Notting Hill Genesis (202438585)

Decision
Case ID	202438585
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	5 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with his wife and 2 children in a flat owned by the landlord. He has respiratory issues and heart problems, which the landlord is aware of. The resident reported issues with both damp and antisocial behaviour (ASB) throughout 2024. He complained on 3 November 2024 as he said both issues were still ongoing and he did not feel the landlord had done enough to resolve them.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
   2. Response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   3. Complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord did not address the resident’s reports of either the ASB or the damp quickly enough, and there were significant delays in its complaint responses. However, it recognised these failings, took action to address the reported problems, and offered fair compensation overall.

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
The landlord should pay the £2,250 it offered during the complaint process if it has not done so already. The findings of reasonable redress are based on it on the basis of it doing so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
March to September 2024	The resident reported damp patches throughout the property. The landlord completed repairs and mould treatment. However, he reported that the problem had returned.
April to October 2024	The resident reported ASB by his neighbour, whose tenancy was managed by a different social landlord. The resident’s landlord attended multi-agency meetings, liaised with the police, and urged the neighbour’s landlord to address the problem.
3 November 2024	The resident complained as he said the landlord had still not fixed the damp, had not done enough to address the ASB, and had failed to inform him that a previous tenant had similar issues from the neighbour.
December 2024 to February 2025	The resident reported further ASB incidents which included death threats and ongoing harassment towards his family including his children. The landlord continued to meet with the other agencies involved, who collectively asked the neighbour’s landlord to take action.
January to March 2025	The landlord inspected the property and found rising damp in several areas. It conducted a CCTV survey which found repair issues with the drains underneath the property.
4 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it: Had mistakenly believed the neighbour’s previous behaviour would not continue as this was specific to the previous tenant. Could only take limited action as the neighbour was not its own tenant, and felt it had otherwise dealt with the issue satisfactorily. Had agreed a managed move and placed the resident in Band A on its internal housing register. Would be in touch about repairs following the CCTV survey. Was sorry for the delays addressing both the damp reports and the resident’s complaint, and it offered a total of £425 in compensation.
14 April 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said: The landlord should have done more to resolve the ASB, including taking legal action against the neighbour’s landlord. The damp issues were still outstanding.
24 June 2025	The landlord issued it stage 2 response to state it: Had escalated matters to the other landlord’s senior management. Was doing all it could to help the resident move to another property. Would be in touch that week to arrange repairs. Agreed it had not addressed any of his reports or his complaint quickly enough, and increased its overall compensation offer to £2,250.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us as he said both issues were still ongoing, and he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

 

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Reports of ASB
Finding	Reasonable redress

 

5. The resident reported ASB by his neighbour in April 2024, which included threats of violence and intimidating behaviour. The neighbour was a tenant of a different registered social landlord (which this report will refer to as “the RSL”). The resident continued to report incidents, and the landlord met with the RSL on 16 September 2024. There is limited evidence of the landlord’s actions prior to that point, although it later said it had initially contacted the RSL in May.
6. The landlord’s ASB procedure states it will create a risk assessment and an action plan when it receives a report of ASB, and there is no evidence that it did either. However, its procedure focuses on situations where the alleged perpetrator is also a tenant of the landlord, and it does not give any clear detail on what it will do when other parties are involved.
7. It is therefore not possible to conclude whether the landlord acted in line with its procedure. Nonetheless, it would still have been good practice to assess the risk and agree a plan with the resident. This would have allowed it to record and clarify its limitations and manage the resident’s expectations from the outset. It is possible thatan action plan would have alleviated some of the resident’s frustration, as he said the landlord did not take him seriously until September 2024.
8. The landlord attended multi-agency meetings arranged by the local authority on 2 and 30 October 2024. These included the RSL and the police. The RSL agreed to follow their own ASB procedure and both landlords agreed a joint visit to the neighbour. This shows the landlord’s willingness to work with the RSL to resolve the problem.
9. The police attended an incident on 3 November 2024 where the neighbour had shouted allegations and threats against the resident, and said they were “going to take matters into [my] own hands”. In the resident’s complaint of the same day, he said the neighbour’s pattern of behaviour had included threats to his family and his 8-year-old daughter was traumatised. The resident also said the landlord knew the previous tenant of his property had experienced similar problems, but it had failed to warn him before he moved in. He asked it to move him to another property urgently.
10. The resident reported continued incidents between December 2024 and March 2025. During this time, the landlord attended further multi-agency meetings, including the resident’s ASB Case Review (community trigger). It accepted the resident’s application for a management transfer, and it visited him at home to discuss the issues. In its stage 1 response of April 2025, the landlord said it:
    1. Was relying heavily on the cooperation of the RSL, but matters were progressing and the police had served a Community Protection Notice (CPN) on the neighbour.
    2. Had provided additional fencing to limit contact when using the garden.
    3. Initially believed the neighbour’s behaviour would stop when its former tenant left, but it accepted this was a mistake and apologised.
    4. Had awarded the resident Band A on its internal housing register but there was a shortage of suitable properties, and it suggested he consider other areas.
11. The landlord explained why it did not disclose the ASB which the previous tenant experienced, and its explanation was not unreasonable. Nonetheless, it was at liberty to give limited information and it could have been helpful to do so in this case. . However, the landlord recognised this and its apology was appropriate.
12. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint as he said the situation had not changed and the landlord should have moved him to another property sooner. He also said it should also have taken legal action against the RSL. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it:
    1. Had escalated the matter to the RSL’s senior management which had led to “tangible progress”, but it could not disclose any details due to data protection.
    2. Was considering its legal options regarding the RSL but needed to allow them to take their own action first.
    3. Had awarded the highest priority on its housing register and had asked other providers for help finding a suitable property.
    4. Offered £1,300 in compensation for the resident’s distress, delays addressing his reports, and not disclosing the previous ASB when he moved in.
13. These were appropriate responses in the circumstances. The evidence shows the landlord engaged with the RSL and its willingness to consider legal action shows it was alert to the seriousness of the problem, as it is rare for a social landlord to take legal action against another.
14. The landlord’s response was empathetic, comprehensive, and its compensation recognised the impact on the resident and his family. It said it had learned from its mistakes and was looking at how it could improve in the future, including when it should disclose ASB to incoming residents. Its compensation reflected the impact on the resident and exceeded what our remedies guidance suggests for similar situations. Therefore, the landlord’s overall response and offer of redress was reasonable.

Complaint	Reports of damp and mould
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not investigated

15. The resident told the landlord that the damp problems had affected his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. It is best for the courts to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice. We have therefore not investigated this further. However, we can consider how a landlord has responded to a resident’s concerns and decide whether it should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
16. The resident also told us there were further issues with the repairs following the landlord’s stage 2 response, although it has now completed the substantive works. We will not consider these issues here as it did not form part of this complaint and the landlord must have the opportunity to provide its own evidence before we investigate.

What we have investigated

17. The resident reported damp issues on 5 March 2024, which he said were affecting a bedroom, the hallway and under the stairs. The landlord inspected the property in line with its damp and mould policy. It completed repairs to the external walls and an internal mould wash on 5 June 2024. This was 3 months since the resident’s report, and the landlord’s records do not state the seriousness of the problem or why it took this long.
18. The resident reported that the damp had returned on 10 September 2024 and the landlord carried out another mould wash on 14 October. It asked its contractor to arrange a full survey, who replied to say they did not have the necessary expertise. The landlord’s records do not explain what it did next and the resident complained on 3 November to say the damp was still present, some radiators were not working, and there were problems with the boiler.
19. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will contact a resident within 5 working days of a report and agree an inspection within 10 working days. If it finds potential issues such as rising damp, it will carry out a full technical inspection within a further 10 working days. The landlord carried out a surveyor inspection on 27 January 2025. This was over 4 months since the resident’s report that the damp had come back, far outside the requirements in the landlord’s policy, which was a significant failing. The inspection found rising damp in the hallway and 2 bedrooms, and it recommended a CCTV survey of the drains which the landlord carried out on 19 March 2025.
20. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 4 April 2024, it apologised for failing to meet its timescales and said it would be in touch soon to confirm its next steps. It also said it had carried out a heat loss survey 2 days earlier and asked its heating team to contact him about the radiators and boiler. The resident escalated his complaint as he said the landlord had taken too long to respond, the issues were significantly affecting his health, and one of the affected areas was the room his son slept in.
21. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the CCTV survey had identified the issue and it would be in touch that week to arrange further works. It declined to replace the boiler as it said the system itself was in good working order. However, the landlord confirmed it had ordered new radiators and would fit these as soon as the parts arrived. The landlord offered £700 in compensation for both its delays and the resident’s distress.
22. The landlord failed to meet the aims of its damp and mould policy which states it will consider any vulnerabilities and prioritise reports accordingly. It was aware of the resident’s health issues, but it consistently responded outside its published timescales. It also did not have regard to our spotlight report on damp and mould, which requires landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach.
23. However, the resident has confirmed that the landlord recently completed works which included damp-proofing the internal walls, and it has agreed to redecorate once the plastering has dried out. The landlord recognised where it had made mistakes and acknowledged it “could not justify” its failures. This was transparent and appropriate, and its compensation was in line with our remedies guidance for the nature and scale of the repair problem and the landlord’s poor service and its impact on the resident. Therefore, the landlord’s response, together with its completion of the works, meant it reasonably addressed its service failures.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

24. The landlord’s complaints policy states it must acknowledge both complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days. It must then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of acknowledgement, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
25. The landlord took 5 months to issue its stage 1 response, during which time the resident had chased it both directly and via his MP. It did not issue its stage 2 response until 47 working days after his escalation request. The landlord therefore responded outside the timescales in both its policy and the Code, and its stage 1 delay was significant.
26. However, the landlord acknowledged the lengthy delay and gave a detailed explanation for this. It apologised and offered £250 in compensation which, combined with its apology and explanation, was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance for this type of failing.

Learning

27. The landlord said the resident’s case had raised an “alarming issue” when it came to letting properties where there had been ASB problems in the past. It said it had reviewed this and found a lack of guidance, so needed to get more clarity on how to approach similar cases in the future. It is positive that the landlord recognised this. To ensure this is meaningful learning, it may wish to consider updating its guidance to cover this type of scenario.
28. The landlord may have been able to manage the case and respond to the resident sooner had it created and maintained an action plan, despite the lack of clear procedure for these circumstances. This in turn may have avoided the need for the resident to complain. The landlord may benefit from considering an update to its guidance, to clarify what it will do in similar situations where it has limited control.
29. The landlord acknowledged that its internal process had been slow. It could benefit from reviewing why this was, to learn how it could improve its response times and communication in the future.