Notting Hill Genesis (202313839)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313839

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the bedroom walls.
2. Concerns raised over staff conduct and communication.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 1-bed flat under an assured tenancy agreement which began on 23 March 2020.
The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for this resident. The resident said that he had mental health issue and breathing issues.
The complaint centres around repairs to the resident’s bedroom walls. Following the resident’s stripping the wallpaper in his bedroom, he exposed damaged walls which he described as “crumbling”. He contacted the landlord to raise a repair and was subsequently dissatisfied with the repairs process, staff communication and the handling of his complaint.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 October 2023 via the Ombudsman, in which he said:
1. He was dissatisfied with the condition of his bedroom walls and the handling of the repairs.
2. He felt that the level of communication received from the landlord’s staff had not been sufficient.
3. He was seeking reimbursement of the money spent himself on completing the plastering repairs and additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 November 2023. It said:
1. It apologised for the delay in issuing the complaint response and attributed this to staff absence. It offered £50 compensation for this.
2. It had first raised a job for the repairs in the property on 7 August 2022. It said that its contractor attended, but the resident wanted all 4 walls repaired (rather than the 2 it said he had initially reported) and he declined the works. The landlord said that it closed the job on 27 September 2022.
3. There had been a delay in the landlord’s initial attendance due to contractor processes. It offered £50 compensation for this delay.
4. It had not found a service failure in its the attendance at the job, as it said that the resident had only reported 2 walls that required repair.
5. Following the resident raising a complaint on 18 November 2022, it had raised a new job on 29 November 2022 for repairs to the 2 bedroom walls, boxing around the boiler and pipework, installation of an extractor fan in the bathroom and tiling.
6. It had arranged for a contractor to attend to quote for the works on 30 November 2022. It said this quote was passed for approval, which was given on 20 January 2023.
7. The works were attended on 15 March 2023. The landlord apologised for the delays in completing the works and offered £250 for the distress and inconvenience.
8. It could see “periods where the contact and response [was] limited or not followed through and more information about [its] repair responsibility and procedure could have been provided.” It apologised for this and offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process on 30 January 2024 as he said he had not received a response to previous correspondence to the landlord. The landlord later called the resident to confirm his grounds for escalation which included:
1. Inaccuracies in the stage 1 complaint response, that said he had declined the works. The resident said this was not true.
2. That the contractor had caused damage to his possessions, which required them to be dry cleaned afterwards. He also said that the contractors had left excrement in his toilet and left his property “in a state”.
3. That he had arranged for a private contractor to fill holes and plaster his bedroom. He had been quoted £950 for these works.
4. Further reports of ongoing poor communication from the landlord’s staff.
5. That he had to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman for it to be escalated to stage 2.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 March 2024 and said:
1. It apologised for saying the resident had refused the works in its stage 1 complaint response. It said it should have investigated this further.
2. It was happy to reimburse the resident’s costs for dry cleaning his personal possessions if he sent suitable receipts for this.
3. It apologised for the conduct of its contractors and offered compensation for poor workmanship.
4. It would need further details about the private works undertaken before it could consider reimbursing this cost. The landlord requested details about where the works were and evidence of payment.
5. It accepted that “there [had] been poor communication from [the landlord] throughout dealing with these repair issues which [was] unacceptable and [had] delayed works being completed.” The landlord apologised for this and offered compensation.
6. In total it was offering £952.50 compensation comprised of:
  1. £100 for complaint handling delays.
  2. £250 for poor communication.
  3. £250 for “poor workmanship and planning.”
  4. £150 for a “failure of the complaint process.”
  5. £202.50 as a goodwill gesture for the resident’s dry cleaning costs.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 19 September 2024 seeking compensation and a refund of the costs he incurred hiring a private plasterer to complete works.

Assessment and findings

Repairs in the resident’s bedroom

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords have a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, which includes the roof, walls, windows, doors and external fixtures. Once notified of a defect, landlords must make a lasting and effective repair in a reasonable time.
The landlord’s repair policy says:
1. It will respond to emergency repairs within 4 hours and complete the repair within 24 hours.
2. It will complete all other standard repairs within 20 working days.
3. It is the resident’s responsibility to repair “any small cracks in plaster or woodwork.”
4. It is the landlord’s responsibility to repair “structural damage to inside walls, floors, ceilings, skirtings, and air vents.”
Within its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it first raised a job for the bedroom wall repair on 7 August 2022, following contact from the resident. The resident reported that he had stripped wallpaper in his bedroom and found the underlying wall and plaster to have holes and be “crumbling”. The resident told the landlord that the holes were big enough for rodents to get through.
Following the initial report, the resident emailed the landlord on 11 August 2022 to confirm that the contractor it had appointed was “aware that all of the walls in the bedroom will need to be looked at and repaired?”. The resident also called the landlord on 19 August 2022 and confirmed that all four walls in his bedroom would need to be skimmed and plastered.
In response to these reports the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. Told the resident on 31 August 2022 that it had chased its contractor for an appointment “to get the bedroom walls repaired”. It said that the resident would get an update in the next 2 working days.
2. Arranged for a contractor to attend on 14 November 2022, three months after the issue was reported. The works sheet showed the repair to “attend and make good any damage to the bedroom walls”. The repair log said that the “client disputed what needs to be done […] he didn’t want any work done until he [had] spoken to his housing officer.” The landlord marked the repair as complete on this day.
3. In response to contact from the resident on 18 November, in which he said “this repair has not been done. No work has started or been finished”, it arranged for a further contractor visit. This was shown as completed on 21 December 2022. The notes from this visit say that the contractor attended the site, but that the resident declined works because he wanted all of the walls skimmed in the bedroom.
4. Undertook works and a completion report in March 2023, although the exact date is unknown. The works shown as “fully complete” included: “two walls in bedroom: strip existing wallpaper, fill/repair any damage to walls and skim/plaster the wall ready for tenant to redecorate,” along with other repairs in the property. The completion report was dated and signed off on 5 April 2023.
5. Sent a surveyor to the property on 28 June 2023, following reports from the resident that the bedroom had “holes and crumbling walls everywhere”. The resident also said that he had no bed and was not staying in the property.
6. Told the resident on 29 June 2023 and 4 July 2023 that the repairs to the plaster in his bedroom were his responsibility as he had stripped the wallpaper as part of redecoration.
7. Told the resident’s MP on 20 July 2023, in response to a member enquiry received on 11 July 2023, that the works to repair the plaster in the bedroom had been completed on 15 March 2023. It also said that its surveyor was reviewing photographs it had received from the resident and would reply to him by 29 July 2023.
8. Arranged an appointment for a contractor to attend the resident’s property on 9 August 2023 to “look at and do the walls”. The resident said that the contractor believed he was there to paint over cracks. He also said that the contractor felt the whole room and ceiling needed replastering and said that he was not able to complete the works required himself.
9. Referred the matter to its surveyor following concerns raised by the resident on 3 October 2023 when he said “the plastering job in my bedroom has not been completed to the required standard” and requested temporary rehousing. The landlord told the resident it would be in touch when it heard back from its surveyor and that he did not qualify for a decant.
10. Noted internally on 13 November 2023 that the resident had replastered the walls himself, and that this has been noted following the surveyor visit which was completed on 1 November 2023. The surveyor had noted that the “current state of the walls is good.”
On the basis of the works shown above, the evidence shows that the repair was not initially attended by the landlord’s contractor for around three months. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 1 complaint response and offered £50 compensation. The complaint response did not give any explanation for this delay or provide any learning or action to prevent a reoccurrence in the future. This was a failing by the landlord and a missed opportunity to reset the tone of works moving forward with the resident.
Throughout the course of these repairs and the associated complaint, there was also evidence of conflicting views given to the resident about his responsibilities for undertaking the repair. On several occasions, the resident was told that it was his duty to undertake repairs to the wall and plaster, because he had removed the wallpaper covering this. The resident said on one occasion he was told that wallpaper had been put up to conceal this.
The landlord is responsible, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, and under its own repairs policy for repairs to “structural damage to inside walls, floors, ceilings, skirtings, and air vents.” Residents are only responsible for repairing “any small cracks in plaster.” On this basis, the position adopted by the landlord was incorrect, confusing and can only have caused the resident additional time, trouble and distress in pursuing this matter.
Another significant factor in this case was a lack of case oversight and scoping of the works. The landlord repeatedly told the resident that it would only repair the two walls he had partially uncovered when he had begun redecorations. Its repair records with its contractors do not specify the number of walls to be repaired and the resident sought clarification on this on several occasions, without meaningful reply. On at least one occasion, the resident said that contractors arrived without understanding the scope of works, and were not able to complete the task.
On 13 November 2023, the landlord’s internal communication noted the following pattern “we raise works for the two walls he started peeling but whenever contractors attend he refuses works as we won’t do all the walls in the room. This has gone on for 2 years”. The landlord’s lack of proactive management of this repair case allowed the matter to cause significant additional time and trouble for all parties and this was compounded by the landlord’s poor communication (which is discussed later in this report).
Additionally, as set out above, the landlord is responsible, once put on notice, to undertake a lasting and effective repair to any defective parts of the property. This duty is not absolved when the walls in question remain covered with wallpaper. There is no evidence that the landlord instructed its own surveyor to assess the remaining walls in the bedroom prior to instructing contractors to attend. If it had done so, it may have been able to comment more authoritatively on the status of the walls underneath the remaining wallpaper and arrange any repairs necessary alongside the existing works.
The landlord told the resident’s MP that the works were completed on 15 March 2023. It later raised further works orders and marked the works as complete on 29 September 2023. The resident disputed this and went on to arrange a private plasterer to attend. He said that this cost him around £950.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord requested further details from the resident around this cost, including where the repairs were and if they were needed. The resident supplied an invoice to the landlord around a week later, along with the contact details of the plasterer who completed the works. The resident chased the landlord for this payment on 19 September 2024 and at the time of this investigation has received no contact or reimbursement of these costs. This is a significant failing and an order has been made in respect of this below.
Within this complaint, the resident said he was not able to live in property due to the condition of the walls in his bedroom. Initially he told the landlord that he had moved his bed and possessions into his front room and later that he had moved out to live with friends. The landlord told the resident that he did not qualify for a decant during this period. The resident disputed this and has sought compensation sought for this period. It is unclear if or how the landlord assessed the impact of the living situation on the resident and on this basis, how it came to the reasoned decision that a decant was not necessary.
Further to this, the resident said that he incurred over £200 of dry cleaning costs when his clothing and possessions were damaged during the works. The landlord committed to repaying this in its stage 2 complaint response. This was a reasonable and appropriate response.
Taking these elements together, there have been several failings in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bedroom due to:
1. Delays in undertaking an initial assessment or attempting a repair.
2. A lack of a lasting and effective repair over an extended period.
3. A lack of case ownership and progression, despite several reoccurring issues around the scope of works and condition of the remaining walls.
4. An unclear basis for denying the resident a decant, when requested.
5. The resident needing to engage a plaster privately to complete the works to a satisfactory standard.
6. Delays in reviewing and (if appropriate) raising payment for the costs incurred by the resident in completing the works privately. These remain outstanding at the time of investigation.
In recognition of this, the evidence shows that the landlord apologised for the delays and offered the following compensation in respect of these issues:
1. £250 for poor workmanship and planning.
2. £202.50 goodwill gesture for dry cleaning.
While it was positive to note that the landlord apologised and made these offers of compensation, this was not sufficient remedy to account for the period of time that the resident had been reporting these issues, particularly if the £202.50 of actual incurred cost is deducted. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord has explored the root cause of the delays and confusion in the completion of these works and that is a significant failing.
On this basis, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s bedroom. Orders and recommendations have been made in respect of this below.

Staff conduct and communication

As part of the complaint, the resident said that the landlord’s staff’s conduct and communication had been poor. This included periods of several weeks or months when the resident felt that his communication had gone unanswered and ignored. For example, he said that his housing officer did not contact him (bar once to arrange a gas safety check) between 18 July 2023 and 16 November 2023, despite him raising outstanding repairs.
The resident also complained about the conduct of the landlord’s contractors who had left excrement in his toilet and had left his property “in a state” following repair works.
In response to this, the evidence shows that the landlord:
1. Acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident had made “numerous attempts” to contact his housing officer who had “not always responded in a timely manner”. The landlord apologised for this and offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of this.
2. Acknowledged further in its stage 2 complaint response that “there [had] been poor communication from [the landlord] throughout dealing with these repair issues which [was] unacceptable and [had] delayed works being completed.” The landlord apologised for this and offered £250 compensation.
3. Apologised in its stage 2 complaint response for the conduct of its contractors. It offered £250 compensation in respect of this for poor workmanship.
While it is positive to note that the landlord apologised and offered suitable compensation within its complaint responses for the conduct of its staff and contractors, there is little evidence to show any review, learning or changes in practices to prevent a reoccurrence in future.
The landlord should have identified the reasons for the poor staff conduct, unanswered correspondence and behaviour of its contractors. It should then have made process changes, undertaken retraining or altered policies. Particularly in the case of the conduct of its contractor, there is no evidence that this was raised by the landlord in contract review meetings or similar. By not addressing the root causes of this poor conduct and communication, this was a failing by the landlord.
In addition to this, the evidence supplied by the landlord indicates a culture of poor communication with the resident, which went unaddressed by other members of the landlord’s staff. This included case notes which referenced the resident’s character. Others indicated that he had refused works unreasonably on the arrival of its contractors, despite the landlord previously recording his request that all four walls be addressed. This was a failing in both conduct and process.
On this basis, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised over staff conduct and in its communication. The landlord must now identify what learning it can take from this case and apply this across the relevant departments. It must also review the conduct of its contractors and show what action it will take to address this. Orders have been made in respect of this below.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint policy in which it commits to responding to resident complaints in the following timescales:
1. Stage 1 – 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 – 20 working days.
In addition to this, it has a “quick fix procedure” for simple issues that the landlord believes it can complete within 48 hours of receipt.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out a number of key principles that landlords are required to adhere to in the management of complaints. This includes the following:
1. Landlords must operate a two-stage process without any additional or informal stages as this causes confusion and delay.
2. Landlords must respond to complaints within the timescales in the Code. This is 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is to avoid extending the complaint process or delaying access to the Ombudsman.
3. Landlords must not extend the timescales for responding to complaint by more than 10 working days. In cases of extensions this must be clearly explained to the resident and the Ombudsman’s details must be provided.
The evidence shows that the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 30 working days after receipt and its stage 2 complaint response 40 working days after receipt. Both responses were issued in excess of the timescales shown in the landlord’s complaints policy and required by the Code. The landlord attributed this to staff absence in its stage 1 complaint response.
In addition to this, the resident said that he had to escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman in order for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord apologised for these delays and offered the resident £50 compensation at stage 1 and increased this to £250 in its stage 2 response. This was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance (available on our website) given the delays experienced.
The landlord’s policy references a ‘quick fix’ procedure for complaints that it believes it can complete within 48 hours. While this does not appear to have been applied in this case, the landlord should note that this may not be Code-compliant as this introduces another stage to the complaint process. It is also unclear who or how the determinations are made regarding the 48 hour time limit. The landlord should review this practice and a recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
Taking these factors together, the landlord has offered redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord is recommended to review the case for its own organisational development and implement any learning identified in a reasonable period of time.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there has been:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s bedroom.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised over staff conduct and communication.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failures identified in this determination.
2. Pay the resident £800 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £500 for the resident’s loss of amenity in his bedroom over a protracted period while the repairs were completed.
  2. £300 for the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing the matters to completion, exacerbated by the landlord’s poor communication.

If the landlord has paid the £500 compensation that it offered in its stage 2 complaint response in respect of poor communication and poor workmanship (or any part of it), it may deduct this from the amount ordered above.

Assess the evidence supplied by the resident related to the costs he incurred in hiring a private plasterer to complete the works. The landlord must give its position in writing to this Service and the resident on whether it will reimburse these costs. If the landlord agrees to reimburse the resident, it must arrange payment within a period not exceeding a further 14 days.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to undertake a case review to determine:
1. The root causes for the poor staff conduct, particularly around timely communication. This must include an assessment of why the resident’s correspondence and evidence for reimbursement of his costs went unanswered for a period of around 12 months.
2. The reasons for the lack of management oversight and progression of the repairs case, which ultimately led to the resident completing the works himself.
3. What actions the landlord could take, such as training or process changes, to prevent a reoccurrence in the future, and how it will implement these changes in a period not exceeding a further 12 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Review its complaint handling in this case for its own organisational development. Any learning or process changes identified should be implemented in a reasonable period of time.
2. Review its ‘quick fix’ procedure in its complaint policy to ensure that this is compliant with the requirements of the Code.