Notting Hill Genesis (202518397)

Decision
Case ID	202518397
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	8 April 2026

 

Background

1. The resident reported the condition and suitability of her home to the landlord during a home visit in December 2024. She complained because the landlord did not respond to her phone calls, email or take any action following the visit.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns regarding the suitability and condition of her home.
   2. Complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the suitability and condition of her home.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Summary of reasons

Resident’s concerns regarding the suitability and condition of her home

4. The landlord did not communicate or act upon the agreed actions from its home visit in December 2024. It gave unclear information about a grant application, delayed reviewing an adaptations assessment and did not respond promptly to reports of damp. It demonstrated poor communication and case management. However, its apology and redress were consistent with its policy and were proportionate in recognising the impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not comply with its complaint policy. However, its apology, redress and learning were sufficient to put right the impact on the resident for its failings.

 

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
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £1100 offered in its complaint responses. Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s response to the concerns raised and the complaint handling is made on the basis the compensation is paid.
The landlord should consider providing the resident with a single point of contact (SPOC) to correspond with, at agreed intervals, on the progress of finding a suitable property or to progress the required adaptations.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
9 April 2025	The resident raised a complaint to the landlord. She said: it had not followed up on the actions from a home visit, and it had ignored her call back requests it had not told her the outcome of her grant application it had not considered her disability, and she wanted it to offer her a suitable property she had a reoccurring damp and mould issue in her son’s bedroom
6 June 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response, in which it: apologised for a lack of communication regarding the grant application acknowledged the property was no longer suitable and confirmed it had previously awarded a top priority banding on its choice-based lettings system explained there was a shortage of available social housing and encouraged the resident to continue checking for suitable properties offered £300 compensation, made up of: £50 for complaint handling £150 for customer service failure £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience
6 June 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: the landlord’s rehousing system did not cover the area she wished to move to, and she wanted the equivalent priority with the local council the landlord should explore internal transfer options prioritising suitability and location she wanted to know the outcome of her grant application the stage 1 response and compensation did not resolve her complaint
20 November 2025	The landlord’s stage 2 response: accepted the actions discussed during the home visit had not been followed up or communicated acknowledged and apologised that adaptations recommended in 2022 were not progressed, and said the grant application was not progressed because documents had not been provided confirmed the limited availability in the area requested and said an internal transfer could be explored but not guaranteed advised the resident must contact the local council directly for consideration for its rehousing scheme said historic damp and mould repairs were completed, but confirmed it had opened a new damp and mould case confirmed the parking spaces were managed privately so it could not allocate a parking space acknowledged its complaint handling failures, partially upheld the complaint, and offered a total amount of £1100 made up of: £250 for poor communication and missed callback £400 for time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience £100 for a failure to consider needs £150 for delays in following up adaptations £200 for complaint handling
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us she wanted to be rehoused to a suitable property appropriate for her needs within her preferred location. She said the time spent in unsuitable accommodation had caused ongoing distress and inconvenience. She wanted the landlord to provide a written apology and additional compensation for her time and trouble.

 

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	Concerns regarding the suitability and condition of her home
Finding	Reasonable redress

6. The resident raised several concerns with the landlord in December 2024 and asked it to investigate. For clarity, we have addressed each issue separately, followed by our findings.

Lack of response from an email and phone call

7. The landlord visited the resident on 20 December 2024. Afterwards, she emailed a summary of the discussion and listed the main action points. She spent time and effort chasing a response on 27 March 2025 and on 2 April 2025. The landlord did not act on the points raised during the visit or respond to her update requests. This was a communication failure and led to the resident raising a complaint.
8. The landlord accepted it did not follow up the actions discussed during the visit as promptly as it should have. It accepted it had not met its service standards, apologised, and said it would confirm all future communications in writing. This was a reasonable response.

DHP Grant Application 

9. On 3 December 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident about a discretionary housing payment (DHP) pilot. It said she needed to complete an application form and provide eligibility documents. The resident told the landlord on 4 January 2025 she had completed the form and on 7 February 2025 asked for help in submitting the required documents. The landlord told her not to worry, and she would be contacted if further information was needed. This led the resident to assume her application had been submitted and no further action was needed.
10. On 2 April 2025 the resident chased the outcome of her DHP application. The landlord did not respond until September 2025 when it advised the application had not progressed because she had not submitted the eligibility documents. Its communication about her application was delayed and unclear, further, it failed to recognise her request for help in February 2025. This failure is likely to have caused frustration for the resident.

Damp and Mould

11. The landlord confirmed the resident’s property had experienced damp and mould in her son’s bedroom and the bathroom in 2021. It suspected the cause was linked to a stack pipe. It completed a repair, which resolved the issue at that time.
12. On 20 September 2024 the resident reported a recurrence of damp and mould in the same areas. The landlord raised an inspection on 2 occasions, but the resident was unwell and the inspections did not proceed. The landlord completed the repairs on 20 October 2024.This was within its 20-working day repairs timescale.
13. The resident told the landlord the damp and mould had reoccurred in her son’s bedroom during its visit in December 2024. She said the wall was wet to the touch and she was concerned about his health. The landlord took photos, but there is no evidence it took any further action at that time. Given the recurring nature of the damp and mould, it ought to have acted promptly to investigate the cause of the damp and mould. The landlord’s lack of action was unreasonable. It did not comply with its damp and mould policy which stated all initial reports will be prioritised as urgent with consideration given to any vulnerabilities.
14. On 30 July 2025 the resident reported the damp again. In line with its repairs policy the landlord completed remedial works on 18 August 2025. The repair record identified poor ventilation and airflow as contributing factors. On 12 September 2025 the resident confirmed to the landlord the damp and mould had been remedied. She said she’d been told it may return due to inadequate windows and extractor fan. In response, on 28 September 2025 the landlord arranged an inspection for 30 September 2025. The inspection did not proceed as it said the resident did not confirm the appointment. While this demonstrated its efforts to inspect the property, the notice period was minimal therefore it ought to have provided alternative dates.
15. On 20 November 2025 the landlord said it had opened anew damp and mould case due to the outstanding ventilation works recommended by the contractor. It recorded6 failed attempts to make contact or gain access to the property between 24 November 2025 and 9 January 2026. An inspection was later agreed for 16 January 2026. The landlord acted appropriately in attempting to progress the follow-on works relating to the ventilation work.

Adaptations and Parking

16. In April 2022 an occupational therapist (OT) recommended level-access facilities, which were assessed as not feasible in the resident’s property at that time. A drop-down rail was recommended, but contractor’s advised it could not be installed due to limited space. An alternative was proposed in June 2022, but concerns about space remained and it was not installed. Our scheme states complaints should be raised within 12 months of the resident becoming aware of an issue. The resident has not previously raised the missing adaptation from 2022 within the timeframe, and there is no evidence she was prevented from doing so sooner. We have not investigated this further.
17. During the December 2024 visit, the resident asked the landlord to reconsider the OT recommendations from 2022, including adaptations to the stairs and shower. There is no evidence it acted on this request, despite several chases from the resident. The matter was not addressed until the stage 2 response in November 2025. The 11-month delay was unreasonable. The landlord did not manage the adaptations in a timely manner in line with its policy.
18. The landlord agreed it would take steps under its service adjustments policy to understand the resident’s needs. It said given the time passed since the 2022 assessment, it would consider if adaptations could be completed under its current policies. This was a reasonable approach and demonstrated the landlord was seeking a customer focused resolution.
19. The resident raised concerns about parking and said she required an onsite parking space as a blue badge holder. The landlord explained a private management company managed the parking and it had no influence over parking allocations. The landlord’s response was clear and managed the resident’s expectations.

Property Transfer

20. The resident was accepted onto the landlord’s choice-based lettings system for rehousing on 25 July 2022. She was awarded the highest priority (band A). The landlord awards this priority when a resident has an urgent need to move. This showed it had considered and recognised her urgent housing need and acted in line with its allocation policy.
21. The resident confirmed the area she wished to move to on 9 April 2025, but the landlord explained it had very few adapted properties in that area. It advised her to register with the local council which had properties in the desired location. It also explained widening her preferred areas could help her move more quickly. This was reasonable advice.
22. The resident asked the landlord to arrange a reciprocal agreement with the local council on 6 June 2025 so she would receive the same priority (band A). It explained it could not do this because the council managed its own applications and allocations. It confirmed the resident must register directly. This was a reasonable explanation for why it could not make the arrangement on her behalf.
23. However, the landlord’s December 2024 visit caused confusion. It told the resident it would contact the council on her behalf but did not provide an update or outcome. This raised her expectations but then led to her disappointment when no action followed. The landlord subsequently tried to arrange a reciprocal agreement on 19 November 2025 but was advised the resident needed to telephone the council directly. This was consistent with the initial advice it had provided to the resident.
24. The landlord said the resident had not bided for a property on its choice-based lettings system between 25 July 2022 and 18 March 2024. She required a ground-floor adapted property and wished to move to a specific location where demand was high. It is reasonable these factors would have limited the availability of suitable properties and delayed her chances of securing a home. This was beyond the landlord’s control, as housing shortages affect the length of time it can take to secure a suitable home. For this reason, the length of the resident’s wait for a housing transfer does not, by itself, show a failure by the landlord.
25. The resident asked the landlord to consider a priority internal management transfer. In its stage 2 response, it said it would explore internal options within its existing stock and prioritise properties that met her needs. It set clear expectations by explaining it could not guarantee a suitable property would become available. It said it would maintain oversight of the application, provide clear next steps, and keep the resident informed. It arranged to update her on 28 November 2025 and confirm if it had identified any suitable properties. This was reasonable.

Summary

26. In summary, the landlord did not act on the agreed actions from the home visit or respond to the resident’s follow-up communications. It failed to provide clear information about the DHP application and did not review her housing options or adaptation requests in a timely manner. There were communication failures, including not rearranging inspections and not providing an outcome after agreeing to contact the council. These issues highlighted inadequate case management, and failures to follow policy.
27. In contrast, the landlord acted appropriately in several areas. It completed repairs within its expected timescales and took correct action by requesting a further damp and mould inspection when contributing factors were identified. It recognised the resident’s housing need by awarding the highest priority banding, gave accurate advice about housing availability and clearly explained its position regarding the parking arrangements.
28.        The landlord identified its failures for poor communication, delays, distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble. It apologised, awarded £900 compensation, and identified learning. In doing so, it acted in line with our dispute resolution principles: to act fairly, to put things right and learn from outcomes. Its compensation offer was in line with its policy for high impact failures aligned to what we would award for maladministration. It also aligns with our compensation guidance for failings that had an adverse effect on the resident and where the landlord has taken steps to address the detriment. A finding of reasonable redress is therefore appropriate.

Complaint	Complaint Handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

29. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
30. The resident raised a complaint on 9 April 2025, and the landlord acknowledged it 5 days later. It provided its stage 1 response on 6 June 2025, 34-working days later. This was not in line with its policy, and the landlord did not explain the reasons for the delay.
31. The resident escalated her complaint on 6 June 2025. The landlord did not acknowledge it or provide a response until we requested it do so, on 20 November 2025. It provided its response the same day, however this was 119 days after the resident’s initial escalation request. The resident should not have had to ask us to intervene to get a response to her complaint. The delay was unreasonable and not in line with its policy.
32. It is evident the resident chased both the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses on several occasions. The landlord’s failure to respond in a timely manner did not demonstrate a commitment to work with her or provide a resolution to the complaint.
33. In summary, the landlord identified failures in its complaint handling. It apologised and awarded £200 compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy. Furthermore, it identified learning to reinforce compliance with the Code and ensure requests are managed promptly. In doing so, it acted in line with our dispute resolution principles. Its offer aligned to our compensation guidance for a maladministration finding where there has been an adverse effect on the resident. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

 

Learning

34. The landlord identified areas for improvement. It said it needed to improve tracking and follow-up on agreed actions especially where health and accessibility needs are involved.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord identified its record-keeping and escalation of cases could be improved. It may find it beneficial to read our spotlight report on knowledge and information management published in May 2023.

Communication

36. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. If the landlord had taken the opportunity to communicate with the resident earlier regarding its decisions, delays and lack of action, this could have been resolved matters without escalation.