Notting Hill Genesis (202519335)

Decision
Case ID	202519335
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	26 February 2026

Background

1. The resident has health conditions, including respiratory problems. She moved into a downstairs flat in late 2023 and reported several defects, including damp. A structural issue was also found with the roof. The landlord completed repairs in mid-2024 while the resident was temporarily rehoused. In April 2025 she reported damp had recurred and enquired about the roof. The resident was unhappy with how the landlord handled and communicated about the damp and roof issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Damp repairs.
   2. Roof replacement.
   3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the damp repairs.
4. We have also found that the landlord gave reasonable redress for the handling of the:
   1. Roof replacement.
   2. Associated complaint.
5. In view of the above, we have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to follow its policies, timescales, and processes in the management of the damp repairs. It also did not communicate effectively with the resident. Though it acknowledged most failings and attempted to put things right, the landlord did not complete all actions it agreed to and this caused the resident some further time and trouble.
7. There were similar failings in the landlord’s handling of the roof replacement and associated complaint. However, in both aspects the landlord acknowledged all failings and took proportionate action to put the impact 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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior member of staff. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay compensation directly to the resident of £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its failings in handling the damp repairs. The landlord must provide documentary evidence that this has been paid by the due date. It may deduct any payment it has made from its original award of £500.	No later than 26 March 2026

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendation
If it has not already, the landlord should pay the £500 it awarded for the impact of its failures in the roof replacement and £250 for the impact of the complaint handling failures. A finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of the compensation award.
The landlord should consider giving the resident a potential timeframe for when it intends to complete the roof replacement. The landlord may also wish to set out any potential barriers to meeting this timescale. It should also consider providing or reconfirming a point of contact for the resident for the roof replacement.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 May 2025	The resident complained that she had not heard anything more following the landlord’s damp inspection a few weeks prior. She later added that she was unhappy about the involvement of the contractor who completed works before to her moving in. She also expressed concern that it had not identified the root cause of the damp. She asked it to instruct an independent damp specialist, ensure repairs were not invasive so she could remain in her home, and for the landlord to provide a copy of its inspection report.
13 June 2025	The resident complained about the roof. She said more than a year had passed since a surveyor had identified damage to the roof and she had received no update on when it would commence. She said she believed the condition of the roof could be contributing to the damp problem and that her neighbour had told her they were experiencing damp too.
25 June 2025	The resident asked to escalate her damp complaint because she said the landlord had not followed its complaints process and timescales.
1 July 2025	Unhappy that the landlord had informed her previously in an acknowledgement that it had combined her 2 complaints, she asked to escalate her roof complaint. She said the Local Authority’s Environmental Health Team (EHT) had recently inspected the damp and would be contacting the landlord with its findings. She also sent a separate request to again escalate her damp complaint because she said she had initially complained in May 2025 and the landlord had exceeded its timescales.
8 July 2025	In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said: Due to its procurement process and financial arrangements, it would not appoint a different contractor. Its surveyor had identified signs of water ingress and rising/penetrating damp, which were rated 2 out of 5 in severity, but required further investigation to identify the cause. It urged the resident to agree to schedule them with its contractor (after it had made unsuccessful attempts). Communication about the limitations of using damp equipment to diagnose damp and the urgency of the damp and roof repairs were not made clear by it. The landlord awarded £200 compensation for the inconvenience and communication problems. It also confirmed a schedule of works needed to the bedroom, toilet, bathroom, hallway, kitchen, external brickwork, and roof guttering.
7 August 2025	The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord’s Chief Executive stating that: There was a persistent damp problem that the landlord had not thoroughly investigated and/or diagnosed. Roof works identified in 2024 were outstanding and may be contributing to the damp problem. She had been told the stage 2 response was delayed until 5 September 2025. The resident said her health conditions were being exacerbated by the conditions. She asked the landlord to appoint a damp specialist and to complete the works while she remained in the home using low-odour, non-toxic products.
13 August 2025	In its stage 2 response, the landlord: Agreed with its initial response in terms of being satisfied with its inspection and use of approved contractor. Reminded her of her obligations under the tenancy agreement to allow repairs and asked her to book them. Offered to temporarily rehouse her during the works because of her health conditions but also agreed to work with her if she wanted to remain in situ. Provided a timeline of what it had done concerning the roof replacement and recognised its communication about this had been poor. Acknowledged failings in its handling of her initial complaint and not responding to her requests to be updated. Gave its liability insurers details so she could make a personal injury claim. The landlord apologised, reassured that it would oversee and then post inspect the repairs, and awarded compensation of £1,250, made up of: £500 for the inconvenience from its damp repair failings. £500 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of the roof replacement. £250 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
After the complaints process ended	The resident said she was willing to allow repairs but said she was unhappy with the resolution offered and she had unanswered questions. Following some back-and-forth communications the landlord met with the resident in October 2025 to discuss her concerns and its proposal to temporarily rehouse her. It reached an agreement with her and repairs and investigations were completed in November and December 2025, during which the resident was in temporary accommodation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us because she felt the landlord had not addressed all aspects, which she attributed in part to its decision to combine the damp and roof issues. She believes the landlord has not identified the underlying cause of the damp and that it is potentially connected to the roof. She informed us a damp and mould patch appeared in her toilet on 18 December 2025 which the landlord treated. She is seeking for the landlord to complete repairs and award more compensation.

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	Damp repairs
Finding	Service failure

What we have not looked at

8. The resident made complaints about the condition of the property on moving in and the standard of the property she was moved to temporarily while the landlord completed repairs. In both cases the landlord acknowledged failings and took actions it deemed appropriate to put things right. The resident also referred these complaints to us and these will be investigated separately, in line with our process. While there is some overlap, this report focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the recurrence of the damp problem after the landlord completed repairs in September 2024. We have also investigated its handling of the roof repair from early 2024.
9. Recently the resident advised us of new issues that have arisen after the complaints process ended. This includes that she believes the landlord failed to respond to her new report of damp within prescribed timescales set by Awaab’s Law, which came into effect from 27 October 2025. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. Therefore, the resident would need to make a new complaint in the first instance and complete the landlord’s complaints process. She may then refer it to us if she remains dissatisfied with its response.

What we have looked at

10. Under the tenancy agreement and repairs policy the landlord is obligatedto complete remedial work to the structure of the resident’s home.The landlord completed damp repairs in September 2024 inthe lounge, bedroom, toilet, and bathroom. This included, but was not limited to, damp proofing in the bedroom, replastering and applying mould paint in the toilet and bathroom, upgrading the bathroom extractorfan, and repointing an external wall. It is apparent from the records the landlord diagnosed several causes including leaks from the flat above, condensation, and defective pointing on a party wall.
11. On 29 April 2025, the resident reported she was experiencing damp again. Under the damp policy the landlord was required to inspect the problem within 5 or 10 working days based on the vulnerabilities in the household. The landlord met its urgent timescale in inspecting the resident’s property on 8 May 2025, which was appropriateas it knew about her health conditions.
12. At the May 2025 inspection the surveyor’s report noted finding different areas of damp affecting the paintwork in the bedroom, toilet, bathroom, hallway, and kitchen. The potential causes included moisture ingress through a party wall, condensation, and external issues such as a blocked rainwater gulley and missing pointing. Our October 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould acknowledged that identifying and resolving the cause can be complex and can take multiple investigations and repair attempts. While the damp returned in some of the same rooms that repairs had been completed in 6 months prior, this is not an indication of a failing. The landlord also identified some new possible causes that may not have been present or obvious at the first inspection.
13. The resident complained in early June 2025 that the landlord had not updated her with its findings or responded to her emails about it. Communicating with residents about its findings and next steps was a key part of the landlord’s damp policy. It was particularly important given the history of this case, where the landlord had upheld complaints, partly because of failings it identified in how it communicated. The landlord did not follow its damp policy in keeping the resident updated. This led to the resident chasing it up. Appropriately the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to communicate effectively and took some steps to put right the impact of this.
14. One of the ways the landlord sought to remedy the resident’s concerns was in providing reassurance about the standard of its investigation. We recognise that her previous experiences would have made her more wary which is understandable. She had also believed that the surveyor had told her his damp meter was not working. The landlord gave reasonable explanations about how it investigates for damp, including internal and external visual inspections. It could though have been clearer that the damp meter was working, but photographs it included in its final response supported this. So, we have seen no impact arising from its shortfall.
15. The damp policy gave a provision for the landlord to appoint an external damp specialist where a resident disagreed with its findings, but this was at its discretion. We are satisfied the landlord did consider the resident’s request and clearly set out its reasons for not doing so. The landlord is entitled to rely on the findings of its specialists, which in this case was a senior surveyor and its appointed contractor, who also attended the inspection. As explained, the surveyor recorded the possible diagnoses and repairs or investigations the landlord should undertake. The report was in keeping with the standards set in the landlord’s damp policy.
16. The resident escalated her complaint in July 2025 partly because she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not agreed to appoint a different contractor. Her concerns were understandable given the previous experience of the contractor. However, the landlord’s explanation about why it would not appoint a different contractor was in line with the approach outlined in its repairs policy to provide value for money. It was though reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to provide reassurance that its surveyor would oversee the repairs and they would be post inspected.
17. One of the other reasons the resident escalated her complaint was because she believed the landlord had not identified the root cause of the damp. She stated the EHT had inspected the property in late June 2025. Though we have not seen any communications between the EHT and the landlord, it referred to the EHT’s findings in the final response. This included confirmation of a high damp reading on walls near the kitchen and a damp smell in the bedroom and hallway cupboard.
18. The resident advised us the EHT assessed the risk of the damp, using the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, as a category 2 hazard. This means there were no severe risks found for the local authority to consider taking enforcement action against the landlord. The EHT’s findings supported that there was a damp problem but did not, according to available evidence, undermine the landlord’s findings and proposed actions. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to maintain its position that it would not be appointing an independent damp specialist.
19. In her emails both before and during the complaints process the resident asked questions about the repairs the landlord had identified. For example, she wanted to know what products would be used and reassurance they would not be toxic because of her health conditions so she could remain in the home. We find the landlord’s responses made some reasonable attempts to address some of her questions and concerns. The stage 2 included links to some of the products and included a schedule of works. It also signposted the resident to contact the surveyor directly about any questions and gave assurances the repairs would be post inspected. While these actions were reasonable, it should have done more to address the questions she had already raised. For example, it could have arranged for the surveyor or another technical specialist to address them and included the answers as an appendix, as it did with the schedule of works. This was a further communication failure, and again not in line with the expectations of the damp policy.
20. The resident sent about 5 emails, some on consecutive days, after the stage 2 response from mid-August 2025 asking for responses to her questions. She had asked for communication to be by email only.We recognise the resident had lots of questions and need for assurances beyond what a landlord would usually be expected to answer and provide. This is particularly given its limited resources and need to use these proportionately. However, given the resident’s past experiences and its offer in the stage 2 to work with heron a solution, it was appropriate in this case for the landlord to tailor its approach. Though delayed, we have seen it did attempt to answer the resident’s questions. This included addressing her concern that the structural works to the roof may be connected to the damp problem, which it advisedwas not the case, in its view.
21. It also then arranged a face-to-face meeting on 9 October 2025 to discuss things further, including the possible temporary accommodation arrangements. This conversation appears to have been productive as the landlord was then able to arrange a temporary move (giving regard to the resident’s needs and requests) and start works within a month. Had the landlord made more effort during the complaints process, it may have been able to reach this point much sooner.
22. All repairs and investigations were completed by 3 December 2023. We have seen that the resident was advised that there was a period of drying out of masonry and the need for the landlord to reinspect in 3 months. The landlord also recorded that it post inspected the work and was satisfied with the standard of it. These actions are in line with the approach outlined in its damp policy and that the landlord agreed to complete in its final response.
23. The 5 months it took to complete the repairs identified at the inspection was partly caused by the landlord not following its damp policy and its communication failings. The landlord has mostly acknowledged its failings and taken appropriate actions to put things right. It apologised and awarded compensation of £500, which was the maximum amount its policy allows for distress and inconvenience that is significant.
24. As explained, we found the landlord was not proactive about arranging a communication method that worked for both the resident and it. This caused her avoidable time and trouble after the complaints process ended. It also likely contributed to furtherdelays in repairs not being completed and, therefore, the resident living in damp conditions for more time. We also saw no evidence that it considered or completed interim repairs or measures, which is something it assured it would do in its final response.Although the landlord’s findings indicate that the damp was not severe, it is apparent that the further delays caused the resident concern for her health. We have therefore awardedmore compensation at the top end of the range (£100-£600) that our remedies guidance recommendsfor serious impacts.

Complaint	Roof replacement
Finding	Reasonable redress

25. The landlord is required to repair and maintain the roof under the tenancy agreement. On 29 January 2024, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and recommended a further inspection of the roof by a structural engineer. According to the stage 2 response, this was obtained at some point in early 2024 because it referred to recommendations to complete temporary reinforcement works.
26. The landlord did not confirm in its responses what the nature of the roof work was, but it was apparent the resident was aware, to some extent, because she had received information from a subject access request. It is a failing that the landlord was not more open and communicative about what the roof work would entail, even though she was less likely to be impacted by it than her neighbour in the flat above.
27. There was no set timeframe in the repairs policy for when the landlord will complete work where it has identified a need to replace something. Replacing a roof is costly and it is not unusual for social housing providers to complete such work under a programme of works which are usually decided and planned for months or years in advance. In such cases, we would expect to see evidence that any interim repairs were completed as the landlord still has an obligation to complete these.
28. Though we have not seen the structural engineer’s report, or records of when the reinforcement work took place, there is reference to them having been completed in the structural engineer’s October 2024 report. The landlord therefore met its repair obligations in completing an interim repair. However, we are unable to see if these were completed within a reasonable time.
29. The repairs policy states that for replacement work it will give residents a timeframe for when the work will be completed. This did not happen in the resident’s case, which was not in line with its policy. The landlord acknowledged its communication failings and took some steps to put things right. It apologised and awarded compensation of £500, which again was at the highest its compensation policy states it will pay for high impacts. It was proportionate in our view given the length of time the resident had been waiting, and the lack of updates or clarity about it for a year and a half.
30. The landlord gave an update on the status of the roof work. This was that it was in a position to appoint a contractor but the costs were being reviewed by the relevant team. The landlord advised that this process would take a few weeks and she would be kept updated. The landlord broadly followed its repair policy in providing a timeframe, though it would have been better if it had specified when it intended to start work.
31. We are aware that the work is still outstanding 5 months on. Records show the landlord kept the resident updated about its progress, which it explained was affected by the need to temporarily rehouse the tenant in the flat above. We also understand that the resident is likely to be either temporarily or permanently rehoused. Clearly the issue is complex and requires considerable planning and costs on the landlord’s part. It is therefore not an indication of a failing that the work has not yet begun. We have though recommended the landlord update the resident with an indicative start date.

 

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

32. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process that largely adheres to the timescales and principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This includes recognising our definition of a complaint as being where someone expresses dissatisfaction with a landlord’s service. It will acknowledge a complaint and escalation within 5 working days. It will then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. If the landlord is unable to meet these it will agree an extension of up to 20 working days at stage 1 if there is good reason to. Where it differs from the Code is in allowing an extension of up to 30 working days instead of 20 working days at stage 2.
33. On 27 May 2025, the resident emailed the landlord expressing dissatisfaction that she had not heard anything further after its inspection. It should have then dealt with the matter as a complaint because it was apparent the resident was unhappy with its service. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to raise the complaint at this point, apologised, and awarded compensation. It was in line with its complaints policy to take steps to put things right where it identified failures.
34. After the resident completed the landlord’s complaint form on 10 June 2025, it acknowledged it on the same day. It sent a further one setting out the specifics of the complaint it was investigating on 16 June 2025. This was within its policy timescales and process. The landlord also followed its process in informing the resident on 30 June 2025 of its need to extend the timescale by another 10 working days. It then responded on 8 July 2025, which was within the extended timescale, taking 16 working days overall from its acknowledgement.
35. We were unable to see in the records provided that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation requests of 25 June 2025 and 1 July 2025. She also sent other emails repeating her complaints around the same time that appear to have gone unaddressed. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge these and to explain that it was still within its stage 1 timescale.  It was unclear if the resident had seen its email notifying her of the need for more time. That it failed to do this likely caused the resident inconvenience in chasing things up. Appropriately the landlord recognised it had not responded to the resident’s emails and took steps to put the impact right.
36. The landlord advised in its stage 2 response that the resident had escalated her complaint on 9 July 2025 and it notified her of its need for more time on 6 August 2025. We have not seen either of these communications but note the resident did not dispute this. The landlord’s final response of 13 August 2025 took 24 working days overall from the resident escalating her complaint, which was within its policy timescales.
37. Though not referenced in its policy, the landlord’s decision to combine the resident’s complaints was in keeping with the Code for cases where additional complaints are raised prior to the stage 1 response. It was also reasonable in this case because the resident had suggested that the roof issues could be contributing to the damp problem.
38. Both the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy state it does not consider impacts where an insurance or personal injury claim would be better suited. It was therefore in keeping with its approach to signpost the resident to make a claim. Even so, the landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged that she felt her living conditions had impacted her health. This was good practice and in line with our guidance on apologies, which encourages landlords to provide responses that are personal and empathetic.
39. The landlord’s award of compensation of £250 was at the top of the range (£100-£250) its compensation policy states it may pay for distress and inconvenience caused by its service failure “that has not been manageable for the resident.” It was proportionate to the impact and within the range we would have ordered.

Learning

Complaints policy

40. From April 2024 the Code became a legal requirement for landlords to follow. As explained, the landlord’s stage 2 extension timescale did not align with the Code. If it has not already done so, it should amend its policy and process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. Not all of the inspections and repairs were included in the records. It also recorded some, but not all, contractor work on its centralised records. Though this was not a barrier to this investigation, we encourage the landlord to consider reviewing its record keeping practices to ensure consistency.

Communication

42. Our spotlight report on repairing trust, published in May 2025, also highlighted the need for landlords to set out clear next steps and keep residents updated to help build trust. We encourage the landlord to consider the recommendations we made in our report, particularly in respect to complex, lengthy repairs. Such as, for example, the use of resident liaison officers to keep residents updated.