Notting Hill Genesis (202425468)

Background

1. The resident lives in a second floor, one bedroom flat. A leaking tap caused damp and mould and when there were delays fixing the issue, he raised a complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the residents:
   1. Reports of damp and mould.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord made an offer of redress which resolved the handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of damp and mould

4. There were failures that led to delays in resolving the damp and mould and when the stage 2 response was issued the matter remained unresolved.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not escalate to stage 2 when required and issued two additional stage 1 responses. When it did respond at stage 2, the landlord acknowledged its failings and awarded appropriate compensation.

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.

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.

6. As the damp and mould remained unresolved after the complaints process, the resident raised a new complaint on 31 March 2025. The complaint progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure and has been brought to this Service. It is being dealt with under case reference 202529225. This investigation therefore focuses on events from May 2024, when the resident raised the issue of damp and mould, to the stage 2 response in February 2025.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy said it aimed to complete standard repairs within 20 working days. Its damp and mould policy said it would complete an initial inspection within 10 working days. Following the inspection, repairs would be raised within 2 working days, and minor works completed within 20 working days.
8. The resident reported a leaking bathroom tap on 20 May 2024. He said it had caused damp and mould on the walls. The landlord raised a job that day and categorised it as standard. It did not attend until 14 June 2024, which was outside of the timeframes in its repair policy.
9. The landlord attended again in June, July and August 2024 and while it had resolved the leaking tap, the damp and mould remained. The resident reported it had also spread to the living room.
10. In its stage 1 response on 15 August 2024, the landlord acknowledged the quality of its repairs had led to delays resolving the damp and mould and that the resident had to chase it for updates. It said it would complete an inspection on 21 August 2024. It apologised for the delays and awarded £250 compensation. This was reasonable and showed it considered its compensation policy, which says it can award up to £250 for service failures causing inconvenience and distress.
11. The surveyor attended on 21 August 2024, and jobs were raised on 23 August based on the recommendations. This was appropriate. It showed the landlord followed through on the commitment it made in its complaint response and adhered to the timescales in its damp and mould policy.
12. By 18 September 2024, the contractor confirmed extensive works had been completed. These included removing render, treating bricks, applying stain block, decorating, electrical work and repairing and replacing bathroom fittings.
13. The resident said the repairs had not fully resolved the damp and mould, but the job was closed. He chased the landlord from October 2024 to January 2025, but no new jobs were raised. In December 2024, he said chasing the landlord was effecting his mental health and his medication dosage had been increased. The lack of progress was likely to have frustrated the resident as he wanted the issue resolved.
14. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 21 January 2025. It acknowledged closing the repair enquiry prematurely and that damp and mould remained unresolved. It said it had raised a new repair to tackle the mould and apologised that the service it provided had not met the expected standards. It awarded a further £250 compensation. While it could have given a clearer plan for finishing the works, its response showed it was taking steps to put things right.
15. On 24 February 2025, the landlord responded at stage 2. It acknowledged damp and mould remained unresolved and repairs had not been completed within the timeframes set out in its repairs or damp and mould policies. It accepted there had been poor communication which would have caused confusion and frustration. It said it had arranged an inspection for week commencing 24 February 2024 and follow up works would be scheduled after.
16. In its response, the landlord offered £2230.83 compensation. This included £1580.83 for the loss of bathroom and living room use during periods repairs were being carried out. The calculations used in the response show it followed its compensation policy by awarding 20% daily rent for the living room and 30% for the bathroom. It also offered £400 for damage caused by mould to a sofa bed and computer chair and £100 for stress and inconvenience.
17. The landlord appropriately advised the resident to submit a liability claim for any impact on health he had experienced and sent the claim forms to him following the stage 2 response. This was reasonable as its compensation policy says it cannot consider payments for personal injury or other liability insurance claims.
18. The resident asked for a review of the compensation offer. He said the landlord had not considered the impact the repairs had on his use of the kitchen and had not fully recognised the level of distress and inconvenience caused. In the final review on 7 March 2025, the landlord increased its compensation offer by £750. This aligned with its compensation policy that said it could award more than £250 compensation when there had been multiple failures and brought the total amount of compensation in line with our remedies guidance for when there has been maladministration that had a significant impact on the resident.
19. Overall, there were failings that caused delays resolving the issue and while the landlord acknowledged these, damp and mould remained unresolved when it issued its stage 2 response. This leads us to find service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould. However, due to the amount of compensation already awarded and the because the resident confirmed to us that as of December 2025 all works were completed, no further compensation has been awarded and no orders related to repairs have been made.

20. The landlord had a 2 stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aimed to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. This aligned with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
21. The Code said if all or part of the complaint was not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction, it must be escalated to stage 2. The landlord’s policy said that a resident should request escalation within 20 working days of the stage 1 response.
22. The resident raised a complaint on 12 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged this on 22 July and responded on 15 August 2024, 8 days later than its policy timescales.
23. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on the same day, meeting the landlord’s escalation requirements. The landlord acknowledged the request on 19 August 2024, in line with its policy.
24. The resident chased a response on 23 September and 1 October 2024. On 4 October 2024, he complained again that damp and mould jobs were outstanding. The landlord logged this as a new complaint and responded on 16 October at stage 1, despite not providing the requested stage 2 response.
25. On 6 December 2024, the resident told the landlord his stage 2 response was three months overdue. However, the landlord logged this as a new complaint and responded again at stage 1 on 21 January 2025.
26. The landlord providing two further stage 1 responses when the resident was chasing a stage 2 response, impacted his ability to access this Service and likely caused frustration.
27. The resident continued to chase the landlord. When it still did not provide a stage 2 response, he approached this Service for assistance. We wrote to the landlord on 17 February 2025 and asked it to provide a stage 2 response by 24 February 2025.
28. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 24 February 2025, 7 months after the resident requested to escalate his complaint. This far exceeded the 20 working day timescale in its policy.
29. In its response, the landlord acknowledged significant delays and poor complaint handling. It apologised and offered £150 compensation. Following a review requested by the resident, the landlord increased the compensation for poor complaint handling by £50. This was reasonable and showed it considered its compensation policy, which says it can award up to £250 for service failures causing inconvenience and distress.
30. We find the steps the landlord has taken and the compensation it has offered are overall proportionate to the identified failings and amounted to reasonable redress.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. We found the reference numbers the landlord used to monitor complaints did not always correlate to the correct complaint which made it difficult to work out the timeline of the complaint. The landlord could consider this and reflect on any changes it could make to support accurate timelines and ensure consistent complaint tracking.

Communication

32. Communication during the complaint’s process was often poor. The landlord is encouraged to consider what it can do to ensure enquiries receive timely, clear and thorough responses. This could include how to ensure customers are provided with realistic expectations and relevant updates to prevent unnecessary chasing by residents.