Notting Hill Genesis (202304367)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304367

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

19 August 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. The resident’s reports of noise coming from the hot water cylinder in her property.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a flat under an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association.
The landlord replaced the resident’s hot water cylinder in March 2023. Several days after installation she started reporting it was making a loud noise intermittently. It responded by getting an external contractor to inspect the cylinder and attempt repairs on several occasions.
On 25 May 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She said despite it arranging multiple inspections and repairs to the cylinder the noise issue remained. She wanted it to fix the issue as soon as possible.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint by organising further inspections. It said it felt this was a “quick fix” to her complaint and that the inspections should lead to a resolution. It therefore closed her complaint without offering a formal response.
After intervention from us the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 4 October 2023. It acknowledged that it had dealt with the complaint incorrectly and apologised. It recognised the noise issue was still ongoing and said it would arrange for a joint inspection between itself and two external contractors. It also offered her £100 compensation.
The resident escalated her complaint on 18 October 2023. She was dissatisfied with its explanations and the level of compensation..
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 26 October 2023. It had taken too long to resolve the noise issue and there had been missed appointments. It said it had fitted a new cylinder on 25 October 2023 which should resolve the issue. It apologised for its failings, explained how it was changing its processes and offered her a total of £300 compensation.
The resident brought her complaint to the Service. She felt the landlord had taken no accountability for its own failings in her complaint. She said it instead it had blamed its contractors. She said she had to constantly chase it for updates, and it took 7 months to fix the issue which was not acceptable. She felt its offer of compensation did not reflect the inconvenience constant inspections and repairs had. She wanted its service to improve, as she felt it only took any action after she complained.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise coming from the hot water cylinder in her property

The landlord’s repairs policy identifies different types of repairs and the deadlines it aims to complete these within. It identifies routine repairs as non-urgent work to rectify an issue. It aims to complete routine repairs with 20 working days of report. It says it aims to complete repairs in the first visit, but some issues may require further works or inspections to fully resolve. It also says it may give some jobs to external contractors if they are best placed to complete the repair.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states she must allow the landlord access for inspections and repairs providing it gives her reasonable notice.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it awards compensation for multiple reasons based on the level of impact its failings. For distress and inconvenience it says it can offer up to £250 compensation, with any awards between £125 and £250 for high impact caused. It can offer £30 per missed appointments by its contractors.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord was that it failed to fix an intermittent noise issue coming from the hot water cylinder in good time. In both her complaint and escalation, she said it had completed multiple inspections and repairs but the issue was still not resolved. She highlighted the constant visits were inconvenient as she worked and could not keep taking time off to be in for visits. She also said the contractor had missed several appointments or rescheduled them at the last minute. She felt the issue was caused by the new hot water cylinder it installed in March 2023 and she wanted it to fix it with minimal disruption to her and her property.
In both the landlord’s complaint responses it acknowledged its repair service had been poor. It said it had taken a long time to try and find a resolution to the noise issue and recognised that its contractor had missed several appointments. At stage 1 it said it was arranging for further inspections to find the cause of the issue and would then complete necessary repairs. It apologised for the delays and offered her £100 compensation for the inconvenience and disruption.
At stage 2 the landlord confirmed it had now fitted a new cylinder, apologised for the delays in getting this resolved and again acknowledged its contractor had missed appointments. It also said some of the delays had been caused by conflicting information from the contractor on whether any further works were needed. It apologised, explained how it planned to put this right going forward and offered her a total of £300 compensation. This comprised of £100 for missed appointments and £200 for the inconvenience caused.
It took 163 working days from the date the resident first reported the issue to the landlord to when the new cylinder was fitted and the noise issue resolved. This is well outside of the 20 working day aim set out in its repairs policy. It recognised these delays as a failing in both its responses and apologised, which was appropriate to do given the circumstances.
Nevertheless, sometimes certain repairs do require multiple inspections and repair attempts to try and fully remedy the issue, especially in cases such as this when the specific cause was not known. The landlord’s repairs policy also recognises this can sometimes be the case. The evidence shows that while there were multiple inspections of the cylinder between March and October 2023, any work identified was completed within 20 working days of inspection.
While multiple inspections and repairs were understandably inconvenient to the resident, the evidence shows the landlord was taking the advice of its contractors about potential solutions . It gave the resident appropriate notice of any visits, and rescheduled visits on several occasions at her request. These were appropriate actions and relevant to the nature and scale of the problem.
The landlord said its service was poor. However apart from acknowledging there had been some missed appointments it did not identify any additional failings in its service. This was a missed opportunity on its part, and not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which explains landlord’s should provide clear reasons for any decisions. An explanation as to what it was referring to would have provided clarity on any failings it had found.
Nothing in the evidence suggests the resident was without heating or hot water. This complaint centres wholly on the intermittent noise from the boiler. Accordingly, the compensation the landlord offered was in line with both its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for an issue which has caused inconvenience and frustration, but no longer term impact. The £100 it offered for two missed appointments exceeded its policy of £30 per appointment..
Overall it took a significant amount of time to fully resolve the issue and there were missed appointments. The landlord acknowledged where it believed its service had fallen short of reasonable expectations, apologised, explained how it would improve its service and offered a reasonable level of compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy says it operates a two-stage complaint process. It says sometimes a complaint will be dealt with as a “quick fix” if it regarding a single issue that can be resolved within 5 working days of it receiving the complaint.
The landlord aims to respond to formal complaints within 10 working days at stage 1 of the complaints process and 20 days at stage 2.
The resident raised her complaint to the landlord on 25 May 2023. The landlord did not respond until 14 August 2023, when it sent her what it referred to as a “quick fix” response to her complaint. That was not appropriate. The complaint contained multiple issues, not a singular issue that its complaints policy states could then be dealt with as a “quick fix”. It also failed to inform her in good time that it was planning on dealing with her complaint in this way. Additionally, the solution it offered was for another reinspection, not an actual solution.
In response the resident made it clear on 18 August 2023 she a formal complaint response and felt the landlord’s failure to do so was minimising her complaint. Despite this the landlord failed to issue its stage 1 response until 4 October 2023 after intervention by the Service. This was 93 working days after she first raised her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged its poor complaint handling and apologised to the resident. However, it did not offer any additional compensation. This was a missed opportunity to acknowledge the significant delays and the impact on the resident.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it was normal for it to delay providing a formal complaint response and compensation until an issue was fully resolved. This approach is not in its complaints procedure. It is also not in line with the Code, which states that a response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with regular updates provided to the resident.
Overall, there were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. While it acknowledged this failing in both its responses and apologised, it failed to offer suitable redress to remedy the failings found and the impact caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of issues with the hot water cylinder in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord is order to:
1. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the complaint handling failures identified.
2. Pay the resident the £300 compensation it offered in its final response, if it has not already done so.
Evidence of compliance with this order must be provided to the Service.