Notting Hill Genesis (202517561)

Background

1. The landlord was aware that the resident has long‑term health conditions, including a neurological condition. In August 2025, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould, its response to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), and its handling of her request for a managed transfer.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property.
5. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

6. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.
   3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property.
   4. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.

7. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its damp and mould and repairs policies. Its lack of urgency, poor communication, and failure to demonstrate how it addressed ongoing potential hazards caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of reports of ASB.

8. The landlord failed to manage the resident’s reports of ASB in line with its policy. Its failure to make reasonable adjustments to its evidence‑gathering, and failure to take practical monitoring measures caused the resident prolonged distress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property.

9. The landlord applied its transfer and lettings policies correctly and made appropriate multi‑agency referrals. However, the landlord did not clearly explain how it considered the resident’s medical evidence. This lack of transparency left the resident with the perception that the landlord had not fully taken her health circumstances into account.

Handling of the complaint.

10. The landlord failed to comply with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) by not recognising an early expression of dissatisfaction and by exceeding its complaint response times. These failures caused the resident avoidable time and trouble. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays, offered proportionate compensation, and committed to service improvements.

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.

What we did not investigate and why

11. This Service may not consider the landlord’s actions in relation to historic damp and mould, as these concerns were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the issues arising. The investigation has therefore focused on the complaint the resident made in August 2025.
12. The resident told us that the mould in the property impacted her physical health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
13. This Service does not typically consider complaints that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We have not seen evidence that events relating to damp and mould occurring after 30 October 2025 completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. References to any other events beyond that date are included for context only.

What we found

14. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, landlords are required to identify and assess potential hazards within their rented properties and take appropriate action where such hazards exist. Damp and mould growth are recognised hazards under the HHSRS and require landlords to consider whether they pose a risk to a resident’s health and safety and, if so, to remedy them.
15. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that significant hazards must be investigated within 10 working days.
16. Our Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould makes clear that landlords should respond in a timely manner, and that their response should reflect the urgency and seriousness of the issue, particularly where reports are ongoing or worsening.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy states that standard repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
18. From 1 April 2025, the resident repeatedly reported damp and mould at the property and raised concerns about worsening conditions, cold temperatures, and the impact on her health. On 16 April 2025, the landlord carried out works, including a mould wash, applying a stain‑block treatment to two walls, and repainting with anti‑mould paint. However, the landlord did not carry out a thorough investigation to identify and address the underlying cause of the recurring damp and mould.
19. After the resident made a further report of damp and mould on 4 August 2025, the landlord raised another works order for mould treatment. The landlord recorded “no access” for appointments scheduled on 18 August 2025 and 8 September 2025. The resident said she was not made aware of these appointments in advance. We have not seen evidence that the landlord agreed the appointments with the resident in advance. Despite ongoing reports of disrepair and potential hazards, the landlord did not take sufficient steps to rearrange access, escalate the matter, or ensure that it carried out an investigation within its policy timescales.
20. On 18 September 2025, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord indicating that the resident intended to pursue a disrepair claim.
21. The landlord conducted a damp and mould survey on 24 September 2025 which recommended works including retiling and checks to ventilation. However, the landlord did not explain the survey findings to the resident or provide a clear plan for completing the recommended works. The landlord did not provide the resident with reassurance that the issue had been adequately assessed or that appropriate remedial action would follow.
22. Despite the resident continuing to report the issues on a monthly basis, the landlord relied primarily on surface level treatments and ventilation advice. Approximately 5 months elapsed between the resident’s initial reports of damp and mould and the landlord carrying out a comprehensive survey. In this time the landlord focused its response on addressing visible symptoms rather than assessing the cause of the damp and mould. As a result, it did not properly consider whether the ongoing damp and mould constituted a hazard, or was caused by building defects requiring remedial action, as required by the HHSRS and the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
23. In its Stage 2 complaint response dated 30 October 2025, the landlord stated that it was committed to completing any repairs required. We note that the landlord instructed an expert report, which was carried out on 12 November 2025, as part of the resident’s disrepair claim. That report concluded that there was no active damp or mould at the time of inspection and attributed mould in the bedroom to insufficient ventilation, recommending resealing works in the bathroom.
24. In summary, the resident made repeated reports about damp and mould at the property over a prolonged period. The resident also raised her health concerns which the landlord was aware of. In these circumstances, the landlord should have taken a more proactive and risk‑based approach from the outset. The landlord did not carry out a timely and thorough investigation and instead relied on cosmetic treatments. This left the resident without a lasting resolution and caused her frustration, worry, and inconvenience.
25. The landlord failed to act in line with its own policies. The landlord also failed to provide the resident with clear communication or assurance that it was appropriately addressing the problem. These failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience. To reflect the impact on the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay £200, in line with our compensation guidance where service failures have adversely affected a resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge them.

What we did not investigate and why

26. This Service may not consider the landlord’s actions in relation to historic ASB, as these concerns were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the issues arising. The investigation has therefore focused on the complaint the resident made in August 2025.
27. The resident told us that the ASB impacted her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we found

28. The resident reported ASB including loud noise in communal areas, smoking outside the building, and later harassment by an alleged perpetrator that she said was linked to a neighbouring flat. It is not our role to determine whether ASB occurred or to establish who was responsible. Our role is to assess how the landlord responded to the reports it received and whether it acted in line with its policies, procedures and good practice.
29. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it will contact residents within 1 working day of receiving a report and offer a visit within 5 working days. The policy also requires the landlord to investigate reports, monitor risks, and complete and regularly review a risk assessment. The landlord commits to agreeing an ASB action plan with the resident where appropriate. The policy further recognises the impact of persistent ASB and states that the landlord will signpost residents to other agencies for additional support when needed.
30. On 28 August 2024, the resident reported an ASB incident involving a perpetrator linked to a neighbouring flat, stating that a recent confrontation had left her feeling unsafe. On 29 October 2024, she reported further damage to the communal front door, which she described as vandalism by the same perpetrator. We have not seen evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took any action in response to these reports.
31. The landlord completed an ASB risk assessment on 3 April 2025 and categorised the case as low risk. The resident continued to report incidents of ASB to the landlord from May 2025 onwards. These reports increased in seriousness and included allegations of targeted and intimidating behaviour. Despite this escalation, the landlord did not review or update its risk assessment.
32. Following reports of ASB in June 2025, the landlord repeatedly asked the resident to complete incident diaries before escalating the case. The landlord sought corroborating evidence, which was reasonable. However, it relied heavily on the completion of incident diaries as the way to progress the case.
33. On 30 July 2025, the landlord described the reports as general isolated domestic noise. This assessment did not reflect the cumulative nature of the resident’s concerns. The resident had made ongoing reports over several months and had involved the police, and she had expressed fear and distress.
34. On 22 August 2025, the resident explained that trauma prevented her from completing incident diaries. The landlord did not offer any reasonable adjustments for this in its approach to gathering evidence. It also did not set out or pursue alternative ways of assessing the reports, such as proactive monitoring or additional visits.
35. On 3 September 2025 the landlord offered mediation in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. It also made some contact with neighbours and engaged with partner agencies. However, the landlord did not meaningfully consider or clearly explain practical monitoring measures, such as noise monitoring equipment, to the resident between May and November 2025, despite her repeated ASB reports.
36. The landlord appropriately liaised with the police and referred the matter for a multi‑agency risk assessment on 9 December 2025. That multi-agency meeting on 14 January 2026 identified no safeguarding concerns requiring further action. However, the landlord still did not agree an ASB action plan with defined steps, responsibilities, and timescales with the resident, as required by its ASB policy. As a result, the resident remained uncertain about how the landlord was actively managing her concerns.
37. Overall, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s ASB reports in line with its policy. The resident made repeated reports over a prolonged period, of 14 months. During that time, the reports escalated in seriousness and included police involvement and allegations of intimidation. Despite this, the landlord did not keep the ASB risk assessment under active review. The landlord relied heavily on incident diaries as a condition for progressing the case, even after the resident explained that trauma prevented her from completing them. The landlord also characterised the behaviour as general domestic noise without adequately considering the cumulative pattern of the reports.
38. The landlord took some reasonable steps, including liaising with the police and making a multi‑agency referral. However, it did not agree or implement a clear and timely ASB action plan in line with its own policy. This lack of clear communication, proactive risk management, and defined actions caused the resident prolonged distress, uncertainty, and fear.
39. The landlord provided no evidence to show that it had learned from these failings or taken steps to prevent similar issues in future. To reflect the distress and inconvenience caused, we have ordered the landlord to pay £200 to the resident. This amount is in line with our compensation guidance where service failures have adversely affected a resident and the landlord has failed to acknowledge them.

What we did not investigate and why

40. This Service may not consider the landlord’s actions in relation to the resident’s historic requests to move, as these concerns were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the issues arising. The investigation has therefore focused on the complaint the resident made in August 2025.
41. The resident told us that the landlord’s decision to reject her request to move impacted her mental health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we found

42. The landlord’s transfer procedure explains how it allocates priority banding to residents who request a move. Where a resident believes their medical condition is adversely affected by their current accommodation, the landlord allows them to apply for increased priority by completing a Medical Self‑Assessment form. The Housing Officer and Housing Manager review the form to decide whether they need to refer the case to an external medical assessor. The Housing Manager then makes the final decision on medical priority and informs the resident of the outcome.
43. The transfer procedure gives residents the right to appeal medical decisions by submitting further evidence and a written statement to the Lettings Panel. The policy also sets out eligibility requirements for registering for a transfer. It states that residents with rent arrears cannot register until they reduce their arrears to below 1 week’s rent.
44. On 25 July 2025, the resident submitted a property transfer application. She included a covering letter explaining that the condition of the property and ongoing ASB were adversely affecting her health. The landlord assessed the application in line with its lettings policy. It rejected both the initial application and the subsequent appeal, through decisions made by the Housing Manager on 31 July 2025 and the Lettings Panel on 4 August 2025, on the basis that the resident did not meet the eligibility criteria due to her rent arrears.
45. On 14 August 2025 the landlord referred the resident’s medical evidence to an external medical assessor. The assessor concluded on 20 August 2025 that medical priority did not apply to the resident’s transfer application.
46. The landlord received correspondence from Adult Social Care on 17 September 2025, on behalf of the resident, which requested a managed transfer on safeguarding grounds. The landlord considered this information, along with the resident’s repeated requests to move, and referred the case to a Community Multi‑Agency Risk Assessment Conference (CMARAC) on 9 December 2025.
47. On 14 January 2026, the CMARAC, which included police representation, reviewed the case. CMARAC noted the resident’s vulnerabilities and reports of ASB but identified no safeguarding concerns and no evidence to support an emergency move. It concluded that the existing housing arrangements were appropriate and identified noise monitoring as the next step to resolve the ASB case. The landlord then contacted Environmental Health to support noise monitoring and explore the installation of monitoring equipment, and it confirmed this approach in its Stage 2 response issued on 3 February 2026.
48. Overall, the landlord applied its transfer and lettings policies when it considered the resident’s requests for a move. It placed significant weight on rent arrears and eligibility criteria in its decision‑making. The landlord followed its procedures by referring the resident’s medical circumstances to an external medical assessor and a multi‑agency panel. However, it did not clearly explain this process or the outcomes to the resident. In particular, the landlord did not set out how it collectively considered the resident’s medical evidence, reported vulnerabilities, and deterioration in mental health when the Housing Manager and the external medical assessor made decisions. This lack of transparency left the resident with a reasonable perception that the landlord did not meaningfully take her health circumstances into account when deciding on her transfer request.
49. This lack of explanation caused the resident uncertainty, inconvenience, and time and trouble in seeking clarity. The landlord also provided no evidence to show that it had learned from these failings or taken steps to prevent similar issues. To reflect the inconvenience and time and trouble caused, we have ordered the landlord to pay £50 to the resident, in line with our compensation guidance.

50. The Code states that a resident does not need to use the word “complaint” for their concerns to be treated as such. On 30 July 2025, the resident expressed dissatisfaction when she said she had not received a response to a previous email and raised ongoing, unresolved ASB concerns. These comments showed that she was unhappy with how the landlord was managing her transfer request. The landlord did not recognise or record this as a complaint and missed the opportunity to identify, consider, and address the issues at an earlier stage.
51. The landlord’s Complaints Policy complies with the timescale requirements set out in the Code. It requires the landlord to issue responses within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2.
52. The landlord did not always meet the timescales set out in the Code in its responses to Complaint A or Complaint B. The landlord took approximately 6 months from the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction to issue its final formal response. The resident waited longer than necessary for a resolution as a result. This caused her avoidable time and trouble, as she spent additional time and effort chasing updates.
53. The landlord handled the 2 complaints separately. Complaint A considered the resident’s reports of damp and mould, while Complaint B focused on ASB at the property and the related request for a managed transfer, which overlapped with matters already raised in Complaint A. Although this resulted in overlapping complaint processes, it allowed the landlord to review some of the issues more fully, which mitigated detriment to the resident.
54. In its final formal response, the landlord apologised for the delays and offered £150 compensation in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experienced with the delays in its complaint handling. This offer was in line with our compensation guidance for complaint handling failures causing significant impact and was proportionate to the circumstances.
55. The landlord also reflected on the complaint and committed to improving its complaints service. It said it would increase staffing levels to meet response times and seek to provide more consistent and timely customer service in line with its service level agreements.
56. Taking account of the complaint handling failures identified, the impact on the resident, the landlord’s offer of compensation, and its commitment to service improvement, we find that the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Learning

57. The landlord could benefit from taking a more proactive and risk‑based approach from the outset by assessing the causes of damp and mould at the earliest opportunity.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

58. The landlord could consider ensuring that ASB risk assessments are kept under active review and escalated appropriately as reports persist or increase, with clear action plans agreed and communicated in line with its ASB policy.
59. The landlord could learn from its failure to capture the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint.

Communication

60. The landlord could consider improving communication by clearly explaining survey findings, access arrangements, and remedial plans to residents, particularly where issues are ongoing and residents report health impacts, such as damp and mould.
61. The landlord could consider ensuring greater transparency when applying its transfer procedure by clearly explaining to residents, when appropriate, how medical evidence, reported vulnerabilities, and other professional input are considered together when making decisions.