Notting Hill Genesis (202520236)

Decision
Case ID	202520236
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	19 March 2026

Background

The resident has lived in the property, a 2-bedroom flat, with her daughter since 2021. The landlord reports both occupants have asthma. The resident has reported various issues, some dating back to when she moved into the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports a bedroom was too small.
2. Reports of problems notifying repairs.
3. Requests for bathroom repairs.
4. Concerns about electrical safety.
5. Reports of failed call backs.
6. Reports of damp and defective plaster.
7. Request for a breakdown of service charges.
8. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports a bedroom was too small.
2. Reports of problems notifying repairs.
3. Associated complaint.
We found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of failed call backs.
We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Requests for bathroom repairs.
2. Reports of damp and defective plaster.
We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Concerns about electrical safety.
2. Request for a breakdown of service charges.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord:
1. Proactively addressed concerns that the second bedroom was too small and found it did not breach the space standard.
2. Resolved issues with the resident’s customer account portal.
3. Acknowledged failed call backs but put this right.
4. Dealt with the associated complaint in line with its complaint policy and our complaint handling code (the Code).
However, the landlord
1. Did not complete bathroom repairs in line with its repair policy timeframes.
2. Did not deal with electrical safety concerns with sufficient urgency.
3. Delayed remedying damp and mould and defective plaster.
4. Has not shown it has provided a breakdown of service charges.

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 meaningful, empathetic and has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 16 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence it has paid directly to the resident £750 (inclusive of the £350 already awarded) made up of the following: £100 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble due to failures handling bathroom repairs. £100 for distress and inconvenience due to failures handling electrical safety concerns. £500 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble due to failures handling reports of damp and defective plaster. £50 for time and trouble due to failures handling a request for a breakdown of service charges.	No later than 16 April 2026
3	Completing the works The landlord must take all reasonable steps to ensure it repairs the defective plaster and radiator (if it has not done so already). If it is unable to do so, it must explain why and provide supporting evidence of its attempts to start work. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish work or explain why it is unable to do so.	No later than 16 April 2026
4	Take Specific Action The landlord must confirm that it has considered whether the resident would benefit from advice or information on how to manage condensation, if it has not done so already. It should confirm whether it has provided any appropriate resources and / or advice or signposted the resident to such.	No later than 16 April 2026
5	Take specific Action The landlord must take all reasonable steps to provide a breakdown of service charges from 2021 to 2025, if it has not done so already. If it is unable to do so by the due date it must explain why and provide supporting evidence with a revised time limit.	No later than 16 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the resident the £100 previously awarded for failed call backs, if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress is based on it being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 June to 7 July 2025	The resident complained: Her second bedroom was too small. The landlord did not call her as promised. Repairs, including damp and mould remedies, were outstanding and she had problems reporting them via the customer portal. She asked the landlord to move her to an alternative property.
11 July 2025	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said: The resident was responsible for some repairs. It was resolving customer portal issues. The second bedroom met legal size requirements. It was sorry for poor communication and repair delays and acknowledged some remained outstanding. It offered compensation for the impact of its failings. The resident could apply for a transfer. It would update her by 18 July 2025.
11 July 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She reiterated some of the issues raised at stage 1 and said some were unresolved She disagreed with the amount of compensation and: Reported electrical safety concerns. Queried the reasonableness of service charges over the previous 4 years and asked for a breakdown. Complained about a member of staff she spoke with when she previously enquired about service charges.
9 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It reiterated the contents of the stage 1 response and: Acknowledged a further failed call back on 18 July 2025. Said it had resolved customer portal issues. Said it had completed repairs but apologised some were outstanding. Referenced an upcoming repair appointment and agreed to contact the resident within 10 working days to discuss remaining issues. Told her how to dispute service charges. Apologised for poor service Signposted her to its insurers as she said issues affected her health. Awarded compensation for failures (some of which do not form part of this complaint).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident told us some repairs remain outstanding. She is concerned about the impact of damp on the family’s health and wants the landlord to offer an alternative property. She said the property will be too small in 2 years when her daughter turns 10.

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	The landlord’s handling of reports the second bedroom was too small
Finding	No maladministration

The resident asked the landlord to survey the property on 18 November 2024. She believed the second bedroom, where her daughter slept, was too small. Regulations regarding whether a room should be classed as a ‘bedroom’ are not prescriptive. There are no current legal requirements regarding bedroom size in a single tenancy household.
Section 326 of the Housing Act 1985 outlines the space standard, used to define overcrowding. A property may be overcrowded if this standard is breached. It expects a person aged under 10 to sleep in a room with a floor area of at least 4.65 m². However, this specific measure alone would not determine if a property was overcrowded. Other factors are also considered, such as the number of rooms in the property.
It is positive the landlord surveyed the property on 9 December 2024. This shows it took the resident’s concerns seriously. The surveyor measured the second bedroom and found it was 5.31m². This exceeded the minimum threshold outlined in the space standard for a bedroom of a child under 10. The landlord told the resident this which was appropriate.
The resident told us she is concerned the bedroom may be too small when her daughter turns 10. This is because the space standard expects those aged 10 and over to have floor space of at least 6.5m² in the room they sleep in. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to assess the situation based on the resident’s circumstances when she raised concerns. Further, this calculation alone would not define if the property was overcrowded. The landlord would need to assess other household circumstances to determine this. The resident can report any future concerns to the landlord, should her circumstances change.
Therefore, there has been no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the second bedroom was too small.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of repair reporting problems
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s repair policy says residents can report repairs in a number of ways including by email, phone, face to face during annual visits and through an online customer portal.
We have not seen when the resident first reported problems using the customer portal to notify repairs. However, it appears to have been discussed during an annual routine visit on 7 July 2025. The landlord asked the relevant team to reinstate her customer portal account on 10 and 11 July 2025. It confirmed these actions in its stage 1 response but the resident escalated the issue the same day.
The landlord confirmed it had resolved the issue and the resident had accessed the customer portal in its stage 2 response. We do not know when it was fixedor how long the resident was without access. However, it was unlikely to have caused any significant detriment as the resident reported issues via other means. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repair reporting problems.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of bathroom repairs
Finding	Maladministration

On 6 June 2025 the resident complained:
1. The bathroom door handle was faulty and needed replacing.
2. The shower needed re-sealing and new attachments.
3. There was mould on the bathroom ceiling.

We have not seen the resident reported these repairs prior to her complaint.

The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to complete standard repairs, such as repairing door handles it has installed, within 20 working days. It arranged to repair the door handle on 18 July 2025, 10 days outside its repair policy timeframe. However, the operative was unable to gain access.
The landlord arranged further repair appointments for 11 and 18 August 2025 but again was unable to access the property. There is evidence the resident was notified in advance of at least one of these appointments. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to close the repair after three failed repair attempts. It invited the resident to report any further issues in its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s stage 1 response, confirming the resident was responsible for replacing the shower attachments, was appropriate. The tenancy agreement said the landlord was responsible for repairs set out in its repair policy in addition to those set out under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (LTA) 1985. This says landlords are responsible for repairing water supply installations and keeping them in working order. However, this does not extend to fittings and attachments, such as the shower hose and shower heads. The landlord’s repair policy confirms this position and says residents are responsible for replacing these fittings.
However, when the resident escalated her complaint, she reported the shower installation had come away from the wall and she could not remove the shower hose. The landlord would be responsible for any repairs to the shower installation itself, within 20 working days. However, it did not address the issue until 19 September 2025, after the resident reported a further concern about water pressure. The operative noted they repaired the shower and replaced a faulty handset and hose. This was 50 working days after the resident’s escalated complaint and 30 working days outside the landlord’s repair policy time frame.
The landlord does not dispute it was responsible for sealing the shower. However, it did not remove and replace the silicone until 18 September 2025. This was 54 working days outside of its repair policy timeframe.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy at the time of the resident’s complaint, said it aimed to inspect properties following reports of damp and mould and complete any minor remedial work within 20 working days. We have not seen the landlord arranged an inspection solely to inspect the bathroom ceiling. However, the issue was discussed during the annual review on 7 July 2025. The landlord treated mould soon after on 16 July 2025, albeit 8 days outside its repair policy timeframe.
When considered together, these failures amount to maladministration. The landlord has not acknowledged this or put it right. Therefore, we order it to apologise and pay £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused as well as the time and trouble caused to the resident progressing the issues. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected a resident, but with no permanent impact.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of electrical safety concerns
Finding	Service failure

During the review of 7 July 2025 the resident reported concerns about the safety of an electrical socket in her daughter’s bedroom. She believed an operative had connected it to the boiler circuit. She followed this up in her stage 2 complaint and referred to a broadly held position that, ideally, boilers should have their own fused connection units.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said it had previously fixed the socket in November 2024. However, it did not address the resident’s specific concerns. She highlighted this the following day and asked the landlord to investigate.
This did not happen until 3 October 2025, 44 days outside the landlord’s standard repair time limit. The operative confirmed the electrical socket ran from the same circuit as the boiler. However, they documented this was acceptable and posed no issues. It would have been helpful if the landlord explained why the installation was safe to reassure the resident. We note a subsequent electrical installation condition report of 16 January 2026 documented all electrical installations within the property were satisfactory.
The landlord has not recognised this delay and has missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. Therefore, we find there has been service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about electrical safety. We order it to apologise for this.
While the landlord did not find any electrical defects, it should have taken the resident’s concerns more seriously and investigated them within its repair policy timeframe. We order it to pay the resident £100 for distress and inconvenience caused as a result. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when a service failure has caused distress and inconvenience and the landlord has not acknowledged it or put it right.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the reports of failed call backs
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord acknowledged it failed to call the resident on 10 March and 18 July 2025. It has awarded £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by these communication failures. Therefore, our role is to assess if its remedy was appropriate.
To do this, we consider both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make an adverse finding where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
The landlord has not provided details of the initial failed call. Its stage 1 response says it was about an unrelated complaint. We do know the second failed call back was to update the resident on repairs. The resident said the failures made her feel the landlord disregarded her concerns. We understand why she felt this way, particularly as the landlord failed to call her for a second time after she had already complained about this. This suggests it did not learn from its previous failure.
However, the landlord has apologised for poor communication and recognised it caused distress and inconvenience. Its compensation was in line with our remedies guidance for failures that cause distress and inconvenience and delay getting matters resolved. Therefore, we find the landlord provided reasonable redress for its failed call backs.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and defective plaster
Finding	Maladministration

The resident has complained of damp since she moved in. In the interests of fairness, and due to the availability of evidence, our investigation is focused on events from November 2024, addressed in both stages of the complaint process.
The previous survey of 9 December 2024 found a recurring wet patch at the bottom of the hallway wall. While the surveyor recommended investigating the source of the moisture, we have not seen that this happened. This formed part of the resident’s complaint of 6 June 2025. She further reported on 26 June 2025 that there was a hole in the living room wall behind a radiator that did not work. She complained about this during the annual visit of 7 July 2025.
The landlord apologised for not progressing the recommendations of 9 December 2024 in its stage 1 response. It said it had referred the matter to its surveyors and agreed to update the resident by 18 July 2025.
The landlord also addressed her request to move. It invited her to apply for a transfer so she could bid on alternative properties. This was appropriate. The landlord’s transfer policy allows for priority Management Transfers (MTs) in exceptional cases. However, it says they should only be used if the health and safety of a resident or member of their household is at risk. It details circumstances such as when a resident has experienced domestic violence, harassment or a family breakdown. Residents must provide supporting evidence such as a police report. We have not seen the resident met MT criteria at that time.
As we have already explained, the landlord failed to update the resident by 18 July 2025 as promised. The recurring damp and defective plaster issues both remained unresolved at the point of the stage 2 response. This was despite an inspection of 10 July 2025 recommending removing the radiator to repair damaged plaster and refitting it with a new radiator valve.
It is positive the landlord updated the resident the day after the stage 2 response. It said a surveyor would contact her and records suggest they visited the property during the week commencing 20 September 2025. The surveyor confirmed low level damp in the hallway. They noted clothes drying in the hallway would generate lots of moisture but the resident said damp existed regardless of whether she was drying clothes.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says its primary aim is to identify the source of damp and mould and put an effective treatment plan in place. It says it will not judge lifestyle and take an effective view on cause and remedy. It is positive the landlord did not attribute the cause of damp solely to condensation. It recommended removing the damp plaster and complete remedial work that included checking the sub floor below.
Records of 22 October 2025 document that the resident refused work as she wanted a second opinion. It was a condition of the resident’s tenancy to allow the landlord access to inspect the property and carry out repairs. However, it is positive the landlord later agreed to the resident’s request and acknowledged it had not provided a clear plan to remedy the issues. However, records show the landlord postponed repairs as it believed the resident intended to take legal action. The landlord should have continued to progress repairs as legal action would not negate its responsibility to carry them out.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 January 2026 and provided a plan of work for the damp patch in the hall. It asked her to confirm she was happy for work to proceed and reminded her of the terms of her tenancy agreement. She replied that day and reiterated her request for a second opinion. It is positive the landlord agreed to this and confirmed it on 16 January 2026, also agreeing to identify a schedule of work.
The subsequent inspection of 21 January 2026 found high moisture readings along the skirting line in the hall but no visible signs of damp, rising damp, water ingress, defective plaster, or staining. While they did not recommend any work, this was 13 months after a surveyor recommended further investigation. This was significantly outside the landlord’s standard repair timeframe. This suggests the landlord believes high moisture is caused by condensation. While its damp and mould policy says it will help residents avoid mould in their home and can provide information and useful resources, we have not seen it did so on this case. We order it to do so now.
The inspector also confirmed previous recommendations to remove the radiator, repair the wall behind and reinstall it in working order. The landlord told us it started work but it was paused, as of 25 February 2026, as the resident was not available for 2-3 weeks. This was 8 months since the resident reported issues with the radiator and plaster behind. Again, this was significantly outside the landlord’s repair policy timeframe.
The landlord’s failures to complete repairs and respond to reports of damp in line with its policies amount to maladministration. It is positive the landlord apologised for delays progressing the survey recommendations of 9 December 2024. Its stage 1 and 2 responses awarded a combined total of £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by them. However, the landlord has not recognised it took a further 4 months to conclude its investigations into the cause of the damp. During this time the resident spent a significant amount of time and trouble progressing the issue.
Further, although the landlord knew what remedial work was needed for defective plaster on 10 July 2025, we have not seen it has been completed, 8 months later. It is unclear if the radiator worked effectively during this time but we know the resident was inconvenienced. She had to facilitate multiple appointments to address the issue. The matter also affected her enjoyment of the property.
We acknowledge delays could have been avoided if the resident had allowed repairs and investigations sooner. However, we understand her reluctance to do so. The landlord did not act in line with its damp and mould policy which requires it to update residents at every stage of the process and provide timescales for works. We have not seen it did so.
We order the landlord to pay £500 compensation (inclusive of the £350 already awarded) to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused because of its failures completing investigations and remedial work. This is in line with our remedies guidance for maladministration that adversely affects the resident, albeit with no permanent impact.
Although the resident says issues affected her health, we are not medical experts. We cannot assess whether something impacted health or not. The resident could seek independent advice regarding this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance or the courts. It is positive the landlord signposted her to its insurers in respect of this issue.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a request for a breakdown of service charges
Finding	Service failure

The resident is concerned about the calculation, accuracy and reasonableness of some service charges. These issues do not fall within our remit and would be for the First-Tier Tribunal to determine. However, we can consider the landlord’s response to her request for a breakdown of service charges and her associated complaint that a member of staff was rude and unprofessional.
While the resident did not raise these issues in her stage 1 complaint, it is positive the landlord addressed them in its stage 2 response. It apologised for poor service provided by its call centre staff. While it is clear the resident was unhappy with how a member of staff had explained service charges to her, she reported it as an isolated incident. We have not seen it caused significant distress, inconvenience or time and trouble outside of the standard complaint process. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise.
The landlord appropriately signposted the resident to how she could dispute service charges. However, it did not address her request for a breakdown in its stage 2 response. The resident pointed this out shortly after.
Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant act 1985 gives residents the right to ask for a summary of the costs that make up service charges. This allows residents to verify the fairness of any charges. Although the landlord documented a clear intention to provide a breakdown of service charges on 10 September 2025, it has been unable to provide evidence it did so.
The landlord has not recognised this failure in service. It has therefore missed an opportunity to put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles. We order it to apologise for this and provide the service charge breakdown. We also order it to pay £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused to the resident as it did not provide the information sooner. This is in line with our remedies guidance for when a service failure causes a resident time and trouble and delays getting matters resolved.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then aims to respond to stage 1 complaints in 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in line with its complaint policy. It told the resident it aimed to respond within 10 working days. However, on 26 June 2025 it told her it hoped to reply by 11 July 2025. This was in line with its complaint policy and the Code. These say the landlord can extend the time to respond to a stage 1 complaint by up to 10 working days. The stage 1 response was later issued within the time allowed in the landlord’s complaint policy, allowing for any extension.
We do not know if the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint. However, on 14 August 2025 it extended the time to respond to 15 September 2025. The code says landlords can extend the timeframe to reply to a stage 2 complaint by up to 20 working days. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 45 working days, the overall timeframe allowed to acknowledge and respond to stage 2 complaints, allowing for the extension. Therefore, the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint in a reasonable timeframe. There has been no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

While the landlord has been transparent in its provision of records, repair records were often unclear. Our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management says records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. Our Centre for Learning provides eLearning associated to this spotlight report.

Communication

We have not seen the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of investigations and proposed work. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance says landlords can avoid failures when they:

Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
Gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure work is satisfactory.