Notting Hill Genesis (202341104)

Decision
Case ID	202341104
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	16 April 2026

 

Background

1. The resident complained about the landlord’s response to her report of a leaking tap in her bathroom. She said the repair required several visits and was not completed within a reasonable time. The landlord apologised for the delay, identified learning from the case, and offered compensation.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a repair of a leaking tap.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of a repair of a leaking tap.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Repair of a leaking tap

5. The landlord accepted that the repair required multiple visits to complete and that its communication with the resident could have been better. It apologised, offered compensation, and identified learning from the case. In the circumstances, these actions were reasonable remedies to the complaint about the repair.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord did not address the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 in its final complaint response, despite previously telling the resident that it would do so.

 

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 £50 to recognise the service failure in its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment. This is in addition to the £150 the landlord has already offered the resident for the substantive issue, which it should now pay if it has not done so already.	No later than 14 May 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 November 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about its response to a repair to her bathroom tap. She said the issue was unresolved dispute multiple visits and that the landlord was passing responsibility for the repair to the water provider. She wanted the landlord to complete the repair and compensate her for the extra water she was using and the inconvenience.
28 November 2023	In its complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the issue. It said it had instructed a specialist contractor to attend and was awaiting an appointment date. It offered the resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience and delay and asked her to provide details of her additional water consumption, so that it could consider reimbursing her.
7 December 2023	The resident escalated her complaint as the matter remained unresolved and she said the compensation was not sufficient. She mentioned difficulties in contacting the landlord and said some of the contractors who attended to investigate the issue had been rude.
8 January 2024	The resident contacted the landlord again to ask for an update.
31 January 2024	In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the issue, which it said had been completed on 23 January 2024. It acknowledged there had been problems with its communications with the resident, the conduct of contractors and the availability of its staff. It increased its compensation to £150, identified learning around staff training and communication, and asked the resident again to provide comparator evidence of her water bills so it could consider reimbursing her.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought her complaint to us, as she remained unhappy with the amount of compensation it offered her.

 

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	Handling of the repair
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The resident’s complaints in November and December 2023 concerned the repair of a leaking bathroom tap, which she first reported in September 2023. She said the issue had not been resolved despite several contractor visits. She explained that the problem was initially diagnosed as an issue with a pressure reducing valve and that she was told this was the responsibility of the water provider. She said the water provider later disputed this. The resident reported that contractors had not properly investigated the cause of the leak and that the ongoing issue resulted in increased water usage and inconvenience. She asked the landlord to complete the repair and provide compensation for the additional costs and disruption caused.
8. In response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays in resolving the issue. It said contractors initially believed the leak related to a pressure reducing valve connected to the water meter, which they considered the responsibility of the water or billing provider. It later accepted this diagnosis was incorrect following further investigation.
9. In its final complaint response issued in January 2024, the landlord said specialist contractors identified that the tap required replacement and confirmed that this work was completed that month. It acknowledged that the delay would possibly have increased the resident’s water consumption and asked her to provide copies of her water bills so it could compare usage and consider reimbursement. It also accepted there were shortcomings in its communication and that multiple contractor visits had caused inconvenience. The landlord apologised, offered £150 compensation, and explained the learning identified to improve its service.
10. The evidence shows the landlord took a range of actions to investigate and resolve the issue both before and during the complaint process. Nonetheless, the landlord accepted that its communication with the resident, particularly about responsibility for the repair, was not always clear and recognised the time and trouble the resident spent trying to obtain updates on progress. In these circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer compensation in line with its compensation guidance.
11. The landlord’s records show it took steps to resolve the issue in line with its repairs policy. Although the repair required several attempts and was outside of the 20 days it aims to complete routine repairs, the records indicate the landlord acted on the information provided by attending contractors about the likely cause of the leak and progressed further action when earlier attempts did not resolve the problem.
12. When the resident reported that the issue continued, the landlord arranged further investigations by specialist contractors. The records show some delays occurred while it awaited further diagnostic advice and the delivery of parts needed to complete the repair. There is also evidence that a contractor cancelled an appointment in January 2024 due to staff sickness. While this would have been frustrating for the resident, these delays were not wholly within the landlord’s control.
13. The landlord accepted that the resident’s water usage may have increased during the period affected by the leak and offered to compare water bills to assess this. The resident later told us that the landlord did not reimburse her, as the usage during the relevant period was similar to the previous year.
14. Evidence of the landlord’s assessment of the water usage has not been provided. However, while the resident disagreed with its conclusions because she had been away from the property for several weeks, its decision to compare usage and consider reimbursement if an increase was identified was reasonable and consistent with our approach to compensation for a quantifiable financial loss. No evidence has been presented suggesting an absence of some weeks would have had a significant impact on the landlord’s decision.
15. Overall, the landlord’s response to the repair was reasonable in the circumstances. The repairs took longer than the landlord’s listed timescales, but the evidence does not show that it unreasonably delayed attempts to resolve the issue. There were some shortcomings around the landlord’s updates to the resident, which it acknowledged and offered compensation for, and identified learning to improve future service delivery. The remedies offered were proportionate to the impact and consistent with the Ombudsman’s resolution principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. They reasonably resolved the complaint.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

16. At the time of the complaint, the landlord had a 2 stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It says a resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement, unless an extension is required.
17. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
18. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints 4 days and 24 days later than its policy required. However, it issued responses at both stages within its published response timescales once the complaints were acknowledged.
19. The resident specifically asked the landlord to address the delay in recording and progressing her escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord said it would address this issue in its complaint response, but it did not do so.
20. The landlord’s records show that the complaint handler believed the resident’s escalation of 7 December 2023 to be on hold while further enquiries were made. However, there are no records to support this belief or showing that it was agreed with the resident. The landlord did not progress the escalation for almost a month and not until the resident contacted it for an update. This was a shortcoming in its complaint handling, as it caused avoidable delay and inconvenience for the resident.
21. We have made an order in line with our compensation guidance for a complaint handling failure of this scale and nature.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlords overall record keeping was of a good standard. It provided detailed job cards which showed the actions it took and the communication it had with contractors whilst investigating and resolving the issue.

Communication

23. The landlord identified areas where it could have communicated more effectively with the resident during the repair and has already identified learning in this regard. As it seeks to improve its service the landlord should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Attitudes, Respect and Rights, for further guidance on how to effectively communicate with residents in the future.