Notting Hill Genesis (202334198)

Decision
Case ID	202334198
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. She states that she has a spinal condition, asthma, and a skin condition. The landlord was aware of her vulnerabilities. She reported her boiler breakdown in December 2023. She says the landlord left her without heating or hot water for 43 days and did not offer or reimburse her for alternate accommodation.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Report of a loss of heating and hot water.
   2. Associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in response to the loss of heating and hot water.
   2. There was reasonable redress in response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord did not respond to the boiler repair in line with its emergency repair policy. It did not act promptly to fix the issue or give the resident clear timescales. The landlord did not show that it suitably considered the resident’s vulnerability in its handling of the issue. It did not carry out a risk assessment or consider temporary accommodation while the repair was outstanding. It also did not show effective oversight of its contractor to ensure a timely resolution.
   2. There was a minor delay at stage 1 and 2 of the complaint, for which the landlord provided appropriate redress.

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 landlord must ensure: 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 26 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,135 made up as follows: £750 for distress and inconvenience. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble. £105 for the loss of heating and hot water. £130 for missed appointments. £50 for electricity costs. £50 landlord’s goodwill gesture 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 26 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord to provide the resident with an update about the re-tender process for its heating contractor. If it has not already done so, the landlord is to pay to the resident the amount of £50 it agreed at the end of its stage 2 response for its communication and complaint handling failings.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
12 December 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said: She raised a repair following a boiler leak on 13 November. A contractor attended and took no action. The leak persisted and interfered with kitchen electrics, then the boiler stopped working on 6 December. An engineer attended the following day and disconnected it, declaring it as unsafe. The resident disputed that a surveyor attended on 8 December. The resident asked for heating and hot water to be restored and for the landlord to provide a timeline for when this would happen. The resident said she had booked into an Air BnB.
2 January 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: It upheld the resident’s complaint. There was a delay in repair due to the unavailability of the relevant part from the manufacturer. It provided the resident with a resolution date of 19 January 2024. The landlord told the resident she should discuss details of her Air BnB booking with her housing officer for better clarification. The landlord said its priority was to quicky restore her heating and hot water. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and said the resident’s comfort and wellbeing were of utmost importance. The landlord offered compensation totalling £342. This was made up of £92 for the loss of heating between 6 December and 19 January, £100 for missed appointments, and £150 for inconvenience.
3 January 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said her living circumstances were impacting her health and finances. The resident said she could no longer afford to pay for the temporary accommodation she had sourced herself while the heating was not working and asked the landlord to provide it.
6 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said: It restored the resident’s heating on 18 January 2024. It apologised for the length of time taken to restore heating and hot water supply which it acknowledged fell below the standard the resident should expect. The landlord explained its contractor ordered the wrong part but as soon as it identified the mistake, a replacement boiler was authorised despite the boiler not exceeding the guidelines of being beyond economic repair. While it recognised the level of compensation offered at stage 1 did not adequately cover the resident’s own costs for Air BnB, it could not reimburse the full cost because alternate housing was not pre-approved by its housing department. The landlord said it would provide feedback to its contractor’s operations director and senior management team to address the contractor’s poor service. The landlord said it would re-tender its domestic gas contract later in the year and update the resident. The landlord apologised to the resident for the hardship caused. It offered compensation totalling £635.00 made up as £105 in accordance with its repairs policy for the loss of heating and hot water at 10% of daily rent, £250.00 for inconvenience, £130.00 for missed appointments, £50.00 for additional electricity costs due to blow out heaters, £50.00 goodwill gesture, and £50.00 for the lack of communication and the complaint deadline extension.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said she had no heating or hot water. She said the landlord did not consider her vulnerability, and the compensation offered was not appropriate given the costs she incurred on alternate accommodation as well as her distress and inconvenience. She requested a refund of over £1500 for the costs she incurred for alternative accommodation during the delay.

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	Loss of heating and hot water.
Finding	Maladministration

5. The resident has told us that the lack of heating and hot water exacerbated her physical health condition. We cannot consider whether the landlord’s actions have impacted on a resident’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek independent advice on making a claim through a civil process or the courts. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we can consider any distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
6. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant 1985 Act places an obligation on the landlord to provide essential services such as water, heating, and sanitation. Landlords should ensure it does not expose tenants to excess cold.
7. The landlord acknowledged that it delayed its repair of the resident’s boiler. The resident reported a boiler leak to the landlord on 13 November 2023. An operative attended a day later and identified no issues. On 6 December 2023, the resident reported a total loss of heating and hot water. The landlord logged she was vulnerable. An operative attended on the following day which was not in line with the landlord’s emergency repairs policy. The policy states that it must attend a serious failure of heating and hot water in the property between October to March within 4 hours, and complete works to make safe or temporarily repair within 24 hours. If additional work is necessary to complete a repair, such as if it requires relevant parts, it will return to complete a repair. The policy does not provide a target timescale for the subsequent repair.
8. The operative identified a leak from the heating exchanger effecting electrics and disconnected the boiler for safety reasons. They recorded the resident had vulnerabilities and required a replacement boiler. It was reasonable for the operative to disconnect the boiler for safety reasons and supply temporary heaters in these circumstances. However, the landlord’s surveyor attended on 14 December 2023. The landlord has not provided a reason for the delay in its inspection, which took place 7 days after it disconnected the boiler. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly given the had landlord logged the resident’s vulnerability.
9. Following the boiler inspection on 14 December 2023, the contractor said it could order parts to complete the repair, but the parts were unavailable until 5 January 2024. The landlord has not demonstrated that it communicated this to the resident. The resident contacted the operative to chase updates for a repair appointment on 4 January 2024, and the operative informed the resident the part was due on 10 January 2024. The landlord restored the resident’s heating and hot water on 19 January 2024, 43 days later, which was an unreasonable delay, particularly given the time of year and the resident’s vulnerability.
10. We expect landlords to provide timely and effective updates to residents about the timescale for repairs. There is no indication that the landlord effectively communicated with the resident to provide a timescale for when it expected to complete the work. The resident reported having to repeatedly chase the landlord about the repair and reported missed and cancelled appointments. The resident reported a missed appointment on 8 December 2023 and chased the landlord for an update several times over the month.
11. The resident has told us living in cold conditions exacerbates her physical health. The evidence shows that when the resident reported the boiler breakdown on 6 December 2024, the operative logged the resident was vulnerable. The resident has told us the landlord gave advice that she could heat cold water and carry it to the bathroom to wash. We have not seen evidence from the landlord of these comments but consider this type of advice, if made, would be concerning given the resident’s vulnerability. She also said two blow heaters to heat a 3-bedroom home was insufficient. Therefore, the resident said she had paid for alternate accommodation. She made her formal complaint on 12 December 2023 requesting a prompt resolution and timescale for the restoration of heating and hot water.
12. In its stage 1 response on 2 January 2024 the landlord acknowledged the delay and provided a ‘tentative’ resolution date for the boiler repair of 19 January 2024 due to the unavailability of parts, which it acknowledged was far from ideal. However, it did not acknowledge the resident’s vulnerability. Although it advised the resident to liaise with her housing officer about her request for reimbursement for alternate accommodation, the landlord did not demonstrate that it acted to provide clarity or a further offer of support. It did not consider if it could consider alternate accommodation in the circumstances, nor did the landlord show it worked collaboratively with its internal housing department to better support the resident.
13. In its stage 2 response on 6 February 2024, the landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident’s daily life and offered compensation for the loss of heating and hot water up to 19 January 2024. It said it could not reimburse the residents accommodation expenses as this had not been pre-approved by its housing department. The response states that it normally would offer a decant for residents in emergencies or during planned works, but it did not explain why it did not consider it in the resident’s case.
14. The landlord’s decant policy states that the landlord may consider a temporary move for a resident for emergency reasons, such as if an event makes the property uninhabitable, including an interruption of vital services, such as water and electricity. It states it will consider a resident’s health, safety and wellbeing and any vulnerabilities on a case-by-case basis. The resident said in the escalation of her complaint on 3 January 2024 that the landlord did not discuss the option of alternate accommodation. The internal records show the landlord had provided information to its housing department about the resident’s circumstances, but it is unclear if it took action to provide support and advice to the resident about her options or alternate accommodation. The landlord should have taken proactive steps to undertake a risk assessment and consider offering temporary accommodation.
15. The internal records show that the landlord did not effectively take ownership and manage the progress of the repair, nor did it seek to mediate between the contractor and the resident to provide timely updates. The resident has told us that the landlord had consistently informed her to contact the heating contractor directly to obtain updates. This placed an unfair burden on the resident to chase repairs. The landlord’s expectation to require the resident to take such steps demonstrates it did not act proactively to put things right for a vulnerable resident. There was a disconnect between the service provided by the landlord and its contractor which meant there was no oversight of the repair and the responsibility of who could support the resident and manage her expectations. The lack of ownership meant that the landlord could not communicate meaningful updates which created uncertainty for the resident. This caused the resident significant distress.
16. The internal records also show there was a confusion between the expectations of the contractor and the landlord about whether it would fix the existing boiler or replace it, and there was uncertainty about when the relevant parts would become available. The confusion about the timely availability of parts prevented the contractor from providing a timescale to the landlord for the repair. We appreciate this is likely to have impacted the landlord’s decision making given it could not have known how long it would take for its contractor to obtain the parts it needed to repair the boiler. However, the landlord has not demonstrated that it completed a review of its decision making after it established there were further delays in obtaining parts. It is unclear how the landlord made its decision to await parts and if it had taken the resident’s vulnerabilities into account as part of its decision making.
17. At the end of January 2024, the landlord demonstrated it was able to replace the boiler at short notice once it had established its contractor could not obtain the correct parts. It was reasonable for the landlord to have taken prompt action, although the resident had been without heating and hot water for a long period by this point.
18. The landlord repaired the boiler before it issued its stage 2 response on 6 February 2024. It apologised for the delays in the boiler repair and the hardship caused and offered financial redress. The landlord acknowledged the poor customer service provided by its contractor and said it would pass this information on to its senior team so it could learn lessons. The landlord also said it was due to re-tender its heating contractor, and it would update the resident. We do not know if it has done so.
19. The landlord advised the resident to continue to report additional issues to its heating contractor directly and stated she should expect to receive a prompt response because she was vulnerable. However, it had failed to demonstrate it had considered the residents vulnerability in its own response when assessing the distress and inconvenience caused. This was a significant omission, particularly given the landlord had recognised in its stage 1 response at the beginning of January there would be a further unspecified delay in its ability to repair the boiler.
20. In summary, the landlord failed to manage the boiler repair effectively. The landlord did not act reasonably considering the resident’s individual circumstances and vulnerability. It did not provide a prompt resolution or communicate adequately with the resident. The landlord did not review its decision-making when delays about the availability of parts became apparent. It failed to assess and provide appropriate support or alternative solutions. It was also inappropriate for the landlord to require the resident to chase the reimbursement of costs, and to chase its heating contractors. These failings resulted in avoidable inconvenience and uncertainty for the resident.
21. We recognise in its final complaint response the landlord acknowledged its service failures, in part. It apologised to the resident. It attempted to provide some redress. However, its final complaint response does not go far enough to reflect the significant impact, distress and inconvenience the resident has said she experienced due to her vulnerability and the uncertainty about the boiler repair during the peak winter season.
22. The landlord missed an opportunity to apply our dispute resolution principles to act fairly, to put things right, and to learn lessons at this stage.
23. We appreciate that the resident has told us she has incurred significant expense because of seeking alternate air BnB accommodation while the boiler repair was outstanding. It was reasonable for the landlord to say it was not going to reimburse these costs in full as it had not agreed to do so in advance. However, the landlord failed to respond adequately on the temporary accommodation issue. As such, our compensation order has included consideration of the additional costs the resident said that she had incurred. While our overall order does not provide full reimbursement of these costs, it is higher that we would typically order in such a case. This is reflective of the poor service the vulnerable resident received.
24. The landlord’s compensation policy states it may award up to a maximum of £500 for high impact distress and inconvenience because of a significant service failure. In view the impact on the resident, and our remedies guidance, we consider the landlord should pay the amount of £750 to account for the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident which reflects the landlord’s failure to demonstrate it had considered the resident’s vulnerability.
25. In addition to the landlord’s compensation award at stage 2, we make an order for the landlord to pay compensation of £50 to reflect the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the repair. We therefore order the landlord to pay compensation to the resident totalling £1,135.
26. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise to the resident for not providing adequate support or that it demonstrated it had considered her vulnerabilities.
27. We have recommended the landlord, if it has not already done so, should provide the resident with an update about the results of the re-tender. It should also set out what steps it had taken to ensure its heating operatives receive relevant training to ensure it provides a quality customer service to residents.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

28. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The code states stage 1 and stage 2 complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. The landlord may agree an extension with the resident at stage 1 of no more than 10 working days, and at stage 2 of no more than 20 working days.
29. The landlord has published the recent version of its complaint policy dated September 2025 which, in the main, complies with the terms of the Code. However, it allows for an extension at stage 1 of up to 20 working days, and stage 2 of up to 30 working days, respectively which does not align with the Code.
30. At the time of its complaint handling, the landlord was operating under its previous complaint policy [August 2023]. Its policy sets out the landlord responds to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints by way of a manager’s review within 20 working days, respectively, with an extension of up to 10 working days with the resident’s agreement.
31. The landlord provided its stage 1 response in 12 working days and its stage 2 response in 24 working days, respectively. There were minor delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint at each stage by 2 working days, and it is unclear whether it agreed an extension with the resident.
32. In its final stage 2 response the landlord offered £50 in compensation to the resident for its lack of communication and its complaint extension. We consider the redress offered to be appropriate for the failures identified. The amount was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy and aligned with our remedies guidance. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay this amount if it has not already done so.

Learning

33. We recommend the landlord reviews its repairs escalation and communication processes and provides guidance to its frontline staff, including housing officers and its contractors about the importance of completing a vulnerability assessment and to work collaboratively to consider interim support to vulnerable residents when there is an interruption to essential services, such as heating in the winter months.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

34. The landlord has a record of the resident’s vulnerabilities, which is positive, but it did not demonstrate it had considered the resident’s needs.
35. There was no record of decision making about the progress of the repair and limited evidence of information sharing between the landlord and its contractor regarding timescales, appointments, and the availability of parts to complete the repairs. This resulted in extra delays and inconvenience.
36. The landlord should reflect on the importance of utilising knowledge and information management systems to share information and improve its management of its contractors as discussed in our Spotlight report.

Communication

37. The landlord’s communication was poor and left the resident uniformed resulting in uncertainty and distress for the resident. The landlord should reflect on our Spotlight report ‘Repairing trust’ [May 2025] which sets out the importance of clear communication about repairs and timescales.

Complaint handling

38. To reduce the impact on residents caused by protracted internal complaints processes we consider the landlord should review the extension timescales it sets out in its September 2025 complaints policy for responding to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints to align with the Code.
39. The landlord should reflect on how its complaint resolution team could have acted proactively to contact the resident’s housing officer on her behalf instead of placing the onus on the resident to do so.