Notting Hill Genesis (202408162)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block, with a shared communal front door and car park. The resident told the landlord there was damp and mould in her property. She also said there were rats and mice in her home, the windows were poorly insulated and unauthorised people were accessing the building and engaging in inappropriate and illicit behaviour. The resident told the landlord she had mental health issues and the situation made her anxious.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The resident’s reports of a pest infestation in the property.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding the windows.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the security of the building.
   5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in the property.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows.
6. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the security of the building.
7. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

8. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in a timely manner.
9. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s concerns regarding a pest infestation in a timely manner. Its communication was also poor at times and the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
10. Whilst the landlord repaired the windows in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy, it did not arrange to inspect the windows in a timely manner, despite agreeing to do so.
11. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the security of the building or complete the repairs in a timely manner. The situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
12. The landlord did not follow its complaints policy and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

13. In considering the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of damp and mould, it is noted that she has referred to a possible impact upon her health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a person’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court or insurer to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.
14. The resident told the landlord on 23 October 2024 that there was damp and mould in her property. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord’s resident handbook confirms it is responsible for the structure of the building including internal walls, floors and ceilings.
15. The landlord raised a job on the same day to inspect and treat the damp and mould, with an appointment agreed with the resident for 14 November 2024. This was consistent with its damp and mould policy and demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously. The appointment was cancelled by the resident as her son was ill. The landlord cannot be held responsible for the delay in carrying out the work at this point.
16. The appointment was rearranged for 20 November 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended on this date and identified mould was forming around the bathroom windows. The affected areas were treated and the window seals resecured. This was appropriate.
17. The resident noted on 28 November 2024 in her complaint that the mould was hazardous and detrimental to her health.
18. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
19. In this case, the landlord said an appointment was arranged on receipt of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The appointment was subsequently cancelled by the resident and rearranged for 20 November 2024. An antifungal mould treatment was applied and the window seals resecured on this date. This provided clarity.
20. The resident told the landlord on 27 January 2025 that there was damp and mould in the living room, bedroom and bathroom. The landlord raised a job on the same day. A mould wash and a protective coating were applied around the window on 19 March 2025. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
21. The landlord confirmed on 17 June 2025 in its final complaint response that the mould was treated on 19 March 2025 and the resident had confirmed it had not returned. This provided clarity.
22. When all of the circumstances are considered, a finding of no maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

23. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) guidance sets out a general duty on landlords to ensure that the property is habitable and safe to live in. This includes ensuring that the property is free from hazards (such as infestations) that could potentially lead to infections. Landlords are also expected to monitor the situation and provide residents with a timescale for the completion of any required works, where appropriate.
24. Whilst the resident’s tenancy agreement is silent on the issue of pest infestations, the landlord’s resident handbook confirms it is responsible for pest control in communal areas. Residents are responsible for dealing with mice. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for dealing with rats inside residents’ properties if the infestation is due to a building defect or affects multiple homes.
25. This Service expects landlords to investigate and establish the source of any reported pest infestation. Landlords are also expected to monitor the situation and provide residents with a timescale for the completion of any required works, where appropriate.
26. In this case, the resident told the landlord on 28 November 2024 that there was an infestation of rats, mice and fruit flies in her flat. She said the situation posed a serious health risk.
27. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s pest control policy. This says it will attend within 6 hours where there is an immediate threat to health. Other visits are carried out within 10 working days of receiving the request.
28. The landlord’s failure to respond meant it did not ensure the resident’s flat and the communal areas affected were free from any infestation hazards and were habitable. It also meant the resident was not clear on what action was being taken. The situation is likely to have caused her inconvenience and distress.
29. The landlord noted on 2 December 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that it was aware of the pest infestation and it was affecting the whole estate. It said it had arranged for pest control to treat the communal areas and for environmental health to carry out a visit. Whilst this provided clarity, there is no evidence the landlord did either of these things. This was a further failure.
30. The landlord said it was not aware the resident had reported there were mice and rats in her home. This contradicted with the report she made on 28 November 2024. It also said it had been in close contact with her, although there is no evidence of this. The landlord confirmed it would arrange for pest control to visit her home. This was appropriate. The landlord also confirmed the resident was responsible for removing fruit flies. This provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations
31. There is no evidence the landlord arranged for pest control to visit the resident’s home after issuing its stage 1 complaint response. This was a further failure and meant it did not meet its obligations under HHSRS.
32. The resident told the landlord on 28 December 2024 that there was a dead rat in the wall cavity. She said the situation was affecting her mental health and she was unable to sleep. Again, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
33. The landlord arranged for a pest control survey of the building to be carried out on 3 January 2025. Numerous rat burrow holes were identified at the front of the building during the inspection. The contractor was unable to gain access to the rear garden. It was recommended the burrow holes were excavated and proofing work was carried out. The contractor also recommended one-way valves were fitted in the drains.
34. It is unclear from the housing records whether the resident was made aware of the visit or if access was gained to her home. It is also unclear what action was taken by the landlord following receipt of the pest control contractor’s findings. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord and was a further failure.
35. The landlord arranged a further pest control inspection of the building to be carried out on 2 June 2025. It said there was significant evidence of rats and this had been exacerbated because of issues with waste. It also said that it had laid bait and traps, but it was likely proofing would be required.
36. The pest control inspection was carried out on 9 June 2025. This confirmed the rat activity was due to uncontained refuge in the car park area. It was noted that proofing work was carried out and one-way valves were fitted in the drains in February 2025, but the rats were still accessing the building through a chamber. It also said new burrow holes had been created by rats that were inside the building at the time the previous work was completed and they had burrowed out through weak spots in the foundations.
37. The contractor recommended the landlord installed a rat proof bin enclosure and the service passage points were fully sealed. It also recommended the burrow holes were excavated to determine any link with the building fabric and these were sealed with stainless steel mesh.
38. The landlord noted on 17 June 2025 in its final complaint response that it would raise an order to address the problem with rats in the resident’s property. It did not inform the resident it had carried out a pest control inspection of the building or set out the steps it was planning to take following receipt of the report. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this as this would have helped rebuild trust and reassured the resident it was taking her concerns seriously. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the distress caused to the resident.
39. Whilst the landlord increased its overall offer of compensation by £400, it has not been possible to establish what proportion was attributed towards the resident’s complaint about the pest infestation. A breakdown would have helped the resident to understand how the figure was reached and enabled them to reach a conclusion as to whether they believed the offer made was fair.
40. The landlord’s offer of compensation cannot be considered as reasonable redress. This is because it did not deal with the resident’s reports of a pest infestation in a timely manner and its communication with her was poor at times. The landlord also failed to take learning from the complaint or acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It is evident she found the situation distressing and was concerned for her child’s and her own safety.
41. The resident reported a further pest infestation on 25 June 2025. She made a further complaint on 26 June 2025. She said rats and mice had gained access to her home and she was concerned her baby would eat the rodent droppings. She also noted the landlord had failed to keep her updated and had refused to decant her.
42. Whilst the landlord raised a job on the same day for pest control to visit the resident’s home, there is no evidence it provided her with an update. This demonstrated poor communication. The landlord did not refer the resident to this Service. It would have been appropriate for it to have done this given she had exhausted its complaints policy. This caused delays.
43. The landlord issued a further complaint response on 31 July 2025. It said the resident reported a pest infestation on 25 June 2025 and an appointment was arranged for 30 June 2025. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the resident had raised concerns on multiple occasions and several pest control visits had been carried out, it again failed to tell her about the pest control survey or set out what action it was taken in response to the recommendations that had been made. This was a failure.
44. The landlord noted it visited the resident’s home on 25 July 2025 and the resident had confirmed she had not seen any further pests. Details of the visit were not shared with this Service. It said it would raise a job to proof a hole that was identified in the kitchen. This was appropriate.
45. When all of the circumstances are considered, a finding of maladministration has been made alongside an order. An award of compensation has also been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

46. The resident told the landlord on 20 August 2024 that the bedroom window was coming off its hinges and would not close. The landlord raised an emergency repair and the window was repaired on the same day in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. A follow up appointment was arranged for the 6 September 2024.
47. The resident reported the same window was jammed on 27 August 2024. The landlord’s contractor attended on the same day and repaired the window. This was appropriate.
48. The resident noted in her complaint made on 28 October 2024 that the windows were poorly insulated and she could feel a constant draft. She told the landlord on 20 November 2024 that the property was freezing and she could hear conversations between people that were outside.
49. The landlord noted on 2 December 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that it would arrange for the windows to be inspected. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
50. There is no evidence the landlord carried out an inspection. This led to the resident chasing the landlord up on 27 January 2025. She said there was a constant draft and the cold was making her baby ill. The landlord raised a job on the same day, with an estimated completion date of 24 February 2025.
51. The landlord contacted the resident on 21 February 2025 to arrange an appointment but was unable to get hold of her. The landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property on 10 March 2025 and overhauled 3 windows, reinstalled a window handle and realigned the balcony door. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
52. The landlord confirmed on 17 June 2025 in its final complaint response that its contractor repaired the windows and realigned the balcony door on 10 March 2024. This provided clarity. It also said it had arranged to obtain a quote to replace the windows. This demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for her.
53. When all of the circumstances are considered, a finding of service failure has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

54. The resident told the landlord on 28 October 2024 that unauthorised people were accessing the building and engaging in inappropriate and illicit behaviour. She said there was no CCTV and this led to security breaches. She told the landlord on 4 November 2024 that the communal front door and car park door had been left open.
55. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was a failure and meant the landlord did not meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement. It also meant the resident was unclear what action was being taken by the landlord.
56. The landlord noted on 2 December 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that it was investigating the option of installing CCTV equipment on the estate and whether this would be financially viable. It also said it was liaising with residents and the police regarding unauthorised people congregating in the communal areas, although it did not provide this Service with any evidence confirming this to be the case. This demonstrated poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
57. The landlord confirmed the communal front door was not faulty and that unauthorised visitors were using the trade button to gain access to the building. It said it was looking into the option of changing the timer on the trade button to limit access. It also said jobs would be raised to repair the faulty bin gates and the fire safety glass that had been smashed. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, there is no evidence the jobs were raised at this point.
58. The job to repair the fire safety glass was not raised until 2 April 2025. This was some 4 months after the landlord said it would raise a repair. The landlord raised an emergency job on 20 May 2025 to repair the communal front door which was insecure. The repair was not completed until 29 May 2025. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy for completing emergency repairs.
59. The landlord told the resident on 3 June 2025 that it had locked the car park gate to prevent unauthorised visitors accessing the building. It also said it was waiting for the gate to be repaired. No timescales were provided for doing this.
60. The landlord noted on 17 June 2025 in its final complaint response that the trade button on the communal entrance door had been changed and no further reports of unauthorised access to the building had been received. It also said the broken car park gate had been repaired. This provided clarity. In addition, the landlord said it was investigating the potential to install CCTV equipment. This was some 7 months after it said it would do this.
61. Whilst the landlord increased its overall offer of compensation, it has not been possible to establish what proportion was attributed towards the resident’s complaint about building security.
62. When all of the circumstances are considered, a finding of maladministration has been made alongside an order. An award of compensation has also been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

63. The landlord acknowledged the complaint over the telephone on 4 November 2024. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
64. The landlord established the nature of the resident’s complaint and the outcomes she was seeking. This was consistent with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code). It did not, however, tell the resident when she would receive a reply. This was a failure.
65. The landlord told the resident on 15 November 2024 it needed more time to investigate her complaint and would provide a response within 10 working days. No explanation was provided for the delay. This was not consistent with the Code.
66. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint response by the deadline date and there is no evidence it told the resident there would be a delay in responding. This meant she was not clear when she would receive a response. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the Code.
67. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 December 2024. Whilst this was 1 working day after the deadline date, the delay is unlikely to have had a major impact on the resident. The landlord did not offer any compensation for the delay in responding but noted that it was centralising its approach to complaints and introducing a new complaints team. This demonstrated it took learning from the resident’s complaint.
68. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. No details of the escalation request were shared with this Service.
69. The landlord acknowledged the complaint escalation request on 10 December 2024 in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. It said it would provide a response within 20 working days.
70. The landlord told the resident on 15 January 2025 that it needed more time to investigate her complaint and it would provide a response by 12 February 2025. This was not consistent with the Code. This says any extension of time must not be more than 20 working days without good reason. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with the contact details of this Service. The Code says landlords should do this.
71. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response by the revised deadline date. This led to the resident chasing up the landlord on 12 February 2025. It told the resident on the same day it would provide a response by 12 March 2025. Again, no explanation was provided for the delay.
72. The landlord did not issue its final complaint response until 17 June 2025. This was almost 7 months after the resident escalated her complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord offered the resident an apology and £150 compensation for the delay in responding.
73. The landlord’s offer of compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress given the lengthy delays in responding and the failure to follow its complaints policy on numerous occasions.
74. The resident made a further complaint on 26 June 2025. The landlord did not advise the resident that she had exhausted its complaints procedure and she would need to contact this Service. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done this given her complaint concerned matters that it had previously investigated. The landlord’s failure to do this caused delays.
75. Taking account of all the circumstances, a finding of maladministration has been made in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. An award of compensation has been made to reflect the avoidable distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

76. The housing records provided by the landlord were limited in areas and made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.

Communication

77. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to a number of her request for updates.