Notting Hill Genesis (202345841)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345841

Notting Hill Genesis

26 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repair issues to the bathroom, damp and mould.
2. Concerns about the suitability of temporary accommodation.
3. Concerns about the theft of her daughter’s wheelchair.
The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 3-bedroom flat situated on the first floor of a low-rise building. The tenancy started in May 2010. The resident lives at the property with her partner and 2 children. The landlord has noted the resident’s youngest daughter is disabled and requires the use of a wheelchair. The resident has said that other members of the family have medical needs. The landlord has confirmed that the resident has the highest priority banding for rehousing and that she needs accommodation without stairs.
The resident started a disrepair claim with the landlord in November 2021. A Tomlin order was issued by court on 23 May 2023, which set out details of the agreed settlement as well as works which the landlord needed to carry out. The resident’s solicitor instructed the landlord on 24 May 2023 that the works were due to be completed within 45 days.
The resident emailed the landlord to make a complaint on 8 March 2024. She said:
1. She believed the landlord had maliciously referred her to social services due to putting her children at risk.
2. Her house was in disrepair, and despite a court ordering the landlord to carry out repairs by a set time it had failed to do this.
3. The landlord had not moved her, despite her informing it she would accept any property (including splitting her household up) to allow a move to a serviced apartment.
4. Following her taking legal advice and her solicitor writing to the landlord, it had issued her possession and breach of tenancy orders.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 March 2024. Its response only dealt with the social services referral. It said that its asset team had raised safeguarding concerns as a result of difficulties it encountered in accessing the resident’s property due to cancelled appointments. It further noted a lack of access to the property since 2018 for “essential housing officer visits, safety checks, and assessment of repairs”. It advised this had prompted concerns about the living conditions of the resident’s children and a referral to the safeguarding team.
The landlord then issued a stage 2 response on 28 May 2024. This again centred on its decision for the referral to social services. The response explained that as there was an ongoing disrepair case and solicitor involvement, it was unable to comment further on the other matters. It noted that the disrepair team was a different department to which it would relay the resident’s concerns.
The resident escalated her complaint on 3 June 2024. She said the complaint had previously been escalated to stage 2 without her knowledge, which meant she was unable to send in further information. She also disputed the allegations in the stage 1 response that no access was granted to the landlord. The resident confirmed that access was given to the landlord’s surveyor twice in 2021. She said messages were also sent to the landlord to confirm that surveyors and housing officers failed to attend to the property.
The landlord issued a further stage 2 response on 26 February 2025 following contact from the Ombudsman. It noted the resident’s complaint to be about:
1. Ongoing repairs, which particularly related to damp, mould and the bathroom floor.
2. The suitability of temporary accommodation offered to the resident.
3. Concerns about a wheelchair which the resident said was taken by the landlord’s operatives.
4. The handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s stage 2 response made an offer of compensation of £1,000, which was made up of £500 for stress and inconvenience and £500 for the time and trouble. It said:
1. An independent surveyor had been used by it to attend the property and assess the extent of works. This report confirmed works were required, and it acknowledged there were delays in it doing this. Part of the delay was down to sourcing suitable accommodation for the resident which met her specific needs. The independent surveyor would oversee all remedial works, and it wished to arrange a meeting with the resident, the surveyor and one of its senior representatives to discuss the works. It proposed some dates for the work to commence and asked the resident to confirm which of these were suitable.
2. It had made attempts to source a number of temporary accommodations for the resident. The resident’s requirements for a stairlift, a new wheelchair, accommodation for her pets, and close proximity to her daughter’s school limited the options within its stock and from its partner providers. To find a solution to the accommodation issue it proposed a face-to-face meeting, attended by the resident’s daughter’s health professionals who understood her needs.
3. It accepted there had been failures in its communication, including the escalation to stage 2 without the resident’s knowledge. It recognised it did not provide information in a clear, timely and written manner as was requested by the resident, and the stage 1 response did not comprehensively address her concerns.
4. It would make arrangements to source suitable accommodation which met all of her requirements for a minimum of 5 days to complete the essential bathroom floor works. It offered the resident the option to extend the accommodation if she wanted all of the remedial works to be completed in one go as opposed to being carried out in phases. It would pay all reasonable costs associated with the temporary move.
5. It needed more information about what had happened to the wheelchair to investigate the matter further. Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, it would consider funding a replacement wheelchair suited for the resident’s daughter’s needs.
The resident subsequently referred the matter to the Ombudsman. In her email of 26 February 2025, she said:
1. The landlord had sent its email at nearly 9pm, which was unprofessional. This left her feeling anxious overnight over what the landlord would be doing to her family.
2. The revised stage 2 response was written by an individual about whom the resident had made a formal complaint, which she felt was a conflict of interest.
3. The landlord’s response implied that she needed to provide it a receipt for her daughter’s wheelchair, even though it was aware from 2023 about the theft and that it was a gift from her late sister.
4. The landlord’s response made no reference to the unsafe bathroom floor and lack of heating, which meant her family was unable to use the bathroom for washing for over a year. Instead, they had to use facilities in other people’s properties.
5. She did not want a meeting with the landlord, nor with it and the surveyor, for which the landlord had suggested dates. This was because the dates proposed by the landlord were during the month of Ramadan, which she observed, so were unsuitable.
6. She would not be moving into temporary accommodation as the situation was stressful and disruptive for her children. She felt the landlord had only been looking into the matter since the involvement of the Ombudsman, and even then, it was proposing unsuitable homes.
7. The landlord had been contracting her by phone even though she had requested all correspondence in writing.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

The resident has continued to communicate with the landlord since the end of its complaint process. This related to a number of other issues and further complaints, some of which have completed its complaints process. Although there has been an element of overlap in her ongoing communication with the landlord, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues set out at the beginning of this report. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The resident may refer any new complaints to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
The resident has mentioned that her health, and that of her children, has been impacted by the damp and mould in the property and by the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns regarding her family’s health. However, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the bathroom, damp and mould

While this Service has been provided with details of the Tomlin order which was made in May 2023, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the issues of this investigation relating to the bathroom repairs and the damp and mould were not covered by the court order. As a result, they can be considered by the Ombudsman.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as internal walls, floors and ceilings. It will also make good any damage to the interior arising from an inspection of the property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out that its responsibilities in relation to the bathroom include flooring (vinyl and tiled) and water leaks.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard, and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, which include:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage, and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings, and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours and routine repairs within 20 days.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy from March 2023 says:
1. When damp and mould is reported, it will visit the property within 10 days of receiving the report. It will determine at this visit the severity of the issue, and where possible, the cause.
2. If a minor repair such as a damp and mould wash is needed, it will arrange for works to take place. It will contact the resident to ensure they have been completed, and the issue has been resolved.
3. For more severe cases, a follow-up inspection by a surveyor will be arranged within 10 days of the first inspection. Remediation works will be prioritised according to the severity of the risk the damp or mould poses. Where a risk to the health and safety of the household is identified, works will be arranged immediately.
4. Where major works are required, households will be considered for a temporary decant.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy from June 2024 sets out:
1. All initial reports of damp or mould growth will be prioritised as urgent, and consideration will be given to any vulnerabilities.
2. Contact will be made with the resident within 5 working days and an appointment to visit will be made within 10 working days.
3. Following the inspection, a report will be completed. Recommendations for any minor remedial works will be submitted within 2 working days and these will be completed within 20 working days.
4. If severe mould is present, an initial repair will be raised to remove immediate mould risk, and a surveyor inspection will be raised. Following the surveyor’s inspection, a full report will be provided within 3 working days to outline root causes and the required works.
5. Where major works are required, residents will be considered for a temporary decant.
6. If there is a failed access attempt to treat the damp and mould and associated repairs, it will continue to engage with the resident to ensure the necessary agreed resolutions are completed.
7. If there are repeated failed access attempts, it will escalate the matter using its no access process. For no access appointments, the landlord will keep clear records including photographs and exact details of dates and times.
The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that it instructed an inspection of the resident’s property to investigate the damp and mould which had been reported by the resident. This followed on from the resident informing it via email that her daughter had experienced a severe bout of pneumonia and scans showed that there was “mould on her lungs”. The landlord has not provided us with a copy of the original email from the resident, but internal correspondence shows that it was aware of the health concerns on 13 October 2023. It contacted the resident, but this did not appear to take place until 30 October 2023, and at that time it proposed undertaking a mould wash. This was not appropriate and not in keeping with its damp and mould policy. This is because the mould wash would not prevent the mould from reoccurring. The landlord needed to investigate the cause of the mould, especially considering the vulnerabilities of the resident’s family and their belief that the pneumonia was caused by mould spores from the property. However, the email correspondence shows that it was the resident (and not the landlord) who requested that a surveyor should inspect the property. This was a failing.
The landlord has provided evidence that its surveyor attended the property on 6 November 2023, but was unable to gain access. This followed on from it trying to comply with the Tomlin order issued in May 2023, which required it to carry out the schedule of works within 45 days. The landlord’s records show that it attempted to contact the resident at this time but was unable to speak to her. The resident has provided evidence to this Service that on numerous occasions she asked it to not phone her but to put all communication in writing. While the landlord was unable to speak to her on 6 November 2023, there is no evidence that it attempted to follow this up with email her at that time. This was a missed opportunity by it.
Following further contact with the resident to arrange a suitable time, the inspection was carried out by a specialist damp and mould contractor on 14 December 2023. While the Ombudsman understands communication with the landlord was ongoing, the resident has provided evidence that she offered it earlier dates to attend which were not suitable for the specialist contractor. The resident has said that some of the times proposed clashed with hospital appointments for her daughter, and that while she was able to provide dates to the landlord, she required some clarity over the times of day that it could attend. The landlord said that morning appointments were “anytime appointments” from 9am up to 2pm. Given the circumstances of the complaint, including the vulnerabilities of the resident and her family, the landlord could reasonably have provided her with a more specific timeslot for it to attend. This may have allowed the inspection to take place earlier than 14 December 2023. This was another missed opportunity.
The specialist contractor prepared a survey report following the inspection. This report noted that the property had a broken extractor fan in the bathroom, and the surveyor had been unable to access the extractor fan (which was ceiling mounted) in the toilet. The report noted that the property was humid and suffering from moisture migration. Black mould was observed in a bedroom and the windows were noted to be in a bad state. Although 2 of the 3 extractor fans in the property (kitchen, toilet and bathroom) were noted to be working, they were said by the specialist contractor to be performing poorly. The resident had also informed the specialist contractor that the heating was not working, and they noted this needed to be investigated (by the landlord).
The specialist contractor recommended that 2 new extractors were placed in the kitchen and bathroom and that a wall positive input ventilation (PIV) unit was put in the hallway. There was no reference in the report to the bathroom flooring being unsafe. The Ombudsman has not seen whether the landlord carried out any of the recommended works to the property. This was either a failure to carry out works, or a failure to effectively document its actions.
The resident informed this Service that the issues of the bathroom floor crumbling together with a lack of heating have meant that her family was unable to use the bathroom for washing purposes for an extended period. Instead, the resident said they used the facilities at their neighbour’s property and also those of her family. This caused her daughter embarrassment and there was also a degree of inconvenience experienced by the resident.
The Ombudsman has seen that the earliest reference to the bathroom floor being unsafe was made by the resident in March 2024. The uneven nature of the bathroom floor had previously been noted in June 2023 when the landlord inspected the property, as a follow-up to the Tomlin order. However, there was no indication at that time that the bathroom was unsafe for the resident to use due to the flooring issues. The evidence provided by the landlord from February 2024 showed it was in discussions with the resident to arrange for its surveyor to inspect the property, and to look at the disrepair issues (including the bathroom) which were raised by the resident. This involved it discussing the matter with its legal team, as the resident wanted a different surveyor who had previously attended the property in 2020 to reattend. She was informed that the surveyor who previously attended was now longer employed by it and so this was not possible. The Ombudsman understands an agreement was reached between the parties for the landlord’s surveyor to attend on 3 April 2024.
The surveyor’s report from 15 April 2024 noted a section of the “floor tongue and grove board at the base of the bath panel has sunken”. The surveyor considered that this was likely caused by spillages from the bath or from historical leaks which had gone under the vinyl flooring. The surveyor recommended that the vinyl flooring was stripped and damaged floorboards replaced, and that new wall-to-wall vinyl flooring was then installed. This would address the flooring, although the report noted further work needed to be undertaken in the bathroom – including to the window – which meant the room needed to be redecorated completely and the window overhauled.
The surveyor’s report also noted the poor performance of the existing extractor fans in the property, although no mould was observed to be present in the bathroom. The surveyor provided some pictures of the resident’s property, which backed up their view on the issue. Although there were just under 4 months between the landlord’s specialist contractor undertaking a survey in mid-December 2023 and the landlord’s surveyor attending at the beginning of April 2024, the comments about the extractor fans supported that no action on them had been taken by the landlord. This was a failing by it, although in mitigation, the Ombudsman accepts there had been access issues for some of this time.
The survey report noted that while some of the works mentioned within the report could be carried out while the resident was in occupation, the surveyor recommended that the resident was decanted before the work commenced. The landlord missed an opportunity to set out clearly in the report which work required the decant and which work could be carried out without the need for the decant. This was an opportunity for it to be clear in its communications and provide the resident with a timebound schedule of works so that she could understand the scale of works which were needed.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the surveyor who attended on 3 April 2024. She said in her complaint that the surveyor had used old photos in their report and that the report was not independent. She added that no moisture readings were taken, and that the bathroom floor was uneven and subsided on one side. She also pointed out that the surveyor had not mentioned the mould around the bath.
Following on from the resident’s referral to the Ombudsman, the landlord appropriately arranged for an independent surveyor to attend to the property. This was in relation to the resident’s reported disrepair. This inspection took place in January 2025, some 9 months after the previous disrepair inspection carried out by the landlord’s surveyor. The report noted there were breaches of HHSRS, such as damp and mould in a number of rooms including the bedrooms and bathroom, which the independent surveyor felt was condensation-based. The report also noted elevated humidity levels, which the surveyor felt was due to inadequate ventilation including ineffective extractor fans.
The surveyor’s report in January 2025 noted that the overall condition of the bathroom was poor and that it was unsafe. The vinyl flooring was noted to the split in 2 sections near to the bath. This had caused “water to seep below and cause damage/rot to the plywood below”. The surveyor noted health and safety issues with the bath, including rust, and that tiles had de-bonded and there were holes in the grout. The surveyor noted a breach of HHSRS relating to falls on the level service of the bathroom.
The surveyor set out a schedule of required works, which they felt amounted to around 3 weeks’ work. The surveyor noted that, due to the vulnerabilities of the resident’s daughter, if the resident’s family remained in the property it “would hinder some of the repairs”. It therefore recommended a decant for the resident.
While the Ombudsman notes the landlord was in active discussions with the resident over a temporary decant following the survey inspection, the actual work needed to resolve the unsafe nature of the bathroom flooring did not require the resident to be decanted. The work on the flooring was completed in July 2025 and took 3 to 4 hours to be completed. This aligned with the timescales the resident said she was previously quoted by 2 builders who she had contacted about the matter. Given this, it is not clear why the urgent repair was not completed prior to this time, especially as it did not require the resident to be decanted for it to take place. This was a failing by the landlord.
In summary, although the Ombudsman understands that there have been issues with the landlord on occasions not being able to access the property, and that it has referred the matter to its legal team, there were significant delays by it in dealing with the damp and mould and the issue of the bathroom flooring. These issues were not directly related to the original disrepair claim covered by the Tomlin order. The landlord did not act in accordance with its stated approach on damp and mould, and it did not take action following the recommendations made in its original inspection by a specialist contractor in December 2023. The landlord also failed to communicate with the resident using her preferred method of communication. While it attempted to arrange a temporary decant in order to carry out repairs, some of these did not require a decant to be undertaken. This contributed to further delays in completing the repairs to the bathroom flooring. We find these failings amount to severe maladministration.
While the landlord made an offer of £1,000 in its revised stage 2 response, the Ombudsman does not consider this sufficient considering the extent of the landlord’s failings. In addition, the compensation was made by the landlord following the end of the landlord’s original internal complaints process (which followed the first stage 2 response of 30 May 2024). This meant that it could not be considered reasonable redress.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay £5,025 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble and loss of amenities, in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy. This amount is made up of:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
2. £500 for the time and trouble she experienced.
3. £4,025 for the loss of use of the bathroom from March 2024 to when the repairs to the flooring were undertaken in July 2025. This has been calculated using the weekly rent (net of fuel charge and service charge) of £188.99 per week as of 2025 and applying a 30% deduction as per the landlord’s compensation policy (30% of £188.99 = £56.70 x 71 weeks).

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of the temporary accommodation

The landlord’s housing allocations policy sets out the different banding levels it gives residents when they want to move homes. The bands range from A (the highest need to move) to D. Band A is awarded for cases where there is a life-threatening medical condition or an imminent personal risk. Band B is awarded to residents with a medical need which is adversely affected by their housing situation, overcrowding, or when an urgent need to move is agreed in liaison with social services.
The landlord lists its available properties online. All eligible residents can bid for them using the banding priority the landlord provided.
The resident confirmed that she was granted a banding of A in December 2020, and that prior to this she had a B banding. She said that despite this, the landlord had not provided her any suitable properties which met her needs in 7 years, and that rather than looking into temporary accommodation she wanted it to arrange a permanent move.
It is acknowledged that the resident provided the landlord with a number of pieces of supporting evidence, both from medical professionals and from other sources, which support her need for a move. However, given that she had already been approved for the highest banding, it is unlikely that these further supporting letters would have changed this.
The landlord said that it sympathised with the resident’s situation, but it remained the case that it currently had no properties to offer her which would meet her needs for a permanent move. It went on to say that it would continue to monitor for any suitable properties but that it could not say when one would become available. This response was reasonable in the circumstances and served to manage the resident’s expectations.
It is understandable that the resident wanted to move on a permanent basis, to a property which met her needs and those of her family. However, given the limited availability of suitable alternative social housing, it would not be fair for this Service to determine that the length of time the resident had to wait for a new property to be sourced and offered was a failure on the landlord’s part.
The landlord has a decant policy which sets out its approach when residents are required to move from their properties temporarily due to planned works. The policy says that if the landlord requires a resident to relocate, it will consider their “health, safety and wellbeing, any vulnerabilities and moving arrangements before proceeding with the relocation process”.
The landlord’s decant policy sets out that when it asks a resident to move out temporarily for planned works, it will make one offer of suitable alternative accommodation, and if this is refused it may exercise its legal right to seek possession or obtain an injunction. The policy says that the suitable alternative accommodation should be suitably sized for the household, and that the landlord will take into account the access needs of disabled residents and also consider proximity to their place of work. The policy further sets out that the landlord will consider reasonable expenses for temporary relocations, including the temporary storage of items, moving costs, and additional travel costs linked to the relocation.
In her complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident explained how her living situation had impacted on her own and her family’s health and wellbeing. In particular, she set out the need for her accommodation to be near to her GP, the hospital which was treating her daughter, and the additional storage required for her medical equipment. The evidence supports her explanations about the impact on her and her family. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether a landlord has acted reasonably in the circumstances of the complaint. It is not to substitute our own decisions for the landlord’s. That means that one of the things we have considered is how the landlord addressed the supporting details the resident provided to it.
The evidence supplied to this Service shows the landlord made a number of temporary offers of accommodation to the resident. These included properties which were not within the locality of the resident’s current property. The landlord also offered properties which varied in size. This was based on the resident’s assertions that she was flexible in her request and had even offered to split her family up to allow the relocation to take place. In terms of the properties offered, the landlord confirmed that it would assist with further costs which included the cost of taxi fares for the resident’s partner to get to work. It also said it would fund a wheelchair for the resident’s daughter. However, when the resident made further enquiries and asked the extent of the taxi fares which would be covered, the landlord did not respond. This was a missed opportunity for it to engage and clarify what it could offer and what issues it was unable to assist with.
The landlord’s offers also included properties not situated on the ground floor. This was despite it being aware the resident did not have a wheelchair for her daughter and that the supporting evidence clearly mentioned the move to a property on the ground floor. Offering accommodation options that the resident would have felt unable to accept for practical reasons was a failing by it. Had it accompanied these offers with additional solutions, such as the simultaneous provision of a wheelchair and/or assurance regarding reliable lift access, the resident may have felt more able to consider them.
The Ombudsman notes that the majority of the temporary decant offers to the resident were only made in the past few months. The resident felt that its offers were prompted by this Service’s involvement. The surveyor’s inspection, which highlighted the degree of works currently needed to the property, was only carried out in January 2025. However, the landlord was aware of the need of a decant in 2023, which followed on from the Tomlin order and the works which were highlighted at that time. Although the Ombudsman accepts there were issues with the landlord accessing the property and turning up at unsuitable times, it is not clear that it actively and continuously looked into carrying out the works and decanting the resident since May 2023. The Ombudsman notes the resident told the landlord she wanted it to prioritise a permanent move. However, the temporary decant related to the repairs which the landlord needed to carry out to the resident’s existing property, and this was a separate issue to the possibility of a permanent move.
Taking all matters into account, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the suitability of temporary accommodation. Although the landlord appears to have acted in accordance with its housing and decant policies in making more than one offer of accommodation to the resident, some of the offers made by it were unsuitable in the circumstances. This related to how easy it was for the resident to get to the hospital and GP, as well as the properties not being on the ground floor. The Ombudsman notes the landlord did offer the option of further expenses for the temporary decant, which showed it was prepared to engage with the resident to try to resolve her concerns. However, when the resident made further enquiries over the nature of what else it could offer, it did not actively communicate with her.
The Ombudsman has awarded compensation of £400. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which the landlord acknowledged and made attempts to put right, but it failed to address the detriment to the resident. The amount is also in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy for high impact, where there had been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which had caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the theft of her daughter’s wheelchair

The resident has provided evidence that she informed the landlord shortly after August 2023 that her daughter’s wheelchair had been stolen, together with her other daughter’s bike. She said that as she lived on the first floor and the lift was constantly breaking down, she had left the wheelchair in the locked bike store on the ground floor. The resident said she paid a service charge to the landlord which meant that it was responsible for the bike store. She added that the landlord’s operatives had been observed to be around that area at the time the wheelchair was taken, and she suspected they had been the ones to take it. The resident explained that she was initially informed by the caretaker that the CCTV which overlooked the bike store was working, but when this was requested by the police, the landlord advised that the CCTV was not available.
The landlord informed the resident in response to another complaint that the issue of the stolen wheelchair was considered by it as part of a previous complaint. It provided the resident with a copy of the reference number for that complaint. However, the Ombudsman notes that it did not inform the resident of this as part of this complaint. Instead, in its revised stage 2 response the landlord asked the resident for further information relating to the theft so that it could investigate the matter. This would normally be reasonable. However, a significant period of time had elapsed since the incident occurred. In addition, the Ombudsman has seen a number of emails from the resident which clearly set out the details for the landlord previously.
There is no evidence that the landlord carried out enquiries by asking the caretaker or any other staff about the incident. This was a missed opportunity by it. While the resident provided a crime reference number from the police, it appears that she contacted the police herself and was not directed to do so by the landlord. This was again a missed opportunity by it to offer appropriate advice/signposting, and its omission would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.
In terms of allegations of theft, the police are best placed to investigate criminal matters. However, in addition to this, it would have also been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to submit a claim to her contents insurer, or (if she did not have such cover) for it to provide details of its own insurer for a claim to be submitted. If it had reasons for not doing so, it should have explained these. This was a failing by the landlord.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would contribute to the funding of a new wheelchair. This was conveyed to the resident in a number of separate emails and letters, including the revised stage 2 response. It also made it clear that the contribution would not be dependent on its investigation. While the landlord has not provided details of how much it would contribute, the Ombudsman understands from the resident that she gave it details of other wheelchairs, different to the one which was stolen. The price of these different wheelchairs varied significantly.
In summary, the landlord failed to advise the resident to refer any alleged theft to the police as the most appropriate body to investigate criminal activity. It also failed to refer the matter to its insurer. The impact of this would have been to cause the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience, as well as potentially disadvantage her due to the delay in presenting the matter to the landlord’s insurer. The landlord did, however, make an offer to contribute to the cost of a new wheelchair and explain that for this it needed further information from the resident and her daughter’s medical team. This presumably would be to ensure the wheelchair being proposed was suitable for her needs. This offer was appropriate and solution-focused.
The Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration. Although the landlord has made an offer to contribute towards a new wheelchair the issue remains outstanding more than 2 years since the theft occurred. This means that the resident has been reliant on obtaining assistance from the hospital to take her daughter to appointments and this has severely limited her ability to be taken out of the property at other times. Despite the resident having provided it with details about the theft including evidence she referred it to the police the landlord did not investigate the matter at the time.
The Ombudsman has awarded £350 compensation. In addition, an order has been made for the landlord to work together with the resident and her daughter’s medical team to determine which replacement wheelchair would be appropriate. It should then confirm what contribution it will make towards the cost of the wheelchair.
The Ombudsman’s compensation award is in keeping with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which the landlord had acknowledged, and it attempted to make some attempts to put right but failed to address the detriment to the resident. The amount is also in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy for high impact, where there had been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. At stage 2, the landlord will provide its response within 20 working days of the escalation. Complaints at either stage will be acknowledged within 5 working days.
From the evidence provided to this Service, the resident contacted the landlord on 8 March 2024 to raise her complaint. She had been in touch with it about other issues around this time, but it was accepted that this complaint was only made on 8 March 2024. The resident’s email from this time related to the social services referral made by the landlord, but also set out other issues including repairs and the failure to move her. The resident’s email said that these issues, together with the social services referral, made up her formal complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 March 2024, after 10 working days. This was in keeping with the timescales within its policy. It then issued a stage 2 response on 30 May 2024. However, this was prior to the resident requesting an escalation of her complaint. The resident has provided this Service with her escalation request, which was not made until 3 June 2024, several days after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response.
Though the resident contacted the landlord on 3 June 2024 to point out the errors in its complaint handling, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to her. This was a failing by it. Although it is clear that the resident continued to contact the landlord after this time about other matters, also raising concerns about her daughter’s wheelchair and the lack of repairs as set out in the Tomlin order, it failed to respond to her. This was not acceptable. If the landlord felt that the complaint had completed its internal complaints process, it should have informed the resident of this. There is no evidence that it did this.
The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 responses only dealt with the resident’s complaint about the social services referral, which is being considered by the Ombudsman under a separate complaint (our reference 202412875)). The landlord’s actions were not in keeping with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which became statutory in April 2024 and which sets out that the landlord must “address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions”. The Code also sets out that if a resident raises “additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued”. This was a failing by it.
Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord issued a further stage 2 response in February 2025, which dealt with the other issues the resident had raised apart from the social services referral. This was over 8 months after the resident’s escalation request. This was considerably outside of the timescales contained in its complaints policy.
The landlord did acknowledge in its revised stage 2 response that it had incorrectly escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 without her requesting this and without her knowledge. However, it did not provide any explanation of how this had occurred. This was a missed opportunity by it to demonstrate that it was being more transparent in its communication to the resident, to show that it had thoroughly looked into the matter, and to take learning from the complaint.
In summary, the landlord failed to address all of the resident’s complaint issues in its original formal responses. It also escalated the complaint to stage 2 without a request for this being made by the resident. After the resident contacted the landlord to point this out in June 2024, the landlord did not respond until February 2025, following the intervention of the Ombudsman. These failings amount to maladministration.
While the landlord made an offer of compensation of £1,000 in its revised stage 2 response, no breakdown was provided by it for whether any of this related to its complaint handling failures. The revised stage 2 response did acknowledge issues with complaint handling, for which it appropriately apologised. However, the lack of any compensation specifically for this issue was not in keeping with its compensation policy, which says where there are unreasonable delays against its service standards it will provide financial compensation.
In addition, the compensation offer was made by the landlord following the end of its original internal complaints process (which followed the first stage 2 response of 30 May 2024). This meant that even if a breakdown was provided by the landlord for complaint handling, it could not be considered reasonable redress (even if was deemed sufficient).
The Ombudsman has awarded compensation of £250. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which the landlord acknowledged and made attempts to put right, but it failed to address the detriment to the resident. The amount is also in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy for medium impact, where the service provided by it caused inconvenience which was not manageable for the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the repair to her bathroom, including concerns about missed appointments and its communication with her.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the suitability of temporary accommodation.
2. Concerns about the theft of her daughter’s wheelchair.
3. Complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a senior executive for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £6,025 compensation. If the landlord has already paid any compensation to the resident in line with its formal responses it can deduct the amount from the total awarded. The figure of £6,025 is made up of:
  1. £5,025 for its failings in handling reports of damp and repairs to the bathroom.
  2. £400 for its failings in the suitability of temporary accommodation.
  3. £350 for its failings in the resident’s concerns about the wheelchair.
  4. £250 for its failings in complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to determine a suitable replacement wheelchair, in conjunction with the recommendations of her daughter’s medical team. The landlord should then confirm to both the resident and to the Ombudsman in writing what contribution it would be making towards the cost of the wheelchair. It should provide its reasons for this.