Notting Hill Genesis (202516715)

Background

1. The leaseholder rents the property to a tenant who lives there. The property is a 2‑bedroom flat on the seventh floor of a block. The leaseholder and the managing agent have acted together throughout this complaint. For clarity, this investigation refers to them jointly as “the resident”.
2. The resident complained to the landlord about a leak, subsequent damp and mould, and a lack of updates. The landlord acknowledged poor communication at both complaint stages, confirmed the investigation was still ongoing, and offered £350 compensation.

What the complaint is about

3. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of, and response to:
   1. Reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of, and response to:
   1. Reports of a leak and subsequent damp and mould.
   2. The complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The leak and subsequent damp and mould

5. The landlord’s handling of the leak investigations was prolonged largely due to access difficulties and the complexity of the issue, but it unreasonably delayed addressing the resident’s damp and mould concerns.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord’s response was significantly delayed, and although it acknowledged this and offered compensation, it did not address inconsistencies in its handling or its missed opportunity to explain the need for consent.

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.

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. The resident reported a leak in late January 2025. She said operatives had been unable to identify the source and suggested the leak might be coming from a communal pipe. Records show the landlord identified and repaired a leak from a neighbouring flat in February. During March and April, the landlord raised further repairs to investigate an ongoing leak, but the source remained unknown. By the end of April, internal records show the landlord believed the leak was coming from the flat above the resident, but it had been unable to gain access. Further investigations also indicated that the leak likely originated from this property, but access issues continued.
8. On 29 April 2025, the resident complained that water ingress had persisted since January and was affecting her bathroom and living room. She said updates were infrequent despite her weekly chasers. Under the lease, the landlord is responsible for the roof, structure, external parts including balconies, and shared drainage.
9. At stage 1 on 6 June 2025, the landlord apologised and confirmed it had repaired a blocked communal downpipe that had caused a leak. It explained that it was still investigating whether the leak affecting the resident’s ceiling was connected to this issue or whether it was separate. It told the resident she would receive an update by 13 June, but there is no evidence that an update was provided.
10. The resident escalated her complaint in June 2025 because the leak was ongoing and the landlord had not provided updates. She said she continued to chase the landlord and reported further damage to her ceiling.
11. Correspondence from July 2025 shows the resident raised concerns about damp and mould resulting from the leak. There is no evidence the landlord arranged an inspection within the 10‑day timeframe set out in its damp and mould policy. Although leaseholders are usually responsible for damp and mould inside their homes, the resident reported that the issues were linked to the leak and were affecting structural elements. The landlord should therefore have inspected to establish whether the damp and mould related to matters it was responsible for.
12. The resident continued to request updates about both the leak and damp and mould throughout August and September 2025. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection on 12 September, but no inspection report has been provided. We are therefore unable to determine the findings or the date the inspection took place. A leak inspection on 15 September identified the balcony above as the likely source, but access issues persisted.
13. At stage 2 on 21 October 2025, the landlord acknowledged its lack of updates, apologised, and offered £200 compensation for poor communication. It confirmed that the 15 September inspection had identified the balcony above as the likely source but said it had still been unable to gain access, and no further action had taken place. It said it would continue investigations and provided the resident with an update on 31 October. The landlord did not address the resident’s damp and mould concerns in the response.
14. Records show contact on 31 October, 6 November, and 10 November 2025, during which the landlord apologised for the ongoing delays and said works were booked for 11 November. Internal emails from 18 November show further delays because of issues in another property and ongoing access problems. Investigations continued, and the leak remained unresolved.
15. In February 2026, the landlord told the resident that a contractor had inspected her property for damp and mould, but it did not confirm when this inspection took place. It said the contractor found that the extractor filters required cleaning and that this had contributed to the mould. The landlord explained that maintaining the filters was the resident’s responsibility. On 19 February 2026, the landlord advised the resident that she could make an insurance claim for damage once the leak had been resolved.
16. Identifying the source of a leak can be challenging, and this case was complicated by the scale of the issue and the number of potential sources. The landlord continued its investigations after issuing its final response, and records from January to February 2026 show that it provided updates. The delays in repairing the leak appear to be linked to the complexity of the issue rather than clear failures in diagnosis.
17. The fact that the matter is ongoing is not automatically a failing by the landlord. In this case the records show the landlord’s focus on resolving the problem and the attempts it has made to resolve it. The landlord acknowledged that at least some of the delay was caused by its lack of action at times, and poor communication. It apologised, offered compensation which was broadly in line with our remedies guidance for failings of this nature, explained the further steps it was taking to investigate and resolve the leak, and confirmed the resident could claim on its insurance for any internal damp and mould damage. These were reasonable and relevant remedies, in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and guidance.
18. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s damp and mould concerns (reported in July 2025) until September, which was well outside its policy timescale, and not reasonable in the circumstances of the potential cause being the leak which the landlord was responsible for resolving. That left the complaint incompletely resolved and was a failing.

19. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, and issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The policy states that if it cannot meet these timescales, it will contact the resident to explain the delay. This is in line with the Code.
20. The managing agent raised a complaint with the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 29 April 2025. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 June 2025, 27 working days later. This was 12 working days outside its required timescale. In its response, the landlord said it does not usually accept complaints from non‑residents but agreed to respond on this occasion as a goodwill gesture.
21. On 27 June 2025, the managing agent escalated the complaint to stage 2. The landlord told the agent that non‑residents could not escalate a complaint, and that the only further escalation available was through legal action. That was incorrect and not appropriate. If the landlord had concerns about the agent’s authority to make the complaint the customer-focused course would have been to explain that the leaseholder needed to escalate the complaint herself or should provide permission for the agent to do so on the leaseholder’s behalf.
22. The resident then brought her concerns to the Ombudsman, and we asked the landlord to issue a stage 2 response on 25 July 2025.
23. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 21 October 2025, 117 working days after the escalation request and outside its policy timescale. In that response, the landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s escalation on 25 July 2025. It also apologised for the delay at stage 1 and offered £150 compensation for overall complaint handling delays.
24. Overall, while the landlord acknowledged the delays, apologised, and offered compensation, it did not address the inconsistency in how it handled the complaint or its missed opportunity to explain the need for consent at stage 1. These issues contributed to avoidable delays that were not considered in its remedy. This was a failure in its complaint handling.

Learning

Communication and record keeping

25. The landlord should recognise that the Code aims to make it easier to complain and reflect on how its approach to the escalation and consent issue in this case did not support that aim.