Notting Hill Genesis (202438130)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her partner and 4 children. The landlord is aware she suffers with asthma. In December 2024 during a home visit, the resident told the landlord she was experiencing damp and mould again. She wanted to move from the property. At the time of making her complaint, the resident said the landlord had not acted on the issues she had reported.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. Communication regarding a request for a property move.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s communication regarding a request for a property move.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of damp and mould

5. The landlord took too long to act upon reports of damp and mould and failed to respond in line with its policy timescales.

Communication regarding a request for a property move

6. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble when making her request. It apologised for its failings and offered compensation in line with its policy. The compensation offer was fair and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint handling

7. There were delays in the time taken to acknowledge the resident’s complaint at both stages. The landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation. Its compensation offer was fair and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

8. The landlord is aware the resident has previously experienced damp and mould at the property. During a home visit on 12 December 2024, the landlord recorded she was experiencing damp, mould and condensation. The landlord’s notes contained no details as to where in the property the issue was. The landlord took no action, which led to the resident’s complaint on 14 January 2025, in which she said the damp and mould was “throughout” the property.
9. In its stage 1 response dated 17 February 2025, the landlord committed to visiting the property on 27 February 2025. The response failed to acknowledge the length of time taken to respond to her report. From the documentation provided, it is unclear whether the visit took place as action to address the damp and mould was not raised until 17 March 2025. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 10 April 2025.
10. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will treat all reports as urgent and will visit the property within 10 working days to complete an inspection. The landlord’s contractor attended 4 months after it had been made aware of the issue. While the evidence shows some earlier appointments could not be attended due to no access, the landlord was already over 2 months outside its policy timescales when it raised the repair.
11. The landlord’s contractor’s provided a report which stated there was mould inside the electric cupboard. No other areas of the property were mentioned as being affected by damp and mould. The landlord requested the MDF boards inside the cupboard be replaced as they appeared “beyond repair” based on the report it received.
12. The landlord’s contractor partially completed the repair 19 days later. This timescale was in line with its damp and mould policy for post inspection repairs. The landlord’s notes recorded the resident had requested the MDF to be fitted at a later date when she was available. The job was marked completed prior to the further work taking place.
13. During a telephone conversation with the landlord on 10 June 2025, the resident reported the damp and mould had returned to her electric cupboard and bedroom. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states an inspector, or surveyor will conduct a quality insurance inspection when works have been completed and ensure the customer is satisfied. It is unclear from the documentation provided whether this took place. Had an inspection been carried out, it may have highlighted the incomplete repair.
14. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged it had it failed to raise the repairs following its commitment to do so at stage 1. However, it again failed to acknowledge the initial delay to respond to the resident’s reports. The landlord committed to raise a further repair as the issue had returned and told the resident she would be contacted when a contractor had been allocated.
15. The resident told us there is still damp and mould in her bedroom and the electric cupboard. She states she is reluctant to make further reports to the landlord because the issue does not get resolved. The reluctance to report serious issues such as damp and mould is indicative of a breakdown in the landlord / tenant relationship.
16. In summary, the landlord failed to consider the vulnerabilities of the occupants in the property and failed to complete a timely inspection. Following the reports of damp and mould it took 4 months for its contractor to attend. The repair was closed before it was fully completed and the resident reported damp and mould had returned.
17. In relation to the failures identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes, as well as our guidance on remedies.
18. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings within its complaint responses. It offered £250 compensation in line with its compensation policy and committed to raise further repairs. However, the responses:
    1. Failed to acknowledge it took too long to respond to the issue
    2. Failed to acknowledge the incomplete repair.
    3. Failed to provide a plan of action with a timeframe to address the recurring issue.
19. The failures in this case amounts to maladministration. To acknowledge the effect on the resident we have ordered additional compensation of £200. This brings the total compensation for the damp and mould issue to £450.

20. The landlord’s allocation policy states it has a nomination agreement with the council. This means tenants on the local authorities’ waiting list may get priority over the landlord’s tenants, for properties that become available. This is even if the property was previously occupied by tenants of the landlord. In these circumstances, the landlord does not have control of the allocations process.
21. The policy also states the landlord operates a banding system for all properties that fall outside of the council nomination agreements. Band B is awarded in situations where a resident meets the criteria of being statutory overcrowded and has a medical need which is adversely affected by their current housing. Prior to her complaint, the resident was awarded a priority banding of B, in line with the landlord’s policy.
22. The landlord’s notes of a visit to the resident on 12 December 2024 recorded she wanted to move property. The landlord called the resident on 23 December 2024 and said the housing officer (HO) would contact her about a mutual exchange (swapping properties with another social tenant) and to appeal her current banding. At the time of raising her complaint a month later, the resident had not heard from her HO.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged there had been a failure in communication and said it would apply to have the resident’s banding reviewed. The landlord advised the resident to provide evidence to support her request for a higher banding. During a phone call with the resident the same day, the landlord told her to contact the council to rejoin its housing list and advised her on the other housing options available to her, such as home swap and mutual exchange.
24. The landlord cannot be responsible for the length of time taken while awaiting the availability of a suitable property, when considering the limitation of supply of social housing. Landlords are limited by the stock they hold.
25. The landlord updated the resident the following week that her application had been forwarded to the panel and advised it may take a number of weeks to hear back.
26. The resident chased the landlord for an update 4 times between 10 March and 16 April 2025. The landlord has provided no evidence to support it responded to the resident. The resident contacted the landlord again on 28 April 2025 and was advised it would contact the council and ask for a reciprocal exchange. The landlord’s allocations policy allows it to seek a reciprocal move in “exceptional circumstances”. The landlord’s action demonstrated it was taking all the steps available to it to assist the resident.
27. The resident continued to chase the landlord in May 2025 as she had not been updated further. The evidence shows the resident’s HO took a period of leave which led to further communication issues. The landlord asked her for evidence to support the re-banding application. By doing this it contradicted its previous update that the application was being reviewed by the panel. The inconsistent communication by the landlord will have led to confusion and distress for the resident.
28. The landlord acknowledged the breakdown in communication in its stage 2 response and apologised. It offered the resident £100 compensation and committed to providing her a further updates as part of its action plan. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its compensation policy and was reasonable.
29. The resident’s banding has since been increased to band A, and the landlord has followed up its request with the council. The landlord has also offered viewings on 2 properties which the resident has declined.
30. Our guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £100 may remedy failings that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. When considering the breakdown in communication, the time spent by the resident chasing the matter, its apology and offer of compensation, the landlord has provided redress which put right these failings. This leads to the determination of reasonable redress. 

31. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which it will deal with complaints:
    1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint at both stages within 5 working days.
    2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded.
    3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. 
32. There were delays to the landlord acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stages. It took 21 working days at stage 1, and 23 working days at stage 2. The delays were outside of its policy timescales.
33. The landlords final response was issued 2 months after the resident escalated her complaint. The landlord informed the resident of the delay in advance and committed to providing a response within a further 20 working days in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
34. The landlord acknowledged it had taken too long at both stages to acknowledge the resident’s complaint. It also recognised the delays caused when it needed to extend the date of its stage 2 response. The landlord apologised for these failings and offered £50 compensation.
35. Our guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £50 may remedy a failure where the impact to the resident was minimal. When considering the length of the delays, the landlord’s apology and offer of compensation satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord demonstrated it had taken learning from the complaint by increasing the training it provided around record keeping to ensure effective handovers during periods of staff turnover.

Communication

37. Some of the communication by the landlord lacked clarity and created confusion for the resident. The landlord should reflect on the communication errors from this case and draw learning learn from the case with a view to improving its service offer for its residents. We have made a recommendation to this effect above.