Notting Hill Genesis (202331349)

Decision
Case ID	202331349
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 April 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of flats. In or around June 2022 residents reported that pigeons were nesting in the communal areas of the building and their droppings were causing a nuisance. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of and response to the issue.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about:
   1. An infestation of pigeons and the cleaning issues they caused in the communal areas.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure with the landlord’s response to the infestation of pigeons and the cleaning issues they caused in communal areas.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for complaint handling failures.

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

Summary of reasons

Pigeon infestation

4. Although the landlord accepted the pigeon issue was ongoing and explored ways to deal with it, it failed to explain why it had not kept up required communal cleaning or respond to the resident’s concerns about a health risk, and the action it promised in its final complaint response was unreasonably delayed.

The complaint

5. The landlord failed to meet its complaint timeframes at both stages of its process.  It also failed to provide a copy of its stage 1 revised response.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £200 for the failings identified here. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of direct payment to the resident by the due date.	No later than 28 May 2026

Recommendation

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendation
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £250 it offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so. This recognised genuine elements of service failure and the reasonable redress finding is made on that basis.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 September 2023	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint about a communal area (the atrium) being “covered in pigeon excrement” for over a year without being cleaned.
at some point before 17 October 2023 when the response was recalled and then sent again on 20 October 2023)	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: it accepted there had been an ongoing issue with its contractor’s cleaning it had added pigeon spikes to the building to try to deal with the problem but this had not been successful it would poll residents to reach a view on their approach to the issue it set out changes to cleaning rotas, saying deep cleans were now annual rather than 6 monthly
17 October 2023	The landlord asked the resident if it could “recall” the stage 1 response. It explained this was to add compensation because of delays in its response and to “discuss outcomes” with management. The resident agreed and a fresh response was provided on 20 October 2023 (which has not been provided).
3 November 2023	The resident asked to escalate his complaint. He repeated his concerns. He said a deep clean had not gone ahead for the past year. He considered the landlord’s offer of compensation (of which we have not seen information about) to be “insulting” and asked it to forfeit all service charges it could not account for.
23 February 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: it was working to deal with the pigeon excrement issue and would keep him informed in bi-weekly updates it had asked contractors to attend within 2 weeks to clean the excrement and due to the delay, it would cover the cost it would ask when the next deep clean would go ahead it apologised for its lack of communication and said it would keep the resident informed of its progress it offered £250 for delays at stage 2 of its process
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the cleaning had not gone ahead as promised and he wanted the landlord to perform its obligations, such as communal cleaning, under the lease.

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	Pest infestation
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

6. The resident has raised another complaint in relation to issues with the spiking the landlord used in communal areas. This and other issues the resident raised with us, are being investigated separately.

What we have investigated

7. The resident complained that pigeons had been nesting in communal areas for over a year and their droppings had created cleaning problems. He said the landlord had not taken sufficient steps to resolve the issue, that cleaning had been ineffective or non-existent, and there was a potential health risk.
8. In its complaint responses, the landlord accepted that there had been an issue with cleaning standards at the block and that the problem was ongoing. It said it was trying to address it but acknowledged that cleaning was ineffective while pigeons continued to nest. The landlord set out options it had considered to address the infestation and explained that measures such as installing spikes had not prevented pigeons from returning.
9. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that arranging cleaning would be costly and would not resolve the issue. This response failed to address the resident’s central concern that weekly cleaning should already have been taking place under the existing arrangements, and that regular cleaning was necessary to prevent a build‑up from occurring.
10. The landlord’s estate and scheme management procedure states that communal cleaning contracts should be in place and monitored, including through resident feedback. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it complied with this procedure.
11. In its February 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord said it would cover the cost of and arrange a clean within 2 weeks. However, it did not do so until 30 May 2024.
12. The landlord did not address the resident’s complaints that no cleaning had taken place or that the situation posed a health risk, and it did not explain what cleaning, if any, had been completed to that point. The landlord has not provided any evidence showing that cleaning was being done.
13. Overall, the landlord was clearly aware of the problem and its scale, and it had taken some steps to try to resolve the cause. However, there was an unexplained delay in the landlord following up on the cleaning it promised in its stage 2 response, and it did not respond to all of the resident’s issues of complaint. Nor did it explain why it could not remove or clean the droppings on a regular basis while it sought to resolve the presence of the pigeons. That left the complaint unresolved and was a failing.
14. We have made a compensation order for the landlord, based on our compensation guidance for a complaint and service failings of the scope and nature in this case.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
16. A copy of the landlord’s revised stage 1 response has not been provided. However, other evidence shows that it provided that response on 20 October 2023. This was 10 working days beyond its 10-working day timeframe. It is not clear if it offered compensation for the delay.
17. At stage 2, the landlord took 58 working days longer than it should have to respond. However, it acknowledged this delay in its stage 2 response and offered £250 compensation. That was well within our compensation guidance for both delays and was reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The landlord provided records described as “relevant communal maintenance”, which showed visits to the grounds but did not specify what work was completed or whether this included cleaning. This limits their evidential value. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management may assist the landlord in improving its record keeping.

Communication

19. There were errors in the landlord’s communications at stage 2 which undermined its commitment to improve its communication but these were minor and it is noted that the landlord invited the resident to discuss the issues personally if he wanted.