Notting Hill Genesis (202429825)

Decision
Case ID	202429825
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	24 April 2026

Background

1. The resident has reported noise-related antisocial behaviour (ASB) from an upstairs neighbour to the landlord since 2021. Our investigation is focused on the complaint that completed the landlord’s internal process in March 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of ASB.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
4. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports was not in line with its policy. It did not carry out risk assessments, provide an action plan, or explain its position and process to the resident to manage his expectations.
6. There were avoidable delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. However, it acknowledged its failures and offered proportionate redress.

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 £500 (inclusive of the £350 previously offered) to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident by the due date. It must provide us with documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 22 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £150 compensation it offered for its complaint handling during its complaint procedure, if it has not already done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 September 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of his ASB reports. He said he had complained about noise from his upstairs neighbour for 3 years, provided recordings and diary sheets, but it had failed to take meaningful action. He said it told him to contact environmental health (EH), but they had made it clear it was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve this via its ASB policy. He said he had spent time collecting and providing evidence and felt dismissed and ignored.
4 November 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response and said it had no record that he had reported the matter since his last complaint in May 2021. It accepted it had not followed its ASB policy in response to his September 2024 report, apologised, and set out an action plan. It also apologised for its delayed response to his complaint and offered £200 compensation (£100 for the service failure, £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused, and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint). It said as a learning from the complaint it would ensure its staff followed policies and procedures, acted promptly, and communicated effectively to resolve concerns sooner.
11 November 2024	The resident escalated his complaint and said he had already been through what the landlord proposed (visits, noise recordings, mediation) and it was all ignored and dismissed. He said that even when it told his neighbour not to use an appliance that was too noisy, they carried on regardless. He said he had approached the neighbour directly when the issue first began and they had instead worsened their behaviour; the matter was now past mediation.
21 March 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, apologised for the delay in responding and accepted it had not followed through on the promises from its stage 1 response. It provided a new action plan and timescales. It apologised for its handling of the ASB and poor communication. It made a revised offer of £500 compensation (£100 for service failure, £250 for distress and inconvenience, and £150 for the complaint handling). It said it had shared feedback internally to ensure it responded promptly to enquiries.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident said he was unhappy with the landlord’s delay in dealing with the situation and the quality of its communication. He wanted increased compensation and for the landlord to take tenancy enforcement action against the neighbour.

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	Reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. Our scheme rules say we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord and us within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said he complained to the landlord, but it ignored his complaints from June 2021. We explained at that time the steps he needed to take to pursue the complaint. However, there is no evidence he then referred his complaint or concerns to us until November 2024. We have not seen any reasons which prevented the complaint from being referred to us sooner. Therefore, we will not investigate the complaints or reports made before the 12-month period of the current complaint.
8. The resident has ongoing concerns about ASB. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the issues which have occurred since its March 2025 response. If the resident has not already done so, he may wish to log any ongoing concerns as a new complaint with the landlord. Once this has completed its internal process, and if he is still unhappy, he may refer this to us.
9. The resident wants the landlord to take tenancy enforcement action against his neighbour. We do not have the power to order the landlord to take such action. It is not our role to decide the validity of ASB reports made by the resident or how the landlord should deal with them. Instead, we assess if it acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if its actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
10. The resident said the landlord’s actions almost led to a direct loss of opportunity, academic time, and professional milestones which threatened his career progression and income. We cannot evidence or decide there was a loss of opportunity, career progression, or income. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

11. The landlord has accepted its poor communication and failure to handle the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. Overall, our own investigation found the same. The landlord’s policy requires it to carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan and contact frequency with the resident within 15 working days of a report. It says it will work with relevant agencies such as police and EH, to reach an outcome. The potential outcomes under the policy are to take legal action where there’s sufficient evidence. Or where it does not have the supporting evidence, to explain this and close the case or monitor for an agreed period. We have not seen evidence of it doing this.
12. The landlord initially told the resident it could not take tenancy enforcement action unless he provided evidence from EH of the noise. He had to explain again that he had previously contacted EH who told him they did not provide recording equipment for domestic noise disputes. He sent it recordings he had made himself, but we have not seen evidence of the landlord’s review of these or a response to the resident to explain what action it could or could not take based on them and why.
13. We have not seen evidence of the landlord responding to the resident after its first reply in March 2024, though he continued to report ASB, until it logged the complaint. He then continued to report ASB while it reviewed his complaint, but we have not seen evidence that it responded to or handled these in line with its policy.
14. The landlord’s ASB policy requires it to record all evidence gathered on an internal system, where it should also open an ASB case. We have not seen evidence it did this. Although it told the resident that it called and emailed the neighbour about noise, we have not seen evidence of this. Even after it acknowledged its failure to follow its ASB policy in its stage 1 response, we have not seen evidence that it then corrected this.
15. The landlord’s policy says it takes a victim centred approach and is clear with residents about the process and available tools to tackle the situation. We have not seen evidence of it doing this. Its policy requires it to consider the persistence of the ASB and the potential harm; we have not seen evidence that it considered the history of reports or the impact of this on the resident. The resident’s emails to it reflected the escalating distress he was feeling. Clear and prompt communication from it would have helped to alleviate some of this.
16. The landlord apologised for its failings and shared the steps it has taken to improve its service; this was a reasonable response. It also offered £350 compensation. However, this amount is not proportionate to the failings we found which it repeated over the period of a year. The offer does not accurately reflect the trouble, upset, and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s prolonged failure to explain its position and process, or to manage his expectations.
17. Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the trouble, upset, distress, and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord must pay him £500 compensation. This is inclusive of the previously offered, £350. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance when there were failures which adversely affected the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

18. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure also complied with the Code.
19. The landlord’s complaint responses at both stages were not issued in line with its policy. While it communicated about the delays and provided revised dates, these exceeded its policy and the code timescales. Its complaint responses also did not acknowledge or explain all the failures found during our investigation, as set out above.
20. However, the landlord has apologised for the delays in its complaint handling. Further, the compensation it has offered is sufficient for the failures we found and consistent with our compensation guidance. Therefore, we have not made any further orders.

Learning

21. The landlord should do its best to build and maintain a positive relationship with its residents. This cannot be achieved where the resident cannot trust the landlord to fulfil promises, communicate effectively and quickly, and provide a robust and effective complaints process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord provided us with sufficient information to investigate the complaint and reach a decision. However, it did not keep or provide us with detailed records of its case management and contact records. Further, its evidence submission unnecessarily duplicated information, such as emails. This added an avoidable delay to our investigation.

Communication

23. The landlord did not communicate clearly or promptly with the resident. It should make proactive and prompt contact with residents, give updates, or explain delays even when these are minor. This approach supports good customer service and helps prevent avoidable trouble and inconvenience for residents.