Notting Hill Genesis (202511140)

Decision
Case ID	202511140
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 March 2026

Background

The property is a ground-floor flat with its own private garden. The resident has physical and mental health difficulties and uses a wheelchair. She has complained about the trees in her garden and about the landlord’s decision not to cut them down.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for maintenance of trees at the property.
2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for maintenance of trees at the property.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Trees

The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s initial report and failed to update her after its stage 1 response, which led her to chase it multiple times for information about her request. It also took 3 months to inspect the trees. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged these failings and took reasonable steps to recognise the impact on the resident and to put things right.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not escalate the complaint when the resident expressed ongoing dissatisfaction. It also failed to acknowledge or respond to her subsequent request for escalation. This required our intervention and led to a significant delay in issuing its stage 2 response. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged these failings and took reasonable steps to put things right.

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
It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £125 previously offered for its handling of her request for maintenance of trees, if it has not already done so. Our reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.
It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £150 previously offered for its complaint handling, if it has not already done so. Our reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
18 June 2025	During contact with the Ombudsman, the resident said she had complained to the landlord by telephone about how it handled her request to locate the fuse box in her property and her request to have the trees in her garden cut back. She explained that she had not received a response from the landlord. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide the resident with a response by 9 July 2025.
10 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint, acknowledging there had been a delay in giving the resident access to her meter, and she had needed to chase the landlord about this and about the tree being cut back. It said the tree in her garden was the responsibility of the local authority, and it had raised the issue with them on her behalf. It said her housing officer would update her by 16 July 2025. The landlord offered £100 compensation in recognition of these failures.
17 July 2025	The resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She said she had not received an update from her housing officer, even though the stage 1 response said she would receive one by 16 July 2025.
12 February 2026	During her contact with us, the resident said she did not want us to investigate the issue about the location of the fuse box, as she had received support to find it and considered the matter resolved. However, she explained that her request for the trees in her garden to be cut down was still outstanding. She said she was disabled and unable to cut the trees herself.
19 February 2026	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It partially upheld the complaint, acknowledging that it had given the resident incorrect information at stage 1 and had handled the complaint poorly. However, it said that there had been no service failure regarding the tree maintenance, as this responsibility fell to the resident. It explained that it only removed trees when there was a significant health and safety risk. The landlord also increased its overall compensation offer to £275 to recognise the incorrect information it gave and its complaint handling failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. As an outcome, she said she would like the landlord to cut down the trees in her garden.

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 request for maintenance of trees at the property
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord’s tree‑management procedure states that residents are responsible for maintaining trees in their private gardens, except in certain circumstances where the landlord may arrange works. These circumstances include:
1. When the resident is unable to complete the work themselves due to a disability.
2. When the tree is causing an obstruction and preventing easy access along a walkway or into a property.
3. When the tree is causing structural damage.
4. When the tree is diseased or poses a health and safety risk.
The resident first reported concerns about the trees in her garden on 1 June 2025, explaining that they were going to break the fence and were bothering people walking past. She asked the landlord to cut the trees down. The landlord should have acknowledged her request and provided an indication of the next steps. Instead, it failed to respond, which led the resident to chase it for a response on 4 occasions between 4 June and 25 June 2025. This lack of communication likely contributed to her decision to escalate the matter through the complaints process.
The earliest documented response from the landlord was on 25 June 2025, when the resident’s housing officer said they needed to seek authorisation to remove the trees because this would normally be the resident’s responsibility. They said they would update her once they had an answer. In its stage 1 response on 10 July 2025, the landlord said the trees were the responsibility of the local authority and that it had raised the matter with them on the resident’s behalf. It appropriately acknowledged shortcomings in its communication and said it would provide a further update to the resident by 16 July 2025.
The landlord did not provide the resident with a further update by 16 July 2025, as it had committed to in its stage 1 response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident at the earliest opportunity that the update would be delayed and to provide a revised date. Instead, it failed to make any contact, which left the resident unclear about what action the landlord was taking and created unnecessary uncertainty about the progress of her request.
The resident chased the landlord on 4 occasions between 17 July 2025 and 1 August 2025. During this time, she also reported a strong smell coming from the trees and explained that both she and her children were asthmatic and could not “bare the smell”. On 1 August 2025, the landlord told her it could not remove the trees because garden maintenance was her responsibility. The resident replied the same day, explaining that she was disabled and unable to do the work herself and could not afford to pay someone to cut the trees. On 8 August 2025, the landlord reiterated that it was not responsible for maintaining her garden and could not complete any works.
Although the landlord’s decision aligned with its tree‑management procedure, it did not assess whether any of the exceptional circumstances outlined in the procedure applied. This was unreasonable, particularly as the resident had highlighted her vulnerabilities and a potential health impact, which should have prompted the landlord to carry out an assessment of the trees. Instead, the landlord appeared to take a generalised approach by applying its policy without considering whether an exception was appropriate in this case. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to properly consider the resident’s circumstances and respond proportionately to her concerns.
On 2 September 2025, the landlord carried out an annual visit to the resident. In its final response on 19 February 2026, it said the trees were inspected during this visit and that no damage to the garden fence or smell from the trees was identified. While it was positive that the landlord assessed the trees, it was unreasonable that it took 3 months from the resident’s initial report to do so. The records of the visit also contain no notes about the trees, indicating shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping.
In its final response, the landlord reiterated its position, explaining that the trees were the resident’s responsibility and that it would only remove them if they posed a significant health and safety risk. It added that its visit in September 2025 had identified no such concerns. This was a proportionate response, as the landlord had inspected the trees and did not consider them to require immediate attention on health and safety grounds. The landlord also signposted the resident to local voluntary services who might be able to help with removing the trees. This demonstrated a commitment to supporting the resident despite its limitations.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its poor communication and the incorrect information it had given the resident at stage 1, and apologised. In its final response, it increased its compensation offer to £125 in recognition of these failings. This offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and slightly exceeded the level of award we would expect in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024. The timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code.
When the resident escalated her complaint to us, she said she had already complained to the landlord by telephone but had not received a response. We do not dispute the resident’s claims. However, our findings must be based on documentary evidence. We have not seen any record of an earlier complaint, which makes it difficult for us to assess this aspect of the case. Our investigation will therefore focus on the events that took place after the resident made her complaint to us on 18 June 2025.
On 18 June 2025, we contacted the landlord and asked it to acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide a written response by 9 July 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint and issued its stage 1 response on 10 July 2025, one working day after the deadline we set. Although this was a minor delay and we have seen no evidence that it adversely affected the resident, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint and informed the resident as soon as possible that it could not meet the deadline, along with providing a revised date. Its failure to do so resulted in the resident contacting us for further support on 9 July 2025, adding to her time and trouble.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will treat an expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. On 17 July 2025, the resident contacted the landlord to say she was expecting an update from her housing officer by 16 July 2025 but had received no contact and that no progress had been made. Despite this, the landlord did not offer to escalate her complaint, which was unreasonable given that she clearly expressed dissatisfaction and said the matter remained unresolved. In line with its policy, the landlord should have treated this correspondence as a complaint and escalated it to stage 2. Its failure to do so led the resident to contact it a further 2 times, on 21 July 2025 and 1 August 2025, asking for her complaint to be escalated. This likely caused her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s request to escalate her complaint, which was unreasonable. This lack of action caused avoidable delay and left the resident without clarity about the progress of her complaint. As a result, we had to prompt the landlord to issue its final response. On 12 February 2026, we contacted the landlord and asked it to provide a written response within 5 working days. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 February 2026, in line with the deadline we set.
In its final response, the landlord apologised for its delays and offered £150 in compensation to recognise its complaint handling failures. By doing so, it took reasonable steps to acknowledge the impact on the resident and to put things right. This offer was appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been a failure by the landlord in the service it provided which adversely affected the resident.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it assesses whether any exceptional circumstances apply, in line with its procedure, before making decisions about tree maintenance – particularly when residents highlight vulnerabilities or potential health impacts. It should consider individual circumstances and carry out inspections promptly when concerns are raised, ensuring its records accurately reflect any inspections completed and decisions reached.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record keeping was generally good, and it provided detailed records of its contact with the resident. However, there were discrepancies, including references in its complaint responses to an inspection of the trees that was not recorded. This suggests there may be some areas where its record‑keeping processes could be strengthened.

Communication

There was a lack of effective communication from the landlord to the resident. She was not kept informed of the progress of her request and it was largely left to her to chase and seek updates.