We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Notting Hill Genesis (202449068)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449068

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and the associated management transfer request.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since October 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a 3-storey block containing 5 other properties. The landlord’s records confirm the resident lives with post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, sleep difficulties, and limited mobility.
  2. Throughout the timeline of this case, a representative from a local charity has assisted the resident. For ease of reference, both will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report.
  3. Between 25 January 2021 and 21 July 2024, the resident experienced 7 leaks into her property from the flat above.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 July 2024 about the lack of resolution to the floods she continued to experience. She confirmed that her housing officer had said they were exploring a management transfer for her but there had been no progress. She stated that after the latest flood on 17 July 2024, the landlord told her it could dry the flat without her having to move out. She said she was concerned about this as she had asthma. As a person with severe anxiety, she felt it was not acceptable for her to have to repeatedly deal with instances of flooding. The resident made 2 further complaints on 25 September 2024. One complaint related to the landlord’s lack of action to resolve the issue with the floods and the fact that it had not undertaken a comprehensive damp and mould survey. The other complaint related to a rat infestation in the property.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 1 November 2024. It agreed that there had been service failure in dealing with the resident’s requests. It advised it had started the management transfer process and requested a damp and mould survey of her home. It also confirmed that it had booked an interview with the neighbour above to investigate the antisocial behaviour (ASB). It upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised and offered £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the floods. It offered a further £500 compensation for the handover failures, booking delays and not undertaking a safeguarding referral.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on 7 November 2024. She asked the landlord to confirm the timescales involved in the management transfer process. She said a previous transfer had fallen through and she wanted to be able to manage her expectations. She asked what assurances the landlord would provide to ensure the damp and mould was properly actioned. She stated that it had not investigated the level of damp after the previous floods and had not lifted carpets to facilitate the drying out process. She said she wanted the landlord to confirm a whole property survey would be undertaken and asked it to inform her what qualifications the surveyor possessed.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 February 2025. It said:
    1. It acknowledged that the damp and mould had affected several rooms in the resident’s property and confirmed it had identified mould during its visits in May and June 2024. It agreed it should have resolved the issue at that time.
    2. It accepted it had committed to arranging a damp and mould survey of the property in its stage 1 response but had failed to do so. It had since raised a request for a survey and advised a contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment.
    3. It had taken action to ensure there were no further leaks from the property above.
    4. It confirmed there had been procedural misunderstanding in the management transfer process, and the information it had provided previously was inaccurate. As the resident had a medical banding of C it would not be able to offer a management transfer.
    5. It apologised for the misleading information and advised the individual involved would receive further training to prevent any future errors.
    6. It recognised that it had failed to act in a timely manner and that its communication had been poor. It increased its offer of compensation to £1,450. This was comprised of:
      1. High impact – £500
      2. Delays and poor communication – £750
      3. Misinformation regarding transfer – £100
      4. Delayed complaint responses at both stages – £100.

Events post internal complaints procedure

  1. The landlord conducted a survey of the resident’s property on 12 May 2025. It found mould on sections of the bathroom floor but no other damp and mould in the property. However, the resident continued to report her concerns to the landlord regarding damp and mould. Since the survey mentioned above, it has carried out a number of inspections and has undertaken numerous mould washes and redecoration of the internal walls and ceilings. In September 2025, the resident informed us that the landlord had identified defects with the building’s pointing and a leaking toilet in a flat above, both of which were causing damp in her home. Even after the latest repairs, the resident advised that she feels the property is still suffering from damp and does not believe that the landlord has ever conducted a thorough damp and mould survey.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is recognised the situation has been distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. As a result, we cannot determine if the landlord was responsible for any damage to the resident’s health.
  2. In accordance with our remit, we focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s current complaint up until the point when the landlord undertook a survey of the property on 12 May 2025, which it committed to in its stage 2 response. We acknowledge that the resident has continued to experience damp and mould after this point and that the landlord has conducted additional repairs to the property. The resident has the option of making a further complaint to the landlord about subsequent events, which she may refer to us for separate investigation if she is dissatisfied with its final response.


Leaks and transfer request

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a duty on the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines its responsibility to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the property, including walls, floors and ceilings. The policy lists 2 repair categories and their corresponding repair timescales. It states it will respond to emergency repairs to make safe within 4 hours and will complete standard repairs within 20 working days. A leak or flood between properties is categorised in the policy as an emergency repair.
  3. The primary aim of the landlord’s damp and mould policy is to identify the source of the damp. It states that the landlord will not make lifestyle judgements. Initial reports of damp and mould will be prioritised as urgent with due consideration given to any vulnerabilities. The landlord says it will contact residents within 5 working days and a arrange a visit within 10 working days. It confirms it will complete minor remedial works within 20 working days. Where it requires a technical specialist, it will conduct a full technical inspection within 10 working days and prepare a full report to outline root causes and required works.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy requires it to compensate residents fairly, proportionately, and appropriately where it has failed to meet its service standards. The policy allows for payments up to £500 depending on the level of failure. Higher payments can be authorised by management where the specifics of the case demonstrate multiple failures or exceptional hardship.

Leaks from flat above

  1. Between 25 January 2021 and 23 May 2023, the resident experienced 6 flooding incidents from her neighbour’s flat above. The evidence indicates that the contractors had some concerns regarding the neighbour’s property. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it fully investigated those concerns or the cause of the leaks.
  2. The seriousness of the flood in May 2023 led to the resident being decanted (temporarily moved). The decant lasted 10 weeks, which the resident confirmed was significantly challenging for her.
  3. As a result of the ongoing leaks, the resident experienced a prolonged period of distress and inconvenience. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged the historical instances of flooding and apologised it had not prevented the recurrence sooner.
  4. A contractor visited the resident’s property on 22 December 2023. It confirmed that a mould wash and redecoration had been undertaken previously, but that the mould had returned. A further mould wash was carried out on 9 January 2024. Having to repeat the mould wash was evidence that the landlord was only managing the symptoms, and not the cause, of the damp. This likely reduced the resident’s confidence in its actions.
  5. The resident experienced a seventh leak 13 months later on 17 July 2024. On the same day the resident’s neighbour told the landlord that the seal around the bath was broken and the tiling on the floor was in poor condition, which the landlord had been previously aware of. The neighbour confirmed that the water leaked into the resident’s property every time they had a shower. This suggests the landlord’s failure to address the ongoing issue with the neighbour’s flat led to further inconvenience for the resident. She told the landlord she was “disgruntled and very stressed” at having experienced another leak.
  6. Further, the landlord has not shown that it followed the guidance in our spotlight report on damp and mould (published October 2021), which encouraged landlords to deal with such issues in a timely manner. The delay would have likely left the resident feeling that the repeated leaks she was experiencing were not a priority for the landlord.
  7. On 18 July 2024, the landlord raised a request for a dehumidifier. It then visited the resident on 24 July 2024 and confirmed there was damp and mould throughout her property. The same day, the resident told the landlord she had asthma and was anxious that it had decided it could dry the property while she remained living there. Nonetheless, it took the landlord nearly a month to deliver the dehumidifier. Considering the resident’s concerns, the delay was inappropriate and likely caused her increased anxiety.
  8. After the inspection on 24 July 2024, the landlord did not deal with the issues in line with its damp and mould policy. The policy required the landlord to conduct any minor works within 20 working days or to have arranged a full technical inspection within 10 days. However, it did not fulfil either of the requirements, and therefore failed to comply with its newly published policy.
  9. As part of her second complaint to the landlord on 25 September 2024, the resident said that she had repeatedly asked for a thorough damp and mould survey. In its stage 1 response on 1 November 2024, the landlord confirmed it had requested a damp and mould survey of her home. Despite this, the survey did not take place. The resident made an additional request for the survey when she escalated her complaint on 7 November 2024. However, the landlord again failed to arrange the survey, which it acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response on 12 February 2025. The survey eventually took place on 12 May 2025. This timescale was unacceptable and demonstrates an ongoing failure to take timely action, which caused further deterioration in the landlord and resident relationship.
  10. As previously mentioned, the resident has continued to experience issues with damp and mould since the survey in question was undertaken. This raises concerns surrounding the thoroughness and reliability of the survey. We have therefore made an order in relation to this at the end of the report.
  11. On 6 February 2025, the landlord asked its contractor to conduct a thorough inspection of the neighbour’s property due to 7 previous leaks. It was unfair that the resident had to experience so many leaks over a 4–year period before the landlord asked for such an inspection.

Management transfer request

  1. The landlord’s allocations policy outlines the different bandings (A, B and C) which will determine what housing options are available for residents wishing to apply for a management transfer. It confirms that only residents with priority band A – the highest band – will receive a direct management transfer offer.
  2. In May 2023, the resident requested a management transfer because of the persistent leaks into her home. The landlord provided the transfer application forms to her on 12 June 2023. It advised a panel would review the application forms when they were returned. It said that any property offered would be on a like–for–like basis. There is no evidence that the landlord explained the banding criteria at this early stage. This would have been helpful, as it would have allowed the resident to manage her expectations.
  3. The resident returned the forms on 3 July 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge receipt of these until 30 August 2023, nearly 2 months later. This delay was unreasonable and would likely have been frustrating for the resident. However, the landlord forwarded the forms to its medical provider the same day it acknowledged receipt, which was appropriate.
  4. In the landlord’s written response to an information request from the resident’s MP, it included sections from her emails regarding the management transfer. However, it did not provide the actual emails to us. The emails indicated that the landlord informed the resident in November 2023 that she had not been awarded a medical priority, but that it still planned to transfer her. On 30 July 2024, the landlord asked the resident to complete new forms. At this point it would have been reasonable for it to explain why it was not following through on its previous commitment. Not doing so was unfair and increased the resident’s confusion and uncertainty around the process.
  5. The resident reiterated her request for a management transfer on 25 September 2024 and again on 1 October 2024. The landlord then spoke to the resident on 3 October 2024. Its internal notes from the conversation state “I have made the resident aware that I am keeping on top of her house search and will keep her up to date if something suitable comes available”. It is not clear why the staff member made these comments, as there is no evidence that the transfer request had been before the panel. The comments were inappropriate and would have unfairly raised the resident’s hopes that a transfer had been, or would be, approved.
  6. The resident submitted another set of management transfer application forms to the landlord on 31 October 2024. In its stage 1 response on 1 November 2024, it said it was “actively looking for a more suitable home” for the resident. Providing this statement in a formal complaint response would have unfairly raised the resident’s expectations. It also raises concerns regarding the oversight and management of the process.
  7. On 6 November 2024, the resident asked the landlord to confirm it had received her application forms and to highlight the expected timeframes of the process. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this question, which is a further indication of poor communication.
  8. On 2 December 2024, the medical provider informed the landlord it had awarded the resident a medical priority band C. The landlord informed the resident of her medical banding and that it had declined her transfer request in its stage 2 response on 12 February 2025. This was 2 months after it was in receipt of the information. The delay was unreasonable, especially given the importance of the outcome to the resident and the anxiety the process was causing her. It would have been fairer to write to the resident as soon as it received the information to explain the banding and decision.
  9. Further, 2 separate staff members had indicated that the resident would be moved, even though she had no medical priority awarded. The landlord’s communication did not provide a clear explanation regarding the position of both staff members, which offered little closure to the resident.
  10. In addition to clarifying the banding award, the medical provider’s notes also outlined the following: “She [the resident] had become increasingly distressed by repeated flooding of her flat and resultant untreated damp issues. Due to [historical events] she finds it very distressing communicating with the single male resident that causes the floods.” The landlord’s allocation policy states, “staff have the freedom to use discretion where needed to meet customer needs. Therefore, the policy may be applied slightly differently in exceptional circumstances.” In its communication to the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain whether or not it had considered using discretion in her case. Doing so would have helped the resident gain a better understanding of the reasoning behind the landlord’s decision.

Conclusion

  1. In dealing with the leaks, the landlord failed to act promptly and in line with its own policies. There were excessive delays and a failure to conduct a thorough investigation from the outset. It was slow to arrange surveys of both the resident’s and neighbour’s properties. The landlord was evidently aware that leaks had been ongoing since 2021 and it therefore should have treated the more recent reports in 2024 with added urgency. Despite knowing of the resident’s vulnerabilities, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it adjusted its approach in its decision making.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer was also poor. It failed to evidence it had followed its procedure, and provided misleading and confusing information which was upsetting for the resident. Further, there were numerous incidents of poor record keeping and communication, as highlighted by the landlord itself.
  3. Throughout the extended period of the leaks, the resident experienced significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. In addition, the landlord’s inaction prevented her from having quiet enjoyment of her home as required by her tenancy agreement. For the above reasons, we have made a finding of maladministration. We would have made a finding of severe maladministration but for the landlord’s substantial offer of compensation. While the offer broadly reflected the scale of its failures, it did not fully address the detriment to the resident.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £1,450 compensation. £100 of this was for complaint handling, which will be dealt with later in this report. It offered £750 for the delays and poor communication, which was appropriate. However, we do not feel the £500 the landlord offered to recognise the distress and inconvenience associated with the flooding incidents reflected the resident’s experience, which was exacerbated due to her vulnerabilities. We have therefore awarded an additional £400. Further, we do not find the landlord’s offer of £100 for the mistakes, confusion and upset caused by its handling of the management transfer request was sufficient. As a result, we have increased this amount to £250. This creates an additional payment of £550, bringing the total compensation for the substantive element of the complaint to £1,900 .
  5. In making this additional award we have considered the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of this level where there has been a serious failure by the landlord that had a significant impact on the resident.


Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. It states it will acknowledge all complaints within 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If more time is required, it will communicate this delay to the complainant.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 July 2024 about the repeated flooding incidents, but it did not acknowledge the complaint. The resident raised a further complaint about the flooding on 25 September 2024, which the landlord did acknowledge. As part of our investigation we contacted the landlord and asked if it had responded to the complaints separately. In an email to us in September 2025 it said the stage 1 response sent on 1 November 2024 appeared to be a response to the complaint raised in September 2024. It said it “had yet to locate records of the complaint on 23 July 2024 but would continue looking”. The landlord then forwarded another email to us that it had received from the resident on 23 July 2024, in which she highlighted additional dissatisfaction. The email indicates that the landlord missed a further opportunity to raise a complaint in the first instance.
  3. It is unreasonable that the resident had to make 2 complaints about the same matter to receive a response. We have categorised the landlord’s non–response to the first complaint as a failure to comply with its complaints policy. Even though it did not respond, we have considered the initial complaint as the same issues were raised in the resident’s second complaint on 25 September 2024. This decision is in line with the Scheme.
  4. The resident raised a third complaint on 25 September 2024 that related to pest control. Again, the landlord did not provide a response. As this complaint has not been through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, we have not considered it, but we have made an order below for it to respond to the complaint in line with its policy.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 1 October 2024, which was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, it did not respond within its published timescales. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 October 2024 stating that she was still waiting for a response. Not notifying the resident that its complaint response was going to be late was a further failure to comply with its policy. On 24 October 2024, the landlord told the resident that it would provide its response on 28 October 2024, but did not issue it until 31 October 2024. This was 13 days outside of the required timeframe. The further delay was inappropriate and likely frustrating for the resident, particularly given the previous delays.
  6. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 1 complaint response. Neither did it apologise or offer any compensation, which was unreasonable.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in line with its policy. However, it notified her on the day the stage 2 response was due that it required more time. This was unreasonable. In order to help the resident manage her expectations, it would have been good practice to have informed her of the delay before the response was due.
  8. In the landlord’s email regarding the delay on 12 December 2024, it said it would provide its response by 16 January 2025, but it did not do so. It emailed the resident on 31 January 2025 advising it needed more time. The landlord’s delayed response, and not notifying the resident of the delay sooner, were further failures to comply with its complaint handling policy. They also indicated a failure to learn from its previous mistakes. The response was provided on 12 February 2025, 42 days outside the published timescale. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it apologised and offered £100 for the delays at stage 1 and 2. The apology and compensation were appropriate.
  9. However, due to the failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint on 23 July 2024, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. As a result, we have made an additional award of £100 compensation. Our calculation reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks and the associated management transfer request.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology from a senior manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology must meet the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay the resident £2,100 compensation. This sum includes the £1,450 the landlord offered in its stage 2 response. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears. It is comprised of:
      1. £1,900 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
      2. £200 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Provide a response to the resident’s complaint made on 25 September 2024 about the pest control issues.
    4. Confirm whether a technical specialist has conducted a technical survey as required by its damp and mould policy. If so, it must provide a copy of the full report, which outlines the root causes and required works, to the resident and this Service within the 4 weeks.
  2. If the landlord has not conducted a technical survey, it must do so and provide a copy of the resulting report to the resident and this Service within 8 weeks.