Notting Hill Genesis (202402611)

Decision
Case ID	202402611
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	12 November 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a top floor flat under an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. She lives at the property with her daughter.

2. The landlord took over the resident’s tenancy following a transfer from a different provider on 27 September 2023. The resident was already living there at the time. The landlord is not the freeholder.

3. In November 2023, the resident reported damp patches appearing in her property. In December 2023, the landlord discovered a leak was coming from the building’s roof. The leak caused significant damage to the electrics in her property. It decanted the resident and her daughter to a hotel while it worked with the local council (who was the freeholder) to complete repairs.

What the complaint is about

4. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

The leak at the resident’s property, including the decant.
The resident’s request for rehousing, including concerns of disability discrimination.
The resident’s request for a copy of her tenancy agreement.
The resident’s complaints.

Our decision (determination)

5. We found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing, including concerns of disability discrimination.

6. We found the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of:

The leak at the resident’s property, including the decant.
The resident’s request for a copy of her tenancy agreement.
The resident’s complaint.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the leak, including the decant

7. The landlord complied with its obligations to report the structural repairs needed to the freeholder of the building. It then regularly chased the freeholder and property fund for updates, and regularly considered the resident’s circumstances in its communication. In its responses it acknowledged she had been decanted in a hotel for a significant length of time and the situation was less than ideal. It appropriately apologised and offered reasonable compensation for the impact the situation had on her.

Handling of the rehousing request, including concerns of discrimination

8. While the Service cannot determine if disability discrimination occurred, we can consider how appropriate the landlord’s actions were in light of circumstances. Overall the landlord took reasonable steps to find suitable housing for the resident, and offered several properties. When she declined these offers it provided appropriate advice on other options available. It also consistently reported her situation to the local council on her behalf.

Handling of tenancy agreement request

9. The landlord failed to provide the resident with a copy of her tenancy agreement in an appropriate timeframe after she requested it. However, it recognised this failing in its response, apologised and rectified the matter. It also offered reasonable compensation for the failing and impact caused.

Handling of the resident’s complaint

10. The landlords stage 2 response to the resident’s first complaint was significantly delayed without good reason. It acknowledged this in its response, apologised and explained how it would learn from the failing. It also offered reasonable compensation for the failing and impact caused.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 March 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said the repairs to her flat following the leak had still not been completed. She said the impact was that her and her daughter were still living in a hotel which did not meet their needs.
….	A copy of the landlord’s complaint response has not been provided.
13 May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. In addition to the concerns she raised at stage 1 she also said: The flat no longer met her, and her daughter’s, needs and wanted the landlord to rehouse her. She was being charged council tax for her flat while she was decanted. She felt this was incorrect and the landlord should be liable for this. She disputed the date her tenancy was transferred over to the landlord. She wanted it to give her a copy of her tenancy agreement.
18 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It: Apologised for how long repairs to her property had been taking. It explained the delays had been caused by the freeholder who was responsible for structural repairs. It understood the repairs were now complete and were planning to inspect them before assisting her with moving back. Acknowledged decanting the resident to a hotel was not ideal but had been done for safety reasons. It said as repairs continued to be delayed it worked with the local council to find her a more suitable property to stay in. Because of this the local council moved the resident into an alternative decant which was more suitable. Explained it had previously told the resident to speak with the council about her housing suitability concerns. It also said it had asked the council to consider her request. Highlighted it had previously offered her a management transfer to a property. However she had refused due to the location. Apologised for the delay in providing her with a copy of her tenancy agreement. Recognised it had not handled her complaint correctly and this had caused delays issuing its responses. Offered her £450 compensation. It acknowledged this offer may not cover all of her expenses she accrued during the decant. It advised she would need to put in a compensation claim with the local council for anything outstanding.
8 November 2024	The landlord amended it stage 2 compensation offer after the resident said it was not sufficient. It increased it to £800.
15 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response to a new complaint the resident had recently made. This Service has not seen the original complaint, however the landlord defined it as: Resident’s concerns her flat is no longer suitable for her household’s needs. Concerns the landlord has not considered her needs when offering alternative accommodation. On this basis she felt it had been discriminatory towards her household’s disabilities. In response the landlord said: The resident was already living in her flat when it took over as her landlord. It had offered her several properties to transfer to but she had refused them due to her requirements. It is limited in alternative properties it can offer. It still encouraged her to apply for rehousing with the local council who are best placed to find her a more suitable property. It apologised for any distress this issue has caused her.
21 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: She still felt the landlord was discriminating against her and her daughter by not providing them with adequate housing. She felt its suggestion to apply to the council for rehousing was not appropriate given her recent health issues. She felt it was not supporting her in finding suitable housing or considering her household’s needs.
20 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: It did acknowledge the resident, and her daughter’s, disabilities and would continue to do so when offering her accommodation. Her list of requirements for a property restricted what it could offer, and the availability of any property was limited in general. It had continued to raise her rehousing request with the local council. However it recommended again that she also contacted it.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaints to the Ombudsman. She said she remained unhappy with the landlords response to her concerns. She wanted it to: Increase its compensation offer to cover all the costs she accrued during her hotel stay. Consider reimbursing her for the rent it charged her during her hotel stay.

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 handling of the leak at the residents property, including the decant
Finding	Reasonable redress

1. The local council is the freeholder of the resident’s building and is responsible for any structural repairs.

2. The landlord’s repairs policy says there may be circumstances where the repair needed is the responsibility of the building’s freeholder to complete, rather than it. In this instances it will work with the freeholder and the resident to ensure repairs are completed satisfactorily.

3. The landlord’s decant policy says while it will consider a resident’s circumstances when offering a decant the decision is ultimately its own. It says residents are responsible for the rent and council tax for their main home when decanted. If a resident’s hotel stay exceeds 10 working days it will look to offer 1 property to the resident to decant to instead.

4. The landlord’s decant policy also says it will pay a fixed daily amount for food for the resident and household if meals are not provided with the accommodation. It says it will reimburse for any reasonable costs accrued by the decant. This includes temporary storage and additional travel costs.

5. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer between £250 to £500 for issues that have had a high impact on the resident.

6. Across both the resident’s complaints to the landlord she said it had failed to resolve the roof leak, damp and subsequent electrical issues in her flat quickly enough. As a result, she and her daughter had lived in a hotel for 6 months which was not suitable for either of their needs.

7. The resident said her daughter was particularly distressed by the hotel stay and that she faced higher living costs, including laundry, food, transport, damaged clothing, insurance premiums and storage. She felt she should not have to pay rent or council tax on the flat while she was not living there. She calculated the total cost at £15,208 and requested full compensation, along with further compensation for distress and inconvenience.

8. The landlord explained that the local council, as the freeholder, was responsible for repairing the roof and addressing the damage to the resident’s property. It said it had repeatedly chased the freeholder to complete the repairs but could not control the delays. Its decision to move the resident to a hotel was based on safety, as her home had become uninhabitable. The landlord acknowledged the hotel stay was far from ideal and apologised. It also said it had worked with the local council to help rehouse her in a more suitable property while works continued from August 2024 onwards.

9. The landlord went on to offer the resident £650 compensation. It said her food and transport costs would have been the same had she been living in her flat so did not offer compensation for this. It also explained she was liable to pay the rent and council tax on her flat while decanted. It agreed to pay her £250 for laundry costs, £100 for loss of perishable food she had bought prior to being decanted and £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

10. The evidence supports the landlord’s response. The freeholder confirmed responsibility for repairing the roof and the resulting damage to the flat, including the electrics. Once notified, the landlord reported the issue to the freeholder and consistently followed the issue up from December 2023 onward. In its communications, it emphasized the impact of delays on the resident and its commitment to resolving the issue quickly. Its actions aligned with its repairs policy, making its response appropriate.

11. After a leak damaged the fuse box, the landlord moved the resident to a hotel for safety reasons. Although the hotel did not meet all her needs, it was a reasonable solution given the circumstances. The landlord reported the issue to the freeholder. When repair delays became clear, the landlord repeatedly asked the council/freeholder to rehouse the resident and her daughter in a more suitable property, as it had limited options of its own.

12. Nevertheless the landlord also found, and offered, the resident a possible decant alternative in May 2024. The resident declined the offer due to its location. The landlord accepted this but managed her expectations on what it could offer her and suggested she speak with the council again about other housing options. This was in line with its decant policy, and was therefore reasonable.

13. All meals were included in the resident’s stay at the hotel, and so the landlord’s decision not to agree to her request for compensation for additional food was reasonable. Additionally it was good practice for it to recognise she had accrued additional costs for laundry and to reimburse her for this. It also followed its decant policy by not offering compensation for rent or council tax, as her liability for these continued even while she was temporarily relocated.

14. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident she needed to place her items in storage during works or that her items could be damaged if left in the property. As such, it was reasonable for it not to offer compensation for storage costs as the resident made her own choice to remove and store her items. Additionally, it was reasonable for it not to offer compensation for additional travel costs as the resident did not provide information or evidence explaining how those costs arose..

15. Overall the landlord’s handling of the repairs and decant was reasonable. It recognised the hotel stay was not ideal, but was needed given the circumstances. It chased the freeholder to ensure repairs were completed quickly and satisfactorily. It also advocated for the resident with the local council to support decant alternatives. The compensation offered was fair and reflect the impact the issue had on the resident.

Complaint	The resident’s request for rehousing, including concerns of disability discrimination.
Finding	No maladministration

Investigation Scope

16. The resident has reported discrimination issues and may wish to seek legal advice regarding the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). The landlord has an obligation under the Act to consider how its policies and decisions affect people with characteristics that are protected under the Act, including disability. However, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the landlord has discriminated in its treatment of the resident, as that is a matter for the courts. Instead, the Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about potential discrimination, and whether it followed good practice.

Handling of request for rehousing

17. The resident complained that regardless of any repairs, the property no longer met her, and her daughter’s, needs. She said living in a top floor flat with no lift was no longer suitable due to her daughter’s mobility needs. She felt that despite raising these concerns, the landlord had failed to offer her a suitable alternative and had therefore been discriminatory. She also felt its suggestion that she speak with the local council about applying for rehousing was inappropriate due to recent period of ill health she was recovering from.

18. In response, the landlord said it had offered the resident several properties to transfer to but she had refused them. It acknowledged the property needed to be in a certain area due to local support for her daughter and because she was caring for a relative there. but explained it was limited in what it could offer her or know when a suitable property would become available. It said it had little housing availability in the location she needed, and therefore had continued to suggest she seek rehousing through the local council who had access to more properties in the area. It said it had also repeatedly asked the council to assist her with rehousing because of her circumstances.

19. The evidence supports the landlord’s response. It offered the resident several potential properties to transfer to in November 2023 and another property in May 2024. When she declined each property because of the location, it continued to look in the area specified. However, it appropriately managed her expectations by explaining it had little availability in the area and properties only became available once another resident moved out. It was therefore reasonable for it to suggest she contact the local council to discuss other options.

20. The landlord also supported the resident by contacting the local council itself to ask for it to consider her for rehousing. It emailed the council on numerous occasions, detailing the resident’s needs and requirements and advocating on her behalf. This was good practice by the landlord as it showed it being proactive in trying to help the resident in light of her circumstances. Its response that it was helping her to find more suitable accommodation was therefore appropriate.

Complaint	The resident’s request for a copy of her tenancy agreement
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to provide her with a copy of her tenancy agreement despite multiple requests. She said she needed the agreement to support her benefits claim. She also said it would clarify recent confusion as to when her tenancy switched over to the landlord from the previous provider.

22. The landlord acknowledged there had an unreasonable and unexplained delays in providing a copy the resident with a copy of her tenancy agreement. It explained normally a copy is automatically emailed to the resident after electronic signing, but nevertheless it had failed to provide a copy when she requested it. It apologised, confirmed it had now provided a copy and offered her £100 compensation for its poor handling of the request.

23. The landlord’s response was reasonable. While it could not explain why it had failed to provide the agreement when the resident requested, it recognised this as a failing. It apologised, provided the document and offered compensation that was reasonable considering the failing found.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

24. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint or escalation within 5 working days of receipt. It will then issue a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It can extend the deadline for either response by a further 10 working days providing it agrees this with the resident.

25. The resident submitted two complaints, Complaint A and Complaint B. The landlord managed Complaint B in accordance with its complaints policy. However, there were significant delays in its the handling of Complaint A.

26. The service has not received the landlord’s stage one response to Complaint A. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 13 May 2024. It then took 92 working days to respond, which significantly exceeded the timeframes outlined in its complaints policy and was therefore not reasonable.

27. The landlord acknowledged the poor handling of Complaint A in its stage two response. It issued an apology and confirmed it was investigating the matter to prevent this happening again. These actions were appropriate. It also offered the resident £100 in compensation. This was considered reasonable given the extent of the failure identified.

Learning

28. The landlord has already acknowledged it failed to handle one of the resident’s complaints correctly. It appropriately recognised it needed to learn from this failing to prevent further issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s record keeping overall was good. It had detailed records of the residents complaint and the communications it had with her, the freeholder, property fund and external contractors.

Communication

30. Overall the landlord’s communication was good. Its communication with the resident was regular and considerate of her circumstances. It also kept in regular contact with the freeholder in relation to the repairs as the resident’s property.