Notting Hill Genesis (202511620)

Background

1. The resident has reported repairs to the landlord for several years, including issues with the windows and the roof, and damp and mould. The resident is a foster carer to children who have health issues. The landlord has carried out repairs; however, the resident has reported that damp in her property has returned and is affecting her children’s bedrooms.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about repairs to the roof and windows, a lack of insulation in the loft, and damp and mould in the resident’s property.
3. We have also considered the associated complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and windows, the lack of insulation in the loft, and damp and mould at the resident’s property.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord has accepted that there were delays in it carrying out repairs to the resident’s property as well as errors in its handling of the associated complaint. The landlord’s offer of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation. However, we have found service failure due to the landlord’s lack of a comprehensive response to the resident’s liability insurance claim.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months from when the issue occurred. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that the resident had raised issues since 2020. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint before January 2025, and we have not seen evidence the resident was prevented from raising a complaint sooner. Therefore, we will only consider the landlord’s handling of the repairs from January 2024 onwards, which is 12 months prior to her formal complaint to the landlord.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2024, to ask for an update on repairs to her windows. She said the windows were blown and this was causing condensation and mould in her home. The landlord responded the same day. It said her property was due to be transferred to a new landlord, therefore these repairs may be for the new landlord to carry out. This was unreasonable. The landlord should have initiated its repairs process if the windows needed repair or replacement, regardless of whether the property was due to be sold or transferred. In any event, the property was not transferred to a new landlord, leading to significant delays in the landlord undertaking repairs.
9. The landlord did not complete repairs to the resident’s windows until 13 March 2025, more than a year after she chased it for an update. We accept that replacing glazing can take longer than a routine repair because it may require measurements and specialist contractors. However, the landlord would reasonably be expected to complete this work within a few months of the resident reporting the issue to it. The fact that it did not do so was a failing which will have likely caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.
10. The resident mentioned in her complaint that her children’s health was affected by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. We do not doubt the resident’s comments about her children’s health (and it is accepted that damp and mould can pose a risk to health). However, it would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts or liability insurers are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident how to make a claim so she could progress this further if she wished. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
11. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will visit a resident’s property within 10 days of receiving a report. The policy states that at the visit, the landlord will determine the severity of the issue, and where possible, the cause. It will also consider any evidence of the damp having a detrimental impact on the health of anyone in the household. If non-complex work is required, the policy states it will complete the work within its timescales for carrying out routine repairs of 20 working days.
12. On 12 March 2024, the resident reported mould in her property. There is no evidence that the landlord visited the property at that stage to carry out an inspection in line with its damp and mould policy. On 12 December 2024, the resident told the landlord that there was damp and mould in 3 bedrooms. The landlord completed a mould wash to affected areas on 21 January 2025. On 4 February 2025, the landlord’s contractor repaired the roof and installed vents to improve airflow in the loft. Between 14 and 25 March 2025, the contractor carried out further repairs, including mould washes in all affected rooms. However, the landlord did not complete work to address the damp and mould until more than 12 months after the resident’s report in March 2024. This was a significant failing, particularly as the landlord was aware the resident’s children had health problems.
13. The resident complained to the landlord that her loft was cold and damp. In its stage 2 complaint response of 12 May 2025, the landlord said that work to insulate the loft was still outstanding. On 11 December 2025, we asked the landlord to confirm what date it installed insulation in the loft. It said it completed this work on 14 May 2025. However, this is contrary to an inspection report of 14 May 2025 which states that the landlord had met with the resident that day and asked that she move belongings from the loft so that it could fit insulation at a future date. This inconsistency means there is no clear record of when the insulation was installed. The landlord should review its record-keeping processes to ensure it can demonstrate when repairs are completed by keeping accurate and detailed records. Records dated 5 December 2025, state there was substantial insulation under the loft floor, indicating that the landlord had installed insulation by that stage.
14. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if a bedroom is considered unusable; it will offer compensation based on 25% of the resident’s weekly rent. The landlord acted in line with its policy in offering the resident £1062 as she had told it she had been unable to use one of the bedrooms over the 5 winter months. It was appropriate that it also refunded her £188 for the cost of the dehumidifiers she had purchased.
15. On 28 February 2025, the resident told the landlord she had spent an additional £130 on gas and electricity over the previous winter because her property was cold. On 6 June 2025, the landlord said it would review the information the resident had provided about these additional costs. On 20 June 2025, it told the resident it would not refund the costs but did not explain the reason for its decision. This was a shortcoming. We recommend that the landlord write to the resident to explain the reasons for its decision.
16. The landlord advised the resident that she could make a liability insurance claim for her damaged belongings if she believed it was liable for the damage. This was appropriate advice, as matters of liability and negligence fall outside the complaints process. The landlord is entitled to use a separate insurance process to deal with complaints of this nature. The resident contacted the landlord’s insurance department on 6 March 2025. It sent her a generic response stating that it would not cover damaged belongings. We accept that the landlord confirmed to the resident on 14 March 2025 that she could submit a liability claim to its insurance department. However, the resident understandably did not pursue her claim further as the landlord’s generic response would have likely discouraged her from doing so. The landlord offered a goodwill payment of £500 towards the cost of the resident’s damaged possessions but it is not clear what this amount was based on, and the resident has indicated the costs she incurred were significantly higher than this. Considering the resident’s assertion that damage to her belongings was caused by the landlord’s failure to address the damp and mould, the landlord is ordered to assess the resident’s damaged belongings as a claim internally or refer a claim to its liability insurer (if it has one). If the landlord assesses the claim internally and the resident is dissatisfied with its decision regarding the claim, she may be able to raise a new complaint about this to the landlord. The landlord’s response to the resident’s liability insurance claim amounts to service failure as it has not clearly given a decision regarding this claim or passed on a decision from its insurer, including an explanation of the reasons for the decision.
17. Our remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that compensation over £1000 is appropriate where a resident has been significantly affected by the landlord’s errors, often over a long period of time. The landlord has offered the resident compensation of £2500 for the lengthy delays in it progressing the repairs and the distress and inconvenience this will have likely caused her. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer.
18. On 24 November 2025, the resident told us that the damp and mould in her property had returned and that she had reported this to the landlord. This new report occurred after the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. We have not investigated this recent report because we have no power to consider issues the landlord has not had an opportunity to address first. The resident can raise a new complaint to the landlord about its handling of the damp and mould if she wants to. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to this matter.

19. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code), published on our website, sets out our expectations for landlords’ complaint handling. The Code states that landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. Landlords must respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days, of acknowledging the complaint. The Code states if landlords need more time to investigate a complaint, any extension must not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1, or 20 working days, at stage 2. The Code became statutory at the start of April 2024 and all landlords which are members of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme are required to follow it.
20. The resident complained to the landlord on 21 January 2025. On 11 February 2025, the landlord requested an extension of time to respond to the complaint. This was in line with our Code which states that landlords can request an extension of up to 10 working days to respond to a stage 2 complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 February 2025. The landlord acted reasonably in offering the resident £50 for failing to respond to the resident’s requests for updates on her complaint.
21. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 17 March 2025. On 15 April 2025, the resident agreed to the landlord’s request for an extension of time to respond to her complaint. Our Code states that landlords can request an extension of up to 20 working days to respond to a stage 2 complaint. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 12 May 2025 which was within the timescale for an extension.
22. On 14 May 2025, the resident raised a concern about the way in which a member of the landlord’s complaint handling staff spoke to her. On 6 June 2025, the landlord apologised to the resident for this and offered her £150 compensation. It also said it would speak to the member of staff. This was positive and demonstrated that the landlord took steps to address the resident’s concerns.
23. Our remedies guidance states that where there are errors that adversely affected a resident, we may award compensation of £100-£600. The landlord acknowledged that there were errors in its complaint handling and offered the resident £200 compensation for this. This was appropriate compensation and recognised the time, trouble and inconvenience these errors will have likely caused the resident. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard, as its offer is in line with what we would have awarded had the landlord not already made an offer and it is appropriate redress for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

General learning

24. It was positive that the landlord used its complaints process to put its errors right by awarding the resident compensation.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

25. The information the landlord has provided to us as to when it installed the loft installation is contradictory. The landlord may want to review its record-keeping systems so that it can satisfy itself that it has fulfilled its repair responsibilities by keeping detailed records of the dates it has completed work.