Notting Hill Genesis (202447140)

Decision
Case ID	202447140
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 November 2025

Background

The resident moved into the property in 2020. At the time of her complaint, she lived with her 2 children and her partner. The resident is neurodivergent and throughout the period investigated was experiencing knee pain and instability. Her eldest daughter has complex needs including autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The property is a 1-bedroom first floor flat. The resident applied to the landlord for a medical transfer as she felt that the property was not suitable for her child given her complex needs.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a medical transfer.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a medical transfer.
We also found that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a medical transfer

We found that the landlord followed its internal policies and procedures when it received the resident’s referral. It gathered medical information and sent it to its medical advisors to inform their decision.
However, at the beginning of the process her housing officer set unrealistic expectations about the likelihood of a banding increase. This led to added frustration for the resident as she felt that the landlord had misled her.
Its communication was not always prompt, and it did not follow through on all the commitments it made in its complaint responses. It did, however, acknowledge its failures, apologised, and offered compensation consistent with our guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling was inconsistent. While at stage 1 it met all its policy timescales, it did not do so at stage 2. It did not investigate what caused this delay but it did apologise and compensate for it.

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 recommendations
The landlord should contact the medical assessor to confirm what information they used in their assessment and provide updated information where necessary. It should inform the resident of its findings.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 July 2023	The resident applied for a medical transfer. Her daughter needed a lot of stimulation due to her medical conditions and was jumping and running around the apartment. The resident worried that the noise would affect her neighbours. In addition, her daughter would not climb the external stairs. The landlord referred the application to its medical consultant who awarded the resident a band C.
1 March 2024	An occupational health assessment said: The resident’s daughter had a specialist buggy which weighed approximately 15 kilograms (kg). As the resident needed to carry the pram while keeping her child safe and preventing her from running away, they believed that the property was unsuitable. They recommended a ground floor flat to ensure that the resident and her neighbours would stay on good terms due to her daughter’s running and jumping. They also said that the family needed outside space such as a garden to support the child’s sensory regulation needs.
July to November 2024	The resident contacted several of the landlord’s senior leaders and asked it to review her case. She also contacted a solicitor and her MP and asked them to contact the landlord on her behalf. Throughout this period, the resident’s partner moved in, and they had another child.
28 November 2024	The resident’s housing officer completed a new transfer form and recommended band A due to the household’s health needs and overcrowding. A housing manager co-signed the form, but as 2 managers did not sign (as required by its policy), the request was unsuccessful.
2 December 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the outcome of her transfer request. She said: She felt that it had not adequately considered her daughter’s needs, and the difficulties the household experienced due to the size and accessibility of the property. 2 housing officers had visited the property and told her they felt she should be in band A. She was frustrated by the conflicting information the landlord had given her. The landlord responded on 9 December 2024 to say that it would respond within 10 working days.
Between December 2024 and January 2025	The landlord responded at stage 1. It dated the letter 2 December 2024; however, based on other correspondence from around the same time, it is not clear when it sent it to the resident. In the response, it reiterated its banding decision, and said the decision was consistent with the medical report from its specialist.
9 January 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. She said that she had sent documentary evidence to support her position but the landlord did not send it to its specialist. She believed that its failure to do this affected the overall decision. She also confirmed that she was still unhappy with the communication from the landlord. She was further distressed that, despite her housing officer telling her she would be put forward for band A, it did not happen.
31 March 2025	The landlord and resident had a telephone discussion about the transfer request. The resident told the landlord that she had been diagnosed with patellar instability with associated pain, and it resulted in her struggling to use the stairs with her children and their prams. The following day, the landlord confirmed that it had sent her case to the tenancy appeal panel; however, her appeal was declined.
31 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response and partially upheld the resident’s complaint: It explained the reason for getting an independent medical assessor and confirmed that its appeal panels were made up of senior managers from different departments to ensure impartiality. It acknowledged that its housing officer recorded that they felt it should award priority banding. The landlord apologised and acknowledged that it mishandled the resident’s expectations, which caused frustration and upset. It confirmed the current banding was correct based on the available evidence and committed to updating the room allowance so the resident could bid for 3-bedroom properties. It awarded £300 compensation for poor communication. It offered an added £150 for poor complaint handling after not escalating the complaint to stage 2 within its timescales.
12 November 2025	The landlord discovered that it did not update the bidding system after the stage 2 complaint. The resident therefore could not bid on 3-bedroom properties. The resident made a new complaint, and in its stage 1 response it offered £230 compensation. After contact from the Ombudsman, it offered an added £20 as it found a further delay.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident came to the Ombudsman as she is still unhappy with the landlord’s banding decision. She has also asked her solicitor to continue to negotiate with the landlord on her behalf.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we have not considered

In October 2025, the resident raised a new complaint about banding information on the landlord’s bidding system. She said that despite being told in June 2025 she could bid for 3-bedroom properties, she was unable to do so.
This issue is part of a new complaint that has not completed the landlord’s process, so we have not investigated its handling or any redress. This ensures the resident can escalate the complaint if she chooses.
We will, however, refer to the banding change in our report as the landlord committed to it as a resolution to the complaint we have investigated.

What we have investigated

The landlord’s transfer policy requires it to provide a medical self-assessment form to residents who believe their property is unsuitable for medical reasons. If the housing officer and manager agree there are grounds, they must send the form and referral to the medical assessor within 48 hours, along with supporting evidence.
The assessor recommends a priority level, and the housing manager makes the final decision. It will inform the resident within 2 weeks, who can then appeal to the lettings panel with supporting evidence if they are unhappy.
In her complaints to the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has explained how the effects of her current living situation have affected her and her family’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether a landlord has acted reasonably in the circumstances of the complaint, not to say whether the landlord’s final decision was correct. We have considered how the landlord used the information she provided for her banding appeal and whether the landlord followed its policies.
Internal records show the landlord considered the resident’s evidence, supported her appeals, and increased her banding from C to B. This was higher than the medical assessor recommended. This was reasonable. However, it did not always communicate outcomes promptly, which it acknowledged.
The landlord’s management transfer policy sets out the grounds on which it might directly offer a property to a tenant outside the usual bidding process. It says that this option is for exceptional cases involving the safety and wellbeing of a tenant or their family. Two housing managers must agree that the circumstances are exceptional to offer a management transfer. We can see that the landlord considered the application against this policy but only 1 manager approved the form, so it did not go ahead. It is not clear from the evidence whether a second manager considered it. This could have been a recordkeeping error, however it was a missed opportunity to review the resident’s application against its management transfer policy.
When it originally received the application, it progressed it as per its policies. However, the resident says that her original housing officer set unrealistic expectations by sharing their opinion on what banding they felt was right. We have seen internal communications involving the housing officer which support the resident’s position.
We understand this was likely well intentioned, but it caused frustration and upset for the resident when she did not get the outcome she expected. The landlord acknowledged this and offered the resident £300 compensation for its communication failures and delays. This amount is reflective of the distress and inconvenience caused and is consistent with our remedies guidance.
The landlord’s decision to increase the resident’s bedroom entitlement was reasonable in the circumstances. It was consistent with its policy and showed that it had considered the wider needs of the family rather than just the needs of any vulnerable individuals. We recognise that the resident is unhappy with being placed in band B, but based on the evidence we’ve seen, the landlord followed its policy.
It was reasonable to follow the medical assessor’s advice, but the landlord agreed to confirm whether the assessor considered the specialist pram and bed. There is no evidence it did so. We will recommend that it verifies this with the specialist and updates the resident with the outcome.
Overall, there were failings due to poor communication and unrealistic expectations. The landlord acknowledged this and offered redress consistent with policy and our guidance, which amounts to reasonable redress.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement and response on time. At stage 2; however, it did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and it sent a final response 108 days after the request. This was not consistent with the Code or its policy.
In its stage 2 response it acknowledged the delay, apologised and awarded £150 compensation. This reflects the distress and inconvenience caused and is consistent with its policy and our guidance. That said, it did not confirm what caused the delay or say how it would prevent it in future. We have identified learning for the landlord to improve its service.
The complaint responses were thorough and explained its decisions clearly. There is also evidence that the landlord kept contact with the resident by phone to discuss its findings.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord did acknowledge that it did not respond to the resident’s complaint escalation request but it did not say what caused the delay. It should learn from this case and see how it can prevent the same issue in the future.

Communication

At times communication was inconsistent, particularly about the outcome of her appeals. Her original housing officer set unrealistic expectations early on, which affected the resident’s trust in the landlord. The landlord should consider what information its officers should give to residents when discussing transfers and how it manages expectations.