From 13 January 2026, we will 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 (202315662)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315662

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

29 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
    2. The resident’s concerns regarding her rent arrears.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives in the property with her daughter.
  2. On 22 August 2024, the resident emailed the landlord to say it was in breach of the agreement made as part of her previous complaint. She said as part of her accepting the landlord’s offer it was agreed that she could set up a payment plan for her rent arrears until December 2033. She said she was shocked to receive a “notice seeking legal action” letter from the landlord for outstanding arrears. The resident explained why she had previously withheld her rent and asked the landlord to write off the rent owed between March 2023 and August 2023.
  3. The resident provided images and videos of a current leak which she had reported to the landlord earlier that day. She said it was not stopping and it was affecting her kitchen and corridor. She said it was possibly the 8th leak she had experienced since moving into the property. She asked the landlord to provide an action plan detailing the steps it had put in place to stop her flat being affected by leaks from the property above.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 September 2024. She said she had returned home after a few days away to discover another leak in her flat. She confirmed it had since stopped however there was a mushroom growing on her kitchen ceiling as well as damp patches. She said this was an ongoing issue and the landlord had not done anything apart from trying to evict her because she kept bringing it up. She asked if it was safe for her to cook and prepare food in a kitchen with a mushroom growing from the ceiling.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 22 October 2024. It said it had arranged an appointment for 26 October 2024 to address the damp and mould. The landlord said inspections would take place in her building to ensure the leak had stopped and to address any underlying cause. It said it had asked the resident’s housing officer to review her payment plan for the rent arrears and to provide clarity on the matter. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint as the repair would be outside of its service level agreement. It also acknowledged the delays in providing its response. It offered a total of £150 in compensation.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 26 October 2024. She said the landlord did not respond to the request for clarification on what to expect regarding the repairs. She said someone attended her property regarding the damp and mould but they said the job was specifically for her kitchen and nowhere else. The resident said the landlord just painted over damp patches without addressing the cause of the leak. She said the landlord had also failed to provide a reasonable answer for why it was trying to evict her.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 January 2025. It stated the following:
    1. In an email from the resident dated 22 August 2024, the resident had referred to a previous stage 1 complaint. It said that complaint fell out of the scope of the current complaint. It said this was because in line with its policy, the resident had 20 working days to escalate her complaint and did not do so. It said it had also already addressed her request to have the rent arrears written off in its previous stage 1 response.
    2. It noted the resident requested an action plan on 22 August 2024 to address the leak affecting her property. It said it could not see that it addressed her concerns at the time. It apologised and said it should have acknowledged her email and concerns.
    3. It confirmed it attended on 26 October 2024 to address the damp concerns in the kitchen. It provided completion images. It acknowledged that it should have considered the other affected areas in the property and apologised for not doing so.
    4. It apologised that her housing officer had not been in touch to discuss the payment plan. It said it was an oversight and should have been better managed. It said it had requested the housing officer contact the resident within 10 working days of the stage 2 response.
    5. It noted that the resident’s housing officer completed an annual visit on 6 December 2024 and noted damp in the kitchen, living room and hallway. It said it should have been proactive and raised the repairs needed. It said it failed to do so. It confirmed it had raised a repair to address the outstanding damp concerns, which it arranged for 31 January 2025.
    6. It addressed the resident’s previous reported repairs in December 2023, it said the works were not actioned within a reasonable timeframe and it apologised for that.
    7. It awarded a total of £550 in compensation. £500 was for its handling of repair requests and £50 was for its complaint handling.
  8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said there was a payment plan in place for the rent arrears but the landlord was still taking legal action. She said it had still not addressed her requests to wipe the arrears. The resident said she wants the landlord to be better at communication and to keep accurate records so that she does not receive conflicting information from different members of staff. She said she had recurring leaks, damp and mould, and the landlord had not done anything to stop them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident has referred to a previous complaint made in July 2023 and the events which took place which led to the complaint. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 18 August 2023. It then provided a follow up offer of £500 compensation in January 2024 and outlined the steps it had taken to address her complaint. The resident accepted the offer and did not escalate the complaint. As such, we cannot consider this complaint as it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint concerns a request that the landlord write off her rent arrears for the period between March 2023 and July 2023. This Service cannot order the landlord to write off the arrears as determining liability for rent arrears is a matter for the Courts. Therefore, we will not be investigating this part of the complaint. However, we will consider the landlord’s response to the residents concerns following receipt of the notice of seeking possession and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances.

The reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property

  1. The landlord has not disputed that there were failings in this case which likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. Following the resident’s report of an uncontained leak on 22 August 2024, the landlord replied on the same day to request the address of the resident’s property and the property she believed the leak was coming from. It said once it received that information it would raise the repair. In a separate email, the resident sent pictures of the leak, she said the water from it was dirty, and she needed to disinfect the entire area.
  3. As acknowledged by the landlord in its stage 2 response, it did not respond to the resident or inform her of what action it would take to resolve the leak. In line with its policy, the landlord should have attended to the leak within 4 hours to make it safe. There is no evidence of it doing so. This likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and award compensation to recognise its failure.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 8 September 2024. She reported that there had been another leak which had since stopped. She said there was a mushroom growing on her ceiling as well as damp patches. The landlord raised a works order on 11 October 2024 and attended on 26 October 2024. The notes stated that it had applied a mould treatment to the affected area in the kitchen and repainted it with anti-mould paint.
  5. In line with its damp and mould policy and following the resident’s report, the landlord should have contacted the resident within 5 working days and agreed to visit within 10 working days. It states that during an inspection, it should make an assessment as to the cause of the damp and mould. And it should discuss any actions that it could take to reduce the occurrence of mould. It said it would record the initial inspection on a standardised template and share the report with the resident.
  6. There is no evidence of the landlord carrying out any of the above actions, which is a failing. The landlord’s failure to follow its policy likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who was concerned for the health and safety of the household.
  7. In an internal email dated 11 October 2024, the landlord referred to raising a repair to inspect the neighbouring flats. However, there is no further information regarding if or when an inspection took place and what the outcome was. In a further internal email dated 18 October 2024, the landlord acknowledged that it had paid compensation to the resident in the past without getting to the root of the problem. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it was essential to address any underlying root cause of the leaks, but it did not outline how it would do so or when. It is disappointing that despite acknowledging its failure, the landlord continued to repeat the same mistakes.
  8. As stated, the landlord treated the mould on the kitchen ceiling on 26 October 2024, which was outside of its service level agreement. However, the resident remained dissatisfied as she said the damp patches in her living room and daughter’s bedroom were unaddressed. It is a further failing that following the resident’s report that there was still damp and mould in other areas, the landlord did not take any action to address those reports.
  9. The landlord carried out an annual visit on 6 December 2024. It noted that there was damp in the kitchen, hallway, and living room which was going into the electrics and causing them to trip. Given the risks noted with the electrics, the landlord should have attended as an emergency and it is not appropriate that it did not do so. The landlord acknowledged it did not raise the repairs until 18 December 2024 and apologised for that.
  10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed it had arranged an appointment for 31 January 2025 at the resident’s request. It apologised for the overall delays and inconvenience caused to the resident since August 2024 and offered £500 compensation. It said it had spoken with her housing officer and their manager to remind them of the damp and mould procedure. It said it had also requested it to be discussed at their next team meeting.
  11. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge some of its failings. It offered compensation which was in line with its compensation procedure for failings which would have had an exceptional impact. However, the landlord did not acknowledge all its failings, put everything right, or show sufficient learning from the outcomes.
  12. The landlord did not outline how it would address the root cause of the leaks, damp, and mould in the property. The resident has stated that there is still damp and mould within the property. She said the landlord is aware of a socket in her living room which needed to be repositioned due to the risk of water entering it. An order will therefore be made for the landlord to carry out an inspection of the property and provide an action plan, with defined timescales, for carrying out any identified repairs.
  13. As part of this investigation, we requested the landlord provide relevant information that would reasonably be recorded and retained by it. In line with its policy, this should include records which demonstrate the landlord’s findings from inspections and its decision making to determine next steps. The landlord failed to provide this. We have not seen evidence of the landlord recording the repairs and we do not know what steps it took following the resident’s initial reporting of the leak. The landlord’s internal emails show confusion over what should be agreed and what the next steps were to resolve the issues.
  14. Access to such key information should be centrally accessible to ensure a co-ordinated approach to communication. The landlord repeatedly made the same mistakes in not following up with the resident or following its policy. And it is reasonable to consider that the landlord’s record keeping hindered the timeliness and effectiveness of its response to issues reported by the resident. An order will be made with the aim to put things right for the resident and to ensure the landlord learns from the outcomes.
  15. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged some of its failures in its complaint responses and offered compensation in line with that. However, the issues remain outstanding with no reassurances on how they will be fully resolved. The landlord showed some learning in its stage 2 response but in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not sufficiently account for why it made the repeated mistakes or how it has ensured it will not happen again.
  16. As such, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £250 in compensation. This is to put right its poor communication and the impact caused to the resident, its lack of investigation into the leaks, damp and mould, and its failure to show how it will not repeat the same mistakes in future. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for persistent failure over a prolonged period of time.

The resident’s concerns regarding her rent arrears

  1. The landlord’s income collection policy says if a resident falls behind on payments it will closely monitor the situation and reach out to understand the reasons why. It says it wants to ensure repayments are established as soon as possible and it will support residents who show a genuine commitment to work to clear the debt. It states that if a resident is unable to make satisfactory repayments, despite its efforts to provide support, it will assess the situation on a case-by-case basis. It says where there is a high risk of continued non-payment, it may apply to the court.
  2. In a telephone note with the resident on 5 August 2024, the landlord noted that the resident seemed distressed. She asked why she was being issued with a final demand when she had been sticking to her payment plan for rent arrears. She explained that she had been told that if she made regular payments, no further action would be taken. The resident was advised in the call that although she was making payments towards the arrears, it still needed to follow its policy, and issue her with a final demand.
  3. The landlord sent the resident a “notice of seeking possession” letter dated 19 August 2024. It said as she remained in rent arrears which currently stood at £5,353 it had no alternative but to issue her with the notice. The letter stated that if there were any personal circumstances or other issues that the resident would like it to take into account when deciding whether to proceed to court, she should write to it and let it know within 28 days.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 22 August 2024 expressing her concerns with the letter. She outlined the reasons why she had previously withheld rent as she felt the property was not habitable. She attached a screenshot confirming that the landlord created a payment plan for her on 15 February 2024 and was in effect until December 2033.
  5. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s email. The resident has referred to a telephone call with her housing officer that same day. She said she was advised to ignore the letter as it was an automated one. The landlord has not provided any record of the call. As such, we cannot determine what the resident was told or that the landlord reasonably responded to the resident’s concerns at the time.
  6. In an internal email dated 16 September 2024, the landlord queried what the status of its response was. It acknowledged the resident had a prior repayment agreement but had received the standard letter from it about legal action. It asked if her payment account could be updated. We have not been provided with any further correspondence in relation to this.
  7. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that the payment plan was active. It said it was not able to amend the plan or write off some of the arrears as requested. It said it had asked her housing officer to review the plan and contact her to provide clarity. The landlord failed to address its initial lack of response to the resident and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result.
  8. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised as no one had contacted the resident to discuss the issue further. It said this was an oversight which could have been better managed. It said it requested her housing officer contact the resident within 10 working days of its response. It said the request to have some of the arrears written off fell outside of the scope of the investigation. It said this was because it had already addressed it in its previous stage 1 response.
  9. We have not seen evidence of the housing officer responding to the resident within 10 working days as promised and the resident has stated that she never did receive a response, which is a failing. The landlord has not evidenced how it has acted in line with its policy which says it will provide support to residents and work with them to find an affordable and appropriate repayment plan.
  10. As stated, the Ombudsman cannot determine liability for rent arrears. The landlord sent the resident a pre-action protocol letter on 28 February 2025. The resident has also advised the Ombudsman that a court date has been scheduled for October 2025.
  11. Overall, it is evident that the landlord’s response to the residents concerns was poor. It is unclear whether there were any steps which could have been taken to prevent further action and it is a failing that the landlord continuously failed to clarify this to the resident. While the landlord acknowledged its lack of response, it did not show learning from its mistakes nor did it consider awarding compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  12. As a result, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding rent arrears. An order will be made for the landlord to clarify its position on the rent arrears and to address the resident’s concerns in writing. The landlord must also pay the resident £100 for its repeated failure to respond to the resident’s concerns and the likely distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation guidance for an issue which took longer than expected to resolve.

The complaint

  1. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issues on 22 August 2024 and it should have treated it as a complaint. It apologised for not doing so, which was reasonable.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses were provided outside of its service level agreements. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this in the responses and offer compensation. The landlord offered £50 for the overall delays. It acknowledged that while there were delays at stage 2, it did inform the resident of the need for an extension and provided the new date it would aim to respond by. This was also reasonable.
  3. In its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately outlined how some of the issues raised in the residents complaint fell outside of the scope of its investigation. It said this was because they were addressed as part of a previous stage 1 response in which she accepted £500 compensation. It said she did not escalate that complaint within 20 working days, which was in line with its policy.
  4. Overall, the landlord showed how it had aimed to manage the resident’s expectations by reasonably informing her of the stage 2 extension and outlining the scope of its investigation. These actions were in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. Where it failed to meet its service level agreements, it offered a proportionate amount of compensation to recognise the impact caused to the resident.
  5. As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of leaks, damp, and mould in the property.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding her rent arrears.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. A senior member of the landlord staff must apologise for the additional failings outlined within this report. Specifically, its failure to fully investigate and resolve the issue of leaks, damp and mould in the resident’s property, its repeated failure to follow its policies, and its poor communication regarding the resident’s rent arrears. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
  2. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £850 in compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. £500 it previously offered as part of its stage 2 response if it has not already been paid.
    2. £250 for the additional failures in its response to the leaks, damp, and mould.
    3. £100 for the failing identified in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding her rent arrears.
  3. The landlord must carry out an inspection of the resident’s property, it should take into account the previous reports of leaks and ongoing concerns. In line with its damp and mould policy, it should then produce a report which considers the cause of the issues. It should also produce an action plan for any identified repairs, with defined timescales for when they will be competed.
  4. The landlord must write to the resident confirming its current position on the rent arrears. This should include:
    1. The status of her current repayment plan and why it did not prevent further escalation by the landlord.
    2. The landlord said it previously addressed the resident’s request to write off her rent charged between March 2023 and August 2023. The landlord should confirm what its response was at the time.
    3. What support it can offer, if any, to assist with the resident’s ongoing concerns.
  5. The landlord must reflect on its repeated failures and what action it will take or has already taken to prevent a reoccurrence of the identified failings. This should include any steps to improve its record keeping if it has not already done so.
  6. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not already been paid to the resident, the landlord should re-offer the £50 it previously offered for its complaint handling.