Notting Hill Genesis (202413872)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202413872 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Notting Hill Genesis |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
18 November 2025 |
Background
- The resident lives in a ground-floor flat. She first started experiencing noise transference from the property above in 2019. This includes sounds of appliances, the shower, and the toilet being used. The neighbours are leaseholders, but her landlord is not the freeholder of the building. In May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had grounds to take legal action to resolve the issue. It prioritised her for a transfer to another property. At the time of our investigation, the resident has not moved. She continues to be affected by the noise transference.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
- Noise transference and an associated transfer application.
- The associated complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
- Noise transference and an associated transfer application.
- The associated complaint.
Summary of reasons
Noise transference and an associated transfer application
- The landlord’s lack of communication over extended periods left the resident in a position of uncertainty, which likely added to her distress. It was not proactive in taking action to resolve the noise transference or support her rehousing between May 2022 and May 2024. It also failed to fulfil the commitments it made at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. The landlord apologised for its failures and offered the resident compensation during the complaints procedure, which was sufficient to put things right.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s final complaint response was significantly delayed. We have seen no evidence that it kept the resident informed during this period, which likely contributed to her distress. The landlord apologised for its failures and offered the resident compensation during the complaints procedure, which was sufficient to put things right.
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.
Recommendations
Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.
|
Our recommendations |
|
Compensation We recommend that the landlord pay the resident £800, as offered in its stage 2 complaint response for the failures identified in its handling of the complaint, noise transference, and transfer application. Our findings are made on the understanding that this payment has been made or will be made. |
|
Provide an update
|
|
Offer further support We recommend that the landlord consider contacting the resident to offer further support and discuss all available rehousing options, if it has not recently done so. This would help ensure the resident is not missing out on potential opportunities and receives current, tailored advice to maximise her chances of securing a suitable move. |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
20 November 2023 |
The resident complained that the noise from the property above continued to affect her mental health and that she needed to move. She also raised concerns that, although the landlord had grounds to take legal action, she understood that no action had been taken. She expressed frustration that, despite bidding on several properties, she had only been invited to view one. |
|
24 November 2023 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint and confirmed it would respond within 10 working days. |
|
28 November 2023 |
The landlord extended its deadline for issuing the complaint response to 8 December 2023. |
|
8 December 2023 |
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. It confirmed delays in locating the freeholder’s address and said it would write to request access for an inspection. It added that it would consider legal options if there was no response. The landlord apologised for the delays and acknowledged that frequent changes in caseworkers had affected continuity and contributed to her dissatisfaction. It offered £250 compensation and committed to providing fortnightly updates on the legal proceedings. It also said it would keep the resident informed about her transfer application and confirmed it was actively monitoring available properties. |
|
15 December 2023 |
The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s continued difficulty in contacting the leaseholder was causing ongoing distress. While she acknowledged the leaseholder’s lack of cooperation, she emphasised that the landlord should prioritise her wellbeing and mental health. She also raised concerns about the absence of a clear timeline and the lack of progress in pursuing legal action, despite the landlord having grounds to proceed. The resident declined the compensation offer and requested escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. |
|
7 May 2024 |
The resident emailed the landlord confirming that she would agree to it extending the time to issue its complaint response to 13 May 2024, as agreed during a telephone call. |
|
13 May 2024 |
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It summarised events since 2019 and acknowledged challenges in progressing the case because the above property is leasehold. It said the matter was being handled by its legal team with support from external solicitors and that progress was being made. The landlord accepted that its response to the complaint had been prolonged and inadequate, which contributed to the resident’s distress. It also recognised that frequent changes in housing officers had led to a lack of continuity and effectiveness in managing the case, and that the support offered to the resident had been insufficient. The landlord offered £800 compensation, consisting of:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident referred her complaint to us because she believed the landlord had failed to provide an adequate resolution to her circumstances. |
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 handling of noise transference and an associated transfer application |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The resident has experienced noise transference from the property above since around 2019. Under our Scheme, we may only consider complaints raised with the landlord within a reasonable period, usually 12 months. On 26 May 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had grounds to pursue legal action. It had identified that the internal layout of the property above may have been altered without permission and suspected these changes were contributing to the reported noise. We find it appropriate to have extended the scope of our investigation to include the landlord’s actions from the point it made the resident aware of this.
- The landlord’s domestic noise policy says that legal action should be a last resort when addressing noise transference issues. As previous attempts to resolve the matter had been unsuccessful, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider legal action. This demonstrated that it was taking proportionate steps to address the issues the resident had repeatedly reported as affecting her enjoyment of the property and her health.
- We are not medical experts, so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding her reports of the impact on her health. She may wish to consider a claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord.
- Under the landlord’s allocations policy, residents may be transferred to another property if their current one is assessed as unsuitable, with priority based on how their housing affects their circumstances. On 5 July 2022, the resident told the landlord she disagreed that her application did not reflect a need to move, despite the landlord’s difficulty resolving the noise transference and the impact it was having on her. The landlord increased her priority the following day to reflect an urgent need to move, in line with its allocations policy. It appropriately apologised for delays in its handling of the transfer application in its stage 2 complaint response.
- We acknowledge the resident’s likely distress and her legitimate urgency for a move. However, the landlord’s allocation policy does not guarantee a move within a set timeframe. The landlord can only offer a property when a suitable one becomes available, which is mostly outside its control. When a property does become available, the landlord must follow its allocation policy and consider other residents who also need to move. This includes those assessed as having higher priority, such as residents with life-threatening conditions or those who must move due to a court order. Therefore, a delay in offering a property does not necessarily indicate a failure by the landlord.
- We are also aware that pursuing legal action can take time to progress, and this may also be beyond the landlord’s control as it can depend on the court’s timescales. Given the likely distress caused by these overall delays, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take a proactive approach to maintaining regular communication with the resident. However, the landlord did not do so between May 2022 and November 2023. This may have resulted in missed opportunities to build trust, manage the resident’s expectations, and reduce the distress she was likely experiencing.
- While the landlord has recorded that it provided the resident with an update on the legal case on 1 November 2023, it did not record what was advised. In November 2025, we also asked the landlord to provide evidence showing what action it had taken in relation to the noise transference and what support was offered to the resident between May 2022 and November 2023. The landlord told us that the “information may not be available” and has not provided us with the evidence. This indicates shortcomings in its record-keeping. Good record-keeping is essential for landlords to maintain accountability and transparency. In the absence of evidence supporting otherwise, we can only conclude that the landlord failed to take appropriate action to progress the legal case during this period. These failures likely prolonged the resident’s distress.
- Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets expectations for landlords to fulfil commitments made during the complaints procedure. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord stated it would send a letter to the freeholder of the property above to arrange an inspection. It also committed to providing fortnightly updates on the legal case and to keeping the resident regularly informed about her transfer application. The landlord did not fulfil these commitments, which undermined its attempt to put things right. This suggests it did not learn from the issues that led to the stage 1 complaint, which likely contributed to the resident’s distress and loss of confidence in its handling of the matters.
- By the time the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it had provided no further updates to the resident on the steps it was taking in relation to the noise transference or the resident’s transfer application. It explained in its stage 2 complaint response that its legal team and external solicitors were progressing the matter, but it was limited in what it could share due to data protection regulations. It was reasonable for it to explain these limitations, but this does not justify the communication failures or the delays leading to this progress being made. We have recommended that the landlord consider providing the resident with a written update on the current action it is taking, if it has not recently done so.
- The landlord also explained that a shortage of properties and increased demand for housing had contributed to delays in moving the resident. While it was appropriate to explain these challenges to help manage the resident’s expectations, it could have done this earlier. We welcome the landlord’s acknowledgement that the support it provided around the resident’s rehousing options was inadequate, as this indicates it learnt from the outcomes. The landlord has told us it is working with the resident to explore transfer options. We have recommended that it provide her with updated rehousing advice and support, if it has not recently done so.
- The resident continues to experience noise transference and remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s subsequent handling of the matter and her transfer application. In line with our Scheme, we have no power to investigate complaints that the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence that the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s subsequent handling of the noise transference and her transfer application. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues. The resident may wish to submit a further formal complaint to the landlord about this. If she remains dissatisfied after exhausting its complaints procedure, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for consideration at that stage.
- Our remedies guidance is published on our website and sets our approach to compensation. It says that awards of over £600 may be appropriate where failures have had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord’s award of £650 is therefore appropriate to put things right based on the failures we have identified, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress. It is unclear whether the landlord has paid the compensation. We recommend that it pays the compensation if it has not already done so.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Reasonable redress |
- The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The resident submitted her stage 1 complaint on 20 November 2023. On 28 November 2023, the landlord extended the response deadline to 8 December 2023 to allow more time to investigate the complaint. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy and the Code. The landlord issued its stage 1 response within around 12 working days of acknowledging the complaint, which was within the extended timeframe.
- The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 13 May 2024, almost 5 months after the resident escalated her complaint. This significantly exceeded the 20 working day timescale set out in its complaints policy and the Code for providing a stage 2 response. We have seen no evidence that the landlord explained this delay or kept her updated during this period, despite her chasing for an update on at least 3 occasions. While the resident has told us that the landlord requested an extension to provide its response on 7 May 2024, the landlord has not provided us with evidence of this discussion. This indicates a further shortcoming in its record-keeping. We welcome that it acknowledged the delay and the impact this likely had on the resident in its stage 2 complaint response.
- The landlord’s total award of £150 for its complaint handling failures aligns with our remedies guidance (as referenced above) for situations where there have been failures by the landlord that cause distress and inconvenience but do not result in a permanent impact. Therefore, a finding of reasonable redress has been made. It is unclear whether the landlord has paid the compensation. We recommend that it pays the compensation if it has not already done so.
Learning
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued significantly beyond the timescales set out in its complaints policy and the Code. It was positive that the landlord apologised for this delay and awarded the resident compensation to put things right. This showed learning and was in line with the Code, which expects landlords to acknowledge errors and take steps to put things right.
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate, accessible records that provide a clear audit trail and support oversight of committed actions. The landlord could consider reviewing its record-keeping practices based on the recommendations made in this spotlight report and the failures identified in this investigation.
Communication
- Our spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights highlights the importance of taking a resident-tailored and proactive approach to communication. The landlord could consider reviewing how it communicates with residents based on the recommendations made in this spotlight report and the failures identified in this investigation.