Notting Hill Genesis (202330877)

Decision
Case ID	202330877
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	6 March 2026

Background

The resident told the landlord there was a leak from the flat above her. She then complained to the landlord about the length of time it was taking to fix the leak, the damage caused to her property by it and having to move out of her property. The resident and her family have vulnerabilities the landlord was aware of.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of reports of a leak.
2. Handling of temporary accommodation.
3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak

The landlord accepted its failings and offered the resident an appropriate amount of compensation for the delay in repairing the leak and damage caused by it.

The landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation

The landlord paid the resident in line with its policy for the time she was in temporary accommodation. It also accepted its failings and offered an appropriate amount of compensation in its complaint response for the distress and inconvenient caused by this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s stage 2 response was outside of its policy timeframe. It changed part of the compensation offered in its stage 2 response without an explanation. It also did not explain in its complaint responses why the issues occurred and what it had learnt.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 07 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £5,204.30 made up as follows: £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its complaint handling. £5,104.30 it offered during its complaint process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 07 April 2026
3	Review Order The landlord should review how it dealt with this complaint. As part of this review it should consider: Why no explanation was given for the reduction in compensation offered. Why no explanation was given in its complaint responses as to how the failures it had found occurred. Why no learning was identified in its complaint responses or what steps it had taken to prevent the issues happening again. The landlord should provide evidence of this review by the due date.	No later than 07 April 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
5 July 2023	The resident reported a leak from the flat above that was causing damp and mould in her property.
July to October 2023	The landlord treated the mould in the property. The resident moved out of her property. The resident chased the landlord at least 11 times for an update about the leak as it had not been fixed.
6 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She said: No progress had been made to fix the leak. Water was leaking and there were holes in her ceiling. Her belongings had been destroyed.
24 October 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: A heating engineer and builder were booked to attend on 27 October 2023. When the leak was fixed it would inspect the resident’s property for any repairs that were needed. It offered the resident £800 compensation as: £150 for service failures. £250 for repair delays. £250 for distress and inconvenience. £150 for delay in providing the complaint response
October to December 2023	The resident chased the landlord for updates about the leak saying it still had not been fixed.
19 December 2023	The resident told the landlord her ceiling had collapsed and her property was flooded.
22 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said: She was not happy with the stage 1 response. The leak was still not fixed. She was still living in temporary accommodation. The delay in fixing the leak had caused her ceiling to collapse.
9 January 2024	The landlord fixed the leak.
13 and 15 January 2024	The resident chased the landlord for a response to her escalation request. The landlord said she would receive the stage 2 response within 20 working days.
27 February 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said: The leak was fixed on 9 January 2024. The resident’s property was inspected on 22 January 2024. The repairs to the resident’s property would start on 26 February 2024. The timeline for the repairs to be completed was 22 March 2024. It provided details for the resident to claim against its insurance. The resident would stay in temporary accommodation until the repairs were completed. It offered the resident £14,030.30 compensation as: £3,900 for decant costs for 15 June to 31 August 2023. £30 for missed appointments. £1,500 for the failure to respond to repeated requests to be decanted or paying for her to be decanted. £2,000 for the failure to manage the different contractors sufficiently resulting in this taking over 9 months to repair the leak £540.93 for 3 weeks rent refunded for 19 December 2023 to 3 January 2024. £3,000 for decant costs for 19 December 2023 to 19 February 2024 £3,000 for distress and inconvenience.
29 February and 1 March 2024	The resident asked for further compensation. The landlord said it would consider this but could still process the current compensation payment. The resident asked for the payment to be made.
5 March 2024	The landlord told the resident it had found a discrepancy in the compensation it had offered. It said it would review this along with the resident’s request for further compensation.
15 March 2024	Following a review of the compensation offered the landlord said: It had found a duplicate payment for the decant costs so had removed this from the compensation offered. It explained it had also changed the start date for the decant costs to the 5 July 2023 as this was when the leak was reported. It had changed the refund of rent amount as part of this was paid by housing benefit. It rejected the resident’s request for further compensation. Its revised offer was £4,304.30 made up as: £250 for missed appointments £1,000 for the failure to respond to repeated requests to be decanted or paying for her to be decanted. £2,000 for the failure to manage the different contractors sufficiently resulting in this taking over 9 months to repair the leak. £54.30 for the rent refund. £1,000 for distress and inconvenience.
5 June 2024	The landlord confirmed the repair works had been completed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident contacted us on 2 December 2023 as she was unhappy the leak had not been repaired. We advised she needed to escalate her complaint to stage 2 before we could consider it. On 3 May 2024 the resident told is she wanted the complaint investigated.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of a leak
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s repair’s policy says it is responsible for plumbing leaks. It sets out its timeframes for repairs as:
1. Emergency repairs should be attended to within 4 hours and temporary works to make safe should be completed within 24 hours.
2. Standard repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
It is not disputed that it took the landlord 6 months to fix the leak and that this leak then caused further damage to the resident’s property. It then took the landlord a further 5 months to complete the repairs needed in the resident’s property. This was not a reasonable amount of time and the landlord’s delayed repair to the leak was a serious failing.
In its stage 1 response the landlord recognised the delay so far in dealing with the leak. It offered the resident £650 compensation for this and provided a date for the leak to be repaired. This was a reasonable response to the matter as the landlord had taken steps to put the matter right. We are satisfied that the amount of compensation offered in its stage 1 response was appropriate as it took into account the delay and impact the failure had had on the resident.
Following the stage 1 response it took the landlord 3 months to repair the leak due to issues with its contractors and missed appointments. During this time the resident’s property suffered further damage. We would have expected the landlord to have managed its contractors to have the leak repaired before it could cause further damage. It is a failing it did not do so.
The landlord recognised this failing in its stage 2 response. It offered the resident £2,000 compensation for its failure to manage the contractors and the amount of time it took to repair the leak. We are satisfied this amount of compensation was appropriate and reflected the serious failing and significant impact the issue had on the resident.
The landlord also offered the resident £3,000 compensation for distress and inconvenience in its stage 2 response. Following a review it then changed this to £1,000 compensation. No reason was given for this, and we do not know why it was changed. However, the review amount of compensation is still in line with what we would likely award. Considering the impact the matter had on the resident and her and her family’s vulnerabilities a substantial amount was needed to put the matter right and the landlord offered this.
The landlord took reasonable steps to put the matter right for the resident and the total amount of compensation offered after its review is in line with our remedy guidance. It found that there was a failing in its handling of the leak repair and compensated the resident appropriately for the delay in having it fixed.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of temporary accommodation
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s relocation policy says it will consider moving a resident while works are carried out in their property and will take into consideration the needs and wishes of the resident. It also explains how emergency relocations are necessary when a property in unhabitable.
We have not seen that the landlord offered the resident any temporary accommodation. While we would usually expect the landlord to have dealt with arranging any temporary accommodation, we do not view it as a failing for this complaint. This is because the resident arranged her own temporary accommodation in suitable properties so she could take care of her daughter. Firstly, with a family member and then an Airbnb. The landlord then appropriately made payments to the resident, in line with its policy, to cover the cost of the temporary accommodation. From the evidence we have seen the landlord made these payments to the resident to cover the time she was in temporary accommodation. This was between 5 July 2023 and 14 June 2024.
Following its stage 2 response the landlord identified it had made a mistake in the payment offered for the temporary accommodation. It told the resident it had already made the payment to her and what it had offered in its stage 2 response was a duplication. Although, this would have likely caused further stress to the resident it was reasonable for the landlord to make a correction to a genuine mistake it had made.
As part of its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £1,500 compensation for its “failure to respond to your repeated requests to be decanted or paying for you to be decanted”. It then reduced this amount to £1,000 following a review. There was no explanation given for this to the resident. We do not know why the landlord changed the compensation amount either.
The landlord took appropriate steps to put the matter right for the resident. It paid the resident for the time she was in temporary accommodation in line with its policy. It also offered a compensation payment for any delays the resident had experienced in the matter. Although it changed the amount of compensation it offered, this amount still falls within the range we may have ordered for a failing such as this. We are satisfied this amount covers the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the length of time the issue was going on for and takes into account the resident and her family’s vulnerabilities.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

The timescales in the landlord’s complaints policy are compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its policy timeframe. The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement was 9 working days late and its stage 2 response was 12 working days late.
The landlord offered the resident £150 in its stage 1 response for the delay in providing her with the response. It is unclear why the landlord awarded this when it met its policy timeframes. The landlord did not recognise the delay in issuing its stage 2 response. It took no steps to put the matter right. This is a failing.
Following its stage 2 response the landlord carried out a review of the compensation it had offered. It had found it had offered a payment relating to the temporary accommodation it had already paid to the resident and an error in the calculation of the resident’s rent refund. It appropriately explained this and removed the duplicate payment from its compensation offer.
However, the landlord also changed other amounts of compensation from its stage 2 response. It gave no explanation for these changes. This is a failing as we would expect the landlord to tell the resident why it had decided to change the compensation amounts offered.

It was not reasonable the landlord did not explain why it had made these other changes. This would have caused considerable distress to the resident as she would not have known why the compensation amount had been changed. We have also seen evidence that the resident asked for the stage 2 compensation to be processed before the landlord has changed the amounts. As such we have directed the landlord to pay the resident compensation for the emotional distress and confusion that would have been caused by this failing.
We have also ordered the landlord to carry out a review of this complaint. We have not seen any evidence of learning in its complaint response or what steps it would take to prevent these failures from happening again.

Learning

While it identified its failures the landlord did not reflect on what it could have done differently.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The evidence provided by the landlord allowed us to effectively investigate this complaint.

Communication

Although at times we have seen evidence of the resident chasing the landlord for a response, overall we have seen that it did appropriately communicate with the resident.