Notting Hill Genesis (202433631)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433631

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the boiler.
2. Damp and mould in the property.
3. Repairs to the window restrictor.
4. Reports of damage to the property and possessions following a leak.
5. The resident’s requests to move.
6. The resident’s concerns about her housing officer.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property which is a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord has noted that the resident has vulnerabilities.
The resident reported to the landlord that her boiler had broken down in November 2023. The resident has said it took 5 months to fix the boiler.
The resident raised a formal complaint with her landlord on 8 August 2024. Within the complaint she referred to her boiler breaking again. The resident said people had come out over the last 6 weeks in relation to her latest report but had not resolved the issues. She said the leak from the boiler had ruined her floor, skirting board, and carpet. She wanted the landlord to clean the carpet.
The resident said there had been a problem with drug addicts in the area and she had complained to both the landlord and the police about it. She said no-one was taking responsibility for the matters and she was scared every time she left her home. She said the damp and mould in her property caused her to have bronchitis and she had to give her dog away as it was making the dog sick. She said she was a “vulnerable mentally ill woman.” The resident said she had called the heating contractor and her housing officer with no response. She asked the landlord to reduce her rent until it resolved the issue and to move her.
The boiler was fixed on 13 August 2024.
The landlord inspected the damp and mould in the property in September 2024 and carried out a mould wash. The landlord said it fitted new skirting boards, but the resident disputed this and said not all skirting boards were replaced.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 20 September 2024. It said the following:
1. It agreed that the level of service provided by its heating contractor was not to its required standard. It said a new heating contractor was in place which it hoped would improve the resident’s experience moving forward. It noted that there were periods when she had no heating and hot water.
2. It said it raised a repair for the damp and mould reported. It said it believed it had resolved all mould matters.
3. The resident’s tenancy was part of a supported housing pathway which meant she had limited options to move. It said mutual exchange was not an option and it would only consider a move evidenced on medical grounds. It noted the resident said she had lack of access to the communal garden area and it was not aware of any restrictions she should have in accessing garden spaces.
4. It referred to the resident’s reports of damaged items, which included her carpets, dressing table, and bedside table. It said it had offered the resident a deep clean for the carpet and there was no agreement to replace or compensate for her other items. It said if she felt it was liable for damage to her personal items she could submit a liability insurance claim to its insurance team.
5. It offered £300 in compensation. £200 was for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. £100 was for its overdue complaint response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 November 2024. She referred to recent flooding in her property which occurred on 9 November 2024 and the difficulties she had faced following that to fully resolve the issue and contact her housing officer. She said she was frustrated by the landlord’s ongoing disorganisation and lack of communication. She said she wanted an immediate resolution to her complaint. The resident said she had lost all confidence in the landlord’s ability to manage the situation effectively.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 November 2024. It said it upheld the complaint for the following reasons:
1. Its stage 1 response did not refer to the resident’s earlier report of issues with her hot water supply in November 2023. It apologised for its oversight and confirmed that it did not have any documentary evidence of her reports prior to February 2024. It apologised for its poor record keeping and lack of follow up. It noted that while there were reports of a lack of access to the property, the records were not clear enough to determine the exact course of events.
2. It said while the resident had reported that the damp and mould had returned it could not see any specific service failure regarding its responses. The landlord said following a recent leak in her property it would be arranging an inspection for as soon as possible.
3. The resident had reported that it did not replace all her skirting boards. The landlord apologised for not responding to her further concerns. It said given the recent unrelated leak, it recommended that an inspection of the skirting boards take place once the flat had fully dried out.
4. The previous information provided to the resident regarding her transfer request was not correct. It apologised and clarified that the resident’s tenancy did allow for it to consider a move under its transfer policy. It said it would ask for a member of its housing team to visit the resident and go through her options with her.
5. The carpet cleaning was a goodwill gesture following the previous leak. It apologised for the delay in carrying it out. It said following the more recent leak, it would be a matter for the housing team to decide whether to offer the discretionary service again.
6. It could not change the resident’s housing officer as requested. It provided the details for its regional business officer in which the resident could raise concerns about her housing officer’s lack of response and information provided.
7. It offered a total of £700 compensation which it said was for its failure to properly follow its transfer policy, its poor record keeping and timeliness regarding her repair requests, and its delays in restoring the hot water system.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said the landlord had completed the outstanding works, however, she did not feel the compensation offer reflected the impact caused to her. She said she had lost sentimental things which could not be replaced. The resident complained that she had spent 2 years battling with the landlord and it did not handle her situation with any care. The resident said the landlord accepted its record keeping was poor but did not say why it happened or what it would do differently.
As a resolution to her complaint the resident said she would like the landlord to move her to a new property which is safe, free from repairs, and has a garden. She confirmed the landlord has since awarded her the highest priority and accepted her for a management transfer, but she has had no further correspondence from it regarding the next steps.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has referred to a leak which took place in November 2024 and the landlord’s handling of that leak. The resident raised a separate complaint in relation to the leak and the landlord has provided its responses to that. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint responses, she has the option to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint. As such, we will not be investigating the landlord’s handling of the more recent leak in this report. Any reference made to it will be for contextual purposes only.
The resident has advised that the issues she experienced impacted her health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond the remit of this Service to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Repairs to the boiler

The landlord’s repairs policy provides timescales for responding to repairs. Emergency repairs should be attended to within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours. It says it should complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy suggests 3 tiers to consider for awarding compensation. These cover low impact, medium impact, and high impact. It describes a high impact case as one where there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident. It suggests awarding up to £500 compensation for such failures.
The landlord has not disputed that its handling of repairs to the boiler was inappropriate. It acknowledged that due to its poor record keeping and lack of follow up it would be difficult to fully consider the impact on the resident or its actions in responding to her reports. The lack of records provided by the landlord also made it difficult for this Service to determine the exact course of events and whether the landlord acted fairly.
From the evidence we have seen, it appears the resident first made a report regarding her heating in November 2023, and the landlord replaced the boiler in February 2024. While we acknowledge that repairs can take more than 1 attempt to fix, in the absence of any further information, the time taken to resolve the issue was not appropriate.
The resident reported the issue during the winter months and the landlord has acknowledged that there were times in which she did not have hot water. The Right to Repair Scheme says that the landlord should respond to reports of loss of heating and hot water between 31 October and 1 May within 1 working day. It would have been reasonable to see records of the landlord showing consideration to its responsibilities and in ensuring the resident had access to heating and hot water, such as providing temporary heaters. There is no evidence that it did.
The resident informed us that her boiler stopped working again in June 2024 and that was when she experienced a leak from her boiler and flooding in her property. She said this was a result of the landlord not replacing the rotting base of the boiler when it installed a new one. It is unclear from the records when the landlord first attended to the leak. The records show the landlord raised a job on 7 July 2024 and its contractor attended on 9 July 2024. The notes stated, “unvented cylinder leaking from cylinder damaging wood and carpet.” The contractor said it did not cover cylinders and gave the resident the number for the heating contractor.
The records show the landlord raised a job on 9 July 2024 for it to replace the hot water cylinder. The landlord’s heating contractor said it had attended on 11 July 2024 to inspect the cylinder, it said it attempted to contact the resident on 15 July 2024 and 16 July 2024 to book in the remedial works with no success. The landlord spoke to the resident on 19 July 2024, she said she was not happy with the service from the contractor. She said the person who attended on 9 July 2024 switched off her hot water and she had not had any since. She said they were due to attend on 30 July 2024.
It is difficult to determine how long the resident remained without hot water as the records do not show when the landlord reinstated it. While it was not appropriate that the resident was left without hot water, we cannot see evidence of the resident reporting the issue of no hot water prior to the conversation on 19 July 2024. In line with the Right to Repair scheme, the landlord should have attended within 3 working days following the report on 19 July 2024 and there is no evidence that it did.
In her formal complaint, the resident reported further issues with her boiler. The landlord noted that it had replaced the boiler and it was working, it said contractors still needed to attend to repair the boxing which it sat on. It arranged the repair for 21 August 2024. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that the boxing repair was outstanding from February 2024. While we cannot conclude whether the leak would have occurred if the landlord had completed the repair sooner, 6 months was not an appropriate length of time for the repair to remain outstanding.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that the main issue was a slow leak which took time for it to identify and within that timeframe there were intermittent periods where the resident had limited amounts of hot water. Without the records from each occasion, this would make it difficult for the landlord to quantify exactly how many days the resident was without hot water. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to refer to its compensation policy to reach a fair amount for compensation. It awarded its highest amount suggested of £500, which showed that the landlord had taken its failings seriously and considered the impact on the resident.
It was positive that the landlord also recognised the impact of its record keeping and offered £150 in compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation. However, the landlord did not provide the reasons why its contractor had not kept sufficient records of the repairs or why it did not realise this sooner. It did confirm that it had since changed contractors, which it said it hoped would improve the resident’s experience moving forward. It is positive that the landlord recognised the problems with its contractor and acted to improve things, but it should have given a clearer explanation for what went wrong with its record keeping in this case.
Overall, the landlord has acknowledged and identified its failings. Our role is therefore to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We consider that the delays were inappropriate and the lack of records provided was a concern. However, the landlord apologised and offered a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. It showed learning from its outcomes and outlined what steps it had taken to prevent such failings in future.
As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the boiler.

Damp and mould in the property

It is difficult to determine from the records when the resident first reported damp and mould issues in the property. The landlord’s records show it inspected the resident’s property on 2 November 2023 following reports of mould behind the boiler. The inspection confirmed there was damp and condensation inthe property and the landlord had raised the relevant repairs. The records show the landlord reassigned the repairs on 23 January 2024 with the reason being that a surveyor was needed. It is unclear when the landlord completed the repairs or when the surveyor attended. The landlord’s notes on 3 April 2024stated that it had completed a telephone post inspection and it had satisfactorily completed the repairs.
It took the landlord almost 5 months to complete the follow on works from the time of the inspection in November 2023, which was not appropriate or in line with its repairs policy. It is a failing that the landlord did not provide reasons for the delay and did not acknowledge this failing in its complaint responses. By not doing so, we cannot conclude that the landlord had learnt from this failing.
On 27 March 2024, the resident reported mould growing through her windows and infecting woodwork in her home. She said she had cleaned it multiple times but it kept coming back. She said she had had tonsillitis and bronchitis. The resident said the landlord had treated the mould where her boiler was but it felt like it was surrounding her. The landlord attended on 17 April 2024, it applied new seals to her affected windows, it also treated and painted the affected areas. The time taken to respond to the resident’s reports on this occasion was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy.
In its stage 1 response the landlord referred to a repair which it raised on 6 June 2024 for damp patches on the walls and ceilings. It said a report on 9 September 2024 showed it had completed an investigation to determine the cause of the mould and it had completed the necessary works. Its stage 2 response said it had attended in June and September 2024 and could not identify any specific service failure.
From the records provided we cannot see evidence of the landlord carrying out any action to address the damp patches in June 2024. The records stated that the housing officer attended the property on 21 August 2024 and noted that there was still outstanding damp and mould in the bathroom cupboard. The records dated 9 September 2024, stated that a thorough internal and external investigation was caried out to determine the cause of the mould. It said it applied an antifungal wash and paint to all affected areas to ensure permanent eradication. It said it advised the resident regarding ventilation. These were reasonable steps to take, but it should have acted sooner.
In the absence of any further records, we cannot conclude that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in line with its repairs policy. The landlord said it did not identify any specific service failure, however, it did not sufficiently outline how it had addressed her reports from June to September 2024. It would have been reasonable for it to have shown how it had considered her vulnerabilities and how it identified what the cause of the damp and mould was. This may have reassured the resident that it was taking her reports seriously and that the actions it had taken to address the issues were appropriate.
It was reasonable in its stage 2 response for the landlord to acknowledge the resident’s more recent reports of damp and mould. It confirmed that she was currently decanted from the property which would minimise any impact caused to her. It was reasonable for it to confirm that it would arrange an inspection for as soon as possible.
Overall, while the landlord has acknowledged some of the steps it had taken to address the reported damp and mould in the property, it did not acknowledge all the reports made. It would have been reasonable for it to acknowledge its delay in addressing the mould following the inspection in November 2023 and the reasons for the delay. It is also unclear whether the landlord did enough to address the resident’s reports of mould in June 2024.
For these reasons, the landlord has not put right all its failures in relation to the damp and mould and we have found maladministration in its handling of this issue.
As part of the complaint, the resident asked for a rent rebate due to the delays in resolving the issues. While we do not dispute that the delays likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, we have not seen evidence to suggest that resident was not able to use any rooms in the property. As such we would not order a refund of rent.
In line with its compensation policy for where the landlord has failed to meet service standards which likely caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £250 in compensation. This amount is also in line with our remedies guidance, as referenced above in this report.

Repairs to the window restrictor

In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident said she informed the landlord that her window restrictor had broken on the living room window and had raised concerns about the security of the window. The resident said the landlord told her it was not within its policy to put window restrictors on ground floor windows. We have not seen evidence of this correspondence. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request and that she did not feel safe. It said that due to its poor record keeping it had not actioned her request and it would raise the repair.
From the information received, it is difficult to determine when the resident first raised the issue, what the landlord’s response was at the time, and whether the response was in line with its repairs policy. The landlord has confirmed that it completed the repair on 24 July 2025, 8 months after it raised the repair. The landlord has not provided the reasons for the delay, however, the time it took to carry out the repair was not appropriate or in line with its policy. This likely caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who had reported feeling unsafe in the absence of a functioning window restrictor.
The landlord offered £150 of the compensation for its poor record keeping and timeliness in relation to her repair requests. However, as there were further delays, the landlord has not shown that it learnt from its previous failings and it has not compensated the resident for the additional inconvenience this delay caused. To put right the further failings, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 in compensation. This is in line with its compensation policy for where the landlord has markedly failed to meet service standards, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. It is also in line with our remedies guidance.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs related to the window restrictor.

Reports of damage to the property and the resident’s possessions following a leak

The landlord’s compensation policy states that damage to possessions would ordinarily be covered by the resident’s own household insurance. It says where there is damage to possessions and the resident believes the landlord is at fault, the resident can make a liability insurance claim to the landlord.
The policy states that the landlord will offer a discretionary goodwill gesture to acknowledge where there has been a service failure and it is committed to putting things right and restoring good relations.
In her formal complaint, the resident informed the landlord that there was damage to her floor, skirting board, and carpet. It is understood that as well as the leak from the boiler, the resident also experienced a leak from her kitchen sink in June 2024 which may have contributed to the damage. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed that it would deep clean the resident’s carpet as a goodwill gesture. It said it had not agreed to replace or compensate any other items she had mentioned. It said if she did not have contents insurance and felt that the landlord was liable for any damage to her personal items then she could consider submitting a liability insurance claim to its insurance team.
The landlord’s decision to clean the carpet was a goodwill gesture. While the landlord was not obliged to clean the carpet, it was a suitable approach to try to remedy the situation for the resident. The resident reported further damage to her carpets following more recent flooding in her property, and it was reasonable for the landlord to outline that the carpets would need to dry out. It said the resident could ask for assistance again, and it would be at its discretion as to whether it would offer a deep clean. This was reasonable as the landlord was entitled to wait until the carpet had time to dry out before assessing whether it should pay to clean it.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it had fitted new skirting in the property. But the resident said the landlord had not replaced all the affected skirting board. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that it could not see when the resident raised the issue or that it had considered whether it needed to replace further boards. It apologised for that. It said given the recent unrelated water leak, it recommended waiting for the flat to dry out and it would then inspect and determine which skirting boards needed further renewal.
In the absence of any records of the resident raising the skirting boards repair it is difficult to determine if there was any fault by the landlord in its handling of the issue. However, the landlord apologised if that was the case and committed to assessing the skirting boards, which was reasonable in the circumstances to put right any errors it may have made regarding the skirting board. The landlord has since confirmed that the skirting boards have been renewed following the water damage and that no further action is required.
The landlord’s overall response was appropriate. It showed that it had considered the situation and the evidence available to make an informed decision on its approach. The landlord appropriately referred the resident to its liability insurance team should the resident wish to make a claim. The landlord is entitled to use insurance to manage liability claims and it is not obliged to pay claims itself outside the insurance process.
We have therefore found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage to the property and the resident’s possessions following a leak.

The resident’s requests to move

In her formal complaint, the resident asked the landlord to move her for her safety, sanity, and health. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that its previous response and information provided to the resident was incorrect. The landlord has acknowledged its failings related to the resident’s request for a transfer. Our role is therefore to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the incorrect response provided at stage 1 of the complaints process, regarding the resident’s options for moving and apologise for its failing. It was also reasonable for it to manage the resident’s expectations by outlining the limitations with the transfer process, such as there being no guarantees regarding when and what type of property would be available. It also explained that it could not guarantee properties with outdoor space and balconies.
We are unable to order the landlord to move the resident immediately or into a particular property. This falls in line with our remedies guidance for remedies which may adversely affect other individuals. We do not have access to the landlord’s housing list, so we do not know what properties are available at any particular time or who may have an even higher priority for moving than the resident. In general, the highest priority is given to those facing homelessness.
The landlord put things right by offering £150 compensation for its failure to follow transfer policy and procedure. The amount offered was proportionate and in line with its compensation policy for failing to meet service standards. The amount was also in line with our remedies guidance which suggests awards in this range where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, but the failure may not have had a long-term impact or affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
As such, we have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer. While it is positive to hear that the landlord has since awarded the resident with the highest priority band for a management transfer, the resident is unclear about the next steps. We therefore recommend that the landlord make contact with the resident to clarify the process and any next steps, in line with its transfer policy.

The resident’s concerns about her housing officer

In her formal complaint and stage 2 escalation, the resident referred to contacting her housing officer with there being little response and no resolution. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had learnt that it needed to communicate clearly with residents and respond to their concerns in a timely manner. Following this, the landlord noted that due to a continued lack of confidence in the service, the resident had requested a new housing officer. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was not an option for her to change officers and that she should contact its regional business manager to raise any issues she was experiencing with her housing officer.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was not appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to evidence that it had investigated the resident’s complaint regarding the lack of communication from her housing officer. It could have liaised with the housing officer and reviewed its records to determine if the level of service provided was in line with its expectations. If it found that there were any failures, it would have been reasonable for it to apologise, highlight what the failings were and what steps it would take to prevent them happening again in future, such as providing staff training or amending its relevant policies and procedures.
From the records provided we cannot conclude whether there were instances in which the housing officer was delayed in responding to the resident or did not follow up in relation to repairs. It is disappointing that the landlord acknowledged its communication failures at stage 1 but has not shown what action it took to improve them. The landlord was not obliged to change the resident’s housing officer, but its lack of action appeared dismissive and put the onus on the resident to raise the issue again. This would likely cause her further time, trouble and inconvenience and would not have helped to improve the working relationship.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its process and acknowledged that this included a lack of timely responses to some repair issues. However, it is unclear whether this includes any failings by the housing officer. By not investigating the matter properly, it has not shown how it would learn from its mistakes or how it would not repeat the same mistakes in future.
As such, we conclude that the landlord did not do enough to put this element of the resident’s complaint right and for that reason we have found service failure. The landlord must pay an additional £100 for its failure to investigate the residents concerns regarding her housing officer. This is in line with its compensation guidance for where it has not met its service standards, causing inconvenience to the resident. It is also in line with our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 30 working days after the resident’s formal complaint, which was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge this in its stage 1 response and offer £100 in compensation. The landlord provided its stage 2 response within 11 working days, which was reasonable and in line with its policy.
Although the landlord offered an appropriate amount of compensation at stage 1 for the delays, it has since confirmed that its offer of compensation at stage 2 was to replace the amount offered at stage 1. However, the landlord did not include its £100 compensation for complaint handling delays within its stage 2 response. As such, it no longer put the failing right as it did not pay the compensation it had offered. We will order the landlord to pay the resident the £100 it offered for its complaint handling delays at stage 1.
In her formal complaint, the resident referred to a problem with drug addicts living in the bin shed and loitering in the area. She said the parking gate had been vandalised, her window had been graffitied, concrete was put through her window, and someone had tried to break into her living room. She said she complained to the landlord who said it was a police matter and she complained to the police who said it was a landlord matter. She said she was scared to leave her home.
As this was included within the resident’s formal complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed this in its stage 1 response. The landlord refers to speaking with the resident prior to issuing the stage 1 response, however, we have not seen any record of its contact with the resident and whether it addressed the anti-social issues separately. In not providing a response to the issues, we conclude that the landlord did not address and resolve all of the complaints brought to it.
The landlord noted in its stage 2 response that the resident wanted the landlord to address the anti-social behaviour (ASB) she had experienced. In its response, the landlord acknowledged the issues of safety related to the window restrictor but it did not provide a response to the resident’s request to address the ASB. This is a further failing by the landlord. We have not seen evidence of the resident escalating the ASB to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process and it was not brought as a complaint this Service. However, it was not appropriate for the landlord to confirm that this was an outstanding issue for her and then not provide a satisfactory response.
The complaints process was an opportunity for the landlord to address and put right all the issues which the resident remained dissatisfied with and the landlord has not evidenced that it did so. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. As well as the £100 for its complaint handling delays, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £100 to put right its failing to fully respond to her reports of ASB. This is again in line with its compensation guidance and our remedies guidance for where it has not met service standards.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was maladministration in:
2. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
There was service failure in:

a. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the window restrictor.

b. The resident’s concerns about her housing officer.

c. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of damage to the property and the resident’s possessions following a leak.

In accordance with paragraph 53.(b). of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the boiler.
2. The resident’s request to move.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination:
1. The landlord must apologise to the resident in writing for the additional failings identified in this report. Specifically, its delays in handling the reports of damp and mould, its lack of investigations concerning the resident’s housing officer, her reports of ASB, and its poor record keeping. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies (available on our website).
2. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £800 in compensation. This is broken down as:
3. £250 to put right its failures in its handling of the damp and mould.
4. £100 to put right the delays in its handling of the window restrictor.
5. £100 to put right its failure to investigate the concerns regarding the housing officer.
6. £100 to put right the failure to respond to the complaint regarding ASB.
7. £100 the landlord offered previously for its delay in providing its stage 1 response.
8. £150 the landlord offered previously for its poor record keeping and timeliness in responding to repair requests.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must carry out a case review into the record keeping failings in this report. It must show how it has learnt from the failings by identifying any service improvements it has made or intends to make to prevent the issues being repeated in future. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management may assist with this. The landlord must share a report detailing its findings with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, we recommend that the landlord pay the following compensation. The finding of reasonable redress for the above complaints is dependent on the payment of this sum:
1. £500 it offered for its handling of repairs to the boiler.
2. £150 it offered for its handling of the resident’s request to move.
We recommend that the landlord makes contact with the resident to clarify the process her transfer request and any next steps, in line with its transfer policy.