Notting Hill Genesis (202439478)

Decision
Case ID	202439478
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	30 July 2026

Background

1. The resident lives with her three children, one of whom had asthma and two of whom are autistic. The resident herself has a chronic lung disease. She said she has experienced persistent leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom for a number of years. In February 2026 the living room ceiling partially collapsed which a surveyor has diagnosed as caused by leaks under the bath. The landlord has also sent her a repossession notice which it since then had acknowledged was in error.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom.
   2. Communication over repossession.
   3. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was:
   1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s communication over repossession.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom

4. The landlord did not conduct a thorough investigation to identify the underlying causes of persistent leaks. There was no record of inspections for the leaks or for the associated damp and mould until after an extensive delay of over a year. The interim repairs were ineffective in resolving the problem. There was also no evidence the landlord took the household’s vulnerabilities into account.

The landlord’s communication over repossession

5. The landlord acknowledged that it sent a repossession notice in error, causing distress and inconvenience. It did not investigate what had happened and, while it provided a general apology, this did not amount to proportionate redress.

The landlord’s complaint handling

6. The landlord delayed significantly in providing the stage 2 response. Its complaint responses lacked clarity about what had happened and what its next steps should be. Its descriptions of compensation offers were inconsistent. It also delayed for 10 months in making the compensation payment.

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance	No later than 27 August 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £1,100 (in addition to the £650 it has already paid to her) made up as follows: £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience related to its handling of leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience related to its communication over repossession £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience related to its delays in complaint handling This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 August 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 October 2024	The resident complained to the landlord that: leaks in the bathroom had persisted for 17 years since she moved in the leaks had affected her health and her children’s health in light of their vulnerabilities including asthma and chronic lung disease it had sent an inaccurate repossession notice stating she had an outstanding rent account balance for £325.21, which she said caused distress
17 October 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
28 October 2024	The landlord wrote to the resident to say it needed an extension to provide the stage 1 response.
15 November 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It said: the contractor had inspected the property and found there were multiple leaks in the bathroom, as well as damp and mould it was waiting for a revised repairs quote and would update her as soon as it could it apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by delays and failings/failures in customer service it offered £185 in recognition of the delays, lack of communication, and inconvenience caused to her The resident requested escalation of the complaint on the same day.
19 November 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
17 December 2024, 21 January 2025, 18 February 2025	The landlord emailed the resident on 3 occasions to say it needed more time to provide a stage 2 response.
22 May 2025	The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It said: the leaks had stopped but mould was still present it had raised a repair and the contractor would get in touch with the resident directly to arrange an appointment it sent a condensation and damp leaflet for the resident to read it did not do enough to address the leaks, damp and mould it delayed in acknowledging the complaint and in providing the stage 1 and 2 responses it offered £650 compensation in total (£500 for the distress caused by delays in repairs, £150 for delays in complaint handling)
26 May 2025 (referral to the Ombudsman)	The resident referred this case to our service. She explained she felt the compensation offer did not fully reflect the impact to her and her family. She wanted the landlord to complete repairs and also revise the offer.
16 April 2026	The landlord paid the resident £650 as per its offer at stage 2 in its letter of May 2025.

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.

What we have not considered

7. We have considered the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom from August 2024 until April 2026. We normally consider events starting from 12 months before the resident makes a complaint to the landlord within our scope. Within this period, the earliest record that we have seen of leak reports is from August 2024. We have also seen records of bathroom leaks from 2018 but due to the passage of time we have not considered those past events.
8. The living room ceiling partially collapsed in February 2026. While we appreciate that the ceiling collapse was related to the bathroom leaks (to which the parties have agreed before we began this investigation), the landlord’s handling of the ceiling collapse was not part of the original complaint. This matter is subject to an ongoing disrepair claim which is currently at the pre-action stage. The landlord has not had opportunity to respond to this matter at the stage 2 of its internal complaints procedure.
9. We have therefore considered the landlord’s handling of the bathroom leaks, damp and mould up to April 2026 (including payment of compensation in April 2026), but have excluded from this investigation its repairs and other remedial actions addressing the ceiling collapse on 18 February 2026.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom
Finding	Severe maladministration

10. Records are clear that there were multiple leaks from various places in the bathroom. They had recurred over the years despite the landlord’s multiple attempts to repair them.
11. In August 2024 after the resident re-raised this issue, the landlord closed the case after completing repairs which were not detailed in the records we have seen. Within a month the leaks recurred. The resident said water went from the bathroom into the living room and downstairs areas, causing wet ceilings, damp and mould. There was no record of investigations being carried out into either the reported leak or the damp and mould.
12. The long-standing and recurring nature of the leaks should have prompted the landlord to carry out a more in-depth investigation into the underlying causes. It should also have considered giving greater priority to this case given that the resident had shared that there were multiple vulnerabilities in the household, including chronic lung diseases and asthma. However the evidence shows that the landlord did not review the history of the case, and failed to consider escalating its response.
13. The landlord conducted more extensive repair works in July 2025 by replacing tiles, sealing and regrouting. However this seemed to contradict an earlier recommendation from September 2024 in which a contractor noted ‘it would not be wise to patch up with silicone and grout’. We have not seen that there was any follow-up to the contractor’s observations, nor any explanation as to why the landlord did not follow those recommendations.
14. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that once it received a report for damp and mould, a local officer would visit the property within 10 working days to carry out an initial inspection. It says it may conduct a follow-up survey for ‘more severe cases’. The policy also states ‘where a risk to health and safety of the household is identified, works would be arranged immediately’. We have not seen evidence of a full damp and mould survey report other than the disrepair survey report in March 2026, which was conducted only after the living room ceiling collapsed and the resident initiated a disrepair claim. The apparent lack of any clear investigation into the cause of the repeated leaks and associated damp and mould for such an extended period was a significant failing. 
15. Overall, the evidence suggests the landlord had failed to recognise the severity of the situation over the years despite multiple opportunities to conduct a specialist survey. It had not been able to diagnose the underlying causes, nor had it taken proportionate action to address the issues. This meant the resident continued to live with inconvenience, distress and uncertainty for an extended period. Earlier intervention may have avoided this.
16. The landlord also has not shown that it sufficiently considered the vulnerabilities of the household which meant the impact on the resident and her family was greater. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (published in October 2021) recommends that landlords should recognise that damp and mould can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident. Given what it knew about the resident and her family’s reported health issues, it should have taken this into consideration when formulating its responses. It should also have prompted it to investigate whether a more urgent response was required or if any further specific action was necessary to support the resident and her family.
17. At stage 1, the landlord offered £185 to the resident. There was no record of acceptance and payment. At stage 2, the landlord revised its offer to £500 in recognition of the general distress and inconvenience caused by the multiple delays in dealing with the leaks, damp and mould. While this offer went some way towards mitigation of the impact caused to her, in view of the extensive delays and the repeated failures, as well as vulnerabilities in the household, we consider it was not sufficient.
18. Further, the complaint responses lacked clarity for the way forward. Having identified failings in its handling of the leaks, damp and mould, it should have taken the opportunity to set out a clear timeframe for an action plan, especially in light of the long-standing history of repeated leaks. It only told the resident (at both stages 1 and 2) that its contractor would contact her in due course to book a repair. This was not a customer-focused approach and meant she lacked clarity on when the issue would be resolved.
19. We have therefore ordered the landlord to make a further apology. Our compensation guidance states for a severe maladministration finding where there had been a series of significant failures causing long-term distress and inconvenience to the resident, we may order the landlord to pay compensation upwards of £600. In this case, due to the aforesaid vulnerabilities, we have ordered it to pay a further compensation of £800 on top of the £500 which it has already paid.
20. However, as the parties are currently negotiating and planning works to address the bathroom leaks and associated ceiling collapse as part of the ongoing legal disrepair claim, we have not ordered further inspections or works.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of communication over repossession
Finding	Service failure

21. The landlord has provided limited records on this aspect but acknowledged it sent the resident a repossession notice in error. The rent arrears stated on this notice were inaccurate. There was no further information regarding this in the stage 1 complaint response, and the landlord did not address this further at stage 2. It however provided an apology at stage 1.
22. The landlord should have investigated this matter and set out the facts in its complaint response. It should have assessed the impact to the resident, taking into consideration the vulnerabilities in the household. It should have used this information to consider what redress would be appropriate. It should have used the complaint as an opportunity to examine what had gone wrong and take on learning. However it did not do so.
23. Even if the error was spotted early on and the impact was of relatively short duration, we consider it would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, especially in light of the circumstances she was already under due to the ongoing leaks and repair failings.
24. We consider a general apology by itself was insufficient and have therefore ordered the landlord to make compensation in line with our compensation guidance. This guidance states that for service failures with relatively minor impact, we would order compensation up to £100. In these circumstances, we consider £100 would be appropriate.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Maladministration

25. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond to the complaint within 10 working days. At stage 2 (the final stage) it should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. If the landlord requires more time at stage 2 it should contact the resident to explain why and the extension should not exceed 20 working days. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
26. The landlord has already acknowledged that there were delays at several stages of the internal complaints process. It delayed for two working days in acknowledging the initial complaint and 13 days in sending the stage 1 response. The stage 2 response should have been provided by 17 December 2024 but the landlord asked for 3 extensions. It issued the final stage 2 response only in May 2025, about 5 months late.
27. The landlord apologised for those delays and offered the resident £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused. While this went some way towards mitigating the impact, it still gave no explanation for the repeated extensions at stage 2 and the delay and uncertainty this caused. We do not consider the compensation offer was sufficient to reflect the full extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
28. At stage 2, the landlord made errors regarding its compensation offer. It initially said it was offering £600 (on top of the £185 offered at stage 1) regarding the repair delays, and £150 for its delays in complaint handling, totalling £750. However, in the final summary of the letter it said it was offering £650 in total (without referring to the stage 1 offer). These inconsistencies caused confusion.
29. The landlord also unreasonably delayed in making the compensation payment. The payment was offered in May 2025 but only paid in April 2026. The resident had signalled acceptance and provided bank details as early as June 2025. This 10-month delay in making the compensation payment caused further distress and inconvenience to her.
30. Due to the reasons stated above, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with our compensation guidance, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and make further compensation of £200. This will better recognise the impact of the complaint handling failings on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. Our Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) set out that landlords should ensure its databases are capable of adequately capturing information about residents (including vulnerabilities) and repairs. Staff should be able to easily access information they require as this is essential for evidence-based decision-making.
32. The landlord did not thoroughly review the case history, suggesting that its staff might not have easy access to this information. If it had done so, it might have recognised that the repeated repairs were not effective and the leaks were recurring over the years, indicating a more in-depth investigation was necessary.

Communication

33. There were extensive delays and gaps in communication which the landlord has acknowledged. The landlord was aware of the repeated delays, as evidenced by the letters it sent requesting extensions for complaint responses. The landlord could consider what steps it can put in place to better enable it to follow up on complaints and avoid further gaps in communication.