Notting Hill Genesis (202346197)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346197

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

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

1. The leaseholder’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Her concerns about turnover of staff.
   2. Her concerns regarding sinking funds and service charges.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

3. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. On 12 July 2024 the leaseholder explained frustration to us over the lack of management of the building and constant changes of staff since 2022. She explained that the landlord had a high staff turnover and believed this was a result of the landlord hiring employees who were inexperienced and incapable of doing the job. She explained there had been 16 changes in staff.
5. We have not seen evidence to show this was raised prior to the formal responses being issued. This matter was not addressed in the landlord’s formal response. It also was not raised in the leaseholder’s initial complaint dated 20 December 2023.
6. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
7. Part of the leaseholder’s complaint was about what she described as a continuous turnover of staff.
8. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the complaint regarding the leaseholder’s concerns about the continuous turnover of staff is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because it is not a matter that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider in its complaints procedure. It is therefore fair to allow the landlord a chance to investigate the concerns through its internal complaints procedure.

Background

9. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association. The lease commenced on 30 September 2005. The property is a 1 bedroom flat.
10. On 25 September 2023 the landlord provided the leaseholder with the end of year service charges. It informed the leaseholder that her share of the deficit was £663.93.
11. During October 2023 leaseholders of the block had a meeting to discuss concerns about charges. Subsequently they requested a meeting with the leasehold management team. This was to discuss sinking funds, service charges, proposed cyclical works and concerns raised by leaseholders about the level of support from the landlord.
12. The landlord met with leaseholders on 27 November 2023 to discuss their concerns. The leaseholders had requested the landlord provide them with additional information.
13. On 20 December 2023 the leaseholder raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about end of year service charges. She also complained about the lack of information and resolution from the meeting which was held in November 2023. She was unhappy about money taken from her account and the manner in which it was taken, stating this was not an authorised payment.
14. On 5 January 2024 the leaseholder resent her complaint dated 20 December 2023. The landlord redirected her to its online link to raise a new formal complaint.
15. On 10 January 2024 the leaseholder said she would not raise a further complaint and requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2, for the following reasons:
    1. The landlord took funds for charges which were in dispute. This was done without her authorisation.
    2. She had a lack of confidence in the charges incurred and noted repeated errors.
    3. She did not have a property management officer, and the senior officer was not responding which resulted in further escalation.
    4. Correspondence sent in October 2023 went unacknowledged and unanswered.
    5. No follow up response was provided to the action points from the meeting dated 27 November 2023.
16. The leaseholder further complained on 27 January 2024 about her complaint being unresolved and stated communication was “non-existent”. She explained she would be taking the case to tribunal.
17. During February 2024 the leaseholder’s complaint was allocated to a staff member who had previously dealt with a past complaint. She explained to the landlord she did not wish for this case handler to investigate the complaint, therefore her case was reassigned.
18. The leaseholder further complained about the lack of communication from the new case handler. She also said that the previous case handler continued to be involved despite her request.
19. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 28 March 2024.
    1. It understood the leaseholder’s complaint to be about:
       1. Incorrect sinking funds: It acknowledged an error with the sinking fund details conveyed in a letter dated 27 September 2022. It rectified this error and informed the leaseholder on 29 September 2023.
       2. Lack of engagement and response from its leaseholder team: It apologised for its lack of engagement and inconvenience caused. It noted since January 2024 its engagement with the leaseholder had improved.
       3. End of year service charges: The landlord apologised for the delay in addressing concerns and any confusion the leaseholder had experienced about the charges.
       4. Percentage apportionments to each property: It explained amounts are determined by the terms of the lease or tenancy agreement.
       5. Transaction details listed for end of year charges: It confirmed a breakdown of expenditure for the year was provided in its reports.
       6. Difference between core and block charges: It explained it structured its services by block and estate to ensure fairness and transparency in charges. Core charges are for services in communal areas within the block. Estates charges are for services provided to communal areas of estates.
       7. Reason for £663.96 deduction from account: It explained the deficit in the 2022/23 accounts resulted from unforeseen expenses exceeding the budget amount. It communicated this in a letter to the leaseholder, explaining the deficit was levied against the account to cover the shortfall.
    2. The landlord acknowledged there was a failure in communicating with the leaseholder and meeting its commitments. It also acknowledged a lack of empathy and understanding. In recognition of this, it apologised and offered her £50 compensation.
20. The leaseholder brought her complaint to this service during July 2024. She was unhappy about:
    1. The handling of concerns raised in relation to the end of year service charges 2022/23.
    2. The continuous turnover of landlord’s staff which has led to lack of continuity and poor service received.
    3. Issues relating to the sinking fund that remain unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation  

21. The leaseholder has advised that her concerns about service charges goes back for the last 7 years. The Ombudsman considers it reasonable for a resident to raise a formal complaint about matters within a reasonable period of these occurring, usually considered to be 12 months. This is so the landlord has an opportunity to investigate the matters while they are still live and while relevant records are still readily available. It is not evident that the leaseholder raised a formal complaint about these earlier matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As such, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of service charges for the financial year 2022/2023.
22. During a recent call with the leaseholder, she explained how the ongoing issues had impacted her mental health. While we cannot make a determination on the cause or liability concerning mental health. We have taken into consideration how the service failure impacted the leaseholder.

Concerns regarding sinking funds and service charges

23. On 17 October 2023, the leaseholder requested a meeting with the landlord’s leaseholder’s management team. She also requested the transaction list for the service charges be provided. The landlord failed to acknowledge this or respond to the request. This led to the leaseholder further chasing on 31 October 2023.
24. We find the landlord failed to provide adequate evidence of its follow up to the meeting held on 27 November 2023. Requests for copies of the service charge transaction list and invoices were not satisfied, leaving the leaseholder without information needed to understand the charges.
25. The landlord did not demonstrate that it responded within a reasonable timeframe to the request. Despite chasing, the leaseholder had still not received the information by January 2024. This lack of response was unreasonable and caused avoidable stress.
26. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed a breakdown had since been provided to the leaseholder in its report. It is unclear when this was provided. It also explained the difference between block and core charges.
27. While we acknowledge this, we find there was a failure to respond within a reasonable timeframe to the leaseholder’s request in line with the landlord’s obligation. This was unreasonable as it left the leaseholder without clear information for over 3 months. This resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience.
28. On 25 September 2023 the landlord wrote to the leaseholder about the end of year service charge. It enclosed a statement and explained the overall accounts were in a deficit. It explained the leaseholder’s share was -£663.93. The landlord stated that the deficit was recoverable in accordance with the terms of the lease. Further stating any deficit would be applied to the leaseholder’s rent account before 1 November 2023.
29. Throughout September to November 2023 the leaseholder disputed the charges. However, the landlord still proceeded to take the funds from her account. The leaseholder realised funds had been taken from her service charge account and made a complaint on 20 December 2023.
30. We have considered the landlord’s communication regarding the funds taken, and whether it followed its policy. The landlord’s service charge policy outlines how the landlord manages deficits on service charge accounts.
    1. Section 3.2 is in reference to statements and payment requests. It states the landlord will provide residents with various options for making their service charge payments.
    2. Section 3.5 is in reference to surplus and deficits. It states the management of this will depend on the requirements of the lease agreement, licence or title document, which are contractually binding. Also that residents will be sent a summary of account showing where there is a surplus or deficit.
31. The landlord appropriately wrote to the leaseholder about the end of year charges and provided a summary of accounts. Its position was that the deficit was applied to the service charge account to cover the shortfall. It did not comment on whether authorisation was needed. Given that the charges were in dispute, this was a missed opportunity to make clear whether its actions were in line with its policy. Its failure to clarify added to the resident’s distress.
32. The landlord offered the leaseholder £50 compensation in its stage 2 response. This was in recognition of its poor communication, lack of empathy and failure to meet commitments in a timely manner.
33. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will award:
    1. Up to £100 for low impact, where service standards have not been met. This is where the issue has taken slightly longer than expected causing some inconvenience to the resident.
    2. Up to £250 for medium impact, where the service has markedly failed to meet service standard. Also where the failure has caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable for the resident.
    3. Up to £500 for high impact, where there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
34. Overall, we find the compensation offered by the landlord did not fairly reflect its failures or the distress and inconvenience caused to the leaseholder.
35. This is because the landlord failed to provide information over a period of 3 months, despite repeated chasing from the leaseholder and proceeded to deduct disputed charges without ensuring the leaseholder understood the process for deducting charges. This caused distress and inconvenience.
36. Given the above failings, a finding of maladministration has been made. Given the failures which occurred, the landlord should have compensated in line with its award for medium impact. Therefore, we have made an order to reflect this.

Complaint handling

37. The landlord’s complaint policy requires it to:
    1. Acknowledge and log complaints within 5 workings days.
    2. Provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days (extendable to 20 working days).
    3. Provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days (extendable to 30 working days).
38. We find the landlord failed to adhere to its own policy. The leaseholder’s initial email complaint dated 20 December 2023, should have been logged and acknowledge as a stage 1. Instead, she was incorrectly directed to restart the process again in January 2024. This caused unnecessary delay and distress.
39. The landlord did not respond to the stage 2 complaint within its expected timescales. The leaseholder had to chase for updates, and the response was eventually issued outside the expected timeframe. Although the stage 2 response was sent by post on 28 March 2028, the landlord could have reasonably sent this via email, which would have avoided further delay.
40. There was poor communication when the complaint was reassigned to a new case handler, and it failed to contact the leaseholder. Despite repeated requested, which caused avoidable distress.
41. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not acknowledge these complaint handling failures. Therefore, we find maladministration in its handling of the leaseholder’s complaint. In line with its compensation policy and considering the delays, poor communication and inconvenience caused, we are ordering the landlord to pay £100 compensation.

Determination

42. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the leaseholder’s complaint about the continuous turnover of staff was outside of our jurisdiction.
43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaseholder’s concerns regarding sinking funds and service charges.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the leaseholder’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

45. The landlord to pay the leaseholder £350 compensation. This is in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. This includes the £50 offered at stage 2.
    1. £250 for its handling of the leaseholder’s concerns regarding sinking funds and service charges.
    2. £100 for its complaint handling.
46. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this investigation. The landlord must provide evidence to us showing it has complied with this order.