Notting Hill Genesis (202443078)

Background

1. The landlord issued a section 20B notice on 28 September 2023 explaining that it needed more time to issue the actual service charges for the financial year 2022 to 2023. It said it expected to send the accounts by 31 March 2024. When it did not meet this timeframe, the resident contacted it for an update.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the actual service charges for the financial year 2022 to 2023.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the actual service charges for 2022 to 2023.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Handling of the actual service charges for the financial year 2022 to 2023

4. The landlord did not provide the actual service charges for 2022 to 2023 within the timeframe it said it would and repeatedly missed opportunities to keep the resident updated. It recognised its failings in a revised stage 2 response, but the issue remains outstanding.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord stage 1 response did not address the resident’s complaint and both its stage 1 and 2 responses were issued by the same person. The landlord did eventually identify part of its failings but did not identify that its stage 1 response did not address 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.

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.

What we did not look at

6. The resident has said that the landlord has continued to issue section 20B notices for subsequent years and has not provided dates for when it will issue relevant actual service charges. The resident has raised complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints where the landlord has not had the chance to put things right first. There is no evidence to show the resident raised a complaint about service charge actuals for subsequent financial years. Therefore, we have not investigated this issue.

What we did investigate

7. Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlord’s to either demand service charges within 18 months of the costs being incurred or notify a resident within that time that costs have been incurred and will be charged later (via a notice). Issuing a valid section 20B notice allows a landlord to recover charges even if the actual accounts are provided after 18 months. This means the resident’s liability to pay remains unchanged.
8. Here the landlord issued a section 20B notice on 28 September 2023. This was within 18 months of costs being incurred. Within the section 20B notice it explained that costs had been incurred but the exact amount was not yet known, and that the resident would be required to contribute.
9. Within the landlord’s section 20B notice it said it ‘expected’ to send actual service charge accounts by 31 March 2024. The landlord did not meet this timeframe and did not update the resident. The resident had to contact it in April and May 2024 for an update, he then raised his complaint. The landlord missed further opportunities to update the resident on when it would issue actual service charges for 2022 to 2023.
10. It took the landlord until July 2024, its stage 2 response, to confirm that its accounts had not been certified. Here it said it would provide an update in 3 months. The landlord failed to provide a further update following this, despite what it said.
11. On 16 October 2025 the landlord issued a revised stage 2 response, it is unclear what triggered this. It said it was in the process of preparing the actual service charges for 2022 to 2023 and would send them to the resident before the end of December 2025. We have not been provided with evidence to show the landlord met this timeframe or kept the resident updated. The resident has told us that the landlord has not provided the actual service charges for 2022 to 2023.
12. Overall, the landlord’s handling of actual service charges for the financial year 2022 to 2023 was not appropriate. It is important to explain that the landlord’s delay in providing actual service charge accounts – whether by 31 March 2024 or later- does not affect the resident’s liability to pay. However, the landlord missed opportunities to keep the resident updated over a significant time. Especially when it did not repeatedly meet timeframes it set and the issue remains outstanding. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.
13. Within the landlord stage 1 response from July 2024 it offered the resident £150 compensation for its lack of updates and delay (from March to July 2024). Within its revised stage 2 response from October 2025, it offered a further £200 compensation for delays and its failure to provide an update since July 2024. The amount of £350 falls within the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance and the high impact banding of the landlord’s compensation and goodwill gesture policy. This amount has been considered as appropriate compensation. As the landlord did not make the total compensation offer as part of its internal complaints process, a finding of maladministration has been made and not one of reasonable redress.

14. The landlord’s complaints policy explains it operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says a stage 1 complaint will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response will be provided within 10 working days. A stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days of acknowledgement of the escalation.
15. The resident raised his complaint about the landlord’s lack of response to his contact from April and May 2024, where he asked for an update on actual service charge accounts for 2022 to 2023. While the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 3 June 2024, it responded to the resident’s email from 8 March 2024 where he raised queries about estimates. Had the landlord acknowledged and defined the complaint it may have identified this sooner.
16. Within the resident’s escalation request from 25 June 2024 he said the landlord did not respond to his complaint and that he was left with no option but to escalate his complaint. This would have caused the resident some frustration.
17. The landlord’s complaints policy says it is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code explains that the person considering the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. While the landlord issued its stage 2 response within the timeframe set within its complaints policy, it did not meet the requirements of the Code. This is because the same person responded at both stage 1 and 2. The landlord did eventually recognise this, albeit 15 months after the end of its internal complaints process.
18. Within its revised stage 2 response from October 2025, the landlord apologised and offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise the time, trouble and distress caused by its complaint handling failing. While the revised stage 2 response demonstrates insight into its failing relating to who handled the complaint, the landlord missed opportunities to acknowledge its stage 1 response did not address the resident’s complaint.
19. When considering the failings combined, and that the compensation offer was made after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord’s complaint handling amounts to a service failure. In the circumstances it is reasonable to increase the compensation amount to £150. This is to recognise the additional failing mentioned. This amount falls within the medium impact of the landlord’s compensation policy. Had the landlord not been proactive and identified parts of its complaint handling failing, the failing would have been greater.

Learning

20. The landlord was not proactively managing how it kept the resident updated on when it would provide actual service charges. It should consider how it can keep resident’s updated and if its complaint policy is being applied correctly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord may wish to consider how it acknowledges complaints to ensure it has an accurate understanding of the issue.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication could have been more proactive especially when it missed timeframes it set. It may wish to consider how it communicates any delays to residents.