Notting Hill Genesis (202420914)

Decision
Case ID	202420914
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	21 May 2026

Background

The resident occupies a flat which has a communal front garden accessible to all residents in the property. In February 2024, the resident complained that the landlord increased the amount of paving in the communal front garden as part of its external cyclical redecoration works, which damaged her plants.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s handling of the works to the communal front garden and the associated damage to the resident’s plants.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the works to the communal front garden and the associated damage to the resident’s plants.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the works to the communal front garden and the associated damage to the resident’s plants.

The landlord did not adequately oversee its contractor, which resulted in works being carried out beyond the expected scope. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord acknowledged this, committed to reinstating the area to its original condition, and offered proportionate compensation.

Handling of the complaint

The landlord followed its complaint policy and the Code, responded within expected timescales, and provided a clear and proportionate response that addressed the resident’s concerns.

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
The landlord should pay the compensation of £225 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response, if it has not already done so.
We recommend that the landlord consider contacting the resident to discuss her concerns that the front area was not reinstated to its original condition. It could consider arranging a joint inspection, where appropriate, to agree whether any further works or improvements are required. Or explain if it does not think any further works are needed, to manage the resident’s expectations.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 February 2024	The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. The resident said: the landlord’s paving of the communal front garden damaged plants that had been in place for 5–10 years, and that the landlord did not consult her before carrying out the works she requested that the landlord reduce the paved area, reinstate the flower beds, replace her plants, and explain what action it would take to put matters right.
28 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint.
7 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. Within it the landlord said: it acknowledged the resident’s concern that the paving slabs had been installed closer to the wall, reducing the soil area available for planting it agreed, subject to consultation, to reduce the paving slab area next to the wall and the street it would write to all residents, including about replacement plants, and would arrange the works once agreement had been reached.
19 March 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2. The resident said: the landlord did not acknowledge the damage to her plants, which she said belonged to her, had sentimental value, and that she maintained the front garden area the landlord and its contractor did not consult residents before carrying out the works, which meant she did not have an opportunity to discuss the works or remove or repot her plants.
27 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint.
15 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. Within it the landlord said: it had consulted residents on 3 options, with 1 resident choosing full paving and two residents not responding it would reinstate the area on a like-for-like basis, with planting matched to the previous greenery where possible the front garden is a communal area and is not part of the resident’s tenancy, and that the works formed part of overdue external maintenance it offered £225 compensation, comprising £75 for the damaged plants, £50 for time and trouble, and £100 for inconvenience
26 April 2024	The resident contacted this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint. She said she wanted the paved area to be reduced to allow her plants to grow back.

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 works to the communal front garden and the associated damage to the resident’s plants.
Finding	Reasonable redress

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the communal front garden does not form part of the resident’s demise and is a shared area. Responsibility for its maintenance and repair therefore rests with the landlord. It is not disputed that the resident had been tending to the flowers in the flower bed for many years.
The landlord’s specification survey for the external cyclical redecorations programme 2023/24, dated 21 August 2023, included renewal of the front garden paving. No evidence has been seen that this scope included removal of the flower bed. The landlord’s cyclical works notification letter to residents, dated 23 October 2023, did not refer to removal of the flower bed or paving the entire area.
Internal correspondence dated 24 January 2024 confirms that the ground works were scheduled between 29 January 2024 and 2 February 2024. On 26 February 2024, the resident reported that plants, which she said had been in place for several years, had been damaged.
In its stage 1 response on 7 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged that paving slabs had been installed closer to the wall than previously advised. It said it would take steps to reduce the paved area, subject to consultation.
Internal correspondence dated 11 April 2024 states that the original scope had not been to pave the whole area and that contractors had attempted to replicate the previous layout. This indicates a failure in contractor oversight, which resulted in the removal of the flower bed beyond the intended scope of the cyclical redecorations programme.
A landlord is responsible for the actions of its contractors and must maintain appropriate oversight to ensure works are delivered in line with the agreed scope. A failure to do so, resulting in works being carried out incorrectly or beyond the intended specification, is a service failure.
The resident had been tending to the flowers in the front garden and said these held sentimental value for her. The removal of the flower bed without prior discussion meant she was not given an opportunity to raise concerns or to remove or repot the plants. This would reasonably have caused distress and frustration, given the personal value she placed on them and her involvement in maintaining the area over several years.
In its stage 2 response on 15 April 2024, the landlord said that, following consultation with residents, it would instruct its contractor to reinstate the front area on a like-for-like basis, returning it to its original state. The landlord also offered £225 compensation, comprising £75 for damaged plants, £50 for time and trouble, and £100 for inconvenience.
It is positive that, once the landlord was made aware of the issue, it took steps to put matters right and offered proportionate compensation.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would instruct its contractor to reinstate the front area on a like-for-like basis. However, the landlord has not confirmed when these works were carried out or clearly explained what works were completed. In the absence of this information, it has not demonstrated that it met the commitment it made. That said, we acknowledge that the front area is a communal space. As such, the landlord is not required to reinstate it as the resident requested.
Having regard to the failings identified in this report and the actions the landlord took to put things right, we find that the landlord offered reasonable redress. This reflects the service failures identified, the landlord’s acknowledgment of those failings and the level of compensation it offered, which is in line with our compensation guidance. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord making the payment of £225 to the resident.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It responded to the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within the timescales set out in its policy. Based on the evidence, we are satisfied that the landlord acted in line with its complaint policy and the Code when handling this complaint.
The complaint handling was overall positive. The stage 2 response was comprehensive and addressed the resident’s concerns. It offered a proportionate level of compensation for time and trouble, and for inconvenience. We therefore find no maladministration in the complaint handling.

Learning

The landlord could strengthen its oversight of contractors to ensure works are carried out in line with the agreed specification and do not exceed the intended scope.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord could consider how it can ensure that all commitments made during the complaint process, particularly at stage 2, are clearly tracked, actioned, and evidenced, including recording dates and details of completed works.
The landlord could review its record keeping ensuring it can demonstrate what actions were taken, when they were completed, and how they met the agreed scope of works.

Communication

The landlord could ensure that it communicates clearly and proactively with residents when implementing agreed remedies, including confirming completion and providing supporting evidence.