Notting Hill Genesis (202409824)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202409824

Notting Hill Genesis

29 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Report of domestic abuse and request for a housing transfer.
2. Concern about staff conduct.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy for the property with the landlord. She lives in the property with her 2 children.
On 18 April 2024 the resident was the victim of domestic abuse by her children’s father. The incident took place when she was out shopping.
On 23 May 2024 and 11 June 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its response to her report of the domestic abuse and her request for a transfer to another property.
On 21 June 2024 the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It confirmed it passed the resident’s transfer application to its panel and the resident could expect an update after the next panel meeting on 28 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in its response to the resident’s domestic abuse report. It offered her £125 compensation in recognition of the delay.
On 8 July 2024 the resident escalated her complaint. She explained she had not received an update on her transfer application or the compensation the landlord offered.
On 22 July 2024 the resident’s new housing officer introduced themselves to the resident and confirmed the panel had approved the resident’s request for a management transfer. The resident and housing officer spoke on the same day and following this, the resident submitted a complaint about the housing officer’s conduct.
On 25 September the resident received a second stage 1 response from the landlord relating to her complaint about her transfer application. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered the resident £75 compensation in addition to the £125 it previously offered.
On the same day the resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not responded to her complaint concerning her housing officer. She added to her complaint that she was unhappy with the frequency of the updates the housing officer was providing in relation to properties the landlord had available.
On 8 November 2024 the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the complaint about the housing officer’s conduct. It said it could not find evidence the officer had behaved unprofessionally and did not uphold the complaint. The landlord offered the resident and the housing officer mediation to see if this could repair their working relationship.
On 13 November 2024 the resident sent the landlord correspondence she considered was evidence of the housing officer’s conduct towards her. Following receipt of this, the landlord escalated the complaint.
On 16 December 2024 the landlord provided the resident its stage 2 response. It acknowledged there had been a delay in its progression of the resident’s transfer application. It said it considered the frequency of the housing officer’s updates was reasonable. It acknowledged its communication with the resident and its handling of her complaints had been poor. The landlord offered the resident £450 compensation in recognition of service failures it identified.
Following receipt of the landlord’s final response the resident referred her complaint to us. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to her complaint about its staff conduct and its overall handling of her complaint. The resident said she was still at risk in the property.
On 30 July 2025 the landlord completed a domestic abuse risk assessment. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £100 in recognition of its failure to complete the assessment within a reasonable time of its stage 2 response in December 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of domestic abuse and request for a housing transfer.

On 18 April 2024 the resident was the victim of domestic abuse. The resident said she reported the incident to the landlord on 23 April 2024 and requested a housing transfer because she did not feel safe in the property.
On 23 May 2024 the resident complained to the landlord about its lack of response to her report. The resident also said she asked the landlord if it had support available for domestic abuse victims and had not received any response to this.
On the same day the resident’s housing officer responded to her. The officer apologised for the delay to respond and explained their electronic devices were stolen and only recently been recovered.
On 11 June 2024 the landlord confirmed it sent the resident’s transfer application with the supporting documents she provided on 23 May 2024, to its panel for consideration. It told the resident it could take up to 3 weeks to receive the outcome.
The landlord’s domestic abuse procedure states, on receipt of a report the landlord will:
1. Find out about the victims housing situation. As part of the landlord’s response it should complete a risk assessment with the resident.
2. Signpost the victim to relevant local support services and query what the victim wishes to do regarding their short term housing options.
3. As the case progresses, remain in contact with the victim as well as any relevant agencies. It should action any plans quickly and appropriately.
4. Close the case once a long term housing option has been chosen by the victim and appropriate action has been taken.
The evidence demonstrates the landlord did not follow its domestic abuse procedure following receipt of the resident’s report. The landlord responded to the report a month later. This delay subsequently caused the additional delay to the progression of the resident’s transfer request. Following the landlord’s receipt of the supporting documents, it informed the resident it referred her application to the panel on 11 June 2024.
However, the evidence shows the landlord did not refer the application to its panel until 27 June 2024. This was not in line with its domestic abuse procedure which requires the landlord to remain in contact with the victims and action plans quickly and appropriately. In addition to this, the landlord did not complete a risk assessment with the resident on receipt of the report, or sign post her to local support services.
On 11 June 2024 the resident submitted a second complaint. She said she had not heard anything regarding her transfer application and felt the landlord was not taking her situation seriously.
On 21 June 2024 the landlord provided its response to the complaint. It acknowledged there had been a delay in it responding to the resident’s transfer request. It advised the resident to expect an update on her application after its panel met on 28 June 2024. The landlord said it recognised the seriousness of the situation. The landlord offered the resident £125 compensation for the delay. It said it was committed to improving its communication and support processes in the future.
The evidence shows the landlord’s offer of redress to the resident in the response was appropriate as it was proportionate to the level of its failings at this stage of the complaints process. It had taken 2 months to action the resident’s domestic abuse report and progress her transfer application. The landlord’s commitment to improving its communication and support process was an appropriate commitment to make given it did not do so when it received the resident’s report in April 2024. However, the evidence demonstrates the landlord later failed to uphold this commitment. The landlord told the resident to expect an update on her transfer application after its panel met on 28 June 2024. Despite this, it did not keep the resident updated on the progress of her application within a reasonable time.
On 8 and 9 July 2024 the resident escalated her complaint because she had not received an update on her application.
On 22 July 2024 the landlord confirmed its panel had approved the resident for a management transfer. On 1 August 2024 the resident emailed the landlord and said her account on the choice based letting system was not up to date with her updated management transfer priority following the panel’s approval. The resident could not therefore, bid on suitable properties.
On 6 September 2024 the landlord called the resident and clarified it could not offer her a property within the same borough she was living in. This was due to the management transfer being offered because of a domestic abuse incident. It confirmed it would consider making the resident a direct offer of a property in addition to the resident searching for properties on the choice based letting system. A direct offer is where a landlord finds and offers a suitable property directly to an applicant rather than requiring them to bid on advertised properties through a choice-based lettings system. The landlord agreed its housing officer would provide the resident with regular updates about the availability of properties in the surrounding areas.
On 25 September 2024 the resident received a second stage 1 response from the landlord concerning her transfer application. It upheld the resident’s complaint as there was a further delay in it confirming the outcome of the resident’s transfer application. There was also a delay in its payment of the £125 compensation it previously offered. The landlord offered the resident £75 compensation in addition to the previous £125 it offered, to acknowledge its finding.
The evidence shows the landlord sent the response to resident on 25 September 2024, however, its response was dated 5 and 11 August 2024. The response appropriately recognised the landlord did not provide the resident with the outcome of her transfer application within a reasonable time after it referred the application to its panel.
Following receipt of the second stage 1 response on 25 September 2024, the resident escalated her complaint. In her escalation she said she did not receive the response until September 2024, despite the date on the response.
On 16 December 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It upheld its previous decisions about how it handled the resident’s domestic abuse report and transfer application. In addition, the landlord recognised it should have discussed the option of a direct offer with the resident sooner and also completed a domestic abuse risk assessment earlier. The landlord said it had since taken those actions and signposted the resident to its tenancy support team. It offered the resident £375 compensation, which included:
1. £275 for its failure to follow its domestic abuse policy and its lettings and allocations policy. This offer included the compensation the landlord offered in its previous complaint responses.
2. £100 for its poor communication.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered the resident a total of £375 in recognition of the failures it identified. We have considered this against our remedies guidance and find it is within the region of compensation we would consider reasonable where there have been failures which adversely affected the resident. In this case there were a series of failures by the landlord which resulted in the resident spending a disproportionate amount of time chasing it for updates on her transfer request. This consisted of:
1. The landlord’s failure to respond promptly to the resident’s report of domestic abuse, which delayed the progression of the resident’s application for a transfer.
2. After the application was submitted to the panel for review in June 2024, the resident had to follow up with the landlord multiple times to get an update. The panel approved a management transfer on 27 June 2024. However, the outcome was not communicated to the resident until 22 July, nearly a month after the application was considered.
3. A delay in the landlord updating the resident’s account on the choice-based lettings system after her management transfer was approved. The resident’s email to the landlord on 1 August 2024, shows the account was not updated for at least 1 month after her application was approved. Given the urgency of the resident’s situation, this delay impacted on her ability to bid on suitable properties.
4. The time taken for the landlord to confirm its willingness to make a direct offer. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states the landlord will make direct offers to those approved for management transfers. The landlord did not agree to making the resident a direct offer (subject to the availability of a property) until September 2024, more than 2 months after she was approved for a management transfer.
In addition to the landlord’s offer of compensation, there is evidence the landlord was actively searching for properties to offer the resident from September 2024 onwards. The evidence also demonstrates the landlord, as agreed in September 2024, continued to provide the resident with updates on the ability of properties up to December 2024.
The resident was seeking a move due to domestic abuse incident in April 2024 therefore, the lack of updates from the landlord during the process would have resulted in avoidable distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s response to the domestic abuse report also impacted on the support it provided to the resident in the circumstances. It failed to complete the risk assessment from the outset and did not signpost the resident to any support, until its stage 2 response dated 16 December 2024. At stage 2 of the landlord’s investigation, the landlord recognised it had not completed a risk assessment. It said it understood it had done it by the time it provided its stage 2 response however, this was not the case.
The landlord did not complete the risk assessment until 30 July 2025, more than a year after the incident was reported in April 2024. On 31 July 2025 the landlord contacted the resident and offered her an additional £100 in recognition of the delay.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to take resolution focussed action, irrespective of the stage at which a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that a case in dispute progresses to a fair resolution during its internal complaints process.
It was not until the resident referred her complaint to this Service, the landlord conducted a further review of the case and completed the risk assessment. Although this did indicate a willingness to learn, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, appropriate redress is something which should have been considered as part of the internal complaints procedure. A referral to the Ombudsman is not meant as another opportunity for the landlord to consider its handling of the complaint.
Although the total £475 compensation the landlord offered can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord should have taken action to complete the risk assessment at an earlier stage. This is specifically because it recognised from its initial complaint response dated 21 June 2024, it failed to follow its domestic abuse procedure. However, the landlord did not take the necessary steps to bring its handling in line with the domestic abuse procedure until a significant amount of time later.
The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined under such circumstances. As such the landlord failed to effectively put things right during the internal complaints procedure. It also missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
The landlord’s failure to do the risk assessment until after its final response was not considered to have significantly impacted the overall outcome for the resident. This is because it had already acknowledged it did not follow its domestic abuse procedure and although delayed, it took action to assist the resident with her transfer request. This results in a service failure determination in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of domestic abuse and request for a housing transfer.

Concern about staff conduct

On 22 July 2024 the resident’s newly appointed housing officer introduced themselves to the resident via email. The housing officer called the resident on the same day.
Following the call the resident submitted a complaint about the housing officer’s conduct. The resident said she found the officer rude and dismissive during the call. The resident recollected her account of the conversation and said she did not feel she could communicate with the housing officer in future.
Following the resident’s complaint, the resident and housing officer were in contact via email in relation to the resident’s transfer application. On 24 September 2024 the resident said she agreed with the landlord that the housing officer would provide her with regular updates on the availability of properties. However, the resident reported this had not been happening. The housing officer responded and said it was agreed they would provide an update to the resident every 2 weeks on a Friday. The housing officer confirmed they considered the frequency of the update appropriate.
On 25 September 2024 the resident submitted another complaint to the landlord concerning the housing officer. She said she felt the housing officer changed the frequency of the updates because ‘they felt like it’.
On 8 November 2024 the landlord provided a stage 1 response for the complaint concerning the conduct of the housing officer. It said it could not find evidence the housing officer behaved unprofessionally towards the resident. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and agreed to offer mediation between the resident and the housing officer to repair their relationship.
The evidence demonstrates the landlord fairly conducted the stage 1 investigation. The landlord’s complaints procedure states, its responses to complaints about its staff will be provided in collaboration with the appropriate line manager at stage 1. There is evidence the landlord, as part of its investigation, discussed the complaint with the relevant manager. We are aware the resident declined the offer of mediation. Nevertheless, the landlord’s offer of mediation was a reasonable suggestion to help to restore the relationship between the resident and the housing officer.
On 13 November 2024 the resident sent the landlord copies of correspondence she had with the housing officer. She said she considered the correspondence demonstrated the housing officer’s conduct towards her was poor. We have seen the resident sent the landlord approximately 23 screenshots of emails between her and the housing officer. This correspondence included an email the housing officer sent the resident on 12 November 2024, asking her to remove scooters in the hallway that had been identified during a fire safety inspection, if she had not already done so. The resident responded and confirmed the image was taken a long time ago, as the photograph the officer sent did not show repairs the landlord had completed to her front door 9 months prior. The resident said the correspondence from the officer, with the outdated photograph, indicated the officer had a personal vendetta against her.
On 16 December 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaints. In the response the landlord acknowledged the resident requested another housing officer be allocated to her case due to the concern she raised about her existing housing officer. It confirmed it did not usually change housing officer’s following a complaint or feedback. The landlord said it did not find evidence of an agreement the housing officer would provide weekly updates. It concluded the 2 week updates was reasonable.
The evidence demonstrates the landlord, as part of its stage 2 response, reviewed the correspondence between the resident and the housing officer who was the subject of her complaint. The evidence also shows the landlord sought clarity from the housing operations manager about the agreement regarding how often the resident could expect updates from the housing officer. The landlord explained it considered both the frequency of the updates and the resident’s access to potential properties through the choice based lettings system was reasonable.
The landlord also recognised the resident had received correspondence from the housing officer regarding fire risks while she was in the process of chasing updates on her transfer. It confirmed the housing officer was responsible for actioning fire risks in line with compliance but it recognised it should have been more mindful in its approach.
In conclusion the landlord’s response shows it considered the complaint and reached a reasonable outcome. The landlord recognised there was a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and the housing officer and it offered mediation, which was a fair offer in the circumstances. The evidence shows the landlord acted appropriately and this results in a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint concerning its staff conduct.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

On 23 May 2024 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord concerning its response to her report of the domestic abuse and her request for a move. Thereafter, the resident submitted several further complaints to the landlord as follows:
1. On 11 June 2024 the resident submitted another complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of her housing transfer request.
2. Following receipt of a stage 1 response on 21 June 2024 the resident submitted an escalation request on 8 July 2024. The complaint concerned her transfer request.
3. On 9 July 2024 the resident complained again about the landlord’s handling of her transfer request.
4. On 22 July 2024 the resident complained about the conduct of her housing officer.
5. Following receipt of another stage 1 response on 25 September 2024 concerning the landlord’s response to the resident’s transfer application, the resident escalated her complaint.
6. On 1 October 2024 the resident submitted her complaint about the conduct of the housing officer again.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states the landlord must acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt. At stage 1 the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days of its acknowledgment. At stage 2 the landlord will provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states it will not allow any new information on the complaint to be added to stage 2. New information may be treated as a new stage 1 complaint. However, the landlord may apply discretion at stage 2 to collate new complaints and issue a decision on all matters if the new information is connected to the existing complaint.
The evidence demonstrates the landlord’s handling of the complaint was not in line with its policy. On receipt of the initial complaint on 23 May 2024, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or provide a response. As a result of this the resident made a second complaint about the same matter again on 11 June 2024.
On 21 June 2024 the landlord provided its first stage 1 response. It did not acknowledge its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its procedure.
The resident’s subsequent complaints to the landlord on 8 and 9 July 2024 concerned ongoing delays in the landlord’s consideration of her transfer application. The landlord had already acknowledged service failures in its stage 1 response dated 21 June 2024. As these complaints related to a continuation of delays after the landlord stage 1 response, it would have reasonable for the landlord to have considered the complaints as an escalation request.
However, the landlord made the decision to issue a second stage 1 response. The second stage 1 response was dated 5 and 11 August 2024, however, there is no evidence the response was sent to the resident on either of these dates. The evidence demonstrates the landlord did not send the resident the response until 25 September 2024. As well as the landlord not taking the appropriate action to escalate the complaint, its response to the complaint was significantly delayed and dated incorrectly.
The resident submitted an escalation request on 25 September 2024 following receipt of the landlord’s response on the same day. In this she said the landlord had not addressed her complaint concerning the conduct of the housing officer. The landlord on receipt of the escalation request, contacted the resident to discuss her concerns in detail. Following this the resident submitted evidence in support of her complaint concerning the staff member’s conduct.
By the time the resident received the landlord’s second stage 1 response on 25 September 2024, the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint she submitted about its staff conduct on 22 July 2024.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the complaint concerning the staff conduct on 8 November 2024. The response did not acknowledge time taken to provide the response. This was unreasonable as it took 3 months to respond and resident had to submit the complaint to the landlord a second time, on 1 October 2024.
On 16 December 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. Its response incorporated the resident’s complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of her transfer request and her complaint regarding the housing officer’s conduct. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that its previous responses to the complaint failed to acknowledge delays. The landlord offered the resident £75 for its poor complaint handling.
After the landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response, it wrote to the resident and said it required more time to investigate her complaint and would respond by 20 January 2025. The landlord’s email did not provide clarification as to what complaint it was referring to.
As a result, the resident continued to chase the landlord until May 2025 for the response it said it would send by 20 January 2025. The resident also contacted us for assistance. Following our queries with the landlord, it confirmed it incorporated the complaint concerning the staff member’s conduct into its stage 2 response dated 16 December 2024.
The landlord offered £75 compensation to the resident for its complaint handling. We do not consider this proportionate to the extent of the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The evidence shows there were significant delays in the landlord’s responses throughout the complaints process. The landlord provided stage 1 responses to the same complaint, on 2 separate occasions. In addition the landlord’s communication about what complaints it investigated at stage 2 was unclear. This created further confusion for the resident. The evidence shows the resident spent several months chasing the landlord for responses to her complaints between June 2024 and May 2025. This inconvenience was as a result of the landlord’s poor management of her complaints. The combined failures lead to a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have ordered the landlord pay the resident £150 in recognition of the impact of its complaint handling. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance, which recommends this level of compensation where there has been a service failure which adversely affected the resident but caused no permanent impact.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. A service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of domestic abuse and request for a housing transfer.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about staff conduct.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £475 for the impact of its handling of the resident’s report of domestic abuse and request for a housing transfer.
2. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of the potential impact as result of its complaint handling.
3. The landlord may deduct from these totals any amount already paid to the resident following offers it made as part of its complaints process. The balance of payments due must be made directly to the resident and not offset against a rent or service charge account. The landlord must provide confirmation to this Service, it has paid the compensation to the resident as compliance with these orders.