Notting Hill Genesis (202407446)

Decision
Case ID	202407446
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	16 December 2025

Background

The resident occupies a 1-bedroom flat in a converted townhouse. She complained about the landlord’s handling of building repairs during and after cyclical works in 2022. The resident said the landlord did not act on her advice that the building had previously suffered subsidence damage. She stated that the landlord’s contractor damaged the building while attempting to complete the cyclical works. The resident raised concerns that, after cracks were found in the external stairs, temporary wooden stairs remained in place for an unreasonable period. She said the temporary stairs were unsafe and that delays to repairs caused further damage to another leaseholder’s property. Additionally, the resident complained the landlord had not been transparent about an insurance claim for the stair repairs. She also said the landlord’s communication with herself, and other leaseholders, was poor.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s proposal to charge the resident for repairs to the steps.
The landlord’s handling of the damage to the steps.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord’s proposal to charge the resident for repairs to the steps is outside of our Service’s jurisdiction.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the damage to the steps.
The landlord made an offer of reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the damage to the steps was poor. It delayed resolving the damaged stairs for over 2 years, failed to provide timely and clear information about the insurance claim, and did not demonstrate it considered potential safety risks associated with the temporary stairs. The compensation it offered for this was not proportionate. We have made orders to resolve matters.
There were also considerable delays at both stages of the landlord’s complaint process. However, the compensation it offered for its poor handling of the complaint amount to reasonable redress.
We did not consider the landlord’s proposal to charge residents for the repair, as it was outside of our Service’s jurisdiction.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £625. Made up as follows: £275 previously offered for the delay to repairing the stairs, and any distress or inconvenience caused. £150 previously offered for failing to complete the other building repairs, and any distress or inconvenience caused. £100 additional compensation for the delays to repairs to the stairs, and any distress or inconvenience this caused. £100 additional compensation for failing to consider the resident’s safety concerns, and any distress and inconvenience this caused. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 15 January 2026
2	Inspection order The landlord must inspect and risk assess the stairs. Following this, it must produce a written report on any risks identified. It must also produce an action plan for resolving any issues identified. The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the above is complete and provide documentary evidence of this to the resident and this Service by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the assessment, report and the action plan by the due date, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the assessment, report and action plan by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the assessment, report and action plan; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the assessment, report and action plan were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.	No later than 22 January 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £625. Made up as follows:

£275 previously offered for the delay to repairing the stairs, and any distress or inconvenience caused.
£150 previously offered for failing to complete the other building repairs, and any distress or inconvenience caused.
£100 additional compensation for the delays to repairs to the stairs, and any distress or inconvenience this caused.
£100 additional compensation for failing to consider the resident’s safety concerns, and any distress and inconvenience this caused.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date.

The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than

15 January 2026

Inspection order

The landlord must inspect and risk assess the stairs. Following this, it must produce a written report on any risks identified. It must also produce an action plan for resolving any issues identified.

The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure the above is complete and provide documentary evidence of this to the resident and this Service by the due date.

If the landlord cannot complete the assessment, report and the action plan by the due date, it must explain to us, by the due date:

Why it cannot complete the assessment, report and action plan by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the assessment, report and action plan; or
Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the assessment, report and action plan were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot.

No later than

22 January 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pay the resident £125 previously offered for complaint handling failures, and any distress or inconvenience this caused.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 May 2024	The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint. She reported poor workmanship by the landlord’s repair contractor during cyclical works in 2022. She stated that the external steps had been boarded up for over 2 years and were in an unsafe condition. The resident said the landlord had not confirmed whether it made an insurance claim or raised a dispute with the contractor regarding the repair. In addition, she reported poor communication from the landlord and said it had not responded within an appropriate timeframe.
27 June 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated that it had reviewed the resident’s concerns about the cyclical works. The landlord confirmed it was satisfied that its repair contractor had carried out the necessary due diligence. The landlord stated that removing the asphalt revealed subsidence affecting the front stairs. It confirmed the stairs were unsafe and needed to be rebuilt. The landlord noted it had submitted a claim for the repair work and was gathering all relevant information for the insurer to decide if the damage was covered. The landlord stated that due to the delay it was seeking permission to expedite the consultation process under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It confirmed this would not affect the resident’s right to challenge any charge for the repair costs. The landlord said that once it had established the circumstances of the damage, it would decide the appropriate approach to recovering the cost of repairs. The landlord apologised for the delays to the stairway repairs and offered the resident £275 compensation for any distress or inconvenience caused. It also offered £25 compensation for a delay in sending its stage 1 response.
17 July 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the condition of the temporary stairs had deteriorated further. She also stated the landlord had not completed other building repairs in line with its schedule.
26 October 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It apologised that it had not completed the work in line with its schedule. To resolve this, the landlord said its Senior Property Manager would update the resident with a start date. Regarding the stairs, the landlord noted that it could have provided more information about the insurance claim in its stage 1 response. It confirmed the insurer required evidence the damage was due to subsidence. The landlord said it would arrange a survey, and in light of the delays it would not charge the leaseholders for this. The landlord said it had found no evidence that its repair contractor had damaged the stairs during the cyclical work in 2022. The landlord noted this did not detract from the unacceptable delay in repairing the stairs. It apologised for this. The landlord offered an additional £150 for its failure to complete all the repairs scheduled in its stage 1 response. Additionally, it awarded a further £100 for the delay in sending its stage 2 response. In total, the landlord offered £550 in compensation, made up as follows: £275 for the delay to repairing the stairs, and any distress or inconvenience caused. £150 for failing to complete the carpet and window work noted in the stage 1 response. £25 for the delay in sending the stage 1 response, and any distress or inconvenience caused. £100 for the delay in sending the stage 2 response, and any distress or inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the stairs. She said following a survey, completed in December 2024, the insurer had declined the claim because the damage was due to wear and tear. The resident said the landlord had not been transparent and had failed to provide correspondence from the insurer relating to its decision on the claim. The resident raised concerns that the landlord’s surveyor was not independent. She also raised concerns about the landlord’s proposal to charge the leaseholders for the cost of repairs to the stairs. To resolve matters the resident would like: Repairs to the steps to begin immediately. The landlord to take responsibility for poor record keeping in relation to previous subsidence at the property. The landlord to take responsibility for not taking into consideration the resident’s advice during a consultation for repairs to the steps in 2021. The landlord to acknowledge its survey was ambiguous in relation to the cause of the damage. Our Service to investigate what happened in relation to the insurance claim. The leaseholders to not be charged for repairs to the stairs.

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 proposal to charge leaseholders for the repairs to the steps.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

Part of the resident’s complaint relates to the landlord’s proposal to charge the resident and other leaseholders for the repair costs to the stairs.
We understand the landlord made this decision following a survey completed in December 2024. It has said this decision was taken because the damage was due to wear and tear and the buildings insurer did not accept a claim for subsidence.
This part of the resident’s complaint relates to issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure (ICP). We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the opportunity to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint directly with the landlord about its proposal to charge leaseholders for the repairs. Therefore, we do not have the power to investigate this.
The resident is free to bring a complaint to the landlord directly about its proposal to charge the leaseholders for the repair, if necessary.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repairs to the steps, including cyclical work carried out in 2022.
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

Part of the resident’s complaint concerned the negative impact of the landlord’s handling of repairs on other leaseholders, including damage to the basement flat and poor communication. We have not considered the impact on other leaseholders because they are not complainants in this case. Other leaseholders may raise their own complaints with the landlord and, if necessary, with this Service.
The resident also complained about historical events relating to a consultation for works in 2021 and cyclical works in 2022. She referred to subsidence issues dating back to 2006. We expect residents to raise complaints promptly, so landlords have a reasonable opportunity to investigate while issues remain ‘live’ and reliable evidence is available. In the interest of fairness, we generally do not consider historical matters.
However, the landlord has commented on the cyclical works in 2022 in its complaint responses. So, for completeness and in order to provide context, we have also referenced the resident’s concerns about the cyclical works in this report.
Our investigation is limited to events considered during the landlord’s ICP. This means we will not consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs following its stage 2 response. However, we will consider whether the landlord has met the commitments made in its stage 2 response in relation to the stairs.
The resident complained about a lack of transparency from the landlord regarding an insurance claim for repairs to the stairs. Part of this related to whether the landlord provided an adequate explanation of the insurer’s position following a survey in December 2024. These matters occurred after the landlord issued its stage 2 response, so they fall outside the scope of this complaint. We have considered whether the landlord clearly communicated the insurer’s position before issuing its stage 2 response.

What we have investigated

2022 cyclical works

The resident complained that the landlord’s repair contractor caused some of the external damage while completing cyclical work in 2022. We have considered the resident’s comments. However, there is no evidence the repair contractor caused damage to the property in 2022. We note the landlord reached the same position in its complaint responses. We are satisfied the landlord has acted fairly and reasonably in relation to this.

Delays

The resident complained that the landlord unreasonably delayed resolving the damage to the stairs. The landlord does not dispute this. Therefore, it is not necessary to set out the causes of the delay in detail in this report. Instead, we have considered whether the redress offered by the landlord was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord apologised and offered the resident £425 for its overall handling of the repairs, including delays to the stairs. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay up to £500 where there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time that caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
We understand the damage to the steps was identified in July 2022, and the temporary stairs were installed shortly after this. This means as of the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response letter, the temporary stairs had been in place for roughly 2 years and 3 months. It is evident the delay has caused the resident a considerable amount of distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble in pursuing the repairs with the landlord. We are not satisfied £425 compensation was proportionate for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused. We have considered what compensation if fair, reasonable and proportionate elsewhere in this report.
We note the landlord later revised its compensation offer to £500 in March 2025. This amount is in line with the landlord’s policy when significant distress and inconvenience has been caused. This increase was made a considerable time after the landlord considered the complaint through its ICP. We expect landlords to offer appropriate compensation in their complaint responses as part of their ICP. This did not happen in this case. This was not fair and reasonable.

The insurance claim

It is not for our Service to investigate the insurer’s handling of a claim, including any decision to decline cover. We can investigate whether a landlord made a claim in reasonable time. We can also consider whether a landlord has provided residents with clear and timely information about an insurer’s handling of a claim.
It is not clear, from the evidence the landlord has provided, when it first raised an insurance claim for the damage. Internal emails from the landlord in September 2022 and November 2023 refer to an insurance claim being made. However, we have not received evidence to show when the landlord submitted its claim. Additionally, correspondence between the landlord and the insurer from January 2025 indicates no claim was made in 2022 or 2023. Therefore, we cannot say the landlord acted in good time. This was a failure by the landlord. The lack of clear evidence relating to the insurance claim also indicates poor record keeping by the landlord.
The landlord has not demonstrated it provided the resident sufficient information about the insurer’s handling of the claim between July 2022 and October 2024. This indicates poor communication and poor record keeping. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord’s failures in submitting the insurance claim in a timely manner likely contributed to the overall delay in resolving the damage to the stairs. This overall delay is something the landlord has recognised in its complaint responses.

Safety concerns

The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the safety of the temporary stairs. She has said the stairs were slippery in wet weather. She also said the plywood had deteriorated over the years, to the extent that vegetation had started growing from it.
The landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, including the external stairs. After receiving the resident’s concerns about safety, we would have expected the landlord to assess whether the stairs posed a risk in line with the Housing Health and Safety System (HHSRS) requirements. It is not clear from the evidence provided whether the landlord appropriately considered the resident’s concerns in either its handling of the repairs or through its investigation into the complaint.
The above is concerning, particularly given the nature and material of the temporary stairs. Additionally, as the stairs are the main access point to the building, they are a ‘high traffic’ area which was frequently used. So, it was particularly important for the landlord to demonstrate it appropriately considered any risk to the resident. The landlord has not demonstrated it appropriately considered the resident’s concerns around safety. This was a failure by the landlord.

Outcome

Overall, the landlord’s handling of the stair repairs has been poor. The landlord has apologised and offered £425 compensation for its handling of the repairs. However, this amount is not proportionate for the failures we have identified. These include:
1. Significant delays by the landlord in resolving the damage to the stairs.
2. Poor communication and record-keeping in relation to the insurance claim.
3. Failure by the landlord to demonstrate it considered any potential risk the stairs may pose.
In light of the above, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £625 compensation, inclusive of the £425 it has already offered for its handling of the repairs. This is to recognise the negative impact the significant delay, poor communication, and failure to consider the safety concerns had on the resident.
The £625 compensation award is in line with our remedies guidance for cases involving service failures over a protracted period where there is evidence of a moderate impact on the resident. It is proportionate for the failures identified in this report and any distress or inconvenience thishas caused the resident. We have also ordered the landlord to complete a risk assessment of the stairs, and to produce a report and action plan, and share this with the resident.
We understand that following the stage 2 response, the leaseholders have not allowed the landlord access to begin repairs to the stairs. While this is beyond the scope of this complaint, generally, we would not advise residents to deny a landlord access. The landlord may view such action as a breach of the terms and conditions of the lease, and this could result in the landlord taking action against the leaseholders.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, which is set out in its complaints policy. This aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which requires landlords to answer complaints within specific timescales.
Under its policy, the landlord should respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. The resident complained on 30 May 2024. The landlord responded on 27 June 2024, which was 21 working days. This was a considerable delay and was a failure by the landlord.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 July 2024. At stage 2, the landlord must respond within 20 working days, unless it agrees an extension. We cannot see the landlord agreed any extension. The landlord responded on 26 October 2024, which was 73 working days. This was a significant delay was a failure by the landlord.
If the landlord had taken no action to remedy the above mistakes before our investigation, we would have made a finding of maladministration for its handling of the complaint. However, the landlord has apologised and offered £125 compensation to put things right. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delay. We are satisfied the overall compensation offer of £125 is reasonable and proportionate for the delays the landlord caused at both stages of its ICP. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

We have identified communication and record-keeping learnings for the landlord to consider.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord should maintain accurate and accessible records of key actions, such as when insurance claims are submitted and decisions received. In this case, the landlord did not evidence when it raised the insurance claim, which undermined its ability to demonstrate timely action. Robust record keeping is essential for accountability and effective complaint resolution.

Communication

The landlord’s communication has been poor. To improve, the landlord should ensure clear, timely, and consistent communication with residents throughout repairs and complaint handling. Proactive communication would have reduced uncertainty and may have prevented matters escalating.