Notting Hill Genesis (202408092)

Decision
Case ID	202408092
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	29 January 2026

Background

Following receipt of their service charge estimate for 2024 to 2025, the resident asked for further information about their charges and raised concerns about the level of the increase. The resident bought their complaint to us to investigate as they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident is a variable service charge payer.

What the complaint is about

This complaint is about:
1. The increase in the resident’s service charge for 2024 to 2025.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about their service charges.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The complaint about the increase in the resident’s service charge for 2024 to 2025 is outside of our jurisdiction.
2. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for information about their service charges.
3. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The increase in the resident’s service charge for 2024 to 2025

We do not investigate complaints about the level and reasonableness of service charges.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about their service charges.

It is not disputed that there was a delay in the landlord providing the information the resident requested. The landlord acknowledged, apologised, and offered compensation to the resident for the delay. It also committed to providing the outstanding information. However, there were further delays in the landlord doing so. It also later offered to ‘collate’ all the documents and send these over in a link for the resident to review. We have seen no evidence this was done.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord issued its stage 1 response in accordance with the required timescales. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the unreasonable delay in it providing its stage 2 response. However, this alone was not sufficient to provide reasonable redress to the resident for its failure.

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 a total of £1,100 compensation, made up of: The £1,000 offered in its stage 2 response for the delay in providing the documentation requested and update on the commercial unit, if this has not already been paid. £100 for the unreasonable delay in it providing its stage 2 response. This must be paid directly to the resident. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment being made to the resident by the due date.	No later than 26 February 2026
3	Take specific action order The landlord is to ensure that it has completed the collation of the documents it promised to do in its email of 31 January 2025 and that this has been shared with the resident. If it has not yet done so, it must do so now. The landlord must provide us with evidence that this has been done by the due date.	No later than 26 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
7 May 2024	The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about an ‘excessive’ increase in their service charge. The resident raised a number of queries and asked the landlord to provide documents to justify their charges.
20 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response, in which it provided responses to the queries the resident had raised. The landlord said it had requested the gas bills the resident had asked for and hoped to get them by the end of the month. It also said it had asked for more information about the commercial unit.
21 May 2024	The resident escalated their complaint saying the landlord had still not provided all the documents they had asked for. Nor had it confirmed whether the usage of the commercial unit on the ground floor of their block had changed. It had also not provided any information about what the commercial unit paid towards the service charge.
29 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, apologising for not doing so within the required timeframe. The landlord acknowledged it still needed to provide more information to the resident and that the delay was unacceptable. It also acknowledged there were failures with regards to its handling of the resident’s case when their property manager changed. The landlord offered the resident a total of £1,000 compensation for its acknowledged failures. This was made up of: £500 for the delay in providing the documentation requested within a suitable timeframe. £500 for the delay in providing an update on the commercial unit. The landlord said it would take the learning from this case to ensure this did not occur again going forward. The landlord said this would be done by carrying out ‘logging interactions’ on its system and setting tasks for the property manager to action. The landlord also committed to providing the outstanding documents.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate their complaint on 23 February 2025. The resident said the landlord had still not provided all the documents they had requested.

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 increase in the resident’s service charge for 2024 to 2025.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

We do not investigate complaints about the level of service charge or the amount of the service charge increase. We will also not investigate whether the service or the costs themselves are ‘reasonable’ or whether the services provide value for money. If the resident wants to pursue their concerns about these matters, they may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about their service charges.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

We cannot investigate matters that have not completed the landlord’s formal complaints process unless there is clear evidence of complaint-handling failure.
We are not satisfied the following issues exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process: the apportionment of charges, why the building used a commercial gas supplier and why the landlord had introduced a new building safety charge. These matters were raised in the resident’s initial complaint of 7 May 2024 and responded to in the landlord’s stage 1 response of 20 May 2024. However, the resident made no reference to these matters in their escalation request nor when they asked us to investigate their complaint.
As these matters were not escalated to stage 2, they have not completed the landlord’s formal complaints process. Therefore, we will not investigate them as part of this case.

What we have considered

Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says a landlord must give access to service charge records. This right applies only if the resident requests this within 6 months of the service charge summary.
The most recent service charge summary in this case would have been issued in late September 2023. The resident then had 6 months to ask for full records related to that service charge summary. This meant the last date for a valid request under Section 22 would have been late March 2024.
Section 22 would not apply after that date. However, we would still expect the landlord to make reasonable efforts to provide the resident with the information they requested. We would also expect it to do so in a reasonable period of time. Where the information requested is historic, particularly where it relates to a period more than 6 years previously, we recognise that it may not always be possible for the landlord to provide the information requested or it might take longer for it to do so.
In this case, the information requested by the resident was:
1. Copies of the service charge summary and any reserve funds from 2009 to date.
2. Copies of gas and heating bills from 2018 to 2023.
3. Copies of electricity bills from 2018 to 2023.
4. Copies of the building insurance from 2020 to 2025.
5. Information about the change of usage of the commercial unit in their block and the impact of this on their service charges.
Prior to their formal complaint, the landlord had provided the resident with gas and heating bills for 2022 to 2023. It had also provided service charge summaries, which included reserve funds, for 2020 to 2021 and 2021 to 2022.
In its stage 2 response of 29 November 2024, the landlord provided a summary of insurance cover for 2024 to 2025 but none of the other documents the resident had requested. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay, offering £1,000 for the inconvenience caused. The landlord also committed to providing:
1. Service charge summaries from 2009 to date. The landlord explained the balance of the reserve funds, utilisation, contribution, and interest for the year could be found on each of the summaries.
2. Gas and electricity bills for 2018to 2022 and 2023 to 2024.
3. Copies of the building insurance for 2020 to 2021, 2021 to 2022 and 2023 to 2024.
4. Further information about the commercial unit.
A week later the landlord sent the following documents to the resident, acknowledging that some items were still missing:
1. Service charge summaries from 2015 to 2023.
2. Gas bills for 2018 to 2019, 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023.
3. Electricity bills for 2022 to 2023.
On 6 December 2024, the landlord sent the resident:
1. Further utility bills and summaries of the building insurance cover. The landlord explained it was still waiting for older bills. It also reasonably explained it did not have individual invoices for the building insurance as it paid one overall premium for all of its leasehold stock.
2. Details about the commercial unit change of usage. It did not provide a breakdown of what the commercial unit paid toward the service charge. However, it is noted that in a later email of 31 January 2025 it did explain that the change in usage did not affect the overall service charges. The landlord explained this was because the commercial unit was covered by commercial insurance and the residential units were covered by residential insurance.
On 9 January 2025, the landlord emailed the resident attaching ‘the last set of bills’ it had received for the dates requested. Following this there was further communication between the resident and the landlord about what documents had or had not been provided. To resolve this, the landlord said in an email of 31 January 2025 that it would ‘collate’ all the documents and send these over in a link for the resident to review. The landlord said it would do this by 11 February 2025.
On 11 February 2025, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had not been able to complete the collation of the documents and apologised for this delay.
While the landlord’s proposal to try to resolve the resident’s ongoing concerns was reasonable and solution focused, we have seen no evidence that the collation of the documents was completed or of this being shared with the resident.
Given the extent of the documents being requested and the extensive time period covered this was a challenging situation for the landlord to resolve. While it had no obligation to provide documents dating from over 6 years previously, it nevertheless attempted to provide the information the resident had requested.
Had the landlord done what it had committed to do in its stage 2 response, given its apology and offer of compensation, we would have made a finding of reasonable redress in this case. That we have been unable to conclude with any certainty that the landlord completed the collation of the documents, and shared this with the resident, has resulted in a finding of service failure in this case. We have made an order for this to be put right.
We have not ordered further compensation. This is because the £1,000 offered by the landlord is significantly higher than we would usually order for both the delays in the provision of information, acknowledged in the landlord’s stage 2 response, and its failure to do what it had committed to do in that response.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The resident logged their complaint with the landlord on 7 May 2024. We have seen no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint. However, its stage 1 response was issued on 20 May 2024 in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
The resident emailed the landlord to escalate their complaint on 21 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days, in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It would then have been expected to provide its stage 2 response within a further 20 working days, and no later than 28 June 2024.
On the 28 June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident to say it was unable to issue its stage 2 response at that time. Both our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and the landlord’s complaints policy allow for circumstances where the landlord is unable to provide its response within the required timescales. The Code states any extension must be no more than 20 working days without good reason, and the reason must be clearly explained to the resident. The landlord explained this was due to an ‘operational change’ which had caused unexpected delays. However, it did not then provide its response within 20 working days. Nor did it provide a reason for it not doing so.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for its response. They also contacted us for our help. By the 22 November 2024, the resident had still not received the landlord’s stage 2 response. We then wrote to the landlord advising that it must provide this by 29 November 2024, which it did.
Given the excessive delay, of almost 5 months, in the landlord providing its stage 2 response it was appropriate for it to acknowledge and apologise to the resident for this failure. However, given the length of the delay it should also have offered compensation for the unnecessary inconvenience and frustration the excessive delay would have understandably caused the resident. That it did not do so has resulted in the finding of service failure.

Learning

The landlord identified learning with regards to the delay in its response to the resident due to the change of property manager. It may also wish to consider whether including the collation of documents, and sharing this with residents, at a much earlier point might improve the process for both residents and itself.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

Whilst there were acknowledged delays in it doing so, the landlord was able to access a significant number of the documents requested by the resident, including those from many years previously. Whilst we have identified no record keeping failures in this report, the landlord may wish to review its recording keeping, in light of this case. The purpose of this would be to see whether improvements could be made in how it stores service charge documents going forward so that the process might be improved for both residents and itself.

Communication

With the exception of those identified by the landlord, we have found no other communication issues by the landlord in this investigation.