Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

Notting Hill Genesis (202446567)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202446567

Notting Hill Genesis

26 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of kitchen floor repairs.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 3 bedroom house.
  2. Between February and August 2024, the resident raised a number of repairs with the landlord about her:
    1. Garage door.
    2. Kitchen flooring.
    3. Gutters and overflow pipes.
    4. Electrics and kitchen units.
    5. Rear garden fence.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord in June 2024. She was unhappy that repairs had been raised but not completed, but that the landlord had closed them down. She said the kitchen floor had been damaged by a contractor on 12 April 2024, when the heating was repaired. She wanted the repairs to be completed and asked to be moved to temporary accommodation while they were.
  4. The landlord responded in June 2024. It said the fence had been repaired and that the kitchen floor repair would be scheduled. It said if the kitchen would be inaccessible during the works, it would look to provide temporary accommodation for the resident for 3 days. It apologised for the disturbances to the resident and offered her £150 compensation.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord again in September 2024. She said the repairs had been marked as being completed when they hadn’t been. She said the kitchen floor had not been repaired, the garage door remained broken and that rodents had been able to enter the garage and damage her work equipment. She said her children were vulnerable and she was unhappy that she would not be temporarily moved during the repairs.
  6. The landlord responded as another stage 1 response in November 2024. It said the resident had requested a halt to the kitchen floor repair due to her concerns. It was awaiting confirmation from the resident that it could continue the works without a temporary move and said it had escalated the repairs as a priority. It apologised and offered the resident £200 compensation for the repair delays, distress and inconvenience.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in February 2025, as she had not received a response to her November 2024 complaint. She remained dissatisfied with the actions of the landlord. She wanted compensation from the landlord, for them to complete the repairs and to be placed in temporary accommodation.
  8. The landlord responded in May 2025. It acknowledged the repairs had taken too long to resolve but explained that a temporary relocation was not necessary. It said the resident had agreed for the repairs to progress, but that she then changed her mind. It said it had reviewed the matter and maintained the decision not to relocate the resident.
  9. The landlord said other repairs had either been completed, or further investigation and repairs would take place. It apologised for the level of customer service it provided to the resident and offered her £1470 compensation for the time and trouble, and as a discretionary payment towards damage to personal belongings.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said she is still waiting for the kitchen floor and other repairs to be completed and disputed the landlord’s decision to not provide temporary accommodation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident told us about outstanding repairs to her children’s bedroom window and her kitchen units. These were not part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord. The resident will need to raise these with the landlord as a formal complaint before we can potentially investigate her concerns. If, after making a formal complaint about the matter, the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s actions, she has the option to ask us to start a new investigation.

Repairs to kitchen flooring

  1. The resident first reported damage to the kitchen floor in April 2024 after contractors had attended the property to fix the heating. There is evidence to show that the landlord raised the repair with a contractor, and an estimated completion date of May 2024 was documented.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show that between May and August 2024, arrangements were made to investigate and complete the repair. The landlord told the resident that a contractor had confirmed the works could be carried out whilst she remained in the property and that she would have use of the kitchen.
  3. There is evidence to show that the resident cancelled appointments to repair the flooring, as she did not want to remain in the property when the work was undertaken. It is recorded that the resident then agreed to the repairs, but subsequently changed her mind.
  4. The landlord’s relocation (decant) policy sets out where a planned relocation might be required. The landlord’s view that the planned repairs to the kitchen did not reach the policy’s criteria for an emergency or planned relocation is supported by the evidence, which does not show the situation could reasonably be considered an emergency. The landlord explained this to the resident on 26 September 2024.
  5. The landlord’s complaint response focused on the physical safety of the resident and her family when the repairs were to be completed, and the reimbursement of costs to the resident for not being able to use the kitchen area during that time. However, it did not refer to the vulnerabilities of her daughter until the stage 2 complaint response was provided. It said it would note them on their systems for future reference.
  6. The landlord’s vulnerability policy discusses addressing individual needs or reasonable adjustments for residents. It says a resident can make a formal request to their local officer and that a clear procedure is in place to assess whether a request is reasonable. There is no evidence to show that the resident was signposted about this, when she was making requests for a temporary move.
  7. The decision not to provide temporary accommodation was reasonable based on the circumstances of the repair and the decant policy. However, the landlord should have taken into account whether the vulnerabilities of the resident’s daughter should also have been considered when reaching a decision, in line with its vulnerability policy. There is no evidence to show that it was.
  8. The evidence shows that the landlord made attempts to progress the kitchen floor repairs, and that some of the appointments were cancelled by the resident. Where delays and inconvenience to the resident were contributed to by the landlord, it apologised, offered £1470 compensation and provided appropriate redress to cover the limited use of the kitchen. At the time of its final complaint response the actions it had taken to try to complete the work, and the remedies it offered for the failings in its repairs service were reasonable, and in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair and putting things right.
  9. The landlord has told the Ombudsman that the repairs works are scheduled to take place post complaint response, whilst the resident remains in the property. Should the resident be dissatisfied with any works which are completed post complaint response, then she should contact the landlord to discuss this further.
  10. Overall, the landlord went some way to putting things right for the repairs. However, there is no evidence to show it considered the vulnerabilities described by the resident when making the decision not to provide temporary accommodation during the repairs. In the specific circumstances of this complaint and the resident’s concerns about her family’s wellbeing, that omission was unreasonable.

Complaint handling

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case is the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
    1. Following the landlord’s first complaint response the resident escalated her complaint on 30 September 2024. The landlord incorrectly replied with another stage 1 response, taking 28 days to do so. Its timescale for an escalated complaint response is 20 days. Accordingly, the landlord acted outside its policy in respect of both the escalation of the complaint, and the time taken to respond.
    2. The resident escalated her complaint again on 6 November 2024. The landlord told the resident that it required an extension to provide the response. It told her it would respond by 16 January 2025, and then 13 February 2025. It was only following the Ombudsman’s intervention that the landlord provided a response to the resident, on 11 May 2025. This was 108 days later than its 20-day timescale.
    3. The resident felt it necessary to contact her member of parliament and the Ombudsman whilst awaiting the response from the landlord, to ask for their assistance in resolving the matter due to the delay, distress and inconvenience she and her family experienced.
  2. The length of time taken by the landlord to respond to the complaint did not adhere to the Code. However, the landlord acknowledged this, apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation to put things right. This amount proportionally reflects the impact of the delay and inconvenience to the resident, and its actions in response to this failing were reasonable.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of kitchen floor repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. In light of the failing identified in its handling of the kitchen floor repair and the resident’s decant request, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise in writing to her within 4 weeks of this report. The apology must be provided by an appropriately senior officer, and must also explain what learning the landlord has identified from her complaint and the findings in this report.
    2. Pay her further compensation of £200 within 4 weeks. This is in addition to the £1470 previously offered.
  2. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided by their deadline.