Notting Hill Genesis (202514101)

Background

1. The property is a ground floor flat in a house conversion. In November 2023 the resident reported problems with the back door and the landlord attended the same month. In July 2024 the landlord visited the resident and noted:
   1. The back door was rotten due to a blocked gutter that overflowed when it rained.
   2. There was unresolved damage to the property caused by a previous leak.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repairs.
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
4. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
5. The landlord has offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

6. There were delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of repairs. It has taken some steps to put things right but these were insufficient considering the failures and impact on the resident.
7. The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its policy timescales, but has taken reasonable action 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.

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.

8. The issue of roof leaks and repairs was first raised with the landlord in July 2025 and it inspected the same month. The landlord said it needed to do roof works and replace gutters. The gutter repairs raised by the resident as part of her complaint in September 2024 related specifically to blocked gutters, which were cleared in May 2025.
9. As the roof repairs and gutter replacement works were identified after the resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, these issues fall outside the scope of our investigation. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of gutter repairs/clearance prior to the stage 2 response being issued in June 2025.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including doors, windows and gutters, as well as repairing structural damage to skirting boards. 

The back door

11. On 5 November 2023 the resident reported the back door was rotten and jamming. It was reasonable that the landlord treated this as a standard repair, which its repairs policy says it will complete within 20 working days. The landlord attended on 23 November 2023, 19 days after the repair was raised. However, no repairs were completed that day. The landlord recorded that the resident declined repairs and said she wanted the door to be replaced. As this was at the resident’s request, it was reasonable for the landlord not to complete any repairs at that time.
12. The landlord is not required to replace a door where it can carry out repairs to resolve issues. If a door is irreparable then the landlord should replace it. Regardless, the landlord should tell the resident what it is doing and why. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 November 2023 asking for the door to be replaced. There is no evidence the landlord considered or responded to this request. This was unreasonable and contributed to the overall delay in the landlord’s handling of this issue.
13. Following the landlord’s visit on 24 July 2024, it noted the back door needed replacing as it was draughty, loose and rotten. It said the resident was vulnerable due to medical treatment she was receiving at that time and, because of this, it was important the property was warm. This was an appropriate decision and showed the landlord had considered the resident’s individual needs. It was also in accordance with its vulnerability policy that says it will consider the impact a housing issue is having on an existing vulnerability when determining how to tailor its services.
14. Despite confirming that the door needed replacing, there is no evidence the landlord took action to do so. This was disappointing for the resident and caused her to feel let down, as it did not follow through with its commitment.
15. The landlord raised another job for the back door on 28 January 2025, after the resident had spent time and effort chasing this up and raising her stage 1 and 2 complaints. This job was subsequently closed after the resident did not give access on 2 occasions in March and April 2025. The resident was told about these appointments in advance. Therefore any delay caused as a result of these failed appointments was not attributable to the landlord.
16. The landlord raised a further job for the back door on 20 June 2025 and inspected on 8 July 2025. The operative noted the door needed a draught excluder fitted but the resident again asked for it to be replaced. She subsequently said the operative lied on the report as they had agreed the door needed replacing. While frustrating for the resident, we cannot determine what happened at this appointment and so cannot comment further on this.
17. The resident provided a video of the door in mid-July 2025 in support of her request for it to be replaced. The landlord then confirmed it needed replacing, a year after it had reached the same conclusion. It replaced the door on 14 November 2025, 2 years after the resident first reported her concerns and 16 months after it first acknowledged the door needed replacing. Some of this delay was unavoidable as the door took 4 to 5 weeks to make. However, the landlord did not follow up to progress the job in a timely manner, which meant there were further delays in the door being replaced.
18. Overall, while some of the delay was not attributable to the landlord, or outside of its control, there was a significant period that could have been avoided if it had better managed the issue. Its failure to do so meant the resident had to live with a defective door that caused the property to be cold for an extended period. This is particularly concerning as she told the landlord how important it was that the property was warm because of her medical condition.

Blocked gutters

19. The landlord identified blocked gutters during its visit on 24 July 2024. There is no evidence it did anything about this until more than 2 months later, when it raised a job on 30 September 2024. This was only after the resident spent time and effort chasing this up that day. The landlord’s contractor arranged to attend on 8 July 2024 but did not. This was disappointing for the resident and contributed to the overall delay in its handling of this matter.
20. The landlord cancelled the job with that contractor on 7 November 2024 after they failed to respond or take action. This was appropriate to ensure timely action could be taken by another contractor. However, there is no evidence the landlord told the resident what it was doing or why, which left her uncertain as to next steps. The landlord raised another job the same day and received a quote for required works 9 days later. It declined this as it was not value for money.
21. The landlord must be mindful of its budgets and achieve value for money. That can mean obtaining multiple quotes for high cost jobs. In this case, the landlord noted it would refer the job to a specialist contractor, which was reasonable. However, it did not raise a new job for the works until 2 months later, on 16 January 2025. This was too long considering the blocked gutters were overflowing onto the back door and causing damage.
22. The landlord completed works to the gutters on 15 May 2025, 4 months after the job was raised. This delay was caused by the landlord not accepting a quote variation until 28 April 2025, even though it was sent on 22 January 2025. Overall, it took the landlord 10 months to complete the works from when it first identified them. As the landlord needed scaffolding to complete the job, it was reasonable that this took longer than a standard repair. However, it took too long and there were avoidable delays.

Skirting boards

23. The landlord identified there were outstanding repairs to skirting board and flooring from a previous leak during its visit on 24 July 2024. There is no evidence it did anything to progress these repairs. The resident told the landlord they were outstanding on at least 2 occasions in September and October 2024, but there is no evidence of any action being taken.
24. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had tried to contact the resident about these repairs so it could raise the required jobs. Despite the resident asking for return contact the following day, there is no evidence the landlord contacted her or made any further attempts to obtain details of what works were required. Similarly, when she told it the repairs were outstanding during a visit on 8 July 2025, there is no evidence it did anything to progress the works.
25. Following contact from us on 29 September 2025, the landlord contacted the resident and obtained details of what works were needed. It said it agreed she would replace the damaged floor tiles. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy, which says residents are responsible for repairing any fittings they have installed, including flooring.
26. The landlord replaced the skirting board on 28 October 2025. This job should have been dealt with as a standard repair, which the landlord commits to complete within 20 days. The landlord completed this in 461 days, significantly over its policy timescale. While the extended delay was frustrating for the resident, and she expended time and trouble to repeatedly report it, due to the minor nature of the repair, the impact on her was minimal.

Bedroom window

27. The landlord has said the resident’s concerns about a bedroom window were not included within her formal complaint. This is incorrect as the resident raised this concern as part of her original complaint on 29 September 2024. Therefore, this issue was within the scope of the complaint and the landlord should have investigated and responded to it.
28. The landlord’s stage 1 response was vague and did not specifically address the individual repairs raised by the resident. However, it did refer to window repairs as one of the follow on actions it would complete. The stage 2 response also included this. As the landlord had the opportunity to address this issue as part of the complaints process, we have included it in our investigation.
29. There is no evidence the resident had reported her concerns about the window prior to making her complaint. Therefore, the landlord should have treated it as a new repair and raised a job to investigate and address it. There is no evidence that it did. Similarly, when the resident re-reported this during a call on 10 October 2024, the landlord failed to take any action regarding this.
30. The landlord’s stage 2 response said no repair cases had been raised about the window. While correct, this was because the landlord had failed to properly action the resident’s reports, rather than her not reporting it. This was disappointing for the resident and caused her to lose faith in the landlord.
31. The landlord inspected the window on 8 July 2025 and noted works were required but the resident asked for this to be replaced. The landlord is not required to replace windows where repairs can be done to resolve issues. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not agree to replace the window.
32. However, the landlord did not tell the resident this until 3 months later, on 2 October 2025. It said the window would be replaced as part of its planned programme of works but it could complete repairs in the meantime. This was reasonable, but the delay in telling the resident this meant she was left not knowing what was happening regarding her concerns.

Conclusions

33. The landlord has acknowledged failure in its handling of repairs, apologised and offered a total of £1,650 compensation. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to put things right. In its additional offer of compensation made in October 2025, the landlord offered £250 for delays in its handling of gutter repairs since the stage 2 response. As this issue falls outside the scope of our investigation, we have deducted this amount from the total we have considered.
34. Similarly, the landlord offered £100 for the time, trouble and inconvenience of this and other repairs that are within the scope of this investigation. As the gutter repairs are not included, we have reduced this amount to £60. Therefore, the total amount of compensation we have considered for repairs within the scope of this investigation is £1,360.
35. Considering the extent of the failures across multiple repairs, the resident’s vulnerabilities and the impact on her, this amount is insufficient. We recognise that the landlord has taken steps to complete works and offer redress. However, some of this has only happened as a result of our intervention and had not been offered independently by the landlord. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
36. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £1,800 compensation (inclusive of the £1,360 already offered if not done so). In our remedies guidance this amount is indicative of a finding of severe maladministration, where the failures had a severe long-term impact. In this case, the impact on the resident has been severe and long-term. However, as the landlord has already taken some action to put things right, the additional redress needed is more in line with a finding of maladministration.

37. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated at stage 2.
38. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 14 October 2024, 11 working days after the complaint was made. It sent the stage 1 response 21 working days later. Both were over the policy timescales.
39. The landlord told the resident on 21 October 2024 that it was extending the deadline to respond to the stage 1 complaint. This was reasonable and in line with its policy, which says it will extend the deadline if it needs more time to respond. It says it will respond in a maximum of 20 working days. The landlord exceeded this by 1 day, which was a minor delay. It did not tell the resident when it expected to be able to respond when it extended the deadline, which meant she was left not knowing when she would receive the response.
40. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 29 April 2025, 114 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was significantly over the 5 working day committed timescale. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 37 working days, also over its policy timescale.
41. The landlord told the resident on 29 May 2025 that it was extending the stage 2 response deadline to 26 June 2025. This was appropriate to ensure she knew when to expect the response. The landlord met the extended deadline, which was positive. However, its policy says it will send the stage 2 response in a maximum of 30 working days. The landlord went over this by 7 working days. This meant it did not respond in line with the committed timescale set out in its policy.
42. The landlord identified failure in its complaint handling at stage 2, apologised and offered £100 compensation. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
43. Considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with our remedies guidance, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its complaint handling. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £100 compensation, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Learning

44. Where the landlord identifies an external door needs replacing outside of its planned programme of works, it should progress this as quickly as possible and keep the resident updated throughout the process.
45. The landlord should consider residents’ individual needs when deciding what repairs are needed. This should include any medical conditions and the possible impact on the resident. The landlord did that in this case.
46. The landlord should complete repairs in accordance with its repair timescales. This should be when it receives reports from residents and when it identifies repairs. 
47. The landlord should be mindful of its budgets and seek to achieve value for money, as it did in this case. Where it needs to obtain multiple quotes or use different contractors to do this, it should progress the works as quickly as possible and keep the resident updated throughout the process.
48. If a repair is reported as part of a formal complaint, the landlord should treat this as a new report, raise a job and complete this in accordance with its repair timescales.
49. The landlord should acknowledge failure in its handling of issues and offer proportionate redress. It should consider the impact on the resident as part of this, including any vulnerabilities.
50. The landlord should respond to complaints in accordance with its policy timescales. If it cannot, it should extend the response deadlines and tell the resident when it expects to be able to respond. It should not extend the deadline beyond the timescales set out in its complaints policy.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

51. We have not identified any record keeping issues in this investigation. The information provided was sufficient for us to be able to complete the investigation.

Communication

52. If a resident asks for windows or doors to be replaced rather than repaired, the landlord should tell them what it will do and why. This should be done in a timely manner so they are not left uncertain.