Notting Hill Genesis (202429292)

Decision
Case ID	202429292
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	4 November 2025

Background

The property is a 4 bedroom flat on the fourth (and top) floor of a block. The resident lives at the property with her 3 children.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s transfer request.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of her reports of ASB.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer request.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of ASB

The landlord took reasonable steps to address the ASB, including working collaboratively with local police. It reasonably explained its decision not to install CCTV, acknowledged its handling of this had caused the resident inconvenience, and made a reasonable offer of redress for this.

Handling of transfer request

The landlord appropriately managed the resident’s expectations about securing a transfer from the property – in keeping with its policy. There is no evidence it unreasonably denied or obstructed her from applying for a transfer.

Complaint handling

The landlord inappropriately closed the complaint as a ‘quick fix’ without the resident’s agreement. It failed to acknowledge or offer redress for this, or for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. The landlord may deduct the £100 offered for its complaint handling in its stage 2 response from this, if already paid This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 02 December 2025

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

The landlord may deduct the £100 offered for its complaint handling in its stage 2 response from this, if already paid

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

No later than

02 December 2025

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that, if it has not done so already, the landlord pays the resident the £100 offered in its stage 2 complaint response for the inconvenience caused by its decision not to install CCTV. The finding of reasonable redress is contingent upon this.
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to establish if issues with people using the plug socket on the landing are still ongoing. If so, we recommend the landlord considers taking steps to ensure the sockets in the building are only accessible to authorised people. This could include placing lockable covers over them or similar.
If the ASB issues are still ongoing, we recommend the landlord also considers installing a ‘dummy’ camera on the landing outside the resident’s flat – to determine if this has a deterrent effect on the ASB there.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 April 2024	The resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said that: There was ASB in the block, and especially on the landing outside of her flat. This included “rubbish, drugs paraphernalia, spit and vomit on the stairs, which my family and I have to walk through every day.” She had been enquiring about the landlord installing CCTV in the block since 2021. She wanted to move as she did not feel safe in the property. However, the landlord had told her that “this reason will not help me get another place”.
30 April 2024	The landlord emailed the resident. It advised it was “awaiting consent from several residents for the installation of CCTV which should be helpful towards deterring the frequent occurrences of ASB”. It said it would be in touch once it had an update. Following this, the landlord closed the complaint as a ‘quick fix’.
5 May 2024	The resident contacted the landlord to express dissatisfaction that it had closed her complaint as a quick fix. She said it had not resolved the issues raised.
31 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said that it had: Sent out multiple block letters telling residents not to let strangers into the building or leave the communal doors open. Also put signage up reminding people not to misuse the communal areas. Contacted the police about the issues and was working with them. It said the resident should report any illegal activities she witnessed to the police. “Begun the process” of installing CCTV into the block but was “unable to further advise regarding timelines or outcomes” Advised the resident that the ASB would “not grant a priority banding, as such the transfer will take a very long time”. However, if she still wished to proceed, it could provide her with a transfer application form.
5 August 2024	The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 after receiving a letter from the landlord advising it had decided against installing CCTV.
1 October 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It said that: It had written to the resident on 24 July 2024, explaining the reasons it would not be installing CCTV in the block. It understood this had caused the resident, who had “patiently waited for an update”, inconvenience. Due to this it offered her £100 as a “good will gesture”. It had attached its transfer forms to the email. It asked the resident to complete and return these for it to review. The resident could also “explore the options of mutual exchange” and signposted her to a home swap website. It apologised for the delay in providing its stage 2 response. offered a further £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us on 30 October 2024. She said that she felt she was “not being heard or taken seriously” by the landlord. She said that as the landlord would not be installing CCTV, she wanted it to move her from the property as she did not feel “safe or comfortable” there.

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	Handling of reports of ASB
Finding	Reasonable redress

We have seen evidence the resident reported issues with people gaining access to the communal areas of the building and misusing them as early as December 2022.
It is apparent that these were not residents of the building. Nor did the landlord have any evidence that they were linked to any resident or property. The evidence also indicates that these people were being let into the block by residents using the intercom system – rather than gaining access due to any repair issue or design flaw with the communal front door. Due to this, the landlord was limited as to the action it could take to address the situation.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had sent out letters to all residents “multiple times” asking them to ensure they didn’t leave communal doors open or let unknown people into the building. It also said it had put up notices on the walls reminding people not to misuse the communal area. These were reasonable preventative interventions.
The landlord provided an ‘action plan’ within its stage 1 response. This consisted of:
1. Its cleaning contractor “immediately” clearing any litter reported in the communal area.
2. It having contacted the police, who would provide it with details of their plan of action/patrols of the area.
3. The resident contacting the police to report any illegal activities, such as drug use, in the communal area.
4. The resident advising it if she was aware who within the block was letting the people inside, so it could handle this directly.
These were also reasonable steps to try and address the issue. The landlord’s joint working with the police was in keeping with its ASB policy. This says it will encourage residents to report incidents to the police where a crime has been committed and adopt a “multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB”. We have seen evidence that the landlord followed through on its action plan and engaged with the police, who carried out proactive patrols of the building.
In an email of 9 March 2024, the resident reported people accessing the communal areas were using a plug socket on the landing outside of her flat to charge their mobile phones. She asked the landlord to switch the socket off to deter this. She repeated this request in an email of 14 April 2024.
The landlord appeared to misunderstand the resident’s reasons for wanting the socket switched off. It seemed to believe this was due to the smoke vents in the roof being open and letting rain in. Therefore, it did not appropriately consider her request. We have made a recommendation regarding this above.
The resident escalated her complaint due to the landlord’s decision not to install CCTV within the block. The evidence we have seen shows that the landlord first discussed the possibility of CCTV with the resident during a home visit on 10 July 2023. In an email of 15 August 2023, it updated her that it was considering installing CCTV and had requested quotes from contractors.
It took until 24 July 2024 – almost a year later, for the landlord to inform the resident that it had decided not to install CCTV. The landlord’s letter, sent on this date, appropriately explained that the reasons for this. It said that CCTV had “not proven to be effective in tackling CCTV historically” and that “the costs of installation significantly outweighed the benefits”. This was a business decision which the landlord is best placed to make.
The evidence shows that the landlord had consulted with residents about the possibility of installing CCTV during early 2024. However, we are not aware of the outcome of this, or the prevailing views within the block.
In its letter of 24 July 2024, the landlord said it would instead be arranging an “active collaboration” with local police as a “more effective approach” going forwards. This was in keeping with its ASB policy as detailed above.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that its decision not to install CCTV had caused the resident “inconvenience” after she had “patiently waited” for an outcome. Due to this, it offered her £100 compensation as a “goodwill gesture”. It is our view that this offers reasonable redress for the landlord’s delay in deciding not to install CCTV and its failure to manage the resident’s expectations about this.
We are sympathetic to the resident’s concerns about the ASB in the building. Particularly in light of her property being the only flat accessed via the top floor landing. However, the landlord took reasonable steps to try and prevent people from accessing and misusing the building – considering the limitations it faced due to them being unidentified non-residents. The landlord also appropriately explained its decision not to install CCTV and acknowledged and compensated the resident for its handling of this.

Complaint	Handling of transfer request
Finding	No maladministration

In her complaint, the resident said, “I was told I could put my name on the transfer list however I have not done so because it was made clear to me by [the landlord] that this reason [the ASB] will not help me get another place”. We have not seen any evidence of the conversation referred to.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that its “advice to you regarding the transfer was that this [the ASB] will not grant a priority banding, as such the transfer will take a very long time – longer than the general times.”
The landlord’s lettings policy says that it awards ‘priority banding’ to residents who register for a transfer. This is based upon “how their housing affects their circumstances”. For ASB, it awards priority banding where a resident “faces imminent personal risk which is life-threatening by remaining in their home” or “faces potential risk of violence or harassment by remaining in their property, but the risk is not considered life-threatening”.
We acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the ASB in the block. However, we have not seen any evidence to suggest a risk of violence or harassment towards her or her family. Due to this, the landlord’s position was in keeping with its lettings policy.
The landlord offered to provide the resident with its transfer forms, if she still wished to pursue this option, in its stage 1 response. It also appropriately asked her to inform it of any other reasons she required a transfer. This would allow it to advise her if she was likely to obtain a priority banding.
The landlord proactively provided the transfer forms with its stage 2 complaint response. It also signposted her to a mutual exchange website as an alternative way to seek a move.
The resident’s desired outcome of her complaint was for the landlord to move her from the property. This is not something we are able to order or recommend. Landlords are best placed to make decisions about internal transfers and how to utilise their stock. The landlord’s decision making was in line with its policy and there is no evidence of any unfairness or maladministration.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord had a complaints policy in place from June 2023 to July 2024, after which it implemented an updated policy. The landlord handled the resident’s initial complaint and issued its stage 1 response under the original policy, whilst her escalation and its stage 2 response were handled under the new one.
The landlord’s June 2023 complaints policy allowed it to resolve complaints as a ‘quick fix’. Its policy said it would do this when it was able to resolve the issues raised in a complaint to the resident’s satisfaction within 10 days. It said that it would seek the resident’s agreement to resolve a complaint as a quick fix. The quick fix has since been removed from the latest version of the policy.
After the resident made her complaint on 29 April 2024, the landlord responded by email the following day. It provided an update on the process of installing CCTV. Following this it closed the complaint as a quick fix. This was inappropriate as it had not sought the resident’s agreement, or confirmation it had resolved the complaint to her satisfaction.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 May 2024 and expressed her dissatisfaction that it had closed her complaint. She said “I never agreed for this complaint to be closed. Issues have not been resolved or fixed quick”. Following this the landlord reopened the complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days unless it agrees an extension with the resident.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 31 May 2024. This was 22 working days from when she made her complaint. It was also 17 working days from when she had told it she was disagreed with it closing the complaint as a quick fix. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord agreed an extension to its response timescale with the resident. It also failed to acknowledge the delay in the stage 1 response itself.
We note that the resident’s housing officer provided the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s June 2023 complaints policy said that “at stage one, your complaint will be handled by your local officer. If your complaint is about your local officer, it will be handled by their manager.”
Whilst the complaint was not directly about the resident’s housing officer, it was about the handling of ASB – which they had been responsible for overseeing. Our complaint handling code says that landlord’s must investigate complaints in “an impartial manner”. Having complaint handlers investigate their own work is not in keeping with this. The latest version of the landlord’s complaints policy has appropriately removed the requirement for local officers to handle stage 1 complaints.
The landlord also delayed in escalating and responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2. However, it appropriately acknowledged this in its stage 2 complaint response and offered her £100 compensation for this. This was a reasonable amount, in keeping with its compensation policy which lists up to £100 for ‘low impact’ failures to meet service standards.
We have ordered an additional £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord inappropriately closing the complaint as a quick fix and the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it has a process in place to make timely decisions about installation of CCTV in its blocks and estates. This will assist it in managing resident expectations.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord has told us that it did not have any active ASB cases, during the period of complaint, for the issues reported by the resident. While we appreciate that the landlord was limited in the action it could take, it would have been good practice to open a case. This would have allowed it to compile all reports and information in a single location and facilitate a joined up approach to case management.

Communication

The landlord’s general communication with the resident was adequate. We note that following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord held a residents’ meeting to discuss issues in the block and provided an update on action it was taking in response to the concerns raised. This was good practice.