Notting Hill Genesis (202414144)

Decision
Case ID	202414144
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	25 June 2026

Background

The resident asked the landlord to explain several increases in her service charges for the financial year ending March 2025. She also said she was being charged twice for the cleaning of the communal areas which were not being cleaned. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and adjusted her service charges. The resident is unhappy the landlord has not acknowledged she paid for a cleaning service that she did not receive.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents:
1. Request for information about her rent and service charges.
2. Concerns about the standard of cleaning and rubbish being left in communal areas.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord made offers of redress which, in our opinion, resolved the errors in its handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for information about her rent and service charges.
2. Concerns about the standard of cleaning and rubbish being left in communal areas.
3. Associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the resident’s request for information about her rent and service charges

The landlord accepted there was poor communication in its handling of the resident’s service charges. It investigated, apologised, offered compensation, and adjusted the resident’s rent account as part of its final response. The landlord’s actions appropriately reflected the impact its failings and poor communication had upon the resident.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning and rubbish being left in communal areas

The landlord responded to the cleaning of the communal areas in line with its policy and procedures. There was a delay in it moving the rubbish from the communal area. Its apology and offer of compensation appropriately reflected the impact its failing had on the resident.

Complaint handling

There were delays in the landlord sending its complaint responses. Its apology and award of compensation was proportionate 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 the landlord pays the resident the £300 it awarded the resident in its final response for its handling of the resident’s complaints if it has not already done so. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding the above offer has/will be paid.

Our recommendations

Compensation

We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £300 it awarded the resident in its final response for its handling of the resident’s complaints if it has not already done so.

Our finding of reasonable redress is based on an understanding the above offer has/will be paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 March 2024	The resident complained about the landlord not responding to her requests for contact between 29 February 2024 and 13 March 2024. She asked for the landlord to explain the reason she was: Paying an extra £43 per week in rent and service charges. Told to wait for her housing officer to be at work to be updated. Still waiting for rubbish to be removed from the communal areas that she had reported on 14 February 2024. Being charged twice for cleaning services where the cleaning was not to an acceptable standard.
11 April 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response that said: Rents increased by 7.70 percent in line with national standards. The £22.90 service charge cost was estimated on what it expected to spend over the coming year. The £16.82 was the previous year’s balance which it had under budgeted for the financial year of 2022 to 2023. It had reviewed some of these costs and refunded the cleaning, communal electricity, equipment purchasing and repairs, fire safety maintenance, and staff costs. It was still investigating some of the other charges from the financial year 2022 to 2023 and would update her with its finding. It apologised for its lack of service and accepted it staff should have still responded when her housing officer was not available. It apologised for its delay in removing rubbish from the communal area left by its contractor. It would move this as soon as possible. It would complete a joint visit with its contractor to investigate her reports of poor standards of cleaning in the communal areas. The landlord awarded the resident £150 compensation broken down as: £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident having to raise a complaint. £50 for its delay in removing the rubbish from the communal area. £50 for its lack of service from its colleagues.
12 April 2024	The resident said she was not escalating the complaint at that time. She also confirmed the rubbish had been removed. The resident wanted the landlord to: Explain why her rent had increased higher than inflation. Provide a more detailed explanation to a number of specific items listed within her most recent statement of service charges. Confirm if the communal cleaning included sweeping behind the wheelie bins and wiping down internal and external walls / areas.
31 May 2024	The resident said she escalated the complaint on 28 May 2024, but the landlord had not responded to her. She escalated the complaint because the landlord had not responded to her requests for further information and that the service charges remained unclear.
18 July 2024	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response that said: Its stage 1 response about the resident’s rent and service charge request had been accurate. Following its investigation there were other errors and that further estate level charges would also be refunded. It was unable to state when the refunds and adjustments would be made. It had completed a joint visit and discussed the standard of cleaning with its contractor. The landlord apologised for: The delay in it moving the rubbish from the communal area. The delay in responding to the resident’s queries. Any distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £300. This was broken down as: £200 for its lack of service and the inconvenience caused to the resident having to raise a complaint. £50 for its delay in removing the rubbish from the communal area. £50 for its delay in sending its stage 2 complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate. She said: The landlord had not answered all of her queries about her rent and service charges. She was unsure how much her service charges were. The landlord told her to pay the full amount until it confirmed the adjustment which the resident said she is struggling to afford. She was charged for cleaning services from February 2024 that started in July 2024. The landlord’s handling of her complaints had caused her anxiety and significantly impacted her finances.

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 the resident’s request for information about her rent and service charges

Finding

Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

We are not able to consider complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge, as this falls outside the jurisdiction of this service. The resident can contact the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. We can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges and whether it responded to any questions about the service charge appropriately in line with its legal obligations, its internal policies and industry best practice.

What we have investigated

The resident contributes towards the landlord’s costs, broadly maintenance, management, and repair, through annual service charges.
The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord states that it may increase or decrease the resident’s rent or service charge by giving the resident not less than 28 days’ notice in writing of the increase or decrease. The landlord will also not vary the service charge more than twice in any 12-month period.
On 20 February 2024, the landlord informed the resident that from 1 April 2024:
1. The rent would increase by £12.49 to £174.71 per week.
2. The estimated service charges would increase by £14.53 to £22.90 per week.
3. There would be an additional cost of £16.90 for charges it under budgeted for in the financial year of 2022 to 2023.
Between 29 February 2024 and 13 March 2024, the resident sent 3 emails and made 3 calls to the landlord. She asked it to explain her overall rent increase of £43.92 per week.
The landlord told the resident she would have to wait for her housing officer to be available for it to answer her questions. The landlord then did not contact her as it had agreed to do on 15 March 2024. This caused the resident distress as she was left waiting for longer than she should have been for it to respond to her concerns.
The landlord’s service charge policy says:
1. If a resident’s property is part of an estate, charges related to the estate will be captured under that heading.
2. Core level charges relate to communal areas.
On 30 April 2024, it was right the landlord explained the resident’s estimated service charges from April 2024 to March 2025. However, it then failed to respond to the resident’s repeated concerns including that:
1. It had charged her twice for external cleaning of the estate through its bulk refuse and estate management charges.
2. It charged £20 to clean a single communal window that she it had never cleaned.
3. It had not clarified the £98.15 gardening costs when she did not have a garden.
4. It charged her for communal cleaning that was not being done.
On 18 July 2024, the landlord provided a final response to the resident’s complaint. It agreed to refund several estate and core level charges for the financial year ending 2023. It also agreed to refund the intercompany costs for the financial year ending 2022. It was positive the landlord investigated this. It was unable to confirm when these adjustments would appear on the resident’s rent account due to it being a complex procedure.
The landlord apologised for its poor communication between February 2024 and March 2024. It also awarded the resident £200 compensation for this aspect of her complaint.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the complaint response put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its poor communication and apologising to the resident. It also attempted to put things right by offering compensation in line with our compensation guidance. It then adjusted the resident’s service charges and credited her rent account by £909.44 by December 2024. The landlord’s actions as part of its final response were appropriate to put right the adverse impact upon the resident in this case.

Complaint

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of cleaning and rubbish being left in communal areas

Finding

Reasonable redress

In March 2024, the resident complained about the standard of cleaning of the communal areas by the landlord’s contractor.
It was positive the landlord arranged for a joint inspection with its contractor following the resident’s complaint. This was in line with its estate management policy which says that when it receives a complaint about the standard of service, it will initially contact the contractor to resolve the issue.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said it had completed the visit and discussed the issue with its contractor. It would have been reasonable to have shared with the resident its findings of the joint visit so it could manage her expectations.
The landlord could have also gone further by inviting the resident to join its inspection so she could show them her concerns. Its records show resident inspectors can be included in its inspections. We would encourage the landlord to make better use of resident inspectors where it receives complaints of this nature. This is because what constitutes an acceptable standard of cleanliness can be somewhat subjective.
The landlord’s estate management policy says it carries out regular inspections of its contractors cleaning of communal areas. Where there are issues with the standard of service provided it will enforce clauses in the contract.
The landlord’s records show it inspected the building between November 2023 and March 2024. It was satisfied with the standard of cleanliness in its communal areas.
We acknowledge that the resident does not consider the standard of cleaning to be acceptable. However, as an independent arbiter of complaints, we make objective decisions based on the available evidence. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to objectively confirm this. We cannot conclude the landlord was at fault without evidence.
Going forward, the landlord may want to consider asking its cleaning contractors and inspections to include taking photos. This would show the level of cleaning carried out.
On 14 February 2024, the resident reported the landlord’s contractors had left rubbish in the communal area of the building. The landlord took 57 calendar days to communicate with the resident about this issue. This delay in its communication frustrated the resident as she was having to chase the landlord to deal with the issue.
The landlord recorded 2 internal inspections of the building between 24 February 2024 and 31 March 2024. These inspections failed to identify or note the presence of any rubbish which it accepted was present because it later removed it. We would encourage the landlord to ensure that its staff complete accurate records of its inspections.

It was positive the landlord:
1. Moved the rubbish the day after it stage 1 complaint response.
2. Apologised for its delay in responding to the resident about the rubbish.
3. Awarded the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay, in line with our compensation guidance.
Therefore, its overall offer of redress for this aspect of the complaint was reasonable.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaints policy timescales comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. These responses were issued 7 working days and 17 working days late.
The overall delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint were not excessive. However, they would have inconvenienced her as she was waiting longer than she should have been for a response to her concerns. The landlord appropriately apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays. It also awarded £50 compensation which was proportionate and in line with our compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records were sufficiently detailed to allow us to investigate the complaint.

Communication

In this case, the landlord failed to communicate with the resident in a timely manner. This lack of communication left the resident feeling frustrated and dissatisfied. If the landlord had listened to the resident and responded to her concerns in a timely manner, the delay in its handling of the errors in its service charges could have been avoided.