Notting Hill Genesis (202450433)

Decision
Case ID	202450433
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	5 November 2025

 

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom maisonette on the first floor. Due to medical difficulties accessing her home, she requested a transfer to more suitable accommodation. She complained about the landlord’s delay in assessing her health as part of its transfer procedure. She also complained about the conduct of a housing officer.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Assessment of the resident’s medical application under its transfer procedure.
   2. Response to her reports about the conduct of a housing officer.
   3. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s assessment of the resident’s medical application under its transfer procedure.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to her reports about the conduct of a housing officer.
5. There was reasonable redress in its complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord acknowledged, apologised, and compensated the resident appropriately for its delays in assessing her medical application for a transfer move and its delayed complaint response. It also acknowledged and apologised for its confusion and change in position in assigning her another housing officer.

 

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
1. If not already done so, the landlord should compensate the resident £275 as follows: £200 Delays in assessing the medical application under its transfer scheme. £75 Complaint handling. 2.The landlord should let the resident know whether she has the right to appeal her priority band     for a move under its transfer scheme.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
4 December 2024	The resident submitted a complaint regarding the handling of her transfer application and the behaviour of a housing officer during discussions about rent arrears. She felt the officer lacked empathy toward her situation and informed the landlord that she no longer wished to have any further contact with that staff member.
9 January 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It did not uphold her complaint. It explained: The housing officer’s version of events regarding the interaction. She had been awarded Band D priority which was not enough priority to move.
Referral to the Ombudsman 11 March 2025	The resident contacted us to express concerns about how the landlord had handled the situation. She said the lack of communication from the landlord had caused her unnecessary stress.
16 March 2025	The resident contacted the landlord to formally request to be placed on its transfer list due to “worsening medical” issues. She provided a medical note to the landlord and said she wanted it to conduct an urgent assessment of her medical needs. The resident escalated her complaint.
18 March 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It upheld the complaint giving the following explanation: Conduct of officer – there was no evidence of misconduct, however, it acknowledged the relationship had broken down. It said her request for an alternative housing officer should have been managed better even if it could not accommodate her request. Delay in the progression of the medical assessment – It upheld her complaint, acknowledged delays in progressing the medical assessment and the lack of communication which had contributed to uncertainty about her housing status. It said the medical reassessment was in progress, but timely updates had not been provided. A final decision would be provided by 18 April 2025. Complaint handling – It acknowledged delays that had contributed to distress and inconvenience. It offered her £275 compensation broken down as: £100 poor communication and failure to provide timely updates; £100 delay in progressing medical reassessment, £75 time, and trouble in pursuing the complaint. It identified learning that included enhanced communications and implementation of stronger tracking of agreed actions.
March 2025 to September 2025	26 March 2025 – The landlord’s independent medical assessor confirmed: Band C was appropriate for the resident’s circumstances. She should be moved to ground floor accommodation or to a property on a floor served by a lift. It was also advised that any new property should have no more than 2 to 3 steps. April 2025 to September 2025 Further issues progressed through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure relating to the original housing officer. This resulted in a compensation offer of £125 to the resident and assignment of a new housing officer. The landlord later rescinded its stage 1 complaint and reiterated it would not assign her another housing officer.

 

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	Assessment of medical application under its transfer scheme.
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy explains that access to housing is primarily managed through referral arrangements with partner organisations or via the council’s choice-based lettings (CBL) scheme. However, the landlord does operate a small number of schemes that accept direct applications, including its transfer scheme. Under the transfer scheme, a limited number of properties are allocated to transfer applicants who meet the housing need criteria outlined in the transfer policy. These properties may be advertised through the CBL scheme, or the landlord may make a direct offer to the applicant.
8. The landlord assesses transfer applications using a priority banding system from band A to band D. For example, band A is for applicants with urgent needs, such as a life-threatening medical condition that severely impacts their current housing. Band D is for tenants who wish to move but do not have an urgent or high-priority need.
9. We do not investigate issues about housing allocations under the local authority statutory duties. This is because local authorities are responsible for operating allocation schemes. Any concerns about such allocations fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Therefore, we will not investigate the allocation process carried out under the local authority’s choice-based lettings (CBL) scheme. However, as the transfer scheme is managed by the landlord, we will investigate that aspect of the complaint.
10. There is evidence that the resident was on the housing waiting list in January 2025. However, it is unclear whether she was listed under the council’s choice-based lettings (CBL) scheme or the landlord’s transfer list at that time. In its stage 1 response, the landlord informed the resident that she was initially in Band D and did not have enough points to qualify under this priority band for a move.
11. It is unclear when the resident initially joined the transfer list. However, in mid-March 2025, she contacted the landlord to request inclusion on the transfer register and asked for an urgent assessment of her medical needs. Around that time, she submitted letters from her GP to support her request for a move on medical grounds.
12. Following its assessment, the landlord increased her priority to Band C for a transfer to level-access accommodation with no more than 2 to 3 steps. It communicated this decision to the resident around April 2025.
13. The landlord’s transfer policy states that Band C priority may be awarded for reasons such as overcrowding or a medical condition that is moderately impacted by the resident’s current housing. Decisions about medical priority are made by an independent panel of medical experts, in line with the landlord’s allocations and transfer policy.
14. We do not have the expertise to assess whether the resident’s banding is appropriate on health grounds. However, the landlord has an appeals process for residents who wish to challenge their priority banding. We have therefore recommended that the landlord inform the resident whether she is still within time limit to submit an appeal regarding her current banding status.
15. On 18 March 2025, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It acknowledged delays in progressing the resident’s medical assessment and admitted it had failed to communicate with her during this time. The landlord apologised for its failure and offered a total of £200 in compensation — £100 for the delay and £100 for the lack of communication.
16. In conclusion, the landlord’s service standard for assessing medical needs is unclear. Based on the evidence, there was a delay of approximately one month in reviewing the resident’s medical circumstances for a transfer. This delayed period was relatively short and there is no evidence it led to a delay in the resident securing alternative accommodation. In the circumstances, the landlord acknowledged both the delay and its poor communication during this period. It offered an apology and compensation of £200 which was proportionate to the impact of its failures. We therefore consider the landlord’s actions to represent reasonable redress in its handling of the medical assessment for a transfer move.

Complaint	Response to her reports about the conduct of a housing officer.
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. In early December 2024, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of a housing officer in relation to an interaction about how her rent arrears were handled. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in mid-January 2025, stating that it had discussed the matter with the housing officer, who had explained the rent arrears and the proposed payment plan. The response suggested there was no fault in the officer’s conduct, but it did not provide a detailed explanation of the outcome or any resolution. The landlord’s failure to offer a full and transparent response was unreasonable.
18. The resident escalated her complaint in mid-January 2025. The landlord responded in mid-March 2025 with its stage 2 complaint outcome. It partly upheld the complaint. While it found no evidence of misconduct by the housing officer, it apologised and acknowledged that the working relationship had broken down and accepted that it could have handled the resident’s request for an alternative contact more effectively.
19. In conclusion, we are satisfied that the landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the housing officer. It acknowledged that the relationship had broken down. It provided clarity and reassurance of management oversight on the issue from that point. For these reasons, we are satisfied the landlord’s response was fair and reasonable. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to her reports about the contact of a housing officer.
20. There were clear developments after the landlord’s complaint process had ended resulting in a compensation offer of £125. However, as these events resulted in new complaints they fall out of our scope of investigation.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

21. The resident raised her complaint on 4 December 2024. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 January 2025 around 20 working days later and outside the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 10 working day timeframe. This was inappropriate.
22. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 9 January 2025. The landlord sent her an extension letter on 18 February 2025 and responded at stage 2 on 18 March 2025. Therefore, the landlord responded within around 48 working days later and outside of the 20-working day Code timeframe. However, the landlord did notify the resident it could not meet the target which is compliant with the Code. The landlord’s actions were therefore appropriate.
23. In conclusion, the landlord’s complaint handling did not meet the timeframes outlined in our Code. However, the landlord sent her a holding letter at stage 2, recognised its failures, and offered her £75 compensation. We therefore consider this put things right for the resident and have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Communication

24. The landlord’s overall communications were poor. While the landlord did recognise its failures and put things right for the resident it should reflect upon the contents of this report to identify how it can learn from the complaint.