Notting Hill Genesis (202400322)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400322

Notting Hill Genesis

2 October 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:

a.     Queries about service charges.

b.     Associated complaint.

Background

2. The property is a 3-bedroom flat and the resident has lived there since September 2022. The landlord is a housing association.
3. The property has its own entrance, rather than through a communal hallway. The resident believed she did not have to pay service charges because she did not use the hallway. The landlord applied service charges to her account from April 2023.
4. The resident complained on 27 October 2023, saying the tenancy agreement did not say a service charge was payable. In the landlord’s response of 14 November 2023 it said that:

a.     The breakdown of service charges had been provided to her in the rent increase booklet.

b.     The service charge was removed from her account for the first year as it did not believe she had access to the communal hallway. It then found her electricity meter was in there so provided a key for access. This resulted in her being liable for service charges, so it was applied from April 2023.

c.      It was offering a £50 goodwill gesture.

5. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 November 2023 and the landlord responded on 19 January 2024. It confirmed the same information as stage 1 but offered £225 compensation (£50 for the delayed stage 2 response, £100 for the delay in identifying where the resident’s meter was located, and £75 for not resolving her query in a timely manner).
6. The resident referred her complaint to us as she wants the service charge removed from her account.

Assessment and findings

Service charge

7. The resident signed the tenancy agreement on 31 August 2022. In the agreement it says there is a variable service charge for the property. There is a section that lists the description of service provided and the initial charge. Underneath this it stated ‘not applicable’ so it is understandable the resident was confused by this.
8. When the resident moved to the property, the landlord was not aware her electricity meter was in the communal hallway. She was not given a key to the hallway as it was not apparent she needed access. This was a mistake. When the landlord found the location of the meter it provided a key. It removed the service charge for the period the resident did not have access, which was reasonable.
9. Once it was established the resident was liable for the service charge, she was charged it from April 2023. The landlord provided her with a booklet detailing these charges on 24 February 2023. This included a breakdown of how the costs cover communal electricity and fire breakdown and maintenance. This was appropriate.
10. The resident said she became aware of the service charge when she logged onto her rent account in August 2023. It had been backdated to April 2023. She said she queried it with the landlord at this time, but we have not seen that communication and therefore cannot assess the landlord’s response.
11. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response that communal service charges apply to all residents. This was a reasonable position and consistent with written communication about the breakdown in charges. At stage 2 it acknowledged its oversight in not providing the resident with a key to the hallway when she moved in, which had been a failure in service.
12. The fact the landlord temporarily removed service charges for the resident appears to have been done in good faith but may have caused more confusion. The communication and clarification regarding the resident’s liability for service charges could have been better, from the point of moving in. The fact the tenancy agreement said the service charges were not applicable, when they were, was not fair to the resident.
13. We cannot determine whether service charges are fair or reasonable as this is not within our jurisdiction. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice or consider the First Tier Tribunal regarding this matter. However, we can consider the way the landlord responded to her enquiries about the service charges.
14. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
15. The landlord offered a total of £225 for the substantive issue, throughout the complaints process. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; this sum is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of her service charge queries.
16. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the resident the £225 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Complaint handling

17. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 12 days after the resident made her complaint. That was slightly over the 10 day target timescale. The stage 2 response was not provided until 45 working days after escalation. The target timescale is 20 working days so that was a failure in service. The landlord acknowledged this failure in an email to the resident and explained it was due to a system error.
18. The content of both response letters was clear and thorough. It addressed the points raised by the resident. The landlord was consistent in its position at both stages, which was appropriate.
19. The landlord offered £50 for the delayed stage 2 response. This was proportionate as the delay was not excessive and did not affect the substantive issue. We therefore find that the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling. It is recommended that it pays the resident the £50 offered at stage 2, if not already paid. The finding is made on the basis this sum is paid as the delay was a failure in service.

Determination

20. In accordance with 53.b of the Scheme the landlord offered reasonable redress regarding the resident’s:

a.     Queries about service charges.

b.     Associated complaint.

Recommendation

21. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident £275 compensation (inclusive of any sum already paid) as follows:

a.     £225 for the inconvenience and confusion caused by its application of service charges.

b.     £50 for the delay in providing the stage 2 response.