From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Notting Hill Genesis (202405095)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405095

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

24 July 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:
    1. Reports of excessive noise from her heat interface unit (HIU).
    2. Reports of the smell of cannabis around her property.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a flat in a block. It has a managing agent for the block. She lives with mental health issues and a heart condition. She has shared this information with the landlord.
  2. With the help of this Service the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2024. She stated her HIU was too noisy. She was also being impacted by the smell of cannabis in the property.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 August 2024. It said it had sent an operative to check the HIU on 15 May 2024. They found it to be in good working order and not making any undue noise. It said it would need evidence of residents smoking cannabis to take any action. On receiving her report that the smell was coming from the bin area it had cleaned it. It said a photograph she provided was not sufficient evidence to act. It recommended reporting further incidents to the on-site security, the concierge or the police. It issued a leaflet on cannabis from the safer neighbourhood team and urged her to provide evidence if she could. It acknowledged it had not processed the receipt of the photograph in a timely manner and offered her £75 for this delay.
  4. With the intervention of our Service, the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 25 October 2025. She said it had not addressed the issues, and both continued to affect her.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 December 2024. It said it found no issue with noise or evidence of the smell of cannabis or smells from the bin area. It advised her to inform her housing officer or the police if she had evidence of anyone smoking cannabis. It acknowledged there had been failings in its handling of her complaint and offered her £100 compensation. This brought the total offer of compensation made £175.
  6. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to our Service. She said she was being significantly impacted by both the noise and smell at her flat. She said she was staying with her sister abroad because of it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident’s complaint said both the noise from the HIU and the smell of cannabis in her flat were making her ill and impacting her mental health.
  2. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights into the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, the complaint about the impact of the noise and smell on her health is better dealt with via the court

Noise from HIU

  1. The landlord has repairing obligations for its rented properties, which are set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The act requires landlords to repair and maintain the fixtures for heating and heating of hot water. It must also complete repairs in a reasonable time.
  2. In the landlord’s complaint response on 19 August 2024, it said the repairs team attended on 15 May 2024 to inspect the heat interface unit (HIU) at the resident’s property. On this visit, they found the unit to be making a low level of noise, but one that was within the expected volume for this type of equipment. They reported the HIU was in good working order. It advised that it shared this information with her on 12 June 2024.
  3. This timeline ties in with the resident writing to us on 17 May 2024, explaining the problems she was having with the noise from the HIU and her landlord not fixing it. The landlord, however, has provided no evidence of its handling of the HIU issue at this time. There are no repair records to show the resident’s report, its operative’s attendance or the reported outcomes in May 2024.
  4. The resident raised the noise issue from the HIU in her complaint to the landlord on 31 July 2024. In the absence of the repair history, it is unclear if she had reported further issues with the HIU to the repairs team between the first report and her complaint.
  5. The landlord apologised the resident found the noise from the HIU disruptive but said it had not failed to carry out any repairs. It suggested if she had further problems, she could record the HIU or show the problem to the housing officer on their next visit.
  6. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It said it had attended on the resident’s report of experiencing noise and not found a fault. Later information suggests the problem is intermittent. If the HIU was functioning, it was not obliged to raise a repair without further evidence of a fault. It explained how she might supply evidence if the problem was ongoing.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 and 21 August 2024. She said she had sent in many videos in the last 5 months. She was still experiencing the problem. It advised in its response on 19 December 2024 a video she submitted of the noise from the HIU was not of sufficient quality to provide evidence of noise.
  8. In, the landlord said the resident contacted it on 3 October 2024 to report the noise from the HIU. It said she contacted it again on 5 November 2024 asking it to state what action it was taking. It has not provided this communication.
  9. The landlord said in response the housing officer contacted the resident on 6 November 2024. It informed her that its engineers would attend that day at 2pm to investigate and resolve any noise issues with the HIU. Again, it has not provided evidence of the repair order, the attendance or the engineer’s findings. There was no further mention of this in emails or conversations about the complaint investigation.
  10. The landlord said the housing officer visited the resident on the 15 November 2024. It said no issues with noise in the resident’s flat or the communal area were flagged at this visit. It was appropriate for it to visit her to further investigate her concerns. An internal message was a potential reference to this visit. However, there were no dated and detailed file notes supplied recording this visit. It described the resident’s behaviour as erratic at the time.
  11. We rely on contemporaneous evidence when considering complaints. While we have noted the landlord’s commentary on the issue throughout this case, we have not seen evidence to fully support all its statements.
  12. Clear record keeping is a core function of a housing repair and tenancy service. This is not only so that landlords can provide evidence of events and actions taken when requested for an investigation. It is because this also assists the landlord in understanding the needs of its tenants, the condition of its properties, and monitoring outstanding works.
  13. We made similar findings about the landlord’s records keeping in complaint reference 202204826. On our instruction it has completed a self-assessment against our spotlight report on knowledge and information management and provided a copy to this Service.
  14. The landlord carried out a further visit to the resident on 9 December 2024. An internal message notes the resident did not allow it access to her flat. This was not helpful. It was necessary for the visiting officer to access the HIU to determine if there was a noise issue. It said it accompanied her around the communal areas, and the only noise was the lifts and echoes from the underground. It was clear the landlord had attempted to investigate the noise and did its best in the circumstances.
  15. The landlord’s final response noted that the noise was intermittent, and the resident had made no further reports since 5 November 2024. It still committed to a further tenancy visit the following month to inspect the HIU for noise. This was reasonable and provided the resident with a further opportunity to have the matter investigated should she feel it had reoccurred.
  16. Following the complaint investigation, records showed the resident sent several emails to the landlord in January and February 2025. This indicated that she might be struggling. She reported not being able to breathe in the flat. She also mentioned choosing to sleep in the corridor and advised she was sleeping at Victoria coach station.
  17. The landlord arranged the visit as agreed on 31 January 2025. The resident was not in. The housing officer stayed on site for 4 hours. She returned to the resident’s flat at regular intervals, but she did not come home during that time. This response showed the landlord’s commitment to support the resident in addressing this issue.
  18. The landlord eventually gained access to the resident’s flat on 20 February 2025. It confirmed that there was no evidence of noise from the HIU and concluded this might be an issue of tolerance to noise.
  19. Overall, the landlord adhered to its repairing obligations in its handling of this matter. It was empathetic in its approach. It visited to investigate and committed to consider the matter further if the resident provided evidence of a fault. Although its record keeping could have been more robust, this did not detract from the fact it was limited in what it could do. The HIU was functional, and the resident was reluctant to allow access into her flat.

Cannabis

  1. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy considers the using and selling of drugs as ASB activities. It states it considers the nature and frequency of incidents to determine the seriousness of the ASB and what the proportionate action it might be. It also considers the impact of the behaviour on the customer and wider community.
  2. The landlord’s records show it first acknowledged a report from the resident of the smell of cannabis on 18 September 2023. In her complaint of 31 July 2024 and subsequent emails, she said she was experiencing the smell of cannabis both in the communal area and in her flat. She said the smell was making her ill.
  3. The landlord’s tenancy handbook advises its residents that they are responsible for their behaviour and that of their family members and visitors. They should not engage in any action which causes or is likely to cause nuisance to others in the locality. It advises legal action would always be a last resort, but for the most serious kinds of ASB, this could lead to someone losing their home.
  4. For the landlord to act on its tenancy conditions, it needs to have evidence of the ASB occurring and to be sure the perpetrators are tenants. It can only take tenancy enforcement action on those who have a tenancy. The resident complained of the smell of cannabis but had seen no one smoking it.
  5. The landlord said it explained to her in its email on 18 September 2023, that without evidence of drug use taking place, there was little it could do. It advised her to report any further issues to the onsite security or the concierge. This was appropriate advice. If she reported it to staff on site, they could corroborate it and gather evidence. There was no evidence that she did this.
  6. The landlord also said it advised her she could report further incidents to the police and provided her with a leaflet from the local Safer Neighbourhoods team on cannabis. This action was also appropriate. Drug use is a criminal offence and if any perpetrator identified was not a resident, it would be a matter for the police. The resident emailed to say she had reported it to the police, and they suggested she contact the landlord. This was likely if she had no evidence of a crime.
  7. The landlord said the resident sent a picture of the balcony from the block next door on 5 March 2024. She suggested someone was smoking cannabis, but no one was visible in the picture. In its stage 1 complaint response on 19 August 2024 it explained this was insufficient evidence for it to act on.
  8. The landlord’s response also acknowledged that although the photograph did not provide sufficient evidence, it had not acted promptly on its receipt. It apologised for this and offered the resident £75 compensation for this failing. This was a reasonable offer for a short-term failing that did not impact the outcome of the complaint.
  9. As an action the landlord offered to liaise with the managing agent and ask it to write to all residents in both blocks. The letter was to remind residents about their tenancy conditions and the prohibited use of cannabis. Without an identified perpetrator, this was the only action on residents it could take.
  10. The landlord visited the block 4 times between November 2024 and February 2025, to investigate the use of and smell of cannabis. This included the further visit committed to in its final stage response. It did not detect the smell of or find evidence of a person using cannabis on any of the visits. On 2 occasions, the resident was present when it reached this conclusion.
  11. While the housing officer was on site on 9 December 2024, she approached the resident’s next-door neighbour. She asked if she had smelt cannabis in the block or witnessed anyone using it. The neighbour had not. She pointed out it was a small block, mainly occupied by families like hers with young children. It reported that she said she would be the first to complain if she did.
  12. Overall, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of the smell of cannabis. There was no evidence of ASB to implement its ASB policy. It investigated her claims. In the absence of any evidence to support cannabis was being used, it gave her appropriate advice to monitor and collate evidence.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) became statutory on 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements.
  2. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve residents’ complaints quickly, and to use the learning from those complaints to drive service improvements.
  3. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It must acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days. It commits to respond to Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days from acknowledgement and Stage 2 within 20 working days of acknowledgment. Its definition of a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action it has provided. Its policy is Code compliant.
  4. The resident made her complaint to the landlord with help from this Service on 31 July 2024. Following our contact, it acknowledged her complaint on 6 August 2024 and provided a stage 1 response on 19 August 2024.
  5. On receipt of the response, the resident emailed the landlord, reiterating her concerns and dismissing the sum it offered.
  6. We contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident on 25 October 2024. We requested it log a stage 2 complaint and issue a response by 29 November 2024. It failed to comply with our request. This was in breach of the Code and its complaint handling policy.
  7. We wrote again to the landlord on 11 December 2024 instructing it to provide the resident with a stage 2 response by the 19 December 2024.
  8. The landlord complied with our second request. In its response, it acknowledged its complaint handling had been poor. It recognised the resident had expressed her level of dissatisfaction with its service on 20 and 21 August 2024. As such, it should have acknowledged her complaint and escalated it to stage 2 of its complaints process. It also acknowledged the delay in its response times.
  9. The landlord apologised to the resident for its complaint handling failings and offered her £100 compensation. This offer was reasonable and within the range the Ombudsman would recommend for a service failing which did not affect the overall outcome.
  10. Overall, the landlord acknowledged its failings in handling the complaint, apologised for these, and made a proportionate offer of redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of excessive noise from her HIU.
    2. The resident’s reports of the smell of cannabis around her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.