Notting Hill Genesis (202331737)

Decision
Case ID	202331737
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 February 2026

Background

The resident complained to the landlord about condensation and a subsequent damp patch following the installation of new windows at her property in October 2022. She was also concerned about the conduct of its staff member who inspected her property in January 2023 and about not receiving inspection reports.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of condensation and a subsequent damp patch.
2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found there was reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of condensation and a subsequent damp patch.
2. Complaint.

Summary of reasons

Reports of condensation and a subsequent damp patch

The landlord apologised for failing to address all the resident’s concerns regarding the inspections at her property and her health. It offered proportionate compensation and acted on the recommendations from its inspection report to rectify the issues at the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures and offered proportionate compensation.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident and arrange for a surveyor to assess the dripping water in the property. The surveyor should produce a written report with photographs. The report should set out: whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards the most likely cause of the dripping water and whether the landlord is responsible for repairing or resolving the issue, together with reasons where it is not responsible a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair/resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible) the likely timescales to commence and complete the work whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works

Our recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident and arrange for a surveyor to assess the dripping water in the property. The surveyor should produce a written report with photographs.

The report should set out:

whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards
the most likely cause of the dripping water and whether the landlord is responsible for repairing or resolving the issue, together with reasons where it is not responsible
a full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair/resolution to the issue (if the landlord is responsible)
the likely timescales to commence and complete the work
whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
October 2022	The landlord replaced all the windows in the property.
12 December 2022 to 24 January 2023	The resident reported dripping water from brown water patches on her ceiling and walls. She also said her windows were wet with condensation. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 24 January 2023. They found no leaks but believed condensation was due to a lack of air flow due to the new windows and extraction during cooking.
26 and 30 January 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She raised concerns about the conduct of the surveyor and the outcome of the inspection. She asked for a copy of the inspection report and asked how it was going to resolve the issues at her property. She believed it purposefully delayed responding to her and was not focused on resolving her concerns.
8 March 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It confirmed it would arrange a second inspection with a new surveyor. It said it was sometimes delayed due to relying on its contractors for information or attending appointments.
20 March 2023	The landlord completed a second inspection. It recommended a survey of the roof, interior decoration and repairs to the loft and insulation.
7 June 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord ignored her concerns about the first surveyor and inaccuracies in the report. She said it was delayed in responding to her and had not provided the second inspection report. She said it was not taking her seriously, and the issue was impacting her health. She also said it failed to abide by its complaints policy.
5 July 2023	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said as the communication with the surveyor took place face to face, it could not comment. It provided details of the second inspection report and detailed repairs it had or would complete as part of the recommendations. It apologised for showing a lack of compassion, not acknowledging her wellbeing and for complaint handling failures. It offered £300 compensation.
22 September 2023	The landlord reviewed its stage 2 response at the resident’s request. It apologised for its communication about its stage 1 response and both survey reports. It offered further compensation of £600, bringing its final offer to £900. It confirmed it had recorded information about her health and would further decorate the resident’s living room.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she still has a drip from her living room ceiling. She wanted further compensation and for the drip to be resolved.

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	Reports of condensation and a subsequent damp patch.
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

The resident told us the leak had reoccurred and caused damage to her sofa and flooring. She also had concerns about a Subject Access Request (SAR) and inaccurate inspection photos of her roof. As these issues did not form part of the original complaint, we have not investigated these. The resident has told us she has raised a new complaint to the landlord. We will not assess these points in this report. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response after completing its 2-stage process, she can bring the matter to us.

What we have investigated

The resident raised concerns with both surveys completed by the landlord’s surveyors. She raised concerns about the conduct of the first surveyor, and said the report contained images that were not of her property. She said the landlord was withholding the second surveyor’s report from her.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord responded about some of the issues with the resident’s concerns with the first surveyor and report. It said it had no evidence to investigate the first surveyor’s conduct as the interaction took place face-to-face. It acknowledged the issue and managed the resident’s expectations about its ability to further consider this due to a lack of evidence. This was reasonable.
The landlord confirmed that as soon as it was aware of the resident’s concerns with the first surveyor, it arranged for a second inspection. This was a reasonable action to assure the resident it had listened to her. It apologised for not informing the resident of this second appointment at the time and offered £50 compensation, which was in accordance with its compensation policy for the inconvenience caused. This was reasonable.
The landlord did not consider the full list of concerns raised by the resident regarding the survey reports until its stage 2 review. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to demonstrate a full understanding of the complaint raised and the impact caused to her as part of its complaints process. Nonetheless, it provided appropriate responses to the resident’s outstanding concerns:
1. It confirmed it had added inaccurate images to the first survey report in error. It apologised it had not addressed this clearly and offered £250 compensation.
2. It said it was not usual practice to share full inspection reports. It apologised it had not been clear about providing the second report. It however, provided a copy with its response and offered £100 for its lack of communication on the matter.
The landlord’s compensation offers were in line with its compensation policy for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord confirmed the findings of the second survey report of 20 March 2023 in its stage 2 response of 5 July 2023 and that it had completed all recommendations as follows:
1. It inspected the roof and found no problems that would cause a leak. A contractor inspected the roof and loft on 30 March 2023 using a drone.
2. It redecorated the living room and bedroom and had repaired the loft hatch. It confirmed it would monitor any staining on the newly decorated walls to support any further action.
3. It said its contractor would replace loft insulation on 17 July 2023. (Evidence shows it completed this as promised.)
There is no evidence of the resident continuing to complain about the leak or condensation following this. However, as the resident has told us the same issues are present, we will recommend that the landlord completes a further inspection of the issue.
The resident also complained that the landlord was not taking her health and well-being seriously. It recognised at stage 2 that it had failed to address this in its stage 1 response. It offered £50 compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy for the distress caused. It committed to understanding the resident’s health to enable it to adjust its approach in future. Evidence shows it updated its records to reflect the resident’s health as a result.
In summary we found that the landlord acknowledged its failings regarding the handling of the reports of condensation and the damp patch. It apologised for its communication regarding the surveyor appointments and the reports. It acted on the recommendations from the second surveyor, including monitoring the issue. It also recognised it had not addressed its approach to the resident’s health and rectified this. It offered proportionate compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused by all failings identified. The compensation was in line with our remedies guidance and as such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2022). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
The landlord was not compliant with its policy or the Code as follows:
1. At stage 1, there is no evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and it took 29 working days to provide its response.
2. The same member of staff who responded at stage 1, responded at stage 2. Although the landlord said at stage 2, an independent manager reviewed its response, this was not appropriate. The landlord failed to acknowledge this. It did not apologise or show how it would learn from this. However, its later stage 2 review response was completed by a different staff member, demonstrating an impartial response to the resident’s concerns.
In its stage 2 and stage 2 review responses, the landlord recognised that it did not appropriately communicate with the resident about her stage 1 complaint and it was delayed in replying. It offered £450 compensation for these failures. This was in line with its compensation policy and proportionate for the failings identified and for the inconvenience.
In summary, the landlord did not acknowledge the same staff member replied at stage 1 and stage 2 but did ensure a different staff member completed the stage 2 review, to rectify this. It recognised it was delayed at stage 1 and apologised and offered compensation proportionate to all failings, including the impact on the resident. This aligns with our remedies guidance and as such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Learning

Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. The landlord should consider its policy and the Code regarding who is responsible for responding at each stage of a complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord maintained appropriate records that supported our investigation into the complaint, which helped us understand events that had taken place.

Communication

There is evidence that the landlord failed to keep the resident updated about the complaints process and regarding surveys. However, the landlord has demonstrated it will learn from this and appears to have improved with the landlord learning from its failings.