services that were not being provided and the level of the service charges and management fees.
4. Its communication with the freeholder’s managing agent regarding the request for an External Wall System (EWS1) form.
5. The related complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property, which is a flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord is responsible for managing all internal communal areas. A managing agent manages the structure of the building on behalf of the freeholder.
On 22 September 2022, the resident reported that he felt unsafe going home and that he was threatened by a gang who often entered the building to do drugs and vandalise the building. On 29 September 2022, the resident reported that the cleaning services were not up to standard, there was rubbish everywhere and the lifts were always broken.
The resident raised his complaint on 15 October 2022, about the landlord’s handling of the following issues:
1. Lift repairs.
2. Poor standard of cleaning provided by the cleaning contractor.
3. Intercom repairs.
4. Gangs entering and using drugs, vandalising the building and threatening residents.
5. Notice frame repairs.
6. Decoration in the communal areas.
7. High service charges for services that were not being provided.
8. Communal lights repairs.
9. Rubbish left on the pavement outside.
10. A lack of updates from the building owner regarding EWS1 form.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 7 December 2022 in which it addressed each of the issues raised by the resident. It stated the following:
1. There had been multiple issues with the lifts in recent months. Both lifts had been returned to service on 24 November 2022 and no further issues had been reported since.
2. It had reported issues about the standard of cleaning to the cleaning contractor who visited on 10 November 2022. The cleaning was observed to be of an acceptable standard, but some issues were identified which had subsequently been addressed.
3. A contractor attended the block the previous week to repair intercoms in 2 properties but could not gain access. A date for reattendance would be confirmed.
4. It had reminded the cleaners to close doors to prevent intruders entering and it would issue an update to residents confirming that access should only be provided to their own visitors. The landlord stated that it had contacted the local Safer Neighbourhood Team for support.
5. A replacement notice board was due to be installed by 16 December 2022.
6. The internal walls were in need of maintenance and the cost of the redecorating was likely to exceed the threshold for consultation, and so it would issue the first stage Notice of Intention to do the works that week. It stated that cyclical maintenance had been delayed previously because reserve funds were utilised for fire safety works.
7. The contractor that had been scheduled to repair the communal lights had failed to attend, and it had raised the repair again.
8. There had been intermittent issues with the bin store code not working. The landlord said it would change the codes and update the residents in the block.
9. An update was sent to the block in July from the managing agent confirming the current status of the building safety fund application. A further block update would be issued the following week.
10. More should have been done to promptly resolve the issues raised by the resident. It offered the following redress:
  1. A 25% reduction in the management fee for the core for the 2022-2023 financial year.
  2. £150 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused due to the personal impact of the issues and having to repeatedly chase for updates.
  3. £50 for the delay in providing the stage 1 response.
The resident escalated his complaint on 12 December 2022 and stated he was dissatisfied with the response as the landlord had offered explanations, but no solutions. The resident stated that:
1. The lifts were operational but were dirty, and the buttons and lights were broken.
2. The cleaning services were not up to standard and the carpets had still not been cleaned.
3. CCTV should be put in the entrance to prevent intruders.
4. The notice frame was still broken.
5. The internal decoration should be carried out and residents were aware that there would be a cost for this.
6. The landlord failed to address the administration fees.
7. Many of the communal lights were still not working.
8. The landlord should push the managing agent for an update regarding the ESW1 form.
9. Changing the bin codes would not resolve the problem of rubbish being left outside.
10. He accepted the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 January 2023. It upheld the complaint in relation to poor communication, complaint handling and concerns raised around the management of the block. The landlord stated the following:
1. Further repairs had been raised to fix buttons in the lifts. The lights had been repaired.
2. The carpets were deep cleaned on 6 and 7 January 2023, but had since been damaged by other residents, which the cleaners could not be held accountable for.
3. It was unable to permit a bin in the entrance due to a fire risk.
4. The building had a security service which patrolled all 3 blocks 24 hours a day and undertook reactive visits upon requests from residents. The landlord stated it would inform the managing agent that security should be more visible, that it would promote the service on the communal noticeboard and at an upcoming residents meeting and consider whether residents felt that this was adequate before considering installing CCTV.
5. The notice frame was fixed on 28 December 2022.
6. The first stage Notice of Intention of internal decoration was issued on 9 January 2023 and the second stage was due to be issued by the end of February 2023.
7. A staff member would conduct monthly inspections of the building, and had more recently been undertaking weekly inspections to ensure that maintenance is performed to a high quality and to monitor the cleaning standard.
8. The resident does not pay an administration fee but is charged a management fee within his service charges. The landlord stated that as some issues remained outstanding, it would apply a 50% reduction in the management fee for the core for the 2022-2023 financial year.
9. Repairs of communal lights were completed on 27 January 2023.
10. A quote had been received to repair and adjust the bin doors and change the codes, which should help to prevent unauthorised access.
11. Regarding the ESW1, the managing agent had submitted an application for full works and costs the Building Safety Fund, and it expected this to take 6 months to be approved. The landlord said it was in constant contact with the managing agent and that its role was to be an advocate for residents and hold the managing agent to account.
12. In order to put things right, it offered an apology and £350 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £250 for the stress and inconvenience as a result of the above issues.
  2. £100 for the failure to recognise and acknowledge the complaint submitted in October and November 2022.
13. It would also offer the following compensation to all residents in the core:
  1. A refund of cleaning costs from October to December 2022, totalling £1,199.14 for the core, reflected in the year-end account.
  2. A 50% reduction in the management fee for the core for the 2022-2023 financial year.
14. It would take the following steps:
  1. Schedule a virtual resident meeting before the end of February 2023 to address the issues raised in the complaint.
  2. Consider hiring a new cleaning contractor to compare their performance with that of the current contractor.
  3. Write to residents by the end of February informing them of the Section 20 redecoration works.
The landlord also stated it had attached an action plan outlining when the outstanding tasks would be resolved, and an update would be provided to the resident on 10 February 2023.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 19 April 2023 and stated that the actions outlined in the action plan had not been completed and the problems in the building were ongoing. On 18 June 2023, the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint as many of the issues had still not been resolved. He stated that:
1. No costs had been provided for redecoration.
2. The cleaning services improved following the landlord’s meeting with the contractor, but after a month, the standard became very poor. The entrance to the building was messy following the removal of a bin and the front door was broken due to attempted access by intruders.
3. It was unsafe to enter the building and no action has been taken to prevent gangs from entering.
4. The landlord had almost doubled the service charge and nothing had been added or improved to justify the increase.
5. Rubbish was still being dumped at the entrance of the building and no one had been charged for this, despite the resident providing evidence of who dumped the waste.
6. He had accepted the compensation but this had still not been paid.
On 12 February 2025, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the issues raised were ongoing. He stated that:
1. The landlord had put CCTV in the entrance but it did not check the footage, even after the residents had reported issues.
2. The block’s security services did not attend immediately when issues were reported.
3. He wanted to sell his property but residents have still not received the ESW1 form and the landlord kept passing the responsibility for this.
4. In order to resolve his complaint, the landlord should take steps to resolve all issues including:
  1. decorating the main entrance.
  2. monitoring the CCTV to identify people leaving rubbish and issuing fines to those people.
  3. Repair the bin unit door quickly as it often breaks.
  4. Give an answer about the cladding works start date.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident reported that many of the issues remain ongoing and that actions taken by the landlord have not resolved certain issues. We are not able to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. Therefore, we will not investigate issues reported after the stage 2 response. The resident has the option to make a new complaint about any recent events. He may be able to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman once it has exhausted the landlord’s complaints process.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident brought a number of issues to the landlord’s attention in the time period considered by this investigation. We have considered each of these, alongside the actions taken by the landlord, to build a picture of the landlord’s overall handling of the concerns raised regarding the communal areas. However, only events which have been deemed to be the most pertinent to the outcome of this investigation are highlighted in this report.
The resident reported that the service charges had doubled but that the services offered were poor. We may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This means we will not investigate the level of the charge or the increase at the beginning of each year.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will maintain and redecorate all common parts, which includes the entrance, lifts and staircases.
The landlord’s estate management policy states that it is responsible for ensuring that cleaning and grounds maintenance are undertaken regularly to common parts in accordance with agreed levels for that scheme, estate or block. It states that where services are provided, it ensures the common parts are inspected, kept clean, safe and secure and are regularly maintained and promptly repaired. The policy says that where services are contracted, the landlord carries out inspections on a regular basis to ensure cleaning and grounds maintenance standards. It states that it aims to carry out inspections within a reasonable time after cleaning or gardening has taken place.
The estate management procedure states that the landlord will produce an annual action plan for each estate. The procedure states the action plan is a way to get solutions to problems or concerns on an estate, and that common issues could be estate maintenance, rubbish collection and antisocial behaviour. The procedure states that when drawing up an action plan, the landlord should take various actions including:
1. Draw up a list of known problems.
2. Consult with staff and residents to prioritise problems.
3. Explore the best options for action and who is the best person to do it.
4. Include realistic timescales to solve the problem.
To progress the action plan, the procedure states that the landlord should:
1. Carry out estate inspections and hold regular meetings with all groups.
2. Use a table to list the issues and update it regularly.
3. Use direct observation to spot problems.
The procedure states that when complaints are received about a contractor, it will raise the matter with the contractor and ask it to correct the failing within a specified period. Issues are then followed up during regular monthly contractor performance meetings.

The landlord’s handling of various repairs and maintenance within the communal areas of the block

In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the resident reported the poor standard of cleaning on 29 September 2022. The landlord said that it updated residents about the various issues in the building and sent an ongoing action plan on 30 September 2023. It said that it informed residents that its cleaning contractor would deep clean the carpet in December 2022 and would clear rubbish dumped on the floor outside. The landlord said that, following the resident’s complaint, it met with the cleaning contractor and created an action plan to address the issues. The landlord has not sent us copies of the action plans or any correspondence with the resident prior to his October 2022 complaint.
The landlord said its contractor carried out an inspection of the building on 10 November 2022. While this action was in line with its estate management procedure, the landlord again did not provide any records to reflect this inspection, which it should have done.
In his escalation request, the resident reported that, despite the visit from the contractor, the cleaning was still not up to standard and the carpet had not been cleaned. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that, during its regular site inspections, it had identified an improvement in the weekly cleaning standards. The landlord has not provided us with any records of the regular inspections it undertook. We would expect a landlord to keep such records so as to track and monitor the delivery of its services and contracts. The landlord’s record keeping has been addressed further below.
At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged that there were still concerns regarding the cleaning of the lifts and the carpets. It made efforts to remedy this by offering a 3-month refund for cleaning costs to all residents and arranged for its contractor to carry out a deep clean of the carpets free of charge. The landlord stated that it carried out monthly inspections of the building but had more recently been undertaking weekly inspections to monitor the cleaning standard. It also highlighted that other residents failed to keep the areas clean, which was not the fault of the cleaners.
The landlord identified that there were failings with the cleaning service and took a reasonable step to try to put things right by partially refunding the cleaning costs. It also took some appropriate steps to address the standard of cleaning. However, its records were limited and it did not state how it would continue to monitor the standard of cleaning. The landlord attached an action plan to the stage 2 response, bit it did not provide this to us and it could not confirm whether it undertook the actions set out in the plan. The landlord therefore did not demonstrate that it acted in line with its estate management procedure, or that it put a plan in place for monitoring the service provided by the cleaning contractor. This was a failing by the landlord.
The resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of rubbish being left outside and intruders entering the bin store. At stage 1, the landlord said it would repair the bin doors and change the codes to prevent unauthorised access. The resident expressed concerns that this would not stop people leaving rubbish on the pavement outside. At stage 2, the landlord stated it had received a quote to repair the doors. The landlord took into account that the doors were still broken when applying the 50% reduction in the management fee.
Fixing the doors and changing the codes was a reasonable step to prevent people from entering the bin store. However, the landlord did not provide a timeframe for the repair to be carried out and it is unclear when this done. Further, the landlord did not explain what, if any, actions it would take to monitor the rubbish left outside the bin store and on the pavement. It is unclear whether it was the cleaning contractor’s responsibility to remove the rubbish outside. The resident told us that rubbish continues to be left on the pavement outside the building and that the bin doors often do not work. Again, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had created an action plan to deal with this issue.
An order has been made below for the landlord to complete an action plan in accordance with its estate management procedure, which includes actions it will take to address and monitor the issues raised by the resident about cleaning and maintaining the block.
The resident also complained that walls in the communal areas were dirty and needed to be decorated. At stage 2, the landlord said that it had issued the first notice of intention on 9 January 2023, and the second would be issued by the end of February 2023. The landlord contacted us on 18 June 2023 and stated that the landlord had not sent the second notice of intention. This indicates that the landlord did not complete the actions set out in the stage 2 response, which was a failing. In February 2025, the resident informed us that the landlord had only painted the entrance to the building, and all communal areas still required painting. While it appears that some decoration has been carried out, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to update the resident on whether its plan to decorate the remaining communal areas. The resident may wish to make a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of the communal decoration since its stage 2 response.

The landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour from gangs congregating in and around the block

The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy states that estate based ASB may include gang crime. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord dealt with the reports under its ASB policy.
The landlord did not send us the resident’s initial reports about intruders entering the building. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that, in September 2022, the resident reported that he had been threatened by a gang who often entered the building to use drugs and vandalise.
The landlord identified that intruders were likely entering the building due to tailgating or being permitted access by other residents. The landlord appeared to take some reasonable steps to try to resolve the issue. It said it would remind residents to only allow access to their own visitors, promote the 24-hour security services on the communal noticeboard and inform the managing agent that onsite security should be more visible. It was reasonable for it to advise the resident to report any criminal activity to the police, and it said it had contacted the local Safer Neighbourhood team for support. While these were reasonable steps, the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the related communication with residents or the managing agent, and it did not inform us what advice or support, if any, it had received from the Safer Neighbourhood team.
When the resident referred his complaint to us, the resident said that the landlord had taken no action to prevent gangs entering and he felt it was unsafe to go home. In February 2025, the resident informed us that the landlord had put CCTV cameras at the entrance of the building, but that it does not check the footage when residents report issues.
The evidence indicates that the landlord took reasonable actions, and no failing has been found in relation to the time period this investigation covers. However, the landlord could have done more to inform the resident how it would continue to monitor the situation, as well as assess the effectiveness of the security services. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide further information to the resident about this.

The resident’s concern that he was paying for services that were not being provided and the level of the service charges and management fees

The resident complained that residents paid administration and service fees for services that were not being provided. When he raised his complaint to us, the resident said that the service charge had almost doubled with nothing added or improved to justify the increase.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or the amount of service charge increase. This means the Ombudsman is unable to investigate the level of the charge or the increase at the beginning of each year.
The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when.
We can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The landlord identified issues with the services provided and offered a refund on cleaning costs for 3 months and a 50% reduction in the management fee for the 2022-2023 financial year. The failings in the services provided have been discussed previously in the report and therefore will not be repeated here. However, the financial redress offered for the failings identified by the landlord was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of communication with the freeholder regarding the request for an EWS1 form

The landlord explained that the structural works were the responsibility of a management agency that had been instructed on behalf of the freeholder. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that it had sent letters of comfort to all residents on 18 January 2023 and that residents would not be recharged the costs of building safety works. It said that the managing agent had submitted the application for the full works and that this could take up to 6 months to be approved. The landlord stated that it was in constant contact with the managing agent and had been pursuing it for paperwork on a regular basis.
As the landlord is not the freeholder of the building, we are unable to consider delays in the structural works as they are not the landlord’s responsibility. We can consider its communication with the freeholder’s managing agent about the works.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on cladding states that where the landlord is not the freeholder of the building, they should proactively engage with the freeholder or their managing agent to ensure the landlord has as much information as possible to enable timely and comprehensive updates to residents. It states that landlords should ensure they respond to specific issues raised by residents and not provide entirely or substantially generic responses.
The landlord has not provided evidence of any communication it had with the managing agent or of updates it provided to residents about the structural works. As such, there is limited evidence for us to consider. The landlord has therefore not demonstrated that it properly communicated with the managing agent and the resident within the time period covered by this investigation, which was a failing. We have made an order for the landlord to provide an update to the resident about its recent communication with the managing agent.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and investigate the complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord identified failings regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint. It found that there was a delay in acknowledging the complaint, which the resident submitted on 15 October 2022. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 December 2022, which was 27 working days in excess of the 10-day timeframe stipulated in its complaints policy. The landlord offered the resident £50 in recognition of this delay.
The resident escalated his complaint on 12 December 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 January 2023. This was a minor delay of 12 days in excess of the 20-working day timeframe required for stage 2 responses.
The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 delay. However, it increased the compensation offered to £100 for the delays in progressing the stage 1 complaint. The overall amount offered was reasonable to redress the impact on the resident of the failing identified.
It is unclear how much compensation the landlord offered in total. At stage 1, the landlord offered £200. At stage 2, it offered £350. It is unclear whether the landlord increased its offer at stage 2 or whether this amount was in addition to what it offered at stage 1. An order has been made below for the landlord to clarify this and pay the correct amount, if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s record keeping

The landlord is responsible for maintaining a clear audit trail of events and providing evidence of this to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management states that good records will enable a landlord to explain what has happened and ensures that decisions and actions are taken based on good quality information.
As referred to above, the landlord has not provided clear records of actions taken in relation to the issues raised by the resident. It did not provide various evidence, including any correspondence with the resident about the issues prior to his complaint, action plans, records of inspections in the building or communication with the resident and managing agent about the structural fire safety works.
The absence of adequate records has impacted the Ombudsman’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This amounts to a failing by the landlord to provide sufficient evidence. It is unclear whether records have been maintained and not provided, or whether the lack of evidence is indicative of a failure to keep clear records. We have made recommendation below for the landlord to improve its record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its handling of various repairs and maintenance within the communal areas of the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of antisocial behaviour from gangs congregating in and around the block.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress that was reasonable to resolve the complaint about the resident’s concern that he was paying service charges for services that were not being provided and the level of the service charges and management fees.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its communication with the freeholder’s managing agent regarding the request for an EWS1 form.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress that was reasonable to resolve the complaint handling failings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure regarding the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Confirm the total amount of compensation it offered within its complaint responses, and pay the resident if it has not already done so.
3. Create an action plan detailing steps it will take to address and monitor the cleaning services and bin stores, which it should share with the resident and the Ombudsman.
4. Provide an update to the resident detailing its recent communication with the freeholder’s managing agent about the outstanding works.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with orders to the Ombudsman within the timeframe specified.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord writes to the resident with an update on whether it will decorate the remaining communal areas.
It is recommended that the landlord includes details of how it will monitor the security of the building within the action plan ordered above.
It is recommended that the landlord should conduct staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records of property inspections.