Notting Hill Genesis (202338949)

Decision
Case ID	202338949
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	20 November 2025

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom first floor flat with her 2 young children. One of the resident’s children has breathing difficulties, the other has a skin condition. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the household. The property is located above a commercial unit, used as a 24-hour gym. The resident has complained about damp and mould in her property and about noise from the gym.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould in the property and associated repairs.
2. Reports of noise from a commercial unit below the property.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the reports of damp and mould in the property and associated repairs.
There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the reports of noise from a commercial unit below the property.
There was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:

Report of damp and mould in the property and associated repairs

Failed on multiple occasions from December 2020 to effectively address damp and mould and the underlying causes. This left the resident and her children living for years with the effects of damp and mould. This caused the resident and her household distress and the resident engaged in time, trouble and inconvenience over the years in seeking to get the damp and mould resolved.

Report of noise from a commercial unit below the property

It failed to follow its policy on dealing with reports of excessive noise by not referring the resident to the environmental health team with the local council.

Complaint handling

The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s complaints and expressions of dissatisfaction between July 2021 and February 2024. It did not respond in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at both stages of the resident’s complaint. The resident had to ask this Service for help in pursuing her complaints.

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 provided by a manager. 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 18 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £3,450 made up as follows: £3,000 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and associated repairs. £50 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of noise from a commercial unit. £400 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. 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 18 December 2025
3	Inspection order The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required. If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date. What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the areas of the property affected by damp and mould including the windows and produces a written report with photographs The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards The most likely cause of the damp and mould Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective 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	No later than 18 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should update its systems to reflect the household’s vulnerabilities, subject to the resident agreeing.
The landlord should contact the resident to discuss her preferred contact method and update its systems to reflect this.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 February 2024	The resident complained that it had taken the landlord 2 years to repair the air vents in her property, from 2019 to 2021. She said this had caused damp and mould in her property which she first reported to the landlord in 2020. She said the damp and mould had damaged furniture and belongings. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the time taken to address the damp and mould and for the damaged items.
6 March 2024	The resident told us she had submitted another complaint due to poor communication from the landlord.
24 May 2024	The resident asked us to help because the landlord had not responded to her complaint. We asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 response by 4 June 2024. We outlined our understanding of the resident’s complaint to include the damp and mould issues, the reports of noise from the gym below the property, and the communication from the landlord.
4 June 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said: The resident had been reporting damp and mould in her property since 2019 which had been due to the air vents not working. It had visited in May 2024 and there was no damp and mould on the walls but there was water on the window ledges and air vents were not working. It had raised a job to repair the air vents. The gym owner had agreed to check the CCTV system in relation to any specified times the resident provided. It had referred all the issues the resident raised to the relevant team. It would ensure it responded to any future correspondence within its 5 working days service standard. Its insurance team had rejected the resident’s insurance claim for the damaged items. This was because it was the resident’s responsibility to have her own contents insurance. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the mould issue and any distress and inconvenience caused. It offered £750 compensation.
24 June 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the amount of compensation offered did not cover the cost of the damaged items. The damp and mould had affected her children’s health. The landlord had told her to report the noise issue to the local council environmental health team and had not taken any further action.
28 June 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and asked her to provide receipts of the damaged items.
30 June 2024	The resident told the landlord she did not have receipts due to the time which had passed. She gave it a list of the items and sent photographs. This included 2 pairs of curtains, a chest of drawers, a cot mattress, a corner sofa, and toys.
30 October 2024	The resident did not receive a response to her complaint and asked us to help. We asked the landlord to send its stage 2 response by 6 November 2024.
6 November 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said it would telephone the resident on 7 November 2024 to discuss the compensation.
7 November 2024	The landlord offered £1,250 compensation which it broke down as follows: £1,000 for the time taken to address the repairs and the distress and inconvenience caused. £250 as a discretionary goodwill payment for the time taken to raise the resident’s concerns.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and brought the complaint to us. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to increase the compensation to reflect the time taken to respond to her reports of damp and mould, noise, and to cover the cost of replacing the damaged items.

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 damp and mould in the property and the associated repairs.
Finding	Severe maladministration

The resident told us the damp and mould had affected her children’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman doesn’t usually investigate complaints unless they were formally made to the landlord within a year of the problem happening. In this case, we can see the resident informed the landlord she was not happy with its response to her reports of damp and mould on at least 4 occasions between July 2021 and February 2024. The landlord did not log a complaint until we asked it to in May 2024.The landlord knew about the damp and mould issue from at least December 2020. So, we’ve decided it’s fair to look at how the landlord dealt with the issues from December 2020 onwards.
Damp and mould are potential health hazards to be avoided or minimised in line with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord as part of its obligations under section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 must ensure the property is free from such hazards.
The resident reported damp and mould on 11 December 2020. She said the outstanding repair to the air vent, which she reported in May 2019, had caused the damp and mould. The landlord’s contractor inspected on 16 December 2020. This was a reasonable response by the landlord.
The inspection report identified damp and mould. It advised it was due to a build-up of excessive humidity / condensation within the property. The report included tenant notes to manage condensation. It is not known whether the landlord gave a copy of the report to the resident so she would know of the advice on managing condensation. The report said it is imperative that the resident followed the landlord’s guidelines within the report to ensure humidity was reduced within the property.
It also recommended a mould wash and redecorate the affected area, but this did not happen.
It is not clear why the mould wash and redecoration did not happen. In the notes accompanying the report the landlord said it sent an email for the contractor to go ahead with the recommended works. We have not seen this email. Under the job number of the inspection we have seen emails dated 25 March 2021 asking for the works to go ahead. This is 3 months after the inspection and is a failing on the part of the landlord that it did not complete the works within a timely manner. There is no evidence that the landlord completed the works.
The resident raised the issue again in July 2021. An internal email said the resident would like to make a complaint and a response said the landlord had previously treated the mould and redecorated. Further emails sought to arrange an inspection in July 2021 and alleged the mould had reappeared after treatment. However, the only confirmation of the landlord completing earlier works when first reported is an email to do the works.
There is no evidence that an inspection took place in July 2021 as an internal email dated 16 September 2021 asked that the landlord complete an inspection and copied the email of 26 July 2021 asking for an inspection. The evidence points to a lack of joined up working between the landlord’s personnel who are ordering works and who are completing the works. From the evidence of December 2020, a system appears to be in place, however, there is no evidence of a similar job sheet at that time.
The landlord inspected in December 2021. This was 5 months after the resident complained in July 2021. The surveyor said the broken air vent had caused the mould. The landlord had fixed the air vent prior to this visit. The landlord recommended mould wash to see if mould reappears and decorate if mould reappears. This did not happen.
The landlord did not have a damp and mould policy in place at this time. However, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould was issued in October 2021. |It recommended that landlords should have a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould ensuring their responses were timely and reflected the urgency of the issue. In this case the landlord was aware there were young children in the property from at least December 2020 and failed to complete any follow-on works.
In February 2022 the resident exchanged communication with the landlord in which she referred to the damp and mould. This had been outstanding for 1 year and 2 months. At an annual home visit in March 2022, she said an extractor fan was broken. However, the report noted that the resident was not experiencing damp, mould or condensation. This was at odds with all previous reports. The landlord did not raise a repair for the fan.
In July 2022 the resident said the mould was still there. The landlord said a contractor would call, but nothing happened. She raised the damp and mould again in October 2022 and said her children had been breathing in mould for two years. Nothing happened for 14 months.
In February 2023 the landlord issued its damp and mould policy. It says it will take fast and effective action to eliminate any identified HHSRS issues. It aims to resolve the issues “right first time” and prevent reoccurrence. The policy sets out timescales and actions for dealing with damp and mould.
It is not clear what prompted the landlord to log a repair visit on 18 December 2023. It is not known if the landlord followed its damp and mould policy in the lead up to it logging the repair. However, its policy said it will make an agreed appointment to visit within 10 working days. The repair log shows that quite a few dates were suggested that would allow the landlord to meet that target. The policy says that during the visit and its officer will make an assessment as to the cause of the damp and mould and discuss actions to reduce the occurrence of mould.
The landlord completed a mould wash on 5 February 2024. This was approximately 3 years and 1 month after the resident first reported the damp and mould on 11 December 2020. At this visit the landlord noted the humidity in the property was low. It said this meant there was moisture in the air but not in the walls. The most affected area was around the windows. It said there was ceiling passive ventilation in the property and the resident keeps windows open when she can, but it was not helping.
On 20 March 2024 The resident reported the mould had come back and that there was not sufficient ventilation in the property. The damp and mould procedure states that the landlord will contact the resident within 5 working days and visit within 10 working days. The landlord attended on 2 April 2024 within the timescales. The landlord found poor ventilation and no trickle vents or kitchen fan. It said these were needed to stop mould returning. It recommended a surveyor visit.
The damp and mould policy states that after the inspection, where the landlord finds that the issue requires a technical specialist, it will escalate to the patch surveyor for a full technical inspection. Within 10 working days the inspection will take place and the report provided to the resident within 3 working days. There will then be a discussion with the resident and an arrangement for works. This did not occur. In the landlord’s complaint response dated 4 June 2024 it said that it had submitted pictures to its building surveyor who advised that the air vents need repairing. The contractor would contact the resident to arrange the works. It should not have taken a complaint by the resident to progress the repairs.
The contractor attended to fit the trickle vent on 20 June 2024 and declined to do so. Its notes stated that due to space constraints on the window it could not install trickle vents or an extractor fan.
The contractor returned the work to the landlord who then noted a repairs inspector should carry out an inspection. However, the landlord added a further note to the system a few days later stating that it was closing the job. It said it is not correct that it would fit further ventilation to the window. The landlord noted the window in place in the kitchen would provide adequate ventilation if the resident opened it. It said the landlord should contact the resident to discuss ventilating the property correctly. It also said the landlord should complete a damp and mould visit and complete a mould wash, if needed.
This is a confusing set of events that would have caused the resident additional distress, time and trouble. To recap, a visit on 2 May 2024 led to the surveyor examining photographs and the landlord raising a job, as set out in the complaint response. The contractor attended and said the job could not be done and returned it to the landlord. The landlord then said it would arrange an inspection but later changed its view and said the resident needed to use the windows properly. The landlord was attributing the damp and mould to how the resident used the property. From December 2020 there had been notes of the landlord about how the resident uses or should use the property.
This sequence of events is not the mechanism set out in the damp and mould policy. Failure to follow the policy ultimately lead to the confusion. Following the initial inspection a follow up visit should have taken place by a surveyor. This would have clearly established whether works needed doing, what works it could do or whether it should advise the resident about how to use the property.
The evidence shows there have been further reports of damp and mould up to July 2025. There have been failures to follow the damp and mould policy following these reports. There have been discussions around trickle vents and whether it the landlord could install them. There have been further recommendations for the resident to open the windows.
From December 2020 it is known that the property suffered from condensation. There have been various theories around why. These range from defective air vents, lack of trickle events, lack of extractor fan, tenant’s management of condensation and opening of the windows. There have been considerable delays in addressing the damp and mould, lasting years. There has been no lasting remedy to the underlying cause, which the landlord and its contractors do not agree on. There has not been an inspection by a surveyor although this has been recommended on several occasions. Despite the introduction of a damp and mould policy in 2023 a similar pattern of failures has continued.
The landlord has known that the resident lives in the property with 2 young children. The resident has told the landlord on occasions that the damp and mould had affected her children. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that reports will consider any vulnerabilities and correct prioritisation given. This has not occurred.
The landlord attempted to put things right in its complaint responses by apologising, agreeing to complete a repair to the air vent, and by offering compensation of £1,000. This does not fully recognise the impact on the resident. The delays and failure to complete works it had promised meant the resident became more frustrated and distressed. The damp and mould and the landlord’s handing of it has affected the resident’s enjoyment of her home. It also failed to proactively communicate with the resident throughout which meant she had to repeatedly raise the issues and chase it for updates.
Based on the failures in this case, the make-up of the household, the length of time and the impact on the resident a fairer level of compensation would be £3,000. This sum reflects our remedies guidance which says such a sum would be payable where there has been a significant impact on the household. It also reflects the vulnerabilities of the household.

Complaint	Reports of noise from a commercial unit below the resident’s property.
Finding	Service failure

The resident told us she had complained to the landlord about noise from the gym situated below her property. The landlord is the freeholder of the commercial unit, which it leased to a third party. The third party sublet the unit to the gym owners. Although the resident reported the issue to the landlord in 2019 and 2021, there is no record that she raised this as a formal complaint until she contacted us in May 2024. We therefore cannot say the noise was a continuing issue between 2021 and 2024. We will look at what the resident told us in May 2024 and whether the landlord’s response was reasonable.
We have not seen the landlord’s policy relating to management of noise from commercial properties or know if one exists. However, the landlord deals with reports of noise under its Domestic Noise and Neighbourhood Disputes Policy. This policy states it will advise residents who are dealing with excessive noise nuisance (noise between the hours of 7am and 11pm) to contact their local council environmental health team (EH).
The landlord took some steps in dealing with the resident’s report of noise by:
1. Asking her to provide dates and times when the noise affected her.
2. Liaising with its commercial manager.
3. Outlining the steps the gym owner had taken to reduce the noise prior to it opening.
4. Agreeing to forward any reported incidents to the gym owner to investigate.
However, whilst this was not a domestic property, the resident had said there was excessive noise from the gym, which was disturbing her. Therefore, the landlord ought to have signposted her to EH. This is because EH would have been the most appropriate agency to investigate whether the noise from the gym was a statutory nuisance. It did not do this and therefore there was a service failure.
Given the time that has passed, and due to the resident not providing the landlord with the requested information, it would not be proportionate to order the landlord to revisit the issue and complete an investigation. Instead, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Severe maladministration

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was 2022 edition (April 2022) for stage 1 and 2024 edition (April 2024) for stage 2. Our findings are:
1. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. Although there was no Code before April 2022 the landlord dealt with complaints in line with its complaint policy.
2. Between July 2021 and February 2024 the resident tried to make a complaint on at least 4 occasions. The landlord’s complaint policies outline that residents can complain to any member of staff. It also says a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service received. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction and therefore it acted outside its complaint policy.
3. In relation to the items damaged by the damp and mould, it was reasonable that the landlord referred the resident to its insurance provider in the first instance. The insurer refused the claim.
4. However, the landlord’s compensation and goodwill policy says it will not pay compensation for damage which would normally be covered by residents’ own household insurance, unless the damage stemmed from a failure on the landlord’s part. In this case, the landlord delayed in repairing the air vents in 2019 which caused the damp and mould. Whilst it inspected the property, it failed to complete any works to address the mould until February 2024. This was a failure and it should therefore pay the resident compensation. Although we cannot say the exact amount for the damaged items, the compensation we have ordered recognises the fact the resident incurred costs that would not have arisen had the failures not occurred.
5. Following the resident’s second complaint in February 2024 the landlord offered £250 as a goodwill gesture to recognise the stress caused due to the landlord’s insurers refusing the resident’s claim. Whilst we encourage landlords to resolve complaints promptly it made this offer outside its complaint policy and the Code.
6. The landlord should have logged and acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days, by 7 March 2024. It then should have provided its response within 10 working days, by no later than 21 March 2024. It failed to acknowledge the complaint. It then only responded to the complaint following contact from us. It sent the response on 4 June 2024, which was 66 working days late (from 29 February 2024). The landlord acted outside its policy and the Code.
7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint within 4 working days. It should then have sent its complaint response by 26 July 2024 (28 June 2024 plus 20 working days). The resident did not receive a response and she contacted us again to progress her complaint. It took the landlord 94 working days (from 28 June 2024 to 6 November 2024) to respond at stage 2. The landlord acted outside its policy and the Code.
The failures outlined above lead us to a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord attempted to put things right by offering £250 for the time taken by the resident to raise her concerns. This amount is not proportionate to the failures shown. We have ordered the landlord to increase its compensation by £150 (a total of £400). This fairly recognises the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her time and trouble resulting from its handling of her complaint.

Learning

The landlord failed to recognise any learning from the resident’s complaint. It should complete a review of this case to identify what went wrong and what it needs to do to prevent similar failures occurring in the future and to improve its overall service to residents.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord has not provided evidence of all inspection reports or completed works. Some of its repairs records are unclear and do not detail the nature or outcome of the works completed.

Communication

The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates and to raise issues again in relation to the damp and mould and her complaint. Whilst the landlord responded to some contacts, its communication and updates could have been better.
The landlord demonstrated a lack of oversight of its contractors, which may have contributed to the failings identified.