Notting Hill Genesis (202347308)

Decision
Case ID	202347308
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	22 January 2026

Background

The resident raised formal complaints with the landlord about its response to her reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) in relation to the behaviour of a neighbour on the floor below. She said he had been threatening and abusive and she did not feel safe in her home. She said she had asked the landlord to move her to another property. She said she had given the landlord sufficient evidence of the ASB, but it had taken no action. The resident lives in the property with her 3 children. She said the ongoing issues had affected her and her children’s mental health.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to reports of ASB and the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found that:
1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB and the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation
2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to reports of ASB and the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation

There was a delay in the landlord reassessing the resident’s transfer banding to band A. The landlord did not act in line with its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports of ASB. However, it acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered sufficient compensation to put things right. It also opened a new ASB case following the stage 2 response and made attempts to engage with the resident in line with its ASB policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not acknowledge the first stage 1 complaint and it delayed in responding at stage 1. However, it recognised and acknowledged its failings. It apologised and offered sufficient compensation to put things right.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £900 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for both the landlord’s response to reports of ASB and the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation and the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis that this compensation is paid to the resident.
The landlord should contact the resident, in writing to her home address, to offer her a further opportunity to engage with it if she is still experiencing ASB from her neighbour.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 October 2024	The resident raised a formal complaint about ongoing ASB from a neighbour (complaint 1).
13 December 2024	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response. It said: following reports of ASB from the resident it agreed to review her rehousing banding for overcrowding. It awarded the resident band A in November 2024 due to a lack of evidence from the police, and the individual circumstances of the neighbour (which it could not disclose), it was unable to consider any form of intervention or enforce legal action against the neighbour it considered it had adequately dealt with the reports of ASB by increasing the resident’s banding to band A. It acknowledged there were delays in reassessing the resident’s banding. It apologised for the delays, inconvenience, and the impact on the resident and her children the current case worker would provide updates about the transfer and provide the resident with further support it partially upheld the complaint due to the poor level of service, delays in taking action and supporting the resident with a property transfer it apologised for poor complaint handling as it did not acknowledge the complaint and delayed issuing the stage 1 response it offered the resident £650 compensation made up of £250 for failing to meet its ASB service standards, £250 for distress and inconvenience, and £150 for complaint handling failures
25 April 2025	The resident raised a further formal complaint about repeated and escalating incidents of ASB involving her neighbour (complaint 2). She said the landlord had failed to take action against the neighbour and failed to move her and her children. She said her children were traumatised and she often had to leave her home and sleep at a family member’s house or find temporary accommodation. She said she had been reporting incidents since 2022 and the landlord had either not responded, delayed in responding, or dismissed her. She said, although she had been given band A for rehousing, she had not received any offers.
15 May 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 extension letter extending the deadline for a response by 10 working days.
2 June 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response. It said: It did not uphold the resident’s complaint as there had been no identified failures it had awarded the resident a band A transfer priority and it was making ongoing efforts to find her a property allocations were based on banding and priority date, meaning those granted an earlier band A status would receive priority it understood the resident’s case was difficult and sensitive, but it was treating the case as a priority investigations were ongoing and, although it could not disclose the details, the matter was being handled efficiently
3 June 2025	The resident escalated both complaints to stage 2. She said the landlord had failed to respond appropriately to her complaints. She said the landlord was not engaging with her and it had failed to complete a risk assessment and provide safe alternative accommodation.
7 July 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 extension letter extending the deadline for a response by 20 working days.
31 July 2025	The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response covering both complaint 1 and complaint 2. It said: it had increased the resident’s priority to band A in November 2024 and it was actively looking for properties that met her needs it had offered the resident a property to view but she had not attended the arranged viewings it could not control the short lists as properties were offered by banding and priority date it was limited as to the information it could disclose in relation to the actions it had taken, and was taking, against the neighbour the delay in the police providing disclosure had delayed its decision on how to proceed it acknowledged it had not managed the resident’s reports in line with its policies and procedures. It had opened an ASB case on 31 July 2025 but it had been unable to speak to the resident. It would contact the resident again within the next 5 working days to carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan it upheld the offer of £150 for complaint handling failures made at stage 1 (complaint 1). It apologised for its failings, recognised communication failures, and increased the compensation for failures to meet its ASB standards to £500, increasing the total amount for ASB to £750.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate as she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted the landlord to acknowledge its failings, clear her arrears, and offer her an alternative property.

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	The landlord’s response to reports of ASB and the resident’s request to move to alternative accommodation
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

The resident told us that the ongoing issues with ASB have affected her and her children’s mental 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 have not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
The resident reported a serious incident involving her neighbour to both the police and the landlord in May 2022. However, the evidence shows that there were no further reports of ASB until 19 February 2024. Therefore, given the length of time between reports, this assessment will only consider the landlord’s response to the ASB reports from 19 February 2024 onwards.

What we have investigated

The resident reported an incident involving her neighbour, the alleged perpetrator, to the police on 19 February 2024. The resident said the neighbour had kicked her front door and had threatened her. The resident reported the same incident to the landlord on 22 February 2024.
The landlord’s ASB policy says on receiving a report of ASB it aims to contact the resident in 1 working day and offer them a visit within 5 working days. It also says it will complete a risk assessment with the resident and agree an action plan. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord made any contact with the resident following her report.
Children’s Services contacted the landlord on 29 February 2024. They said they had received a police notification on 19 February 2024 raising concerns about the resident’s children due to alleged threats made by the neighbour. Children’s Services said they were in support of a move to an alternative property to ensure the safety of the children. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to Children’s Services.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 4 March 2024. It tried to contact the resident 3 times by telephone on the same day. As it was unable to speak to the resident, the landlord closed the case. This was not in line with its ASB policy which says its initial response to a report of ASB is to investigate and monitor any risk. There is no evidence to show that the landlord made any attempts to investigate the resident’s reports. It made no further attempts to contact her on a different day, or by a different method of communication. This was unreasonable given the seriousness of the incident and the nature of the contact from Children’s Services.
There is also no evidence to show that the landlord took a multi-agency approach, in line with its ASB policy, as it made no attempt to discuss the incident with the police or Children’s Services.
The resident reported further incidents of ASB to the police in June 2024. Although the nature of the reports is unclear from the evidence provided. The landlord contacted the resident on or around 26 July 2024. It is unclear from the evidence provided what prompted the landlord’s contact. However, it discussed a transfer application and the resident submitted her request on the same day. The landlord said it would complete a police disclosure request, although there is no evidence to show that it did this.
The landlord opened an ASB case on 30 July 2024. There is no evidence to show that it offered to visit the resident or that it completed a risk assessment and action plan, in line with its ASB policy. Although the landlord’s notes say it contacted other agencies, there is no evidence to show the nature of its contact or the responses. There is no evidence to show that the landlord considered using any of its ‘early intervention’ tools, detailed in the policy, such as warnings or acceptable behaviour contracts in an attempt to resolve the ASB. If it did consider these options, there is no evidence to show why they were not suitable in the circumstances of the case.
The resident reported a further incident on 30 August 2024. She said her neighbour had been banging on his ceiling on 25 August 2024 and shouting. The resident said her children were staying with a family member as they were frightened. There is no evidence to show the landlord responded to the resident’s email or that it took any action as a result of her report.
The landlord approved the transfer application on 31 October 2024 and her banding was increased to band A. This meant she was able to bid, as a priority, on a small number of the landlord’s properties available for transfer applicants. Although this was helpful to the resident, it had taken 3 months from the date of the resident’s submission to approve her application, which was an unreasonable delay. In addition, it was the only action the landlord had agreed to take to assist the resident and her children and it was not an immediate solution. The information available on the landlord’s website says that it can take several years to move using the transfer system. Yet the landlord had not agreed any follow up actions with the resident or agreed any regular contact. It did not communicate to the resident about any alternative solutions should the transfer take time.
The police referred the case to the community multi agency risk assessment conference (CMARAC) in February 2025. The meeting took place on 13 March 2025. The landlord agreed, following the meeting, to make an appointment with the resident to discuss her recent concerns, to discuss a direct offer of alternative accommodation, and to discuss a support referral.
The resident met with the landlord on 18 March 2025. The landlord agreed to submit a police disclosure request and speak to a potential witness to gather evidence so it could consider its next steps. It also said it would ask its contractor to look at whether it could increase the security of the resident’s front door. This was a reasonable course of action to take in the circumstances. The landlord also asked the resident to provide any recordings of past incidents which it could use as evidence in any legal proceedings it might take.
The resident continued to report incidents and told the landlord on 28 March 2025 that she had been forced to leave her home due to the neighbour’s behaviour. The resident asked the landlord several questions in relation to the required evidence and finding an alternative property. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 June 2025 to arrange a viewing of an available property under a direct offer. The resident did not attend the viewing on 13 June 2025 or subsequent viewings of the property arranged for 19 June 2025 and 26 June 2025. The landlord informed the resident on 30 June 2025 that it had withdrawn the offer. This was in line with its allocations and lettings policy which says it will only make 1 direct offer.
In its complaint responses the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in reassessing the resident’s transfer banding and its poor handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It also acknowledged its communication failures. It recognised that it had not effectively managed the reports of ASB in line with its policies and procedures. It said it had opened an ASB case and it would contact the resident within the next 5 working days to discuss the case to complete a risk assessment and agree an action plan. The landlord apologised and offered the resident an additional £250 compensation for its poor handling of ASB. This brought the total compensation for ASB failings to £750.
The landlord made several attempts to contact the resident to progress the ASB case by telephone and email, as agreed in its stage 2 response. It closed the case on 11 September 2025 due to non-engagement from the resident.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case, the landlord’s apology, its offer to progress an ASB case in line with its ASB policy, and its offer of £750 compensation represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. The compensation is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. However, given that we are not aware whether the issues are ongoing for the resident, we have made a recommendation that the landlord contacts the resident, in writing, to give her a further opportunity to engage.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024) (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s current complaint procedure complies with the Code.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 22 October 2024. It did not acknowledge the complaint. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 response on 13 December 2024. This was significantly outside of the 10 working days set within the landlord’s complaints policy.
The resident raised a further complaint on 25 April 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within the 5 working days set within its policy. It extended the complaint deadline date by 10 working days on 15 May 2025 and responded at stage 1 on 2 June 2025 within the 20 working days timeframe.
The resident escalated both complaints to stage 2 on 3 June 2025. The landlord sent the acknowledgement letter on 10 June 2025, within the required timeframe. The landlord extended the date of the stage 2 response by a further 20 working days on 7 July 2025. It sent the resident a stage 2 response covering both complaints on 31 July 2025. This was within the 40 working days timeframe.
The landlord recognised that it did not acknowledge the resident’s first stage 1 complaint and that it delayed in sending the first stage 1 response. It apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation. We consider this reasonable redress for the identified failings. The compensation offered is in line with our remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

The landlord should ensure that it follows its ASB policy when responding to reports of ASB. The landlord should also ensure that its records adequately reflect any communication with the resident and any other agencies. The landlord has informed us that it has introduced improved training in managing ASB cases around note keeping and carrying out formal risk assessments and has introduced new key performance indicators.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The ASB case notes were lacking in sufficient detail. There was no specific log of the resident’s reports. At times the evidence provided was unclear and there were significant gaps in the information. This hindered our investigation somewhat.

Communication

The communication between the landlord and resident was poor at times. There were several occasions when the resident contacted the landlord reporting incidents or asking for updates, yet there is no evidence that the landlord responded.