Notting Hill Genesis (202432745)

Decision
Case ID	202432745
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Licence
Date	13 October 2025

Background

1. Since August 2022 the resident has lived in emergency accommodation run by the landlord. A licence agreement allows him to live at the property, which is a 3-bedroom flat. The complaint relates to repair issues that include leaks, damp, and mould. These issues were largely resolved through a legal disrepair claim the resident raised. For most of the repair timeline, the resident lived at the property with his partner and their children. His partner helped with his complaint at various points. This report refers to both as ‘the resident’ throughout.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about issues he raised as a disrepair claim.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about other repair issues.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about issues he raised as a disrepair claim.
4. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about other repair issues.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that the landlord:
   1. Followed relevant policies and took a reasonable approach to the resident’s complaint about issues he raised as a disrepair claim.
   2. Took reasonable steps to resolve the resident’s concerns about other repair issues.
   3. Identified key complaint handling delays/failures and put things right for the resident.

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
We recommend that the landlord asks the resident if he wants to raise a new complaint to address his more recent concerns about outstanding flooring works.
We recommend that the landlord shares our comments from the ‘Learning’ section of this report with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 September 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. He referenced persistent leaks, damp and mould, and a defective boiler. He said these issues had damaged his family’s belongings and their health. He felt the landlord was responsible and it should pay compensation. By this point, the resident had already raised a legal disrepair claim against the landlord.
25 September 2024	The landlord replied to the resident on the same day. It said it had passed his complaint to its complaints team.
2 October 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said there was an ongoing legal claim about the repair issues he had raised. Due to this claim, it declined to complete a separate complaint investigation. However, it did award the resident £100 in compensation for a complaint handling delay.
On and around 14 October 2024	The landlord raised a £100 compensation payment for the resident in its systems. Records show the payment was completed soon afterwards.
17 October 2024	The resident escalated his complaint. He said he had been reporting repair issues since May 2023. He also said the landlord had not taken any  meaningful action to address these. He introduced some new concerns about the property’s windows. He said one had not been fitted properly.
Between 23 October and 20 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint. It told him it would respond by 20 November 2024. It contacted the resident again on that date. It said it needed more investigation time and it would respond by 18 December 2024.
18 December 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It reiterated that the resident should contact his legal representative about the key repair issues. It did respond to his concerns about windows. It awarded him £100 in compensation for a delayed repair. It also awarded him another £150 for complaint handling issues.
On and around 22 January 2025	The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of £250 in compensation. The landlord subsequently arranged and completed the payment.
Referral to the Ombudsman	Some of the key repair issues were still ongoing when the resident first contacted us. In October 2025, he told us the landlord had resolved most of these and paid £3,500 to settle his legal claim. However, he said some flooring in the property was still damp. He told us the landlord had promised to address this, but the relevant repairs were still outstanding.

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 response to the resident’s concerns about issues he raised as a disrepair claim
Finding	No maladministration

6. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy (effective July 2024) excludes “complaints that are already being managed”. In this case, the resident launched a legal disrepair claim in June 2024. It covered leaks, damp and mould, and a defective boiler. The resident’s  complaint referenced the same repair issues, but it was raised several months later.
7. From the information provided, we understand legal proceedings were not issued in respect of the disrepair claim, and as such, we are able to consider the landlord’s handling of concerns about the related repairs.
8. Due to the resident’s existing claim, the landlord declined to investigate the key repair issues through its complaints process. It was reasonable for the landlord to avoid duplication. Its approach was also consistent with its complaints policy. There is no indication that the resident was adversely impacted by the landlord’s decision. For example, the landlord has supplied evidence that it ultimately paid his legal fees.
9. The resident’s disrepair claim did not mention damaged belongings or health impacts. In contrast, his complaint did raise similar issues. For clarity, we are not best placed to resolve liability disputes such as damaged items or injury. As a result, we did not consider the resident’s related concerns. It is noted that insurers specialise in liability matters.
10. In his complaint, the resident said he felt the landlord was responsible for damage. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will refer damage or injury claims to the relevant insurer. Given the resident’s comments, this was the landlord’s insurer.
11. In its stage 2 response (18 December 2024), the landlord told the resident that he could raise a liability claim with its insurer. It also supplied relevant contact details. This suggests it recognised that the liability issue was not already being managed. Having done so, the landlord addressed the matter in line with its policy. This was appropriate.
12. In May 2025, the parties agreed to settle the resident’s legal claim. The landlord has supplied a copy of the agreement. It said the landlord would pay the resident £3,500 and complete specified repairs within 120 days (by September 2025). It also said it would retain about half of the resident’s payment. This was to cover arrears on his rent account.
13. The agreed repairs were specified by a survey report from September 2024. We have also seen this report. It referenced water damage to walls and ceilings. It did not mention damp floors or recommend any flooring repairs. Overall, there is no indication the landlord had agreed to address any similar issues as part of the legal settlement.
14. The settlement was reached outside of the landlord’s complaints process. However, we have seen the landlord’s calculation so we considered it during our investigation. The calculation reflected the relevant repair issues from August 2022 onwards. In contrast, the resident told the landlord that he had reported the repair issues from May 2023 onwards. Ultimately, the landlord’s calculation covered a more extensive delay period.
15. The landlord’s calculation reflected the resident’s rent over the period in question. It was also consistent with the Ombudsman’s approach to a loss of use or enjoyment. Ultimately, we have not seen any flaws in the landlord’s calculation. In general, a payment of £3,500 is consistent with cases where we have found there was severe maladministration by a landlord.
16. Overall, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about issues he raised as a disrepair claim. In relation to his associated complaint, it followed relevant policies and its approach was reasonable. Its payment of £3,500 did not arise through its complaints process.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about other repair issues
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. The landlord has a repairs policy. It shows the landlord is usually responsible for window repairs. It also shows the landlord will prioritise repairs based on the level of risk. It will attend emergency repairs within 4 hours. If an emergency repair issue needs to be made safe, the landlord will complete a temporary repair within 24 hours.
18. Under its policy, the landlord will complete standard (non-urgent) repairs within 20 working days. It does not have a specific timescale for improvement or replacement works. However, the landlord will keep residents updated about its progress with these.
19. During his escalation request (October 2024), the resident referenced a bathroom window that had not been fitted properly. He also said there were issues with some of the property’s other windows. Overall, he said a draught was entering his home and winter was approaching. He was worried that his family may become unwell.
20. We have seen limited evidence about the property’s windows. However, the landlord included a repair timeline in its stage 2 response. The resident has not disputed the information in this timeline. Similarly, there is no indication that he raised further concerns about the property’s windows after the landlord had issued its stage 2 response.
21. The landlord’s timeline said the resident had reported a bathroom window repair on 10 June 2024. It also said a contractor had removed and repaired this window on 19 June 2024. This was 7 working days later. This timeframe was in line with the landlord’s standard repair timescale. However, the landlord said there had been a delay in its response. It awarded the resident £100 in compensation to address this.
22. The wording of the landlord’s response suggests it believed that it should have treated the resident’s report in June 2024 as an emergency repair. The landlord can pay a discretionary amount of compensation to address service failures. Its compensation policy includes guidance about proportionate award levels. It says the landlord can pay up to £100 in cases where its failures caused ‘some inconvenience’ for a resident.
23. In this case, the landlord identified a delay and considered the resulting impact to the resident. It subsequently awarded him some compensation to put things right. It applied a reasonable category from its compensation guidance. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord. There is no indication it overlooked any additional failures at that time.
24. In its response, the landlord confirmed it had raised a repair order to assess the windows. The next evidence we have seen is a post–works inspection report from 21 January 2025. It shows a contractor had recently completed extensive works to the property’s windows and doors. This suggests the landlord did raise a new repair order as promised.
25. Overall, the landlord engaged with the resident’s concerns about windows. It identified a failure and took reasonable steps to address this in line with its policy. It also arranged a further repair. There is no indication the landlord’s approach was unreasonable or that it overlooked any additional failures. As a result, we find it has provided the resident with reasonable redress. In other words, it did enough to put things right for him.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

26. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord’s complaints policy says it complies with the Code.
27. The landlord’s policy says it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days at each stage. At stage 1, it will issue a response within 10 working days after it has sent an acknowledgement. It will issue a response within 20 working days of an escalation request at stage 2. These timescales are consistent with the Code.
28. Under the landlord’s policy, more investigation time is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed. This is also consistent with the Code. In this case, the landlord received the resident’s complaint on 25 September 2024. It issued a stage 1 response 5 working days later (2 October 2024). This timeframe was in line with the Code.
29. In its response, the landlord said it had “taken longer than it should have … to respond to [the resident’s] complaint”. It awarded him £100 for a related delay. The landlord did not say when it believed this delay had started. Similarly, it did not say when it believed that it should have issued a response previously. This information may have been helpful for the resident.
30. In this case, the resident made a legal disrepair claim in June 2024. He also contacted his local MP in July 2024. Since the landlord has a complaints process to resolve disputes, these steps should not have been necessary to progress his concerns. The above supports the landlord’s view that the resident was adversely impacted by a complaint handling delay.
31. The landlord rightly awarded the resident some compensation to address this delay. Its award was consistent with the ‘some inconvenience’ guidance in its compensation policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow its guidance. However, legal claims can be distressing and inconvenient for residents. The landlord may have underestimated the extent of the delay and its adverse impact.
32. The evidence shows there was another complaint handling delay at stage 2. Based on the period between 17 October and 18 December 2024, it lasted about 20 working days. The landlord updated the resident in the meantime. It also explained the delay and provided him with a new response deadline. It subsequently complied with this deadline. The landlord’s approach was consistent with the Code.
33. In its stage 2 response, the landlord considered the resident’s complaint journey from July 2024 until December 2024. It accepted that delays occurred in this period. It awarded the resident £150 in compensation to address these. It did not mention its previous compensation payment at this point. It is noted there is some overlap between the landlord’s compensation awards (they addressed similar time periods).
34. By this point, the landlord had awarded the resident a total of £250 in compensation for complaint handling delays/failures. Its compensation policy includes relevant guidance. It says this level of award is consistent with cases where the landlord’s failures caused “inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable” for a resident. The evidence shows this category is relevant to the resident’s case.
35. Overall, the landlord identified its key delays and failures during its complaints process. It also took reasonable steps to put things right in line with its compensation policy. It may have underestimated the extent of the main delay (which potentially began around June 2024). However, it also compensated the resident twice for some delays.
36. Given the above, we took a holistic view of the landlord’s approach. We find the £250 that it paid the resident during its complaints process was proportionate given what went wrong. We therefore find that the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress for its complaint handling failures.

What we did not consider

37. We have not considered the resident’s concerns about outstanding works to the property’s flooring. These arose after his complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. The works were not mentioned in the parties’ subsequent legal settlement. Typically, we can only investigate issues that have completed a landlord’s internal complaints process. We also need sufficient information to complete a fair investigation.
38. For these reasons, we are unable to consider the resident’s related concerns. We have made a recommendation that may help the parties to resolve the issue. If he wants to, the resident can bring a new complaint to the Ombudsman when it has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Learning

39. Legal claims can be distressing and inconvenient for residents. They can also be costly for landlords. To avoid this, the landlord can proactively offer to raise a formal complaint at times. This approach may help residents who are concerned about unresolved issues.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord was able to supply key case evidence. Our investigation did not highlight any record keeping issues.

Communication

41. Aspects of the landlord’s complaint communications lacked clarity. The landlord could avoid this by clearly measuring any identified delays in its complaint responses. This will help with its compensation calculations. It will also help to explain its decisions.