Notting Hill Genesis (202414212)

Decision
Case ID	202414212
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 December 2025

Background

The resident was unhappy with how the landlord responded to her reports of problems with the drains at the property, and leak into her kitchen ceiling. In addition, she asked the landlord to install a shower screen as its contractor had removed her shower curtain. The resident also stated that the garden was in poor condition when she moved in and that she had it renovated herself. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the costs she incurred.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her reported repairs and request for a shower screen.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling, including its decision not to investigate the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her reported repairs and request for a shower screen.
2. Reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings and offered the resident reasonable and proportionate compensation for them.
The landlord’s complaint handling was overall appropriate, it provided reasonable compensation for its delayed responses. While it did not respond to the resident’s request for the 2022 report, this was a shortcoming, rather than a failing.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident to ascertain whether she would like a copy of the 2022 surveyor’s report. If it is unable to do so, it should explain the reasons why.
Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord’s £1434.94 compensation offer. Therefore, it should pay the resident the compensation, if it has not done so already.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
May 2022	Following a leak into the resident’s kitchen, the landlord carried out repairs to resolve the matter.
9-10 October 2023	While an operative was carrying out repairs to the bathroom tiles at the property it was identified that the water was not going through the bathroom drain. The landlord attended and resolved the issue.
December 2023	The resident told the landlord that the operative removed her shower curtain when completing the repairs. She asked the landlord to replace it with a shower screen to prevent future water damage to the bathroom door.
January 2024	The resident chased the landlord for a response to her request for a shower screen. She also reported a leak coming through her kitchen ceiling on 28 January, which the landlord attended to on 29 January 2024.
6 February 2024	The resident made a complaint. She said: she lost the use of the bathroom for around 24 hours and loss of income due to the drain issues in October 2023. she lost the use of the kitchen for over 24 hours when the leak occurred in January 2024. The landlord did not update her during that period, and no repairs were completed. She was concerned that a leak in May 2022 had not been rectified, and that the ingress in January was a recurrence of the same problem. when she moved into the property in 2018, the garden was in poor condition. She had renovated it at a cost of over £5,000. She asked the landlord to compensate her for the loss of use of the bathroom and kitchen and income loss. She reiterated her request for a shower screen. She also asked to be compensated for the money she spent on the garden renovation.
28 February 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it was unable to compensate the resident for the loss of the kitchen and bathroom as the disruption was less than 48 hours. It explained its compensation policy did not allow for the loss of income. It said that as the kitchen leak was repaired, it could not investigate a leak that was not active. It said that a leak that occurred twice within 2 years was “normal”. It explained that it had arranged for a shower curtain to be installed. It offered the resident £125 for the distress and inconvenience caused and £50 for its delayed response.
15 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: the landlord’s compensation policy did not say that it would not compensate for loss of use of a room under 48 hours. she was concerned that the landlord had not found the cause of the leak and would not look into it further. She explained that the leak had caused distress to her autistic child. She asked for the 2022 surveyor’s report in relation to the leak. the landlord had told her that it would install a shower screen. the landlord had not responded to her complaint about the condition of the garden when she moved in and her request to be compensated for the cost of renovation works.
7 June 2024	The landlord installed a shower screen in the bathroom.
11 October 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: it should have compensated the resident for the loss of the use of the bathroom. the May 2022 leak was caused by a blocked bath and toilet in a neighbouring flat. The January 2024 leak was caused by a loose bath waste pipe in the above flat. As the resident stated that there were no further leaks since it carried out the repair in January, it could not investigate a leak that was not happening. the kitchen light was disconnected for safety reasons from 28 January to 2 February 2024. It said that there was “no reason” that the kitchen could not be used during that time. it did not consider the resident’s request for the shower screen appropriately which meant the issue was left longer than reasonably expected. it was unable to investigate the resident’s concerns about the condition of the garden when she moved in 2018 through its complaint process. It explained this was because the issue had not been raised within a reasonable period. It said that residents were responsible for maintaining their gardens, so it would not be able to compensate the resident. It compensated the resident £1434.94 as follows: £59.94 for the loss of use of the bathroom and distress and inconvenience caused. £125 for failing to install the shower screen within a reasonable timeframe. £500 for its delayed complaint responses. £250 for its poor communication. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said that there have been no further leaks into the kitchen. However, the landlord did not investigate the cause of the leak or compensate her for the cost of the garden renovation works. She explained that there are still issues with the bathroom drains.

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 reported repairs and request for a shower screen.
Finding	Reasonable redress

It is acknowledged that the resident was concerned that the leak may return after it was resolved in January 2024. However, given that no further leaks had occurred at the time of her 2024 complaints, the landlord’s decision to not investigate further following its January 2024 repair was appropriate. This is because it would not be reasonable to expect a landlord to investigate a matter that it had already resolved and where there were no current repair issues. This would not be appropriate use of the landlord’s resources.
We are satisfied that the landlord’s compensation offers were reasonable for:
1. the loss of use of the bathroom and distress and inconvenience caused.
2. its delayed installation of the shower screen.
3. poor communication.
4. distress and inconvenience.
This is because they are proportionate in relation to the impact the length of the delays and its poor communication during those periods had on the resident and the overall distress and inconvenience caused. They are also in line with our Remedies Guidance for such failings. It was also positive that the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings.
We have not identified any additional or further failings by the landlord. Therefore we have found that the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reported repairs and request for a shower screen. If the issues with the bathroom drains are unresolved, the resident should notify the landlord so that it can carry out an inspection as necessary.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. However, in this case, it responded to the resident’s complaints within 16 working days and 7 months respectively. Taking into consideration the length of delays its £500 compensation was reasonable and in line with our Remedies Guidance. It also explained what steps it was taking to mitigate similar failings from occurring in the future. That was positive.
The landlord provided the resident with a proportionate summary of the causes of the May 2022 and January 2024 leaks which explained that the leaks were caused by different issues. This was appropriate.
It is noted that it did not respond to the resident’s request for the 2022 surveyor. However, this was a shortcoming rather than a failing.
The landlord’s complaint policy stated that all complaints should be made within 12 months of the issue happening. We also reasonably expect residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
Therefore, the landlord’s explanation and decision to not investigate the resident’s complaint about the condition of her garden when she moved in and her request for compensation was appropriate. This is because they related to issues that happened approximately 6 years before the complaint was made.
The resident told us that she considers that the garden renovations are an improvement that she should be compensated for as outlined in her tenancy agreement. It is acknowledged that residents may be compensated for incurred costs for eligible improvements made to the landlord’s property upon moving out. Therefore the resident may wish to contact the landlord to discuss whether this or a similar policy may apply for her circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

The evidence suggests that poor record keeping and internal and external communication practices contributed to its failings in this case. Therefore the landlord may wish to carry out a review into the matter.