Notting Hill Genesis (202449626)

Background

1. This is a group complaint involving 55 residents who pay a variable service charge. The residents raised queries about the service charges and complained individually. In February 2025 they made a group complaint about the accuracy and transparency of the charges. They also complained the landlord had not given previously agreed refunds and compensation. They remained dissatisfied after completing the landlord’s complaint process because they felt it had not resolved the issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Administration of the service charges.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s administration of the service charges.
4. There was service failure in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord did not administer the service charges as it should have. While it acknowledged it needed to resolve the issues complained about, there is little evidence of progress.
6. There was a delay in the landlord escalating the complaint and it did not respond to the lead resident’s emails chasing the escalation. Its apology was not sufficient redress in the circumstances.

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.

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 happened or comment on all the information we reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

7. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the lead resident wants the landlord to waive any further charges which may arise when it issues its final costs for the financial years 2022-23 to 2024-25. A court or tribunal is better placed to consider this part of the complaint because it can examine the final costs once issued, decide on the reasonableness of the charges and whether the residents are liable to pay any deficits. For these reasons, we did not investigate the liability to pay further charges when the landlord issues its final costs.
8. The lead resident told us the same service charge issues were ongoing when the landlord sent its estimated charges for 2025-26. This led the residents to make another group complaint about the 2025-26 charges. That complaint has not completed the landlord’s process and we have no power to investigate it. As such, the complaint about the 2025-26 charges was not within the scope of this investigation.

What we did investigate

9. We looked at the landlord’s administration of the service charges for the 4 financial years 2021-22 to 2024-25 which led to the group complaint. The residents complained about:
   1. Lack of accurate and transparent estimated charges including those for communal electricity.
   2. Inadequate financial planning for major works.
   3. Outstanding refunds and compensation payments.
   4. Handling of their requests for information supporting the service charges.
   5. Refusal to do an independent audit.
10. The landlord upheld the complaint at both stages of its process. In summary its responses of 25 March 2025 and 17 June 2025:
    1. Agreed it had missed items from its estimated charges. The missed items included maintenance and servicing of heat interface equipment and contributions to the sinking fund.
    2. Acknowledged there were issues with its charges for communal electricity. It said it was working with its supplier to improve billing accuracy including upgrading meters. It would adjust accounts if there were any surpluses or deficits against its estimated charges when it finalised its accounts for 2023-24.
    3. Said, when it issued its final costs for the 3 financial years 2022-23 to 2024-25, they would give a breakdown of what it had spent from the sinking fund. It was reviewing its collections strategy ready for setting estimated charges for 2026-27.
    4. Acknowledged changes to the headings it used made it difficult to track specific charges. It was working to improve consistency.
    5. Said it would make sure previously agreed refunds and compensation payments were applied when it finalised its accounts.
    6. Apologised for delays in it providing information requested by residents. It had provided invoices and supporting documents relating to its actual costs for 2021-22 and 2022-23. It would provide them for 2023-24 even though it had not yet issued its actual costs.
    7. Said it intended to issue its actual costs for 2024-25 in September 2025 and would keep residents updated.
    8. Confirmed it was commissioning an independent review of its charges for the development.
11. The evidence seen suggests the landlord did not have the oversight it should have had on its charges and costs. It owns and manages the development which was built in 2015. While we can see it is a large and complex scheme, the landlord should have known what services it was providing. It is not clear why it missed significant items such as maintenance and servicing of heat interface equipment when estimating its charges. It is concerning that, in its complaint responses, the landlord said it could not establish why it had missed off items.
12. Positively, its consultation with the Residents’ Association when estimating its charges gave residents an opportunity to identify missing items.
13. Under the terms of the lease and its Service Charge Policy, the landlord should consider its actual costs when estimating charges. It is not clear how well it would have been able to do this as there were delays in it reconciling its costs. Landlords should demand payment from residents within 18 months of incurring costs and usually issue their actual costs and payment demands within 6 months after the end of each service charge year. In this case, the service charge year ends on 31 March and we would have expected to see the landlord had issued its actual costs by the end of September each year.
14. We can see it issued its actual costs for 2021-22 and 2022-23 but then withdrew them after residents raised concerns about their accuracy. It was appropriate to address the concerns raised and correct the actual costs if needed. The landlord should have done so within a reasonable timeframe.
15. The parties agree the landlord did reissue the actual costs for 2021-22 but it is not clear when this happened. We asked the landlord for a copy of its final end of year statement for 2021-22. It told us it could not find one but had credited the residents’ accounts to reflect the surpluses in December 2023 and February 2024.
16. The landlord has not yet reissued its actual costs for 2022-23. It told us it intended to do so by the end of March 2026 which would have been 30 months after it had first issued them on 25 September 2023. There is no evidence it did reissue the actual costs for 2022-23.
17. It has not issued its actual costs for 2023-24 and 2024-25 yet. We can see it served notices under section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act); to advise it had incurred costs but not yet finalised its accounts. A section 20B notice extends the 18 month timescale in which landlords can demand payment for costs incurred. There is no prescribed timescale within which a landlord must issue its actual costs after serving a notice under section 20B.
18. We understand why the residents are concerned about deficits they may be asked to pay once the landlord issues its actual costs for the 3 years in question. We recommend it issues the actual costs as soon as possible and offers residents payment plans for any deficits.
19. The residents asked for invoices and supporting information to explain their charges. Residents have the right under section 22 of the Act to request access to inspect invoices and accounts within 6 months of receiving their end of year statement (actual costs). Landlord’s must provide access within a month of receiving a request.
20. We can see the landlord gave access to invoices and supporting information relating to its actual costs for 2021-22 and 2022-23. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in it providing the information. The residents also had difficulty in accessing the documents the landlord sent links to which took the landlord several weeks to resolve.
21. From the correspondence exchanged it appears the landlord struggled to locate and provide access to some invoices. Internal emails showed it asking various teams to look for missing invoices. There were also issues with invoices relating to other developments being included in the information provided. The issues in providing the information requested suggest the landlord did not have effective document management and storage processes in place at the time.
22. The landlord’s administration of the service charges undermined its ability to address the matters complained about. For example, it could not confirm if it had applied the refunds and compensation payments previously agreed or explain what it had spent from the sinking fund because it had not finalised its accounts for the relevant years.
23. Further, its complaints process did not resolve the issues because the landlord did not follow through with commitments given in its complaint responses. For example, in its stage 2 complaint response of 17 June 2025, it committed to giving access to invoices and supporting information relating to its costs for 2023-24. This was reasonable as it had not yet issued its actual costs and was not obliged to provide the information at that point. However, there is no evidence it did provide the information as promised.
24. Similarly, there is no evidence the landlord progressed its commitments to resolving the meter and billing issues for the communal electricity charges or revised its strategy for collections to the sinking fund. It did not issue its actual costs for 2024-25 in September 2025 as it said it intended. While it served the section 20B notice of delay after its stage 2 complaint response, there is no evidence it gave the residents an updated timescale.
25. It was reasonable the landlord agreed to conduct an independent review of its service charges for the development. It had no obligation to do so. The review may have helped the landlord improve its processes and the accuracy of charges. We can see it took some steps to progress the review after the end of its complaint process. It engaged a consultant and met with the Residents’ Association in November 2025 to agree the scope. However, it has not been done yet and the landlord told us this was due to delays by the consultant. We have not seen evidence to confirm the cause of the delay or any action taken by the landlord to expedite the review.
26. In summary, the landlord did not administer the service charges as it should have. While it acknowledged it needed to resolve the issues complained about, there is little evidence of progress. The persistent delays and failure to follow through with commitments caused distress and inconvenience to the residents. They have not been able to rely on the accuracy of their charges, are concerned about deficits they may be asked to pay and do not have any certainty over when, or if, the landlord will resolve the issues.
27. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £300 compensation to each of the 55 residents joined in on this complaint for the distress and inconvenience caused. This sum is in line with our Compensation Guidance and reflects the impact and duration of the failings identified. We also considered the compensation the landlord gave during its complaint process in case 202443078 which was £350. The failings in that case were similar to those we found in this investigation and £300 is a fair and reasonable amount of compensation in this case.
28. We have also ordered the landlord to complete the independent review of the service charges and complete other actions it committed to in its stage 2 response.

29. The lead resident made the group complaint on 24 February 2025 and the landlord acknowledged it the following day. This was in line with its Complaint Policy to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days.
30. On 6 March 2025, the landlord emailed the lead resident advising it was extending its response timescale to 25 March 2026. The landlord’s policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) allow it to extend its response timescale by a maximum of 10 working days at stage 1. While the landlord’s extended timescale was 13 working days, it gave its stage 1 response on 25 March 2026. This means its overall response time was 20 working days from it acknowledging the complaint and was within the maximum time allowed for giving a stage 1 response.
31. The lead resident escalated the complaint on 30 March 2025. The landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days. It took the landlord 24 working days to acknowledge the request on 6 May 2025. There is no evidence to explain the cause of the delay.
32. The lead resident replied the same day saying the landlord had not acknowledged the escalation when it should have. She asked it to provide a stage 2 response sooner than the 20 working day timescale given in its acknowledgement. She chased the landlord again on 16 May 2025. There is no evidence it replied to either of her emails.
33. However, it gave its stage 2 response on 17 June 2025 which was sooner than the timescale given in its acknowledgement. It is not clear from the evidence seen if this was in response to the lead resident’s requests for an expedited response.
34. In its stage 2 response, the landlord identified failings in its handling of the complaint and apologised for them. In our view, its apology was not sufficient redress given the delay at stage 2 and the failure to reply to the lead resident’s emails. We have ordered it to pay the lead resident £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.