Notting Hill Genesis (202410238)

Background

1. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The resident was placed there as temporary accommodation by a local authority in 2022. At the time of her complaint, the resident lived there with her 3 children, she welcomed a fourth child in early 2025. The resident has PTSD, anxiety and depression.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Mould in the property.
   2. Her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)
   3. Her complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of mould in the property.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for the failings in its handling of mould in the property. However, it failed to make this until after we had accepted the case for investigation.
7. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour. However, it failed to make this until after we had accepted the case for investigation.
8. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for the failings in its handling of the resident’s. However, it failed to make this until after we had accepted the case for investigation.

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.

What we did not investigate

9. The resident told us that the mould in the property has affected her children’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
10. On 7 December 2024, the resident told us that her belongings, stored in a cupboard in the property, had been damaged by mould. She said she wanted compensation from the landlord for this. By this time, the landlord had already provided its stage 1 response to her complaint. The Code says that new issues introduced after a stage 1 response has been issued should be treated as a separate complaint.
11. Due to this, we will not assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged belongings. We have, however, recommended that it pays her the £250 it offered as a goodwill gesture towards this. The landlord has signposted the resident to its insurers should she wish to make a claim regarding the damage.

What we did investigate

12. The landlord purchased the property on 23 November 2023. On this date the resident, who was already living in the property, became its tenant. The first evidence we have seen of the resident reporting mould to the landlord was on 25 April 2024. Our investigation will therefore begin at that point.
13. Following the resident’s report, the landlord inspected the property on 3 May 2024. This was in keeping with its damp and mould policy, which says that ‘a local officer’ (housing officer or similar) will visit the property within 10 working days to “determine the severity of the issue, and where possible, the cause.”
14. The landlord recorded that it found “slight mould in the bathroom and bedrooms”. It raised a works order for a contractor to mould wash the affected areas and repaint them with anti mould paint. This was an appropriate initial response from the landlord. Its damp and mould policy says that “If a minor repair such as a damp and mould wash is needed, we will arrange for remediation works to take place”. The policy says the landlord will arrange a follow up inspection by a surveyor only “for more severe cases”. Its use of the word ‘slight’ indicates its inspection did not deem the mould severe.
15. We acknowledge that, in her complaint, the resident said she had previously had mould treatments done in the property which were ineffective. However, these appear to have been done by her previous landlord.
16. The landlord’s contractor attended and completed the mould treatment on 16 May 2024. This was within the 20 working days the landlord’s repairs policy allows for ‘standard repairs’.
17. On 6 June 2024, the landlord carried out a routine inspection of the property. During this visit, it identified “mould in kitchen cupboard and both bedrooms”. It raised a works order on 10 June 2024. However, this was only for a mould wash to the kitchen cupboard. The landlord has not provided an explanation for why it did not also include the mould in the bedrooms.
18. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that “the contractor reports there were issues with gaining access and was unable to complete the works until 02/08/2024.” We have not seen any evidence to support this claim.
19. On 2 July 2024, the landlord raised a further works order for a different contractor to “attend and investigate mould build up…as well as complete a mould wash across property”. Its records show that the contractor attended this on 10 July 2024, again in keeping with its policy timescale. The contractor mould washed the kitchen cupboard and recorded that it “checked through out property for mould. Mould was only in the kitchen cupboard.”
20. The contractor that attended on 2 August 2024 recorded that it mould washed and painted the kitchen, it is unclear exactly where – or why this was necessary when the previous contactor had reported no mould just a few weeks beforehand. The contractor also confirmed that the kitchen extractor fan was in good working order.
21. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had not received any further reports of mould from the resident since completing works on 2 August 2024. We have seen no evidence to the contrary. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider the issue resolved at that time.
22. After the resident contacted it again on 20 November 2024, the landlord asked her to provide photos of any mould in the property. She provided these on 22 November 2024. The landlord appropriately raised a works order for a further mould wash – this time to the bath sealant and around a window. The landlord’s records show a contractor completed this on 12 December 2024. This was within 20 working days of the resident first reporting the issue to it.
23. We have not seen any evidence that the resident reported mould to the landlord between this mould wash being completed and us contacting it on 24 April 2025. Following this, the landlord emailed the resident and asked her to send it photos of any mould in the property on 3 occasions between 6 and 16 May 2025. We have not seen any evidence that she did so.
24. On 30 May 2025, the landlord conducted a routine inspection of the property. It recorded that it found “mould in the bathroom”. It raised a works order for a contractor to ‘treat’ this on 2 June 2025. The contractor attended and completed this on 10 June 2025, within 20 working days.
25. The contractor stated that “causation of mould is the lack of ventilation within the bathroom and not opening the window regularly as well as using the extractor fan after using the bathroom.” Neither the landlord, nor its contractors, identified any repair issues contributing to the mould during multiple visits. It appears that based on this the landlord concluded the mould was related to condensation.
26. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that “Where damp and mould are a result of condensation, we support residents to alleviate any contributing factors that might exacerbate the issue, for example, by improving poor ventilation or offering advice about how to control moisture levels.” We have not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated its findings to the resident or gave her such advice at any time.
27. In its email of 6 October 2025, the landlord acknowledged that “We should have been better at communicating how to manage the mould”. It also noted that there were “some repairs completed outside of timeframes noted within policy”, presumably referring to the mould wash of 2 August 2025. It offered the resident compensation of £500 for the stress and inconvenience caused.
28. This was a reasonable offer of compensation, considering the failings identified. However, the Housing Ombudsman Scheme is clear that we may only make a finding of reasonable redress where a landlord makes its offer prior to our investigation. The landlord did not make its offer until after we had accepted the case for investigation and notified it of this. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration, but do not order any additional compensation.
29. On 17 November 2025, the resident told us that the mould had returned and was present in several rooms. Due to the recurring nature of the issue, we have ordered the landlord to conduct a damp and mould inspection of the property. This should be conducted by a suitably qualified individual – such as a surveyor, rather than its previous inspections which were undertaken by the resident’s local officers.

30. The ASB referred to in the complaint is limited to a single incident which occurred on 24 June 2024. The resident emailed the landlord the following day and reported that she had been assaulted outside of the block. She said she had reported the incident to the police who had attended and spoken with her. The landlord recorded that the resident “stated that she did not know the [perpetrator], and the [perpetrator] did not live in the local area”.
31. Emails between the landlord and the resident indicate that it discussed the incident with her over the phone on 26 June 2024. However, we have not been provided with any record of this conversation.
32. In an email of 27 June 2024, the landlord told the resident “You stated yesterday that…you wished to be rehoused as you felt unsafe”. It said that it was unable to rehouse her as, due to her being in temporary accommodation, this was the responsibility of the local authority. It advised her to contact the local authority and said it was happy to provide any information they requested.
33. This was in keeping with its allocations policy which says that residents with assured shorthold tenancies “do not have the right to transfer”. Its temporary housing tenant guide also says that it is “not able to provide [temporary housing tenants] with permanent housing or decide when [they] will move”.
34. The landlord asked the resident what action the police had taken since her report and whether they had “provided a report to state the property is no longer suitable/safe”. In its email of 25 September 2025, the landlord acknowledged that it “should have sought the police report to gain an understanding of the risk at the time of the incident”. This would have been in keeping with the ‘multi-agency approach’ and ‘partnership working’ with local police which its ASB policy describes.
35. As the incident occurred after the resident made her complaint on 8 May 2024, it did not feature within it. However, when we contacted the landlord on 4 September 2024 and asked it to respond to her complaint, we included this as part of the complaint definition. We wrote that “The resident states that they were assaulted at their property on 25 June 2024. The resident states that they reported this to the landlord but that no action has been taken in response to these reports.”
36. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had “not received any reports of ASB” from the resident. This was factually incorrect and failed to appropriately address this element of the complaint, despite us clarifying the incident referred to.
37. The resident challenged this in an email of 11 September 2024, pointing out that she had reported the assault to the landlord on 25 June 2024. The landlord responded on 19 September 2024. It told the resident that “the assault does not fall under fall under ASB to be managed by Notting Hill Genesis”. This was because it “was an Isolated incident by a stranger which is not connected or targeted against the property”. It advised that this was a criminal matter for the police to investigate.
38. This was a reasonable position. There was no evidence to suggest the perpetrator was a tenant of the landlord or linked to the block in any way and the assault occurred outside in a public area. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made this clear to the resident when she first reported the issue and managed her expectations. The landlord acknowledged this in its email of 25 September 2025 stating that it “could have been clearer about the limitations NHG have where a perpetrator is not a resident”.
39. In its email the landlord also signposted the resident to support services for victims of crime. This was appropriate as she had told it the incident had affected her mental health, and she was finding it difficult walking past the area the incident occurred in every day.
40. In its email of 25 September 2025, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the service failures it had identified. This was a reasonable amount, consistent with our remedies guidance for service failure with minimal impact. However, as we have explained above, the timing of this offer means that a finding of service failure is appropriate. We have not ordered any further compensation.

41. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge and log a complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement.
42. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 8 May 2024. While the landlord emailed her the same day, saying it had reviewed her complaint and raised a mould wash, this did not constitute an acknowledgement or stage 1 response to her complaint.
43. It was not until 11 September 2024, after our intervention, that the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident. This was over 4 months after she had first made her complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for this in the response itself.
44. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said that residents should contact it “within 20 working days of the stage 1 decision if they wish to move to stage 2”.
45. The resident emailed the landlord on 20 November 2024, requesting to escalate her complaint. While more than 20 working days had passed, the resident explained that she had been “dealing with a lot of issues” (including a notice seeking possession which the landlord had served on her for unrelated reasons) and that her mental health had been “bad”.
46. Under these circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to use its discretion and agree to escalate her complaint. We note that the latest version of the landlord’s complaints policy now states that requests to escalate a complaint should “normally be within 20 working days” of receiving a stage 1 response. This is an improved wording which allows for discretion where necessary.
47. After we contacted the landlord, on 25 April 2025, it provided its stage 2 response on 3 June 2025. This was 25 working days later and in keeping with the deadline we had given. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its previous refusal to escalate the complaint.
48. In its email of 25 September 2025, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had needed to approach us for support at both stages of the complaint process. It also noted that “The responses at both stages were significantly delayed and outside of the timescales”. It offered her £300 compensation for this.
49. This offer is in keeping with our remedies guidance for instances of maladministration and appropriately reflects the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. However, as we have established, the timing of the offer means that we cannot consider it reasonable redress. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration but do not order any further compensation.

Learning

Communication

50. The landlord should share the findings of damp and mould inspections with its residents at the earliest opportunity. Where the inspection indicates condensation is a factor, the landlord should ensure it provides appropriate advice to residents on how to manage this and records that it has done so.

Record keeping

51. The records provided by the landlord for this complaint consisted mainly of emails, either internally or between it and the resident. The landlord should consider using a case management system to record its response to residents’ reports of damp and mould and best evidence its compliance with the requirements of Awaab’s law.