Notting Hill Genesis (202441676)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat which is owned and managed by the landlord. The property is on the top floor of a 4 storey mid terrace block. The resident has health conditions. In 2020 the landlord was given recommendations, from a structural surveyor, to complete structural repairs to cracks throughout the property. On 31 March 2023, a leak occurred from the roof into the property. To facilitate repairs, the landlord moved the resident into temporary accommodation. The resident returned to the property in July 2023. However on her return, the repairs to the cracks, the water damage from the leak and repairs to the roof and loft area were outstanding.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the repairs to the roof.
   2. Handling of the repairs to the internal areas of the property.
   3. Handling of the temporary accommodation arrangements.
   4. Response to the resident’s query concerning a rent and service charge increase.
   5. Response to the resident’s request for a refund for accommodation.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found:
   1. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the repairs to the roof.
   2. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the repairs to the internal areas of the property.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation arrangements.
   4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. We are not able to investigate the complaints about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s query concerning a rent and service charge increase.
   2. Response to the resident’s request for a refund for accommodation.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof

6. The landlord recognised it had taken too long to repair the roof. It offered the resident compensation which settled this part of the complaint and confirmed its commitment to complete repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the internal areas of the property

7. The landlord acknowledged there had been delays in it addressing the repairs to the internal areas of the property. It offered the resident appropriate compensation and said it would complete the repairs once it was able to complete arrangements to do so with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation arrangements

8. The landlord acted in line with its procedures when it offered to arrange temporary accommodation for the resident so it could complete the repairs to the property. The landlord was responsive to queries the resident raised about the temporary accommodation arrangements.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s query concerning a rent and service charge increase

9. The resident raised the complaint concerning a rent and service charge increase as part of her stage 2 complaint. This issue did not form part of the original complaint and was not investigated by the landlord. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a refund for accommodation

10. The resident raised this complaint after the submission of her stage 1 and stage 2 complaints. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

The landlord’s complaint handling

11. The landlord acknowledged there was a delay in it providing a stage 2 response to the complaint. The resident raised additional issues at stage 2, which the landlord neither addressed nor treated as a new complaint. This was against the terms of the landlord’s policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Furthermore, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s report a leak had damaged her belongings.

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.

12. The resident reported a leak from the roof to the landlord on 31 March 2023. The resident reported the leak was heavy and had affected the electrics in the property. The evidence shows the landlord arranged temporary accommodation for the resident in a hotel on the same day. This was in line with an emergency response as defined by its repairs policy.
13. On 11 April 2023 the landlord’s contractor completed work to parts of the roof. The contractor recommended further work which the landlord completed on 3 July 2023.
14. The resident returned to the property sometime in July 2023 and told the landlord she did not believe the roof repair was completed to a good standard. On 11 July 2023 the landlord also raised a repair to the roof window which, the evidence indicates had been in need of repair since at least 2021.
15. As a result of the resident’s concern about the roof repair the landlord’s surveyor attended to the property on 22 August 2023 with the local authority’s environmental health team. The surveyor signed off the roof work and recommended further work to the roof, roof void, the roof window and internal areas of the property. On 19 October 2023 the landlord provided the resident the schedule of works it identified during the inspection. When doing so, it informed the resident she was required to move temporarily to facilitate the works.
16. The evidence shows the landlord acted in line with its repair policy to arrange a roof inspection within a reasonable time of the initial report of the leak. However, the evidence demonstrates the landlord did not complete the follow on actions within a reasonable time. The landlord completed the recommended roof work almost 3 months later. In addition, the landlord did not inspect the property until 5 months after the leak, and the schedule of works which identified the necessary repairs to the roof and the affected internal areas of the property, was not provided to the resident until 6 months after the leak.
17. On receipt of the schedule of works the resident said she was not content with the extent of the works proposed and said she did not believe the schedule contained all the repairs required to the property.
18. The evidence shows from November 2023 onwards, the landlord responded to the resident’s queries regarding the temporary accommodation arrangements, including her questions about the storage of her belongings and the location of the temporary accommodation. The evidence also indicates the landlord demonstrated flexibility by offering the resident different forms of temporary accommodation. This was a fair approach in the circumstances.
19. The landlord made several attempts to reach an agreement with the resident regarding the temporary accommodation arrangements so it could commence the repairs. In February 2024 the resident stated she was not willing to move into the temporary accommodation. While the resident disagreed with the scope of works the landlord proposed to do, the evidence demonstrates the schedule was provided by the surveyor who inspected in August 2023. It was therefore, reasonable for the landlord to rely on the professional advice and feedback provided by its surveyor in determining the required repairs.
20. In May 2024 the resident reported pigeons in the loft. The evidence indicates the landlord explored the option to complete the actions to address this while the resident remained in the property. However, there is no evidence the work was arranged. In October 2024 the resident reported another leak from the roof.
21. On 18 October 2024 the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the complaint. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and said the delays were partly due to the ongoing discussions with the resident about gaining access to the property and her disputing the schedule of works. The landlord explained it could not complete the repairs unless it was granted reasonable access or the property was vacant. In relation to the ongoing roof leak, the landlord advised it raised remedial repairs for its contractor to attend on 23 October 2024. It confirmed the roof was due for replacement later that year.
22. The landlord’s response noted it required reasonable access to the property which implied there had been issues with access. However, the evidence does not indicate the resident had refused the landlord access but instead, refused the temporary accommodation arrangements it proposed.
23. On 6 May 2025 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. The landlord said it raised a repair on 18 January 2024 to complete the works set out within the schedule for the roof and other areas in the property. The landlord confirmed the repair was cancelled due to no access until temporary accommodation was agreed with the resident. The landlord acknowledged the resident subsequently raised a repair for the roof from May 2024 and onwards. It acknowledged there was a history of the resident reporting issues with the roof. It said the roof was due for renewal, however, the repairs in the meantime should not have taken such a long time to complete. It said as a landlord, it should have reviewed options to support or enforce completing the repairs. The landlord offered the resident £500 to reflect the impact for the delay in progressing the repairs to the roof to completion. In addition it agreed to get in touch with the resident to discuss temporary accommodation.
24. When a failure is identified, as in this case, 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, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies
25. The landlord’s final response set out the steps it proposed to take to progress the outstanding roof repairs and it offered compensation in accordance with its compensation policy. In this case, the compensation offered was more than that suggested by its own compensation policy. The amount offered was proportionate to the level of its failing. The compensation fairly reflected the impact on the resident when she returned to the property in July 2023 having been in temporary accommodation since March 2023 and the landlord had still not completed to address the issues to the roof.
26. In addition, the evidence shows:
    1. The landlord acknowledged there had been a failure on its part to progress the repairs to the roof following the leak in March 2023.
    2. The landlord made reasonable attempts to reach an agreement with the resident regarding temporary accommodation so the repairs could be completed. It responded to the resident’s queries about the arrangements and offered alternative accommodation types.
    3. The landlord provided the resident with a schedule of works informed by its surveyor’s findings, demonstrating it took the necessary action to assess what was required. The evidence demonstrates the landlord also provided responses to queries the resident raised regarding the proposed work.
    4. In its final response to the complaint the landlord confirmed what action it was going to take in order to progress the repairs. The evidence demonstrates it subsequently contacted the resident to discuss temporary accommodation arrangements.
27. Taking all of the above into account, we are satisfied the landlord recognised its failures, took reasonable steps to put things right and offered redress to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.

28. The landlord has been aware of cracks to the property for several years. Following a structural survey it commissioned in 2020, it received recommendations for remedial works. At that time there was an expectation on the landlord to complete the repairs within a reasonable time in accordance with its repair obligations.
29. However, by the time the landlord inspected the property on 22 August 2023 the repairs remained outstanding. The schedule of works the landlord provided in October 2023 included structural repairs to address the cracks throughout the property.
30. As with the roof repairs, the landlord had a responsibility to ensure the repairs were completed within a reasonable timeframe. This is particularly the case with the cracks as the landlord was aware of the issue from several years prior.
31. The evidence shows after the landlord provided the schedule of works to the resident, it discussed temporary accommodation with the resident so it could complete the repairs. While the resident’s refusal to accept the temporary accommodation the landlord offered was not the landlord’s fault, the significant delay in completing the repairs since 2020 was attributable to the landlord and was unreasonable.
32. In the landlord’s response to the complaint, it acknowledged the time it took to address the repairs was significant. It recognised its responsibility for ensuring the repairs were completed and admitted it failed in this regard. The landlord offered the resident £500 compensation in recognition of the impact of the delay on its part to progress the repair through to completion. In addition the landlord made commitments to discuss temporary accommodation arrangements with the resident and followed through with this.

33. The landlord made the resident aware when it provided the schedule of works in October 2023, it required her to move temporarily in order to complete the works. Its reasons for doing so was the work it was required to do was extensive and in several areas of the property.
34. The evidence demonstrates the landlord initially discussed moving the resident to a hotel and, in response to her queries about the arrangements, was responsive and provided answers to questions she had. The resident also asked the landlord whether it could temporarily move her to a flat and expressed a preference for a permanent transfer, as she had been waiting for a transfer since 2018.
35. In February 2024 the landlord offered the resident a flat as temporary accommodation which she declined. Prior to this, the landlord had offered the resident 5 properties for a permanent move, all of which were declined. In September 2024, the landlord agreed to make another offer of a permanent property when a property became available. In the meantime it reiterated to the resident she was required to move temporarily for it to complete the repairs in the property.
36. In the landlord’s response to the complaint it confirmed it would contact the resident again to discuss temporary accommodation arrangements. The landlord’s temporary accommodation procedure states it should make at least one offer of suitable accommodation. The procedure states the landlord may refer matters to its legal team if a resident refuses its offer of temporary accommodation.
37. In this case the landlord demonstrated it exercised the discretion available to it and acted reasonably to accommodate the resident. Overall the evidence shows the landlord’s handling of the temporary accommodation arrangement was flexible and it acted in line with its procedure.

38. The resident raised the complaint concerning the rent and service charge increase on 21 November 2024 as part of her stage 2 complaint. This issue did not form part of the original complaint and was not investigated by the landlord. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first.

39. In March 2025 the resident had an injury and was required to have spinal surgery. Following the resident’s discharge from hospital she stayed in a hotel and is seeking compensation from the landlord for the expenses.
40. On 23 May 2025 the landlord confirmed to the resident it did not agree to the accommodation arrangement prior and would not therefore, reimburse the resident the associated costs.
41. The resident said she wanted us to investigate this matter, however, there is no evidence she has raised a complaint concerning the landlord’s response to her request. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. We have made a recommendation in relation to this.

42. The landlord appropriately recognised there was a significant delay in its stage 2 response which was outside of the timescales of both its policy and the Code. It offered compensation in recognition of this.
43. However, the resident’s stage 2 complaint included matters the landlord failed to address. The resident initially submitted her stage 2 complaint on 6 November 2024. She later submitted an additional complaint on 21 November 2024 and queried why the rent and service charge was increased following the leak on 31 March 2023.
44. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not add new information to a complaint at stage 2 and new information may be treated as a new complaint. Despite this, the landlord did not address the additional issues as a new complaint, nor did it provide any response to these matters.
45. In addition to this, in the resident’s stage 2 complaint she stated the water from the leak in March 2023, had damaged her personal belongings. The resident said she had not been offered compensation by the landlord for her items and could not use the bedrooms since the leak.
46. The landlord failed to address this in its response to the complaint. The landlord’s compensation guidance states where a resident suffers from a financial loss and wishes to be compensated for such, the landlord should signpost them to its insurance team. In this case the landlord failed to offer the resident any information about how she could pursue a claim for compensation via its insurance team.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. The landlord demonstrated detailed record keeping in relation to the matters we have investigated in this case.

Communication

48. The landlord demonstrated effective communication with the resident in relation to the substantive complaint matters. Its poor communication in relation to the complaints process is addressed above.