Notting Hill Genesis (202444908)

Background

1. The resident lives in a maisonette. Her son has asthma.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the damp and mould within the resident’s property.
   2. Management of the resident’s rent account which was in arrears.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord made offers of redress which, in our opinion, resolved the errors in its:
   1. Handling of the damp and mould within the resident’s property.
   2. Management of the resident’s rent account, which was in arrears.
   3. Handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the damp and mould

5. The landlord accepted its handling of the damp and mould within the property was unreasonable. The landlord’s offer of compensation appropriately reflected the impact the delays and poor communication had upon the resident.

Management of the resident’s rent account

6. There were delays in the landlord’s communication with the resident about her rent account. The landlord’s apology and assistance in setting up a payment plan on the resident’s rent account was an appropriate response.

Complaint handling

7. There were delays in the landlord sending its final complaint response in January 2025. It appropriately apologised for this and awarded compensation in its final response.

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 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.

8. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has stated she has had issues with damp and mould in the property since 2019. She raised a formal complaint on 14 October 2024. We have not seen any evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. In the interest of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events occurring from March 2024. This is when the resident’s most recent report was made.
9. The landlord carried out a mould wash and applied anti mould paint on 28 April 2024 in a bedroom at the property. This was 24 working days after the resident reported the damp and mould. This was not an excessive delay. However, it was outside of the landlord’s published timescales where it aims to deal with standard (non-urgent) repairs such as this, within 20 working days.
10. The resident said she contacted her housing officer multiple times about issues with damp and mould within her property. We have not seen any evidence to corroborate what the resident has said, and the landlord has told us it has no records of any communication relating to this contact. For this reason we are unable to comment about any specific communication or assess any specific failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s contact with her housing officer.
11. However, it was positive the landlord apologised in its stage 1 complaint response (November 2021) for its overall delays in responding to the resident. It was also right the landlord’s surveyor inspected the damp and mould and associated repairs within the property that same month. It then completed these works within its published timescales for a standard repair by 13 December 2024.
12. The resident told us the damp and mould has since returned, and she has raised further repairs to the landlord that remain outstanding. We accept it can sometimes take multiple visits to resolve some repairs, like damp and mould. This is because there may be more than a single underlying cause. This is the reason we have made a recommendation for the landlord to complete an inspection of the property.
13. The resident told us that her son was diagnosed with asthma which she said was as a result of being exposed to damp and mould. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
14. The resident raised the issue of her son’s asthma to the landlord as part of her formal complaint on 14 October 2025. In the landlord’s final response (January 2025), the landlord signposted the resident to its insurance team. It explained the resident could submit a personal injury claim if she felt the landlord had been negligent in its response to the repair. We will not comment on the outcome of such a claim, but the landlord was right to provide this information to the resident so she could make a claim if she wished to.
15. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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 we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles of be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
16. The resident has lived in damp and mould conditions for an unreasonable amount of time. It was positive the landlord accepted this, carried out the works, and apologised in its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
17. The landlord also awarded the resident £450 for this aspect of her complaint. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. It says an order between £100 and £600 in compensation may be appropriate where there was a failure by the landlord which had an adverse impact on the resident. The landlord’s offer of compensation, apology, and the works it completed was appropriate to put right the adverse impact upon the resident in this case, in line with our remedies guidance.

18. The Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints concerning the level of a rent, as this falls outside our jurisdiction. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether a rent is reasonable or payable. We have considered the landlord’s communication to any of the resident’s questions about the rent and whether it responded to her questions in line with its legal obligations, internal policies, and industry best practice.
19. When the resident raised her formal complaint (October 2024) she said her housing officer had not responded to her for 3 months. The resident said she had asked for support from the landlord with her rent account, which was in arrears. As above, we have not been provided with any evidence of the resident’s contact with her housing officer, and the landlord has said it has no record of this.
20. We would expect the landlord to have records of contact with the resident about her arrears. This should have included carrying out a vulnerability assessment, as well as offering support in line with its income collection procedure. This is evidence of poor record keeping.
21. The landlord acted appropriately by raising its lack of communication with the resident to the housing officer’s manager. However, the officer failed to contact the resident within 5 working days of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, as it had agreed to do.
22. The landlord corrected this shortly after the resident escalated her complaint, and its housing officer contacted the resident. We have not been provided with the exact date this happened. However it was positive the landlord assisted the resident in arranging a payment plan, and that it changed the resident’s housing officer. The landlord had recognised the relationship had broken down, and sort to put things right.
23. There was a failing in the landlord’s communication which we understand would have inconvenienced the resident, who was trying to resolve the issue within her rent account. However, the landlord’s apology in its final response (January 2025), and its arrangement to set up the payment plan with the resident, was an appropriate response in the circumstances.

24. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 20 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was reasonable because the landlord had told the resident that it needed extra time before it could provide its stage 1 complaint response. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. We expect a landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. Where the landlord may need further time to respond to a resident’s stage 1 complaint, this should not exceed a further 10 working days.
25. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response 49 working days after the resident asked it to escalate her complaint. The landlord had told the resident it needed further time to respond to the stage 2 complaint. Whilst this delay was not excessive, its extension should not have exceeded 40 working days, in line with the Code.
26. The landlord accepted there was a delay in sending the resident its final response to her complaint. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of £50 and £100 for such situations, where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord.
27. For this reason we consider the landlord’s apology and offer of £50 compensation for its handling of the resident’s complaint to have been appropriate in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and Communication

28. In this case, the landlord has told us it has no records of communication between the resident and her housing officer. This lack of record keeping is what led to the resident’s frustration and dissatisfaction. If the landlord had recorded this contact, it may have been able to avoid delays in its handling of these repairs and the management of her rent account.