Notting Hill Genesis (202506714)

Decision
Case ID	202506714
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 December 2025

Background

The resident and her daughter live in a third floor flat with 1 lift. The building is registered as a “higher-risk building” with the Building Safety Regulator. The resident is disabled and has dyslexia. She requires overnight carers. The resident complained because the lift was not working, and she felt the flat was not suitable for her health needs. She was also unhappy about unknown people coming to her door and the cleaning in the communal area.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of the lift breaking down.
2. Request for rehousing.
3. Concerns about anti-social behaviour (ASB) and cleaning in the communal area.
4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the lift breaking down.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for rehousing.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB and cleaning in the communal area.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The response to the lift breakdowns

There were several failings that had a serious and long-lasting impact on the resident and her family. The landlord did not consider its reasonable adjustment policy or its duties under the Equality Act 2010. It did not respond to the resident’s reports about the lift within a reasonable time. Although the landlord identified the cause of the lift breakdowns, it did not put a plan in place to fix the problem. It also failed to recognise how the repeated lift failures affected the resident.

The response to the request for rehousing

Although the landlord provided some rehousing information, its response was unreasonably delayed. It did not consider the resident’s request for a communication adjustment. It did not follow its service (reasonable) adjustment policy or consider its duties under the Equality Act 2010.

The response to the concerns about ASB and communal cleaning

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports within a reasonable timeframe. It did not follow its ASB policy. It did not recognise the impact of its failings and did not complete the proposed solution it offered in its complaint response.

The associated complaint

The landlord was delayed in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaints. The landlord did not offer appropriate compensation for these failures.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise via telephone to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: the apology is provided by the CEO the apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic it has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 13 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,350 to recognise any distress and inconvenience caused by its failures. This is made up of: £1,500 for lift breakdown failures £200 for its response to the resident’s rehousing requests £500 for failures in its response to the ASB reports and cleanliness concerns £150 for complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. If already paid, the £50 offered for complaint handling failures can be deducted. The rest of the compensation is in addition to anything else previously offered.	No later than 13 January 2026
3	Repairs order The landlord must take all steps to ensure permanent repairs to the lift are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable temporary accommodation is necessary for the resident while the works take place.	No later than 13 January 2026
4	Specific action The landlord must contact the resident to discuss a Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (‘PEEP’) within the property. It must provide documentary evidence to this Service. If the resident has moved into temporary accommodation, the landlord must explain by the due date why a PEEP is no longer necessary in this case.	No later than 13 January 2026
5	Specific action The landlord must respond to the residents reports of ASB and cleaning concerns in line with its policy. Evidence of this should be sent to us by the due date.	No later than 13 January 2026
6	Learning order The landlord must review this case and consider how it can prevent similar failures in future. A written copy of this review should be sent to us by the due date.	No later than 13 January 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 November 2024	The resident asked the landlord to discuss some issues over the phone or in person. She did not say what the issues were.
13 December 2024	The lift stopped working.
17 January 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she had limited access to her home because the lift was broken, and she had had seizures in the stairwell. She did not think the property was suitable for her health needs and wanted to be moved.
7 February 2025	The lift started working again.
24 February 2025	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It apologised for the lift being out of service and gave £144 for the lift outage and £150 for distress and inconvenience caused. It said the resident should keep bidding on properties if she wanted to move. It told her how to report ASB in the future.
24 February 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She repeated her stage 1 points and said the lift regularly stopped working. She also said her front room was unsuitable for her health needs.
26-28 February 2025	The resident reported flies, maggots and a smell coming from a neighbouring property.
March 2025	The landlord received a stock condition report for the lift. This said the lift was at the end of its expected lifespan and recommended a full lift replacement.
13 April 2025	The resident told the landlord the lift had broken down, and this was happening regularly.
June 2025	The resident reported further lift breakdowns.
17 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It explained its internal rehousing bidding process. It said the lift needed to be fully replaced but it could not provide a timeframe for this. It told the resident to contact the building manager to ask what assistance it could offer during any lift breakdowns. It said it would investigate her communal cleaning concerns and would update her. It offered £50 compensation for its delayed complaint response.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She wanted the lift to be permanently fixed and to be moved to a different property. She said she had found the situation distressing and the stress was making her seizures worse.

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 resident’s reports of the lift breaking down
Finding	Severe maladministration

The lift stopped working on 13 December 2024 and started working again on 7 February 2025. Under its repairs policy, the landlord was responsible for the lift maintenance. The repairs policy stated it would always pass on repair details to relevant managing agents and then ensure their satisfactory completion.
The resident repeatedly contacted the landlord about the lift not working from 19 December 2025. She said this was significantly impacting her health and she had seizures in the stairwell. The landlord did not respond to her until it provided its stage 1 response on 24 February 2025. When it responded, the landlord did not set out a timeline for the lift repair. This was a failure when assessed against its lift policy which said it would respond within 2 hours.
The lift policy said it would address individual need and said it recognised lift breakdowns could have significant impact on residents with disabilities and can pose “serious consequences to residents”. The landlord failed to do this before 24 February 2025 and did not do so in its stage 1 response.
This was a failure when assessed against its service (reasonable) adjustment policy which said it would consider what reasonable adjustments the resident may have needed. The landlord should have considered its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 which may include considering the individual impact of the lift breakdown and exploring practical solutions.
The landlord’s lift policy said it would respond to lift breakdowns within 2 hours, or 4 hours outside of hours. The landlord’s policy refers to the Fire Safety England Regulations 2022 and says it will report any fire lifts in a Higher-Risk building (HRB) that are out of service for over 24 hours to the local Fire and Rescue Services.
There was no evidence the landlord attempted to assess or repair the lift between 13 December 2024 and 7 February 2025. There was no evidence the landlord reported the lift as out of service to the local Fire and Rescue Services. These were failures when assessed against its lift policy.
The lift started working again on 7 February 2025. However, the landlord did not provide any repair records to evidence:
1. Whether it shared this information with the managing agent.
2. What repairs it had completed.
3. When it completed the repairs.
4. Whether it considered the repairs as “emergency repairs” or “standard” repairs.
5. Whether the communal lift required further repair works.
6. Whether the repairs had resolved the issues with the lift.
There is not enough evidence to confirm if the landlord responded appropriately to the reports of issues with the lift, and within the timescales set out in its repairs policy. This was a significant failure in the landlord’s service and record keeping.
In March 2025 a condition report said the lift had come to the end of its expected life span and ongoing maintenance would be needed. It also recommended a full lift replacement. The landlord did not consider the resident’s disabilities and if any reasonable adjustments may be needed if the lift was expected to regularly break down until it was replaced. The resident had said she found it extremely difficult to use the stairs and using them put her at significant risk. This was a failure to consider its duties under the Equality Act and to follow its service (reasonable) adjustments policy.
There was no evidence the landlord considered whether it should complete a risk assessment or Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP), based on the resident’s concerns for her safety and ability to access the property in the event of an emergency. In the absence of any evidence of other safety planning, this was particularly concerning to note.
The lift condition report said if the landlord decided to replace the lifts it would take 40 weeks. There was no evidence the landlord discussed or actioned the recommendations of the lift condition report.
While we understand that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in regular communication with residents and updates them on the progress of the repairs. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that this was not the case. Further, we would expect to see evidence to support the landlord’s position, for example, of its decision-making process around replacing the lift. No evidence of this has been provided.
The resident reported the lift was not working in March 2025 and again on 13 April 2025. The landlord did not respond until 14 April 2025, when it asked her to send the report to a different email. It failed to complete the same actions as assessed at paragraph 14.
In its complaint responses the landlord offered £294 for the lift outage and distress and inconvenience from 13 December 2024 to 7 February 2025. It did not acknowledge the resident’s reports from March to June 2025. It said the lift was at the end of its serviceable life and there was a cycle of reoccurring breakdowns. It asked the resident to contact the building manager to ask what assistance they may be able to provide in the event of further lift breakdowns. This was a failure to take responsibility for the issue and to make a full, effective, and lasting repair for the lift, which the resident paid a service charge for.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord about the impact of the lift breakdowns. She said the stress was a trigger for her epilepsy and that she had had seizures in the stairwell. The landlord consistently failed to follow its service (reasonable) adjustment and lift policies.
The landlord was aware of the resident’s disabilities from the start of the tenancy. However, despite this and the resident’s repeated reports, it failed to identify the lift breakdown would likely impact the resident. It did not consider what reasonable adjustments she may need.
The resident told us she often felt like the landlord did not “believe” her disability and care needs. She said she was limited in leaving her home and felt dismissed.
These failures likely had a significant adverse impact on the resident. The resident said she had extremely limited access from her home as a result. She said the stress triggered her seizures and this contributed to her falling in the stairwell. She was extremely worried she would serious injure herself as a result. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to put things right and resolve the issue, leading to a finding of severe maladministration. We have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance. We have also made orders around repairing the lift.

Complaint	The resident’s request for rehousing
Finding	Maladministration

The resident said she wanted to be moved permanently to a different property due to health needs. We can only consider complaints about transfer applications that are outside of Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This includes complaints concerning applications for rehousing that meet the reasonable preference criteria, and the assessment of such applications. However, we can consider the landlord’s communication with the resident in response to her requests.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident said she thought the property was not suitable for her health. She said she wanted to speak to someone face to face or over the phone due to her dyslexia.
The landlord responded over a month later. It advised her of its internal priority banding and advised her to continue bidding on properties. It did not signpost her to the local authority, which would have been appropriate given the resident’s reports that her home was not suitable for her needs. There was an unreasonable delay in responding to the resident. The landlord did not consider the resident’s request for a communication reasonable adjustment. This did not meet the service (reasonable) adjustment policy.
After the stage 1 response, the resident repeatedly told the landlord her health needs were not being met by the property. This included the lift not working and other issues. She was distressed and said she was worried she would be “injured or dead before help is given”. The landlord repeated its previous advice via email. The resident said she was confused by the advice and asked to speak in person or over the phone again. The landlord responded via email and said it could not offer further assistance and the resident needed to contact an external agency.
The landlord failed to consider the resident’s request for a telephone or face-to-face conversation. This was a failure to consider its duties under the Equality Act and to follow its service (reasonable) adjustments policy.
In its final complaint response, the landlord provided further rehousing advice. However, it did not recognise it had failed to consider the resident’s request for verbal communication. This was not in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The resident repeatedly said she did not understand the written communication provided and that she was distressed and confused. We have made an order of compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which have had an adverse effect on the resident, which may include distress, inconvenience or time and trouble.
We have also made orders for the landlord to offer the resident a face-to-face or phone appointment to explain the rehousing process.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about ASB and cleaning in the communal area.
Finding	Maladministration

The resident said the incidents reported caused her significant distress and anxiety. It is important to note it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. The Ombudsman can assess how the landlord has dealt with the reports it received and whether it followed proper procedure and good practice.
It is unclear when the resident first reported ASB. As assessed already above, the resident made multiple requests to speak to the landlord over the phone or in person. The landlord spoke to the resident as part of its complaint process and said the resident had said a neighbour was coming to her home and requesting food and money. In its written stage 1 response the landlord shared information on how to report ASB by getting in touch with her housing officer.
The landlord’s ASB policy does not specify how residents should report ASB. It says it will contact the resident within 1 working day and offer to visit them within 5 working days. The policy notes that some residents (including those with learning difficulties or disabilities) may be at higher risk from ASB and it will factor these needs when risk assessing. Considering the resident’s dyslexia and disabilities, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to accept her verbal report of ASB. It failed to respond to her reports in line with its ASB policy.
On 24 February 2025 the resident escalated her complaint and said people were approaching her doorway and there were dog urine and blood on the walls. On 26 February she told her housing officer there was a strong smell in the hallway with flies and maggots coming from a neighbouring property.
The landlord responded appropriately to her report of flies and maggots. It did not respond to her other concerns for 4 months. The landlord said it would look into her ASB and cleaning concerns and update her by 27 June 2025. There was no evidence it completed this proposed solution.
The landlord did not recognise the failures identified above and did not review her concerns before its stage 2 response. The resident said she was worried about her safety. We have ordered compensation in line with our remedies guidance for failings that have adversely affected the resident. We have also ordered the landlord respond to the resident’s reports of ASB and cleaning concerns in line with its policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. Our findings are the landlord:
1. Has a published complaints policy which is in line with the Code.
2. Acknowledged the stage 1 complaint after 7 working days. Its policy says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days of them being made.
3. Told the resident it was extending the response deadline. It did this slightly outside of the timescales set out in the Code and did not clearly explain the reason why. This was not in line with the Code.
4. Responded to the stage 1 complaint 11 days after it requested an extension. This was slightly outside of the extension timeline it had given.
5. Acknowledged the stage 2 complaint within the timescales set out in its policy. However, it then issued a second and third acknowledgement several months apart. This was a record keeping failure.
6. Responded to the stage 2 complaint 4 months after its first acknowledgement. This was a failure when assessed against its policy and likely caused the resident time, trouble and distress as she had to ask for updates and was delayed in understanding the landlord’s position.
The landlord apologised and offered £50 for its complaint handling failures at stage 2. This was not in line with our remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected the resident. We have found maladministration and made an order for additional compensation to put things right in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has an obligation to provide us with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation. The landlord’s records provided were incomplete and did not record what repairs had been raised or completed.
Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance highlights the importance of gathering feedback and conducting inspections to ensure the work is satisfactory. It was unclear throughout the investigation how the landlord worked with the property’s managing agent and quality checked any works completed.

Communication

Throughout the complaint, the resident repeatedly told her landlord she was scared and very distressed by the issues she was reporting. The landlord did not keep in regular contact with the resident about the lift issues.
Our repairing trust spotlight report highlights how important it is to show empathy and to communicate clearly and regularly when residents report serious or repeated problems. The landlord did not give the resident a timeframe for the repairs and, at times, did not acknowledge the distress she was experiencing.