Notting Hill Genesis (202435844)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435844

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

18 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports that the communal door was not secure.
   2. The resident’s reports that the bin store was not secure and was unclean.
   3. The resident’s reports that the flooring in the building is noisy.
   4. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   5. The resident’s reports of kitchen cupboard repair issues.
2. The landlord’s handling of the repair has also been considered.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a 2-bedroom flat.
4. The resident reported on 13 January 2024 that the communal door lock was broken. She then reported on 30 January 2024 that the lock on the bin store was faulty, and rubbish was being left outside. The landlord marked both repairs as completed on 14 February 2024. The resident reported damp and mould on 22 February 2024, and the landlord completed a mould wash on 12 March 2024.
5. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s complaint, so it is unclear when it was raised. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 April 2024. It understood the complaint to be about the bin shed being inaccessible and unclean, creaky flooring in the building, the communal door was not secure, damp and mould, communication issues with the housing officer, and outstanding kitchen cyclical works.
6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 14 May 2024. It said:
   1. It was aware of issues with a creaky floor in some communal areas. It had a project to address the issue in progress, but it was a big task. It attended in September 2023 and identified parts of the property that required attention. It apologised that it had not actioned this since. It had contacted the surveyor to schedule follow-on works for the resident’s block and provide her with an update.
   2. It apologised that the first-floor communal door was not secure. It raised a repair on 13 January 2024, which it completed on 19 March 2024. The housing officer attended on the week commencing 6 May 2024 and confirmed the door locked. It asked the resident to notify it of any further issues.
   3. The housing officer reported that the bin store was faulty on 21 February 2024, and a contractor attended the same day and noted the code for the door was not working. It changed the lock on 23 February 2024. The repair was reraised on 26 February 2024 and the contractor attended the same day and rectified the issue. It cleared the rubbish left in the period that the door was locked.
   4. It completed a mould wash on 26 March 2024. It apologised if the issue had recurred. It had contacted the resident to book another inspection so it could raise any necessary repairs.
   5. It apologised for the communication issues that occurred when the resident’s housing officer was on sick leave.
   6. The cyclical works to the resident’s kitchen were not on the schedule of works for 2023/24. It apologised that it could not assist further.
   7. It offered £50 compensation for the delayed complaint response.
7. The resident escalated the complaint on 19 October 2024. She said the floor repairs were outstanding, the bin area was inaccessible due to drug users, the landlord had not properly treated the mould in the bathroom, and the kitchen cupboards had come off the hinges. She did not accept the compensation.
8. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 5 November 2024.
   1. The flooring issue was a building-wide, complex issue. It had taken more time than expected to identify a practical solution. It had trialled works and was confident that the works would resolve the flooring issues in other areas where noise had been identified. It would arrange a survey of the resident’s flat and advise her of the timeline.
   2. The bin store area lock was operational. The building manager often found the lock left on the latch. It was assessing the cost of alternative locking systems to limit the times the door was left open and lessen potential access by unknown individuals.
   3. It completed a mould wash on 26 March 2024 in the bedrooms and bathroom. It apologised if the mould had recurred. It would arrange a further inspection, treatment, and any necessary repairs.
   4. The resident’s kitchen was not due for renewal until 2031 and the bathroom until 2041. It would inspect the kitchen cupboard doors as the resident had reported repair issues.
   5. It proposed to visit on the week commencing 11 November 2024 to inspect the kitchen cupboards and damp and mould. It increased the compensation offer to £150 for the length of time to resolve some of the issues.
9. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she said several repair issues remained outstanding. She said the carpet in the property was impacting her family’s health, but she was unable to change it due to the floor repair issues. She said that the kitchen cupboards have no doors and there is damp in the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. It is recognised that the resident has intermittently reported damp and mould since 2020. However, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2023 onwards, considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
11. The resident also raised concerns in her complaint to the Service about the theft of a bicycle from a communal area. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The resident’s reports that the communal door was not secure

12. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for communal repairs including door entry systems. The policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 4 hours and standard repairs within 20 working days. It states that for more complex cases where it cannot meet the 20-working day timeframe it will inform the resident of the updated timeframe.
13. The resident initially reported that the communal door lock was broken on 13 January 2024. She then chased the repair on 30 January 2024. The landlord raised the matter as a standard repair. It attended on 14 February 2024, and the contractor noted they adjusted the lock, and it did not need to be replaced. This slightly exceeded its repair timeframe by 2 working days but did not cause a significant delay.
14. The resident further raised the repair issue in her complaint. She said the repairs were surface level and did not resolve the issue. In its complaint response, the landlord said it completed works on 19 March 2024, but it is unclear what took place during this appointment. The landlord has not provided a copy of the complaint, so we are unable to confirm when it was again on notice to complete the repairs. Nonetheless, there was only 24 working days between the repair appointments, so there could not have been a notable delay.
15. The landlord said the housing officer attended the week commencing 6 May 2024 and confirmed the lock was working correctly. It asked the resident to contact it if the lock was still faulty. Given that the resident had reported the repair issue several times, it was appropriate the landlord took additional steps to ensure the works were successful. It was also reasonable that it managed her expectations of the steps she would need to take if further issues arose.
16. The landlord has not provided contemporaneous records of the actions set out in its complaint response. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest the resident challenged the landlord’s version of events. Nonetheless, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping processes.
17. The landlord raised a further work order on 28 May 2024 to repair the first-floor communal door, and it attended an emergency repair the same day. It noted on 4 June 2024 that it had identified and resolved the fault, which repaired the lock. The landlord therefore promptly resolved the repair. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident has since reported a recurrence of the issue. As such, the landlord’s actions put in place a full and lasting resolution. The resident has since reported issues with a different communal door. However, this was unrelated and was not subject to the complaint.
18. The landlord’s overall response to the communal door repairs was reasonable. Although there were record keeping shortcomings and minor delays, this did not have a significant impact on its handling of the repairs. The resident did not report that the repair issues prevented her from accessing her property, nor would it present a security risk as it was an internal door. As a result, the repairs would not have had a significant detrimental impact on the resident.

The resident’s reports that the bin store was not secure and was unclean

19. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for communal repairs including door entry systems, rubbish chutes, and other parts provided for common use. On 29 January 2024, the resident reported that the bin store lock was not working, and it could not be opened, so rubbish was being left outside. The landlord attended the same day and found the lock was working correctly and it disposed of the rubbish. This was a reasonable response as it promptly resolved the issue.
20. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said the housing officer reported that the bin store door was faulty on 21 February 2024 and it changed the lock on 23 February 2024. As the previous repair had not provided a full and lasting resolution, it was reasonable that it decided to replace the lock. It said the repair was reported again on 26 February 2024 and it attended the same day and left the door in working order. It also said it cleared the rubbish that was left outside while the door was not working.
21. The landlord said the housing officer reattended on the week commencing 6 May 2024 and confirmed the bin store was locking. It told the resident to advise her housing officer if there were any other issues. The landlord’s approach was appropriate as it promptly resolved the issues, took reasonable steps to ensure the works were successful, and advised the resident of the steps she should take if the issue recurred. However, again it is of concern that the landlord did not provide contemporaneous evidence of its actions outside of the complaint responses.
22. On 14 October 2024, the resident reported an ongoing issue with drug use in the bin store area, which made her feel unsafe. She provided a video if the incident, advised she had reported the issue to the police, and asked the landlord to take immediate action. The landlord responded the same day and advised the resident to continue to report issues to the police and said it would continue to monitor the situation and look at securing the bins store. It was appropriate for the landlord to signpost the resident to the police, as they are the appropriate authority for dealing with criminal activities.
23. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the bin store lock was operational. However, it noted that the building manager often found it was left on the latch and would ensure they left it in the locked position. It said it was assessing the cost of alternative locking systems to prevent resident’s tampering with the lock. It added that it would remind residents to stop putting the lock on the latch. While the landlord was not responsible for the actions of individual resident’s leaving the lock unsecure, it was reasonable that it took steps to resolve the issue.
24. The landlord’s handling of the repair was appropriate. However, it has not provided the resident with an update on whether it intended to install an alternative locking system. As the resident has since reported a recurrence of the issue, the landlord should confirm its position on whether it intends to complete further works. It is important to note that such works would be considered an improvement, so the landlord would not necessarily be obliged to change the lock. Nonetheless, given the resident’s reports that non-residents were accessing the bin area and engaging in antisocial behaviour, it would be beneficial for the landlord to complete the works.

The resident’s reports that the flooring in the building is noisy

25. In accordance with the tenancy conditions, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the floors. In her complaint, the resident raised concerns that the flooring in the block was creaky and causing noise disturbance. She said the landlord had not taken any action, despite her previous complaints.
26. It is of concern that the landlord has not provided any evidence regarding its handling of the flooring repairs outside of its complaint responses. As such, the Service has relied on limited information to assess this element of the complaint. Further to this, it is unclear when the resident initially reported the issue, so we cannot assess how long it has been ongoing.
27. In its stage 1 response on 14 May 2024, the landlord said that it was aware of the repair issues in the communal area and it had a project underway, but it was a big task. It said the housing officer identified areas of the property that required attention in September 2023, and it apologised that it had not actioned these findings. As a result, there was an 8-month period of relative inaction by the landlord, which was unreasonable. It said it had contacted the surveyor to arrange follow-on works and would update the resident. It was appropriate that it recognised its failings and set out the steps it would take to put things right.
28. In her complaint escalation, the resident said that the flooring repairs remained outstanding. In its stage 2 response on 5 November 2024, the landlord reiterated that the issue was building wide and complex. It added:
    1. The “building is of a timber construction, and this means that the cessation of all noises from natural movement and or changes to internal and external temperatures affecting this material cannot be eliminated completely.”
    2. It had taken several attempts to develop a practical solution, and the process had taken longer than expected. It had trialled works in 1 flat, which it thought would provide a solution.
    3. It would ask a surveyor to visit the resident as soon as possible to inspect the property, consider the available repair options, and advise the resident of a timeline.
29. It is understood that the repair issue was complex and involved multiple properties, so it was not necessarily practical to resolve the repair in line with the landlord’s normal repair response timeframe. There will always be some repair cases that are more difficult to diagnose and repair, so take longer to resolve. It is important that such cases are handled with particular care to ensure they are resolved effectively and maintain the landlord-tenant relationship. The landlord should take appropriate steps to keep the resident regularly informed to show it is taking the issue seriously and making progress. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord updated the resident on the progress of the repairs between its complaint responses. It therefore failed to manage her expectations regarding the expected timeframe for a solution.
30. The resident told the Service on 13 March 2025 that the landlord had not contacted her about the flooring issues. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to the actions set out in its complaint response. The landlord subsequently completed an inspection on 27 March 2025 which identified that the resident’s kitchen floor was defective and sloped towards the window area. The report did not include details of any recommended works. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it has since progressed the repairs or resolved the identified issues.
31. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it has meaningfully progressed the repairs or kept the resident updated on the progress of the works. She had to chase the landlord for updates, causing her additional time and trouble. The noise transference had a significant impact on the resident as she reported it was impacting her mental health. The landlord’s poor communication was therefore particularly concerning as it failed to demonstrate it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord’s poor record keeping has also impacted the Service’s ability to establish the extent of the detriment.
32. The landlord must inspect the flooring and then provide a schedule of works with details of the repairs it will complete to address the flooring issues, a start date for the works, and estimated timeframe for completion. It should also commit to providing the resident with weekly updates on the progress of the works until completion.
33. In its final response, the landlord offered £150 compensation. It did not specify how much compensation was for each complaint issue. As such, we have assessed a reasonable level of compensation for each separate complaint point. If the landlord has already paid the resident £150 as previously offered, this can be deducted from the final compensation payment.
34. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £250 compensation is considered fair for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noisy flooring, as it has acknowledged some failings, but it has not taken proportionate steps to put things right or appropriately addressed the detriment to the resident.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

35. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that “initial reports of damp or mould growth will be prioritised as urgent with consideration given to any vulnerabilities”. It will contact the resident within 5 working days and it will agree on an appointment within 10 working days. It states the “initial inspection will be recorded via a standardised template to capture all relevant information”, which it will share with the resident. It will submit the repairs within 2 working days and complete minor remedial works within 20 working days. If a technical specialist is required, it will escalate to a surveyor within 10 working days, provide a full report within 3 working days of an inspection, and discuss timeframes for the works with the resident.
36. The resident reported damp and mould on the bathroom walls and ceiling on 3 January 2023. She said the damp had been ongoing for over 6 months. There is no evidence that she reported the damp and mould prior to this, within the timeframe considered in this investigation, so the landlord was not on notice to complete repairs at an earlier date. The landlord attended on 21 January 2023. This was within a reasonable timeframe. However, it is unclear what works it completed or whether it took any steps to investigate the underlying cause of the damp and mould. We are therefore unable to confirm that it took a comprehensive approach to resolving the issues or that it acted in line with its damp and mould policy.
37. There is no evidence the resident reported a recurrence of the damp and mould until 22 February 2024 when she reported damp patches on the walls and ceilings. The landlord completed a mould wash to the bedroom window and bathroom seals on 12 March 2024. While this was an appropriate interim step, it did not act in line with its damp and mould policy as it did not complete an inspection to identify and address the underlying cause of the damp and mould.
38. In the resident’s complaint on 25 April 2024, she said she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not completed the follow-on work suggested by the contractor. The Service has not seen a copy of an inspection report, so we cannot confirm what work the landlord should have completed. In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it booked a further inspection so it could raise any necessary repairs.
39. The resident continued to chase the repairs, and the landlord has not provided evidence that it fulfilled the actions set out in its complaint response. This was unreasonable as it delayed resolving the issues and caused the resident additional time and effort pursuing the matter. The repair records show the resident reported on 24 May 2024 that the repair was not completed as the contractor had not applied the mould resistant paint or disinfectant. She also said in her complaint escalation on 19 October 2024 that the landlord had not properly treated the mould in the bathroom.
40. At stage 2, the landlord again said it would book another inspection, and raise a work order for a washdown, treatment, and any necessary repairs. The repair records show the landlord did not reattend until 3 February 2025. This was an entirely unreasonable delay. There is no evidence that it made any attempts to schedule an inspection at an earlier date, as agreed in both complaint responses. The repair records do not include any observations on the condition of the damp and mould, details of any steps it took to resolve it, or identify any necessary follow-on works.  As such, we cannot confirm whether it took appropriate action.
41. Following the completion of the complaint process, on 16 June 2025 the landlord raised a work order to address the damp and mould in the bathroom including a mould wash and stain block, investigate the efficacy of the extractor fan, and investigate a possible leak behind the bathroom sink. There is no evidence to confirm whether the repairs have since been completed, so we cannot confirm whether the issue has since been resolved or remains outstanding. An order has been made for the landlord to complete the repairs raised on 16 June 2025, and any other necessary repairs to resolve the damp and mould in full.
42. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould lacked urgency, and it did not go far enough to recognise its failure in progressing the repairs. This caused significant delays and led the resident to repeatedly chase outstanding works. It also failed to follow through with the resolution proposed in the complaint responses, which likely had a detrimental impact on the resident’s trust in the landlord. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the length of the delays. It appears the damp and mould mainly impacted the bathroom, not the whole property, which would have reduced the overall impact to the resident. However, the resident reported “mushroom / mould spores”, which is a health concern. In view of this, the landlord must pay the resident £300 for its failings in handling the damp and mould repairs.

The resident’s reports of kitchen cupboard repair issues

43. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairs to kitchen units, doors, and frames. The landlord has not provided evidence to confirm when the resident initially raised repair concerns about the kitchen. In its complaint acknowledgment, it said the resident was dissatisfied that the cyclical works had not been scheduled, the kitchen was in a poor state, and the previous housing officer advised it may bring forward the works but had not provided any further information since 2022.
44. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had not scheduled cyclical works to the kitchen, but it recognised that the resident reported the kitchen was in a poor condition. It enquired with the planned works team and said that the resident’s property was not on the programme of works for 2023/24, so it was unable to further assist her.
45. It is standard practice for a landlord to complete kitchen and bathroom replacements within a planned programme of works, which it will prioritise based on the age and condition of its stock. While the landlord would not necessarily be obliged to complete a full replacement outside of such works, it must still address any repair issues reported by the resident. As the landlord did not inspect the kitchen to assess whether any repairs were needed outside of the cyclical works, its response was unreasonable.
46. In her complaint escalation on 19 October 2024, the resident said that the cupboard doors had come off the hinges and she was unable to screw them back on due to wear and tear. In response, the landlord agreed to inspect the issue. Although this was appropriate action, it should have been completed when the resident initially raised the issue to prevent delays in resolving the matter.
47. There is no evidence that the landlord inspected the property until 27 March 2025. This was 5 months after the final response, so was an unreasonable delay. The inspection report noted that the resident had complained to the Service that the kitchen cupboarded needed replacing. However, it did not make any comments on the condition of the cupboards or any consideration of whether works were required. It therefore does not appear that the landlord has taken appropriate steps to properly investigate the resident’s concerns. There is no evidence that the landlord has since completed repairs to the kitchen cupboards. If it determined that the cupboards were not in need of replacement, it should have informed the resident and provided appropriate reasons for its decision.
48. Overall, the landlord has not taken appropriate steps to address the resident’s reports. It initially declined to take any action as the works were not included in the upcoming cyclical works, which was unreasonable given the resident reported a repair issue. It then agreed to inspect but failed to do so promptly or demonstrate that it fairly considered the repair issues. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to inspect the kitchen cupboards and complete any recommended repairs. The landlord should also pay the resident £150 for the delays in resolving the issue.

Complaint handling

49. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
50. The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s original complaint, despite the Service requesting such information. It is vital that landlords keep records of all complaint correspondence. As a result, we cannot assess whether the landlord addressed all elements of the complaint or whether it responded within the appropriate timeframe.
51. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered £50 for the delay in its complaint response. Without confirmation of how long it took the landlord to respond, the Service cannot assess whether this level of compensation was reasonable. The landlord’s poor record keeping has therefore impacted the Service’s ability to fairly investigate the resident’s complaint. In view of this, the compensation has been increased to £150.
52. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 October 2024, and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 5 November 2024. This was within its complaint response timeframe.

Determination

53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the communal door was not secure.
54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of resident’s reports that the bin store was not secure and was unclean.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the flooring in the building is noisy.
56. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
57. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of kitchen cupboard repair issues.
58. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

59. In place of the £150 compensation offered by the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response, it must pay the resident:
    1. £250 compensation for its failings in handling the resident’s reports that the flooring in the building is noisy.
    2. £300 for its failings in handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. £150 for its failings in handling the resident’s concerns about the kitchen cupboard repair issues.
    4. £150 for its complaint handling failures.
60. The landlord must provide the Service with evidence of the total compensation payment of £850 within 4 weeks of the date of this report. If it has already paid the £150 offered at stage 2, this can be deducted from the final amount.
61. Within 8 weeks, the landlord must inspect the flooring and provide a copy of the inspection report. It must then provide a schedule of works which should include details of the repairs it will complete to address the flooring issues, a start date for the works, and estimated timeframe for completion. It should commit to providing the resident with weekly updates on the progress of the works until completion.
62. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should complete a damp and mould inspection and any necessary works. If it has not done so already, the works should include a mould wash and stain block, investigation of the efficacy of the extractor fan, and investigation of a possible leak behind the bathroom sink, as previously identified. The landlord should provide repair records to confirm it has completed any necessary works.
63. Within 4 weeks, the landlord must inspect the kitchen cupboards and complete any recommended works. It should provide the Service with a copy of the inspection report and repair records as evidence of compliance.
64. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the orders within the relevant timeframes.

Recommendations

65. It is recommended that the landlord confirms its position on whether it intends to complete works to install an alternative locking system on the bin store.
66. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps clear records of repairs, communications, and complaint information.