Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

Notting Hill Genesis (202321669)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321669

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

14 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Cracks in the wall of the property.
    2. Missing roof tiles.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has had a secure tenancy of the property, a 3-bedroom house, since 1991. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. The resident reported cracks in May 2021 and the landlord surveyed the property later that month. The surveyor found hairline cracks throughout. They believed some were due to movement but reassured the resident they were nothing to worry about. They recommended monitoring cracks in the hallway and living room for 2 years and advised her to report any changes.
  3. On 25 March 2022 the resident reported the cracks had worsened and asked for another inspection. She provided supporting photographs which the landlord used to carry out a remote survey on 1 April 2022. There is no record of what this found, other than that the landlord offered £80 vouchers as a goodwill gesture to redecorate the hallway.
  4. The resident called again on 24 August 2022 and said she could fit a coin in the cracks. Although this was referred to a surveyor, there is no record of any further action. The resident raised this again on 16 December 2022 and also reported missing roof tiles. The landlord closed the repairs for cracks on 25 January 2023 when a surveyor noted they were not structurally significant and appeared to be minor settlement cracks. They documented the landlord did not need to do anything other than ensure the walls were in a condition to be redecorated.
  5. The resident complained on 3 February 2023 and said she believed the cracks needed ‘skimming and meshing’. She said the landlord had removed wallpaper from the hallway (she did not say when) and refused to put things right (and redecorate). She said no one had inspected the roof.
  6. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 16 February 2023. It said it had cancelled surveys for 15 and 17 February 2023, to inspect the cracks and the roof, as the resident was unwell. It agreed to contact her on 24 February 2023 to confirm the dates of any re-arranged appointments.
  7. A survey of 10 March 2023 found minor hairline cracks in the hallway and living room. The surveyor recommended they were repaired with ‘easy filler’. They said the issues were decorative and not the landlord’s responsibility to repair. The resident disagreed with this opinion on 11 April 2023 and said there were large cracks in the windowsill and the wall. She reiterated her complaint that the landlord had removed wallpaper from her hallway. She highlighted that she had asked for the roof to be repaired in December 2022. She asked the landlord to treat this as a stage 2 complaint on 19 April 2023.
  8. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 June 2023. It agreed a final inspection by a senior surveyor to identify the cause of cracks. It said it would monitor the outcome and follow up any recommendations. It acknowledged communication failures and that it delayed repairing the roof until 7 June 2023. It apologised for any inconvenience and awarded £425 compensation (£100 for failures dealing with reports of cracks, £100 for the delay repairing the roof, £150 for inconvenience caused, and £75 for complaint handling delays).
  9. A survey of 9 June 2023 recommended localised plaster repairs and expanding metal mesh over large cracks in the hallway and kitchen. The surveyor also recommended a precautionary drainage survey that took place on 13 July 2023, with follow up work completed on 30 August 2023. The subsequent work to repair the cracks was not completed until 22 April 2024.
  10. On 22 May 2024 the landlord issued another stage 1 response. It accepted that it had previously instructed contractors to remove wallpaper from the hallway and agreed to put this right. It awarded £200 compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident pursuing this issue.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports of cracks

  1. The resident reported issues with cracks as early as 2021. However, in the interest of fairness, and taking into account the availability of evidence, we have assessed the landlord’s handling of issues from 25 March 2022, which were raised through both stages of the complaint process.
  2. The only record of the ‘desk-top’ review of April 2022 was the landlord’s offer of a voucher. The landlord should have a detailed record of this survey, even if it was decided that no further action was needed.
  3. Following the resident’s report of 24 August 2022, the landlord should have treated this as a standard repair and responded within 20 working days, as per its repair policy. However, evidence suggests the repair was not logged until 16 December 2022, 81 working days later. This was a failure in service.
  4. On 6 January 2023 the landlord disagreed with a contractor’s quote to repair the cracks with mesh and render to avoid them reappearing. Notes show it believed the quote did not provide value for money. It asked contractors to provide a more competitive quote or further evidence of the cracks.
  5. While we accept repairs must provide good value for money, it appears that the landlord arranged quotes for repairs to the cracks without prior inspection. The landlord’s repair policy says it is responsible for structural repairs and the resident is responsible for repairing any small cracks in plasterwork. It also says prior inspections are required when previous repairs have not resolved a problem and investigations to identify the problem are required. The landlord acted unreasonably by arranging repairs without determining the extent and cause of the cracks or who was responsible for repairing them.
  6. This was a failure in service which was exacerbated when contractors attended again on 13 January 2023, seemingly to obtain information to support their further quote to fill the cracks and make good. These appointments were unnecessary and misled the resident to believe that the landlord was accepting responsibility for repairing the cracks.
  7. It is positive the landlord arranged a final inspection by a senior surveyor. This shows it took the resident’s concerns seriously. It is also positive that it apologised for the error raising repairs in its stage 2 response and that this may have misled the resident to believe it would carry out minor repairs to the plaster. It awarded £100 for its failures dealing with the cracks and £150 for the inconvenience caused overall. For the purpose of this investigation, we have allocated £75 of the inconvenience award to the failures involving the repairs to cracks. This was reasonable remedy for the failings identified at that point.
  8. However, the subsequent survey of 9 June 2023 identified further repairs (over and above filling the cracks with ‘easy filler’). These were not completed until 22 April 2024. This was 318 days from when the survey took place and significantly outside the 20 working day target. This amounted to maladministration, which the landlord has not apologised for or remedied. We therefore order the landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation (inclusive of the £175 already awarded) in recognition of the delay carrying out appropriate repairs to cracks. This is inline with our remedies guidance for when the resident has been adversely affected and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the full detriment to the resident.

Landlord’s handling of roof repairs

  1. The resident has reported further issues with roof repairs and leaks, following the stage 2 response. As we have explained, in the interests of fairness, we can only consider issues raised at both stages of the complaint process, which the landlord has had the opportunity to investigate and respond to. If the resident is unhappy with roof repairs carried out after June 2023, she can raise this as a new complaint and refer it to us if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
  2. The resident’s report of missing roof tiles would be defined as a standard repair under the landlord’s repair policy (it would only be treated as an emergency if there was a heavy leak and flooding). The landlord aims to deal with standard repairs within 20 working days. Although the resident reported missing roof tiles on 16 December 2022, there is no evidence of an appointment until 15 February 2023. This was 40 working days later and a failure in service.
  3. This appointment could not go ahead as the resident was unwell. However, despite her calling on 6 March 2023 for a new appointment, the roof was not inspected until 7 June 2023. This inspection found no missing roof tiles (although further unrelated repairs were raised). The inspection was 116 working days from when the resident first reported missing roof tiles and was significantly outside of the landlord’s published time scale (albeit a small part of the delay was due to the resident’s illness). Again, this was a failure in service. It is positive that the landlord apologised for this delay and acknowledged that it resulted in inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident. It awarded £175 in recognition of this.
  4. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  5. The landlord’s remedy for the delay progressing roof repairs was reasonable. It was in line with its compensation policy which says it can make awards of up to £250 when there has been a serious failure in service over a period that has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident. It is also in line with our own remedies guidance for when there was a service failure that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. We therefore find the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of repairs to the roof.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process and aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It is positive that the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint within this time.
  2. The stage 2 response was issued outside of the 20-working day time limit that the landlord aims to respond to stage 2 complaints. Although there is evidence the landlord updated the resident during the period of delay and told her to expect a reply by 2 June 2023, it issued the final response shortly after this. This was a failure in service.
  3. Further, the stage 2 response did not address the resident’s complaint that the landlord removed wallpaper from her hallway and did not redecorate. This was a service failure, and contrary to our dispute resolution principles of being fair and putting things right. It was also contrary to our Complaint Handling Code which, at that time, said that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint.
  4. The resident continued to pursue this with the landlord and she also contacted both us and her local councillor. However, the landlord continued to deny that it removed wallpaper from the hallway, or that a surveyor requested this work. On 8 May 2024 the resident said she had lower spine degeneration so could not redecorate the hallway herself and could not afford to get it done privately. The landlord replied that day and told her to discuss the option with her Housing Officer to see if charities could help or advised her to make a complaint. We note she had already raised this issue as a formal complaint and she told the landlord this and asked why she should have to start the process again.
  5. It is positive the landlord did go on to investigate this issue. It contacted surveyors who had previously inspected the property, one of whom confirmed that they had authorised someone to remove wallpaper from the hallway. The landlord agreed to put things right and apologised that the resident needed to chase this issue. It awarded £200 for the inconvenience and distress.
  6. However, the resident experienced significant inconvenience and time and trouble pursuing it and had to start the complaint process again. She was also caused unnecessary frustration as the landlord continually told her that her recollection of contractors removing the wallpaper was incorrect. The resident lived with an undecorated hallway for longer than was necessary and the landlord took 329 days to address her complaint about this, which was significantly outside its published time limit.
  7. The landlord has acknowledged significant complaint handling failures and awarded £275 in recognition of them and the impact caused to the resident. As we have already explained, we will not make a finding of maladministration if the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy allows awards of up to £250 when there has been a failure in service over a period that caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience. The award was more than this amount. It showed the landlord recognised the extent of its failings and the impact caused to the resident. Further, it is in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been maladministration that adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. Therefore, we find the landlord awarded reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of cracks in the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of missing roof tiles.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Apologised to the resident for the delay dealing with repairs to cracks in the property.
    2. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any arrears) £300 compensation (inclusive of the £175 already awarded) for the distress and inconvenience caused by these failures.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £450 previously offered, if it has not done so already, as follows:
    1. £175 for its delays carrying out repairs to the roof.
    2. £275 for its complaint handling failures.

This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress findings are made based on this being paid.