Notting Hill Genesis (202441353)

Decision
Case ID	202441353
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Shorthold Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

1. The resident reported intermittent hot water supply in around July 2024. The plant room (containing equipment to run a building’s essential services) for the resident’s development is shared with non-residential buildings. The resident no longer lives at the property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Intermittent hot water supply in the resident’s home.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of intermittent hot water supply in her home.
4. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress, which in our opinion, resolved the failings in its complaint handling.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord accepted that there were delays in it resolving the issue, and that its communication was inadequate. It offered the resident compensation. However, it did not demonstrate that it had completed the repair or learned from these errors.
7. The landlord did not meet its complaints policy timescales at stage 1 of the complaints process. It failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to the second stage of the complaints process on 2 occasions. It apologised for these errors and offered proportionate compensation.

 

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 provided by a director. 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 28 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident compensation as set out below: £1316.48 to recognise the impact of the intermittent hot water supply between 3 January 2025 and 11 September 2025. This is based a calculation of 10% of £48.39 per day for 252 days. £200 in recognition of the impact of failures in the landlords handling of the repair, including poor communication with the resident. This compensation is awarded in addition to the compensation the landlord has already paid. The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid the compensation no later than the due date.	No later than 28 March 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
25 August 2024	The resident complained to the landlord, saying: There had been no hot water in her home for the previous 6 Saturdays. The issue was affecting 11 properties. The landlord was not acting on this and had not updated residents. The landlord did not return her calls. When the property manager was on leave, no other member of staff was responsible for the issue.
4 September 2024	The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process, saying: The problem with the resident’s hot water was resolved. It accepted delays in resolving the issue, and that its communication was inadequate. It should ensure a member of staff provided cover for the resident’s property manager if they were on annual leave in future. It offered the resident £50 in compensation to acknowledge the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
15 November 2024	The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to the second stage of its complaints process. She said she had reported further issues with her hot water, which the landlord had failed to respond to.
2 January 2025	The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said: It had not effectively resolved the intermittent heating and hot water in the resident’s home. It listed all the actions it had taken to try to resolve the issue. It intended to replace a part of the resident’s heating system. Its contractor would contact her to book an appointment for the repair.  It had paid the resident £280 in compensation for the intermittent hot water supply between July and September 2025. It offered the resident an additional £590 in compensation, made up of: £100 for the delay in it acknowledging her complaint, and its failure to escalate her complaint on 2 occasions. £100 for delays, inconvenience and poor handling of the concerns. £100 for poor communication. £290 for the intermittent hot water supply from 2 November 2024 to 2 January 2025 2025. This was calculated as £10% of her total daily rent for 59 days.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the complaint to us for investigation. She felt that the landlord’s offer of compensation was did not reflect the impact of its failings on the wellbeing of her household.

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	Intermittent hot water supply to the resident’s home
Finding	Maladministration

8. The landlord accepts that there was intermittent hot water supply to properties on the resident’s development from around July 2024. The landlord and the resident have differing accounts of the issue. The landlord recorded that the issue initially affected the resident’s property over the weekends, and later occurred between 6pm and 8pm in the evening. The resident told us there was initially a full loss of hot water lasting around 7 weeks, followed by intermittent supply which could occur at any time, and often lasted more than 24 hours. With the evidence available, we cannot say which account is correct.
9. The issues were resolved for most properties in the development. However, the resident said that the issues she experienced were not resolved when she left the property in October 2025. This is an overall timescale of around 15 months. She told us the issue had a significant impact on the wellbeing of her family, and influenced her decision to end her tenancy.
10. The landlord aims to resolve standard repairs within 20 days. In this case, the repair was unusually complex, affecting several properties in different ways, intermittently. The landlord also needed to liaise with an energy supplier. As such it is understandable that the repairs exceeded the landlord’s repair policy timescales. However, the landlord accepted that there were avoidable delays in the repairs, which will have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. 
11. The landlord identified that actions taken by the energy supplier were causing issues with the hot water supply to the development. It noted that it did not have an adequate contractual agreement with the energy supplier. The energy supplier had taken actions which reduced the energy capacity allocated to the landlord’s properties. Given that it did not have any direct control over the energy supplier’s actions, the landlord took appropriate steps to resolve the issue. These included:
    1. Implementing password protection on the plant room and doing a lock change.
    2. Beginning negotiations with the energy supplier for a new energy supply agreement.
    3. Asking the energy supplier to do a joint visit to the site.
    4. Looking into creating a standalone energy network.
12. The landlord also carried out repairs in the resident’s home, including adjusting the flow rate for the resident’s water supply, adjusting settings in the plant room, and cleaning parts of her heating system.
13. However, the landlord could have been more proactive in pursuing the repair. For example, it could have sought legal advice on options available to it to resolve the issue with the energy supplier, but there was no evidence it did so.
14. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have robust records of contact with residents, repairs and inspection reports. Clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. There were shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping in this case. For example:
    1. The landlord told the Ombudsman that at the time of the complaint, its contractor did not keep a record of resident’s calls. This was a failing. Landlords and contractors should keep records of all interactions with residents. Without this information the landlord does not have a full audit trail of its actions. The landlord has assured us that its contractor’s processes have changed, and it now records all calls from residents. This is a positive step to improve accountability going forward.
    2. The landlord did not provide us with copies of correspondence it referred to in its complaint responses. Also, the repairs records it provided do not show all the visits to the resident’s home listed in its stage 2 complaint response.
    3. The landlord should have records of its communication with the energy supplier so that it can demonstrate it took robust action to resolve the issue. It has not provided this information.
    4. e lIn its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would replace a valve in the resident’s property. The resident says it was not replaced. The landlord did not provide evidence the repair was completed. This was a further record keeping failure. As a result, we cannot conclude that the repair was done. The landlord should either have records showing that it completed the repair, or records that explain why it no longer felt the repair was appropriate.
15. The landlord also accepted that its communication with the resident was inadequate. For example, it acknowledged that residents had reported difficulties reporting repairs to its contractor. Also that its contractors and heating team did not always respond to the resident or call her back.  This will have caused the resident avoidable time and inconvenience in pursuing the repair
16. The resident’s property manager acted as a single point of contact for the resident in this case. This was a positive step by the landlord. Single points of contact can strengthen the landlord-tenant relationship, manage expectation, and prevent duplication across different departments.
17. However, for a single point of contact to be effective, good internal communication is crucial. There were shortcomings in the landlord’s internal communication about the issue. We saw evidence that teams had differing ideas about what issue the resident was reporting, and updates between departments were not always provided in a timely way. This caused overall delays in the landlord’s handling of the issue. The landlord should consider how it manages issues that involve more than one department so that internal communication is effective. In this case, the lack of progress in the repairs, and gaps in updates caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
18. Given that it had accepted communication failures during the complaints process, the landlord should have taken steps to ensure it communicated with the resident proactively and regularly going forward. However, the evidence suggests that it did not do so. For example, the landlord’s records indicated that there had been no change in the status of the repairs for 4 months in February 2025, and in August 2025 it said there had been no update for 4 months.  This will have caused further frustration for the resident.
19. Overall, the landlord offered the resident £250 in compensation for failings in its handling of the repair, including its poor communication.  Had it taken learning from its errors and resolved the issue for the resident, in our view this would have been sufficient to put things right.
20. However, the landlord accepts that as of September 2025, the issue was not resolved. We saw further examples of delays in progressing the repair in the intervening months, including long gaps in updates provided to the resident. This will have caused further inconvenience to the resident. To align with our remedies guidance (available on our website), additional compensation has been awarded. Our remedies guidance says awards in this range are appropriate where a landlord has failed to fully put things right for the resident.
21. The landlord also awarded the resident compensation for the impact of the intermittent loss of hot water. The landlord offers 2 rates of compensation for loss of hot water:
    1. The landlord compensates residents 10% of their daily rent if there has been an interruption in hot water supply and it has failed to repair it. Compensation is only offered after the first 48 hours.
    2. Where it is the heat supplier, the landlord offers compensation of £40 per day, (capped at £695) if an unplanned loss of hot water exceeds 24 hours. This is awarded for each full day after the first 24 hours.
    3. Where it is the heat supplier, the landlord offers an additional £75 in compensation if there are 4 or more unplanned interruptions in hot water supply, lasting over 12 hours, in a year.
22. The landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £570, based on a calculation of 10% of her daily rent for 2 periods of hot water loss, until 2 January 2025. The resident was unhappy with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. She said it should have offered her £40 per day.
23. In the resident’s case, the loss of hot water was intermittent, and the records did not clearly show which dates the hot water supply was out of service for 12 or 48 hours. As such, in the circumstances of the case, the landlord’s award was appropriate, as it reflected the ongoing nature of the issue.
24. As the landlord has not shown that it repaired the issue, further compensation has been awarded at the same rate until 11 September 2025. On this date, the landlord told us it had offered the resident a repair appointment. The resident said she declined the appointment as she was moving out and did not want further disruption. While her reasoning is understandable, the repair was declined and the landlord therefore did not have the opportunity to complete it.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

25. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time complied with the definition of a complaint in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
26. The landlord met its policy timescale at stage 1 of the complaints process. It apologised for its failure to meet its policy timescales at the second stage of the complaints process. It exceeded its policy timescale by 7 working days. It accepted that:
    1. It had failed to escalate the resident’s complaint on 2 occasions.
    2. It did not acknowledge her complaint within its policy timescales.
27. There was evidence of inaccuracy in the landlord’s complaints responses. For example, the landlord dated its stage 1 complaint response in August, but it was sent in September.  While landlords should ensure they send accurate complaints responses, overall, these errors did not affect the outcome of the case for the resident.
28. The landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation for the impact of these failures. The compensation offered to the resident complies with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above. It proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident and amounts to reasonable redress for this aspect of the complaint.

Learning

29. The landlord identified that its contractor did not always respond to residents reports of repairs. It should have told the resident clearly how it would resolve this issue, as it has overall responsibility for its contractor’s actions. This would demonstrate accountability and show it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.

Communication

30. The landlord should consider how it manages issues that involve more than one department so that internal communication is effective.