Notting Hill Genesis (202405057)

Decision
Case ID	202405057
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	29 January 2026

Background

The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of multiple repair issues, including unsecured vents, a recurring leak, boiler breakdowns, an insecure front door, and her request for a transfer. She said delays and incomplete repairs affected her family’s health, safety, and wellbeing.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the vents in the property.
2. Reports of a leak.
3. Repairs to the boiler.
4. Repairs to the front door.
5. Request for a transfer.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found maladministration landlord’s handling of repairs to the vents.
We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak.
We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door.
We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for a transfer.
We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord did not complete the vent repairs within its policy timescales, did not provide clear timeframes, and did not follow through on the commitments it made in its complaints responses.
The landlord did not repair the leak within its policy timescales and did not meet the commitments it made during the complaints process. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the prolonged delay or impact on the resident.
The landlord responded to each boiler repair in line with its repairs policy timescales, completed the necessary repairs, and acted in line with its policy in deciding that the boiler did not require replacement.
The landlord did not treat the insecure front door as an emergency and did not provide clear timescales or updates.
The landlord acted in line with its management transfer policy. It gathered evidence, applied the appropriate banding, considered the resident’s appeal, and continued to support her through the process, including offering alternative options.
The landlord did not escalate the complaint when the resident clearly expressed dissatisfaction, which caused avoidable inconvenience, and delay in accessing this Service.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 February 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £1,650 made up as follows: £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of repairs to the vents. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the leak. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the front door repairs. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct any payments it has already made from this total figure. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 26 February 2026
3	Action order The landlord must: Contact the resident and provide a written update that clearly explains what vent repairs remain outstanding. It must set out the specific works it will carry out to reduce the airflow while maintaining adequate ventilation. It must also provide a clear action plan with timescales for completing the works. It must provide a copy of this action plan to us. Provide the resident with an action plan to complete the outstanding repairs to the front door. It must explain what work is needed and clear timeframes for completing the repair. It must provide a copy of this action plan to us.	No later than 26 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
1 March 2024	The resident raised a complaint. She said: There were 9 unsecured vents in the property that let in cold air, noise, and fumes. There was a leak from the living room ceiling that had caused damage to the walls. The boiler often broke down and left the family without heating or hot water for days. The front door had gaps and faulty locks and would not close properly. The communal stairway was narrow and had little space to move. This created a safety risk and made her anxious when entering or leaving the property.
14 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: It had started work to replace the vents but stopped because of poor workmanship. A second contractor said no more work was possible. It arranged a joint inspection with a surveyor to review the issues and agree next steps. It acknowledged delays in fixing the living room ceiling leak. It rescheduled the latest appointment for March and was waiting for the operative’s report to decide next steps. It had requested a report from the gas service provider about the boiler. It said boiler replacement was unlikely if it could restore heating and hot water within 24 hours of any breakdown. It acknowledged ongoing front door issues despite multiple contractor visits and inspections. It would review the issue during the upcoming joint inspection. It could not change the stairway layout. A transfer for this reason would likely qualify for Band C, subject to clearing arrears. It confirmed it received a police disclosure and will use it to make a transfer application.
18 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: The vent repairs were still incomplete and had caused damage to the property. The living room ceiling leak was still unresolved. The landlord added tiles without inspecting the loft and said it would test the fix when it rains. The internal door was still faulty, and the front door remained insecure with gaps and faulty locks. The communal stairway was too narrow. She had anxiety about this due to domestic violence risks. The properties layout significantly affected her safety and wellbeing.
7 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: Its heating contractors attended on 11 September 2023 for a gas safety check, on 23 September 2023 and 23 February 2024 to resolve reports of no heating or hot water and fixed the issues. It confirmed that it left the boiler in working order after each visit and said that it would only replace a boiler if it could not repair it or if it had reached the end of its lifespan. Its contractors provided poor service and workmanship when replacing vents. It confirmed it had inspected the problem and had a plan to rectify the issues. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused. It inspected the roof in March 2024, replaced 15 cracked tiles, and carried out mortar work. After the resident reported further issues, it returned on 2 May, found a separate problem, and said it would arrange the works. It apologised for the repeated issues and offered £200 compensation for the delay and multiple visits. It would replace the front door frame to resolve the reported issues. It would provide a further update about this repair by 17 May 2024. It acknowledged that the resident wanted to move because of access issues at her current home. It confirmed that she had received a Band C after a banding assessment and had appealed this decision. The appeal was with the lettings panel, and she would receive an outcome by 24 May 2024. It encouraged her to bid for properties and consider a mutual exchange. It advised her to contact the Police immediately if she felt unsafe.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint. She said the landlord did not complete the repairs, which affected her family’s health and wellbeing. The resident had also raised issues about damp and mould and a baby safety gate as part of her complaint. She confirmed that she did not want this Service to investigate these issues. This investigation will focus on the issues raised above.

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	Repairs to vents.
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident says her family experienced ill health due to the landlord’s handling of her complaint. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim. The courts handle this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide the cause and duration of any illness. We did not investigate this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it repairs vents. It attends emergency repairs within 24 hours and completes standard repairs within 20 working days. If it needs to complete a replacement, it will provide updates and expected timeframes for the work.
The landlord replaced the vents on 19 January 2024, but the work was poor and the vents were left unsecured. To fix this, it arranged for a new contractor on 5 February 2024. However, the contractor could not complete the job because of the previous workmanship. By March 2024, it had still not completed the repairs to the vents and the resident complained that the vents were loose and letting in cold air, noise, and fumes.
In its stage 1 response on 14 March 2024, the landlord said the repair had stalled because the original contractor had not returned. It apologised and said it would conduct a joint inspection with its surveyor, but it did not give a clear date for that visit. By then, around 3 months had passed since it first replaced the vents, and the issue remained unresolved. It should have set a clear timeframe for the inspection, so the resident knew what to expect, in line with its repairs policy.
The landlord ordered further vent works on 3 May 2024. However, by the stage 2 response on 7 May 2024, the vents issue was still unresolved. It apologised, confirmed contractors had agreed a return date, and offered £50 compensation. While it was positive that the landlord acknowledged the problem and offered compensation, this did not reflect the level of inconvenience caused to the resident.
By this point, the issue had been ongoing for almost 5 months, significantly outside its 20-day timescales for standard repairs. The resident repeatedly chased updates and explained the impact on her family, including loss of heat, impacts on health, and loss of enjoyment of the home. The landlord’s compensation policy recommends up to £250 for service failure that has caused distress and inconvenience. It would have been reasonable for it to consider a higher amount in this case. Its response also did not provide a clear timeframe for completing the repair. This likely left the resident uncertain about the next steps and that her concerns were being taken seriously.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would rectify the issue. On 19 January 2026, the landlord updated us and confirmed that the issue remains ongoing. Although on 9 December 2025 it agreed to reduce the size of the vent holes to limit airflow while maintaining ventilation, it has not completed this work. The issue remains unresolved more than two years after the resident first raised it.
The landlord did not complete the vent repairs within its policy timescales, set clear timeframes, or meet the commitment it made in its stage 2 response. Although it acknowledged some failings and offered compensation, the amount did not reflect the prolonged delays or the significant impact on the resident, including loss of heat, health concerns, and reduced enjoyment of her home. For these reasons, we find maladministration.
We order the landlord to pay £550 compensation for the failures found in this report. This is in addition to the £50 offered during its complaint’s procedure. This is in line with our remedies guidance when the landlord has not acknowledged all its failings and the impact this would have had on the resident.

Complaint	Reports of a leak.
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says that it will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and complete a standard repair within 20 days. It gives an example of an emergency repair as a heavy leak or flooding in the property where it is not possible to contain the water, or where water is leaking between floors.
The resident reported a leak from the living room ceiling on 20 December 2023. The landlord attended the property on 15 February 2024, which was not in line with its repair policy that says it should attend leaks between floors within 4 hours. It could not gain access, so it rearranged the visit for 13 March 2024, when the inspection went ahead.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay in its stage 1 response on 14 March 2024. It also confirmed it would provide an update once it had the outcome of the inspection it completed in March. However, by this point more than 3 months had passed since the resident first reported the leak, and the issue was still unresolved. This was outside the 20‑working‑day timescale for standard repairs set out in its policy. It also did not give the resident a clear timeframe for when she would receive the update or when it would complete the repairs. This likely left her unsure about what would happen next.
The resident reported a further leak on 27 March 2024. The landlord contacted its contractor on 8 April 2024 and asked it to return to inspect the issue. A further inspection took place on 2 May 2024, which was again outside the timescales for emergency and standard repairs set out in its policy.
In its stage 2 response on 7 May 2024, the landlord said its contractors found 15 cracked roof tiles in March 2024 and further roof issues on 2 May 2024, recommending additional work. It said it would arrange these works shortly. While this showed intention to resolve matters, the landlord did not communicate a clear start date. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord offered £200 for the delay, but this did not reflect how long the repairs took or the impact on the resident’s household. The leak continued for over 5 months, well outside its repair timescales, and the issue was still unresolved by the end of the complaints process. The resident had also explained that the leak was affecting her family and causing ongoing inconvenience. As its compensation policy allows up to £500 for serious, prolonged service failures that cause distress and inconvenience, it would have been reasonable for it to consider a higher amount in this case.
Following the stage 2 response, it did not meet the commitments it made in its stage 2 response. It committed to contacting the resident ‘shortly’ to arrange to complete the outstanding repairs. Its repairs policy confirms that it should complete standard repairs within 20 working days. This created a reasonable expectation that it would complete all the work within 20 working days of the stage 2 response.
There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident or completed the repair within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. As part of our information request, we asked the landlord to confirm when it completed the roof repairs. It told us it had repaired the leak, but it did not provide a completion date. The resident informed us that it repaired the leak around October 2024. While it is positive that it fixed the issue, it did so around 10 months after the resident first reported it, which was significantly outside the timescales set out in its policy.
The landlord did not fully put things right or learn from outcomes of earlier complaints. It did not complete repairs within policy timescales or provide proportionate redress. Therefore, we find maladministration.
We order the landlord to pay £300 compensation for the failings that resulted in distress, inconvenience and additional delays for the resident. This is in addition to the £200 offered through its complaints process. The additional amount is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.

Complaint	Boiler repairs
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy says that a loss of heating or hot water is an emergency repair. It aims to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and make a temporary repair within 24 hours. It will complete follow on repairs if needed.
The resident complained on 1 March 2024 that her boiler kept breaking down, leaving her family without heating and hot water. In its stage 1 response on 14 March 2024, the landlord said it had asked its gas service provider for a report. While it was positive that it acknowledged her concerns and sought further information, it would have been reasonable for it to tell the resident when it expected to receive the report and explain the next steps, so she clearly understood what would happen next.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said its contractors visited on 11 September 2023 for a gas safety check and on 23 September 2023 to fix no heating and hot water. A visit on 19 October 2023 did not happen because there was no access, and it had asked the resident to contact it to reschedule. They returned on 23 February 2024 after reports of no hot water and replaced the thermostat batteries. It confirmed the boiler was working after each visit and explained it only replaces boilers if they cannot be repaired or have reached the end of their life.
This was a reasonable response. The landlord attended the repairs within the time set out in its policy and repaired the boiler each time. Its decision not to replace the boiler was in line with its policy, which says it will repair the heating system unless it is beyond repair or at the end of its life. There is no evidence that the boiler met these conditions. As such, we find no maladministration in how the landlord handled the boiler repairs.

Complaint	Repairs to the front door
Finding	Maladministration

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it repairs doors and frames. It attends emergency repairs within 24 hours and completes standard repairs within 20 working days. When a door needs replacing or improving, it will provide updates and expected timeframe for the work.
On 22 January 2024, the resident reported that she was unable to lock the front door due to issues with the door frame. The landlord appropriately arranged a repair on the same day. This was in line with its repairs policy.
On 1 March 2024, the resident reported ongoing problems with closing, opening, and locking the front door. The landlord contacted its contractor on 4 March, but it did not attend or treat the issue as an emergency. This did not follow its repairs policy, which requires it to attend within 24 hours when a door is not secure. It also did not give a clear timeframe for inspection or repair, as its policy requires when a door needs replacement or improvement.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and said it would arrange a joint inspection with a surveyor to find a solution. While it was positive that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously, it did not give a clear plan or timeframe to complete the inspection or the repair.
On 18 March 2024, the resident again reported ongoing problems with closing, opening, and locking the door. There is no evidence the landlord treated the repair as an emergency. In its stage 2 response on 7 May 2024, the landlord said its surveyor had recommended replacing the door frame. However, it did not give the resident a clear timescale for the repair, which did not meet its policy. It also did not acknowledge that the issue had been ongoing for nearly 5 months and remained unresolved, significantly outside its timescales for standard repairs. This was inappropriate, especially given the security concerns the resident raised.
On 9 May 2024, the landlord raised a repair job for the door and frame. However, by 8 October 2024 it had not resolved the issue, and it confirmed it would need to replace the door. It later informed us that it replaced the door on 28 February 2025. While it is positive it eventually replaced the door, the resident has reported that this did not resolve the issue and she continues to struggle to open and close it. The landlord has confirmed that it is aware of the ongoing problem and is awaiting an update from its surveyor.
Overall, the landlord repeatedly did not manage the front‑door repair in line with its repairs policy. It did not treat the security issue as an emergency, did not provide clear timescales, and the issue remained unresolved for almost a year, significantly outside its 20‑day repair standard. It also did not keep the resident updated or acknowledge the prolonged delay, despite the ongoing impact on her security and daily living. For these reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration.
We order that the landlord pay the resident £500 compensation for its failings that resulted in distress, inconvenience and delays for the resident. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord that had an adverse impact on the resident.

Complaint	Request for a transfer
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s transfer policy allows moves for reasons such as property layout, overcrowding, medical needs, or risk of harm, including domestic abuse. It assigns banding based on priority. Urgent cases with strong evidence receive higher bands, while non-urgent issues like layout difficulties receive lower bands. Residents must provide supporting evidence, such as police or medical reports, for higher priority. They must usually clear arrears before a transfer, and the landlord encourages alternatives like mutual exchange. A lettings panel reviews appeals, and the landlord must communicate decisions and progress clearly and promptly.
As part of her complaint on 1 March 2024, the resident asked for a transfer because the property had a narrow staircase, an unsuitable layout, and she had concerns about domestic violence. On 4 March the landlord acknowledged the request and contacted the police for evidence. On 13 March the police confirmed 2 historic non-crime domestic incidents. These actions showed the landlord took the request seriously and followed its policy.
In its stage 1 response on 14 March 2024, the landlord explained layout issues would likely result in a Band C allocation and arrears needed clearance before any transfer. This followed its policy. It also confirmed it would make a transfer application and include the police disclosure information. While this response was in line with its policy, it should have included clear timescales and progress updates so the resident knew what to expect, as its policy says it should communicate decisions and progress clearly and promptly.
On 17 April 2024, the landlord awarded Band C due to layout, which was consistent with policy. It said the domestic violence evidence did not support a higher band. It appropriately informed the resident of alternative housing options and recommended pursuing matters with the police. This was appropriate.
The resident appealed the decision on 18 April 2024. The landlord escalated the case to the lettings panel on 23 April 2024, which followed its policy. In its Stage 2 response, it acknowledged the appeal, explained the process, and said it would provide the outcome by 24 May 2024. It also gave advice on bidding and mutual exchange and reminded the resident to contact the police if she felt unsafe. This was an appropriate response that was in line with its policy and showed it was taking her concerns seriously.
While we do not have evidence that the landlord provided an outcome by 24 May 2024, the evidence shows that it continued to work with the resident while she appealed the decision. By 24 September 2024 it was awaiting the resident to send further medical evidence to support her application. The landlord later confirmed to us that it awarded the resident a Band A management transfer following a MARAC meeting on 22 April 2025. It also confirmed the resident could place bids for a transfer.
The landlord acted in line with its transfer policy. It gathered evidence, applied banding, considered the appeal, and supported the resident. We find no maladministration.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints procedure aligned to the Complaint Handling Code. The Code requires stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
The resident raised the stage 1 complaint on 1 March 2024. The landlord issued its response 9 working days later, on 14 March 2024. This was in line with the Code.
The resident escalated her complaint on 18 March 2024. However, the landlord did not escalate the complaint until 8 April 2024, following further communication. This was not in line with the Code, which requires landlords to escalate a complaint when a resident remains dissatisfied. By failing to do so, it caused unnecessary delays and missed the opportunity to resolve matters sooner.
The landlord issued its response 35 working days later on 7 May 2024. This was outside the timeframes set out in the Code. It did not acknowledge this delay in its response which was a service failure.
We order the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for its failure to issue its stage 2 response within the timeframes set out in the Code. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance when there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not acknowledge this failure or put it right.

Learning

General learning

The landlord missed repairs timescales and incomplete visits were not rebooked promptly. The landlord should strengthen appointment and repair tracking, promptly rebook missed or incomplete visits, and monitor cases to ensure completion within policy timescales.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should maintain clear, up‑to‑date records of visits, actions, and communications. This would improve tracking, ensure follow‑through, and provide an accurate audit trail.

Communication

The landlord should provide residents with timely updates on repair progress, confirm appointments in advance, and advise promptly when delays occur. This would manage expectations and reduce uncertainty.

Complaint handling

The landlord missed complaint response timescales at stage 2 and did not acknowledge or offer redress. It could reflect on this and consider any learning and staff training needs.