Notting Hill Genesis (202446833)

Background

1. The property is a ground floor flat in a block. There are windows in the bedroom and hallway and a pair of French doors in the living room leading to the garden. The landlord replaced the external windows and doors in 2022.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about trickle vents.
   2. Reports of a bad smell in the property.
   3. Service charge enquiries about cleaning and gardening.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about trickle vents.
   2. Reports of a bad smell in the property.
   3. Formal complaint.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquiries about cleaning and gardening.

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

Summary of reasons

6. There were delays in the landlord investigating the resident’s concerns about trickle vents. It has acknowledged this and taken reasonable action to put things right.
7. There were delays and poor communication in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a bad smell in the property. It has offered reasonable redress to put things right.
8. There were communication failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquiries. While it acknowledged the failures, the redress offered was insufficient.
9. The landlord acknowledged delays in its complaint handling and offered reasonable redress for this.

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 have not considered

10. The resident has asked for compensation for damaged items. This was addressed as part of a separate complaint with the landlord and it sent its final response on 24 June 2025. This was after the resident referred the current complaint to us. Therefore, we have not considered this request as part of this investigation. If the resident wants us to assess the landlord’s handling of this request, she can raise this with us as a separate matter.

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.

11. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the windows and external doors of the property in accordance with the resident’s lease. This says it is responsible for repairs to the main structure of the building, including windows and doors on the outside of the flats (excluding the glass).
12. The resident has said she first reported concerns about the trickle vents in 2022. This investigation has included events that occurred 12 months before she raised her formal complaint in January 2025. Anything that happened before January 2024 has been considered for context but not assessed as part of this investigation.
13. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest attending to investigate the resident’s concerns about the trickle vents when she reported this in June 2024. Despite offering this, there is no evidence the landlord attended or followed up with the resident to arrange this. This meant her concerns went unaddressed until she raised her complaint 7 months later, in January 2025.
14. The landlord spoke to the resident about her concerns on 10 February 2025, and asked her to send photos of the trickle vents for review. This was an unnecessary action, as the landlord had already told her 8 months earlier that it would attend to investigate the issue. Therefore, it should have arranged to attend urgently. However, it did not do so until after the resident escalated her complaint on 14 February 2025, and spent further time and effort chasing this on 27 February 2025.
15. The landlord inspected the property on 18 March 2025, 9 months after the resident first raised the issue (within the timescale of this investigation). This was an unreasonable and avoidable delay as the landlord should have done more to investigate her concerns sooner. As the resident had also reported there was damp and mould, which she felt was linked to this issue, the landlord should have treated these concerns with more urgency.
16. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response and confirmed it should have acted in accordance with its damp and mould policy. This says it must visit within 10 working days of receiving a report. Its failure to do so meant the resident was left living in a property with damp and mould for many months.
17. The landlord arranged for the manufacturer’s agent to attend regarding the trickle vents on 7 July 2025. This appointment was arranged at the end of April 2025 and the date was at the resident’s request. Therefore, this delay was not caused by any landlord failing. During the contact to arrange the appointment, the resident asked if a desktop assessment could be done, rather than a visit. We understand that having to give repeated access was inconvenient for her. However, it was reasonable that the landlord arranged an in-person visit so the manufacturer’s agent could inspect the vents and identify what works were needed.
18. The visit on 7 July 2025 did not go ahead as the contractor’s vehicle broke down. The contractor told the landlord this via email at 12:25pm, which was after the time the appointment was due to start (12pm). The resident was not told in advance this was not going ahead and only found out after she contacted the landlord. This was frustrating for her.
19. Vehicle breakdowns can happen and would not be considered a failure by the landlord. This is not something that can be foreseen or notified of in advance. In this case, we have seen no evidence that the contractor told the landlord about this via phone, which would have been appropriate. This is because the landlord may not have seen the email the contractor sent until some time later. This resulted in a delay in the resident being told what was happening.
20. The landlord should have a process in place for contractors to notify it of these types of situations, so it can update residents at the earliest opportunity. Its failure to do that in this case meant the resident spent time and effort contacting the landlord to find out why the contractor had not attended.
21. Following the missed appointment, the resident told the landlord she was not available until December 2025. The landlord has confirmed this issue is still outstanding. As the reason for the missed appointment was not a landlord failing and the resident has asked for an appointment in December 2025, the ongoing delay is not attributable to the landlord. We recommend the landlord writes to the resident with an appointment date for December 2025 to progress the matter.
22. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered a total of £1,050 compensation. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
23. The resident has asked for compensation for the impact on her health. We cannot determine there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. What we have considered is the general the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s failures, and whether the compensation offered was sufficient to address this. 
24. The resident asked the landlord for a refund of her management fee as a form of compensation for identified failures. The landlord’s stage 2 response said its offer of compensation was made in line with its compensation policy and not as a refund of the management fee. This was reasonable as the compensation was being paid for the failures and impact on the resident, rather than a refund of money paid for services. We cannot assess the reasonableness of a charge and so cannot order the landlord to refund amounts paid. Our investigation has considered whether the landlord’s compensation offer was fair and reasonable, considering the failures and the impact on the resident.
25. We have considered the full circumstances of the case, including the impact on the resident, alongside our remedies guidance. The landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £1,050 compensation already offered, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

26. The landlord is responsible for repairs to communal pipes and drains in accordance with the resident’s lease. This says it is responsible for repairs to the main structure of the building, including pipes and drains that do not exclusively service an individual flat.
27. There is no evidence the landlord took any action to investigate the resident’s first report of a bad smell in December 2024. It was only after she raised her formal complaint on 11 January 2025 that it agreed to investigate. Despite committing to attend, there is no evidence the landlord took action to do so. It was only after the resident escalated her complaint in February 2025, and spent further time and effort chasing this up on 24 March 2025, that it arranged to attend. This was disappointing for the resident and made her feel the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
28. The resident told the landlord a private contractor had attended one of her neighbour’s properties. They suggested the smell could be caused by a leak in the communal soil stack. The landlord said it asked the neighbour for a copy of their contractor’s report. This was sensible to investigate the matter. However, this should not have delayed it in taking action to investigate the resident’s reports.
29. The landlord told the resident its contractor attended on 27 March 2025. It is not clear exactly what it did during this visit as it did not access the property and there is no record it inspected any of the drains. As the resident had reported the smell was inside the property and she believed it was coming from the drains, the landlord should have inspected both. Its failure to do so contributed to its overall delay in investigating this issue. This was distressing for the resident as she said, at times, the smell was so bad she could not stay in the property.
30. The landlord reattended on 27 August 2025. This was only after the resident had chased for updates/action on at least 5 occasions between April and August 2025. The landlord’s record of this visit shows it attended the property, completed a smoke test of pipework and a CCTV inspection of the communal stack pipe. This was appropriate action to investigate the resident’s concerns.
31. The landlord concluded the smell was caused by issues with internal pipework within the property. It subsequently told the resident this was her responsibility to resolve. This was reasonable and in line with the terms of her lease, which says she is responsible for repairs to pipes and drains in the property.
32. The resident challenged this conclusion. While disappointing for her, the landlord was entitled to rely on the information provided by its expert contractor. If she continues to dispute the outcome, she can arrange for her own inspection. If the outcome differs from the landlord’s, and suggests further action is required in respect of communal pipes or drains, she can share this report with the landlord for further action.
33. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised, and offered £250 compensation. Considering the failures, impact on the resident and the action taken to put things right, the landlord has offered reasonable redress. We recommend the landlord pay the resident the £250 compensation already offered, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

34. Prior to the resident’s complaint of December 2024, she made a previous complaint about the landlord’s response to her service charge enquiries in May 2024. This also included concerns about cleaning and gardening services. The landlord sent its final response to that complaint on 29 October 2024. The resident has referred this to us and it is awaiting investigation under case reference 202409453.
35. We will not investigate the same issues twice. Therefore, the scope of this investigation covers events from November 2024 onwards. Anything that happened prior to the stage 2 response issued in the other complaint will be assessed as part of our investigation of 202409453.
36. There are missing records in respect of this matter. The landlord has provided details of the resident’s complaint raised on its system in December 2024. However, it has been unable to provide the full email trail, showing prior communication about the issue. The resident has said she first raised it on 10 November 2024. Despite asking the landlord to see evidence of this, it has been unable to provide this. The missing records have impacted our ability to investigate this complaint as it is not clear what issues the resident raised or how the landlord responded prior to the complaint being raised.
37. During a call with the landlord on 10 February 2025, the resident raised a query about the gardening and cleaning charges for the previous years’ budget compared to that year. She said, previously they had been listed under the estate and block but were now just under the block. She wanted confirmation that she had not been paying for services she had not received. This was a specific query and one which the landlord should have answered as part of the complaint, but it did not.
38. The landlord’s stage 1 response told the resident to raise her concerns via email so it could respond. This was an unreasonable response as the resident had already told the landlord what her query was. Therefore, it should not have asked her to spend more time and effort re-raising this.
39. We have seen no evidence of contact between the resident and the landlord about this issue between the stage 1 and 2 response, apart from the escalation request. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that the staff member it told the resident to contact had left and this had impacted its ability to respond to her. This indicates the resident did contact the landlord after the stage 1 response, but it failed to reply. This was disappointing for the resident and meant she was left with unanswered questions about her service charge. It is also concerning that the landlord has no record of these contacts and this indicates poor record keeping practices.
40. Despite acknowledging failure in its handling of this matter in the stage 2 response, the landlord still did not respond to the resident’s specific queries regarding the service charge. It has subsequently told us that during contact with the resident in August 2025, she has confirmed this matter is still unresolved. This means she has been left with unanswered queries for around 9 months. This is unfair considering she is paying for these services, and this amounts to maladministration.
41. We are aware there is ongoing contact between the landlord and the resident regarding her service charge queries, and that it may have provided further detail about this since August 2025. We are not making an assessment of this period and so have not thoroughly reviewed evidence of more recent communication. To move this forward, we order the landlord to contact the resident to confirm her outstanding queries regarding cleaning and gardening service charges. Once she has submitted these, the landlord is to respond to the specific queries in writing within 10 working days. If it is unable to do so, it should tell the resident, explain why, and confirm a date by which it will respond.
42. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter and apologised. There is no evidence it considered any other redress for its failures. This is not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to put things right. As the redress offered was insufficient, considering the identified failings, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £200 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble she experienced.

43. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. We have seen no evidence the landlord acknowledged any of the resident’s 3 stage 1 complaints. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 27 February 2025, 9 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was over the 5 working day committed timescale.
44. The landlord was entitled to combine the resident’s 3 complaints raised in December 2024 and January 2025. It sent the stage 1 response on 11 February 2025. This was between 20 and 33 working days after each of the 3 complaints had been logged. This was over the 10 working day committed timescale set out in its policy.
45. On 3 February 2025 the landlord told the resident it needed to extend the response deadline by 10 working days. While appropriate that it did this, it had already gone over the 10 working day deadline for all the complaints. Where the landlord needs to extend the response deadline, it should tell the resident before the deadline passes. As the landlord did not do that in this case, this left the resident feeling it was not taking her complaints seriously.
46. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not assess its prior handling of any of the issues. While it acknowledged failure and offered redress, it gave no detail of how it reached this conclusion. This was confusing for the resident and suggested it had not thoroughly investigated her concerns.
47. The landlord sent the stage 2 response 36 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was over the 20 working day committed timescale set out in its policy. The landlord told the resident on 21 March 2025 that it needed to extend the deadline to 18 April 2025. While positive that it told the resident about this before the 20 working day deadline had passed, it extended the deadline by a further 20 working days. This was not in line with its complaints policy, which says it will agree an extension with the resident and respond within 30 working days.
48. The landlord did not meet the extended response deadline it gave the resident as 18 April 2025 was a bank holiday. The landlord sent the response the next working day, 22 April 2025. This was an avoidable delay as it should have checked the dates and made sure its response deadline was a working day so it could achieve this. Its failure to do so was careless and resulted in a further delay in the resident receiving the response.
49. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the complaints, apologised and offered £300 compensation. Considering the full circumstances of the matter and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We recommend it pays her the £300 compensation offered, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Learning

50. The landlord should follow through with promised actions. If it says it will attend to investigate issues, it must do so or tell the resident why it will not.
51. Where the landlord identifies failure in its handling of issues, it should acknowledge this, apologise and offer appropriate redress to put things right as the landlord did in this case.
52. The landlord should acknowledge and respond to complaints in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. If it cannot, it should extend the deadline in line with its complaints policy and tell the resident about this. This should be done before the original deadline has lapsed.
53. As part of stage 1 and 2 complaint investigations, the landlord should assess its prior handling of the issues. It should explain how it has reached its conclusion so the resident is reassured it has properly considered their concerns.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

54. The landlord should ensure staff are keeping record of all contact with residents, including emails exchanged. This will allow it to refer back to this for internal investigations and where required, share these with us.

Communication

55. The resident should have a process in place for contractors to tell it if they cannot attend appointments at short notice. This should include immediate notification by phone so contact can be made to the resident at the earliest opportunity.
56. When a resident has raised a specific query with the landlord about service charges, it should answer this. It should not ask the resident to resubmit this to another individual/ department.