Notting Hill Genesis (202525087)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns to the landlord about its handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system. He also raised concerns about door repairs in the property which he said were causing damp/mould. The resident has told us he has kidney disease and hypertension. He also said he has recently been diagnosed with emphysema.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. Heating and hot water repairs.
   2. Door repairs and associated damp and mould.
   3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the heating and hot water repairs.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the door repairs and associated damp and mould.
   3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The heating and hot water repairs

4. There were significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the heating and hot water repairs due to various missed appointments and cancellations by the contractor. The landlord demonstrated poor oversight of its contractor in its handling of this issue. This caused avoidable delays in resolving the repair. The resident experienced, time, trouble, distress and inconvenience in continuously pursuing the matter.

The door repairs and associated damp/mould

5. It is not dispute that the landlord has completed a number of visits and repairs to the doors in the property and investigated the related damp/mould around the frames. Whilst it was positive the landlord has attempted repairs, the absence of a lasting resolution remains concerning. The resident has told us the issues remain. The landlord has not clearly explained what it intends to do to resolve the issue with the doors and failed to prepare the inspection report which it said it was going to do in its stage 2 complaint response.

The landlord’s complaints handling

6. The landlord accepted there were delays and duplication in its complaints handling. It was positive it reflected on this, made a reasonable offer of compensation, and set out its learning as a result  of the resident’ s experiences. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. We acknowledge the resident has experienced repair issues with the heating and hot water system for a number of years. This is evidenced by the amount of repairs on the landlord’s repairs logs. In the interest of fairness, and due to the passage of time, this assessment will focus on the landlord’s handling of the heating and hot water repairs from November 2024. This was when the resident reported the issue with the heating system which later gave rise to his complaint.
8. The landlord’s initial response was appropriate. It logged various repairs in November and December 2024 to investigate the issues with the heating system. Its records indicated that further works to the condenser pipe were required.
9. On 7 May 2025 the resident emailed the landlord to raise his concerns that contractors were not attending to appointments. At around the same time he also raised concerns about black soot accumulating on the pipe connected to the heating/hot water system. The resident regularly chased this and said he was concerned it was affecting his breathing. The landlord’s repairs logs shows that around this time number of repairs were logged but do not appear to have been completed until around August/September 2025.  The repairs logs suggest this was centred around staffing issues. This was a failure, the landlord should have ensured that these concerns were being addressed promptly.
10. The landlord demonstrated poor oversight of its contractors. Its records suggested there was a lack of understanding on both the landlord and the contractor’s part about what was happening, what repairs were required and when appointments were taking place. The landlord remains ultimately responsible for the actions of its contractors.
11. In any event, the landlord failed to complete repairs to the heating and hot water system within a reasonable timeframe. Whilst the leak was first reported in November 2024, a meaningful repair does not appear to have been completed until around August/September 2025. This was a failure and the overall length of time to complete the repair was significantly outside the 20 working day time frame specified in its repairs policy, even if new parts were required
12. When the landlord issued its final complaint response it recognised its handling of the heating and hot water repairs had fallen short. It also accepted that an appointment had been missed and offered £30 compensation. It also offered a further £200 for its overall handling of the repair, and the time and trouble caused to the resident. The repair was completed approximately 2 months after the stage 2 complaint response.
13. The landlord’s acceptance of the failure, offer of compensation, and the fact the repair was completed in the months that followed the stage 2 complaint response was reasonable in the circumstances.

Events after the complaints procedure

14. Due to a further missed appointment, shortly after the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord increased its compensation offer by a further £50.
15. In February 2026 the landlord commissioned a heat loss survey of the property. The survey report noted that the living room and kitchen radiator were old and not very warm. It also noted the bedroom radiator was not very warm.
16. In his contact with this service, the resident has told us the repairs which gave rise to his complaint have now been completed. However, he also said the landlord recently visited to replace some radiators, following the survey it did earlier this year. He said when the contractor visited they were unable to complete the installation as the radiators were the wrong size which has added to his frustration about the situation. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident and confirm when it can install the correct radiators.

17. The resident reported drafty doors on 22 March 2024. The landlord attended to this on 2 May 2024. Its repairs logs shows that it completed a repair to the door and suggested that another one needed replacing. It was unclear what happened with this follow-on work or whether the landlord communicated what its intention was. This was a failure and a missed opportunity to set the resident’s expectations about how it intended to resolve this issue.
18. On 30 April 2024 the landlord logged a repair to complete a mould wash and a further investigation to the doors as it was suggested damp/mould may have been present around the doors. This visit went ahead on 24 May 2024. The contractor noted there was no evidence of mould in the property but indicated the resident wanted the doors changing.
19. The resident continued to report issues with the doors in his property. He told the landlord that his front door was sticking on 15 November 2024. The landlord completed a repair on 16 December 2024 and did not identify any follow-on work.
20. It is not disputed that the landlord has completed a number of visits and repairs to the doors in the property. However, the resident has said the underlying issue remains unresolved and the landlord continues to complete temporary repairs and there has been no lasting solution.
21. When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response it committed to arranging a survey of the doors/windows in the property to identify a route forward. It said it would provide a report which outlined recommended repairs or renewals. We have seen no evidence which shows this report was produced or the full survey it promised was completed. This was a failure. The landlord should have ensured it fulfilled its commitments made in its stage 2 complaint response. This has caused the resident further time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
22. In summary, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of the door repairs which amounted to maladministration. Whilst it is not disputed that various repairs and visits have took place to inspect the doors and treat any related issues to the damp and mould, the absence of a long-term solution is a failure.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also suggested the property may have been in a conservation area and the building was listed. Whilst this would understandably slow down the landlord’s ability to complete any repairs, it should have still ensured the resident was kept up to date with what actions it was taking. This could have been resolved by completing the survey it suggested.
24. An order has been made for the landlord to arrange the full survey of the windows and doors in the property to ensure a lasting solution can be achieved. It should also be clear about its intentions and any limitations it may face if the building is listed/in a conservation area.
25. We have also ordered an additional £200 compensation in view of the continued time, trouble, distress and inconvenience the resident has faced in pursuing this matter with the landlord since its final complaint response. This aligns with our compensation guidance on our website and takes into consideration the heightened impact caused to him arising through his vulnerabilities.

26. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. Under this procedure, it say will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It states that it will provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged, and a response to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
27. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of the heating and hot water repairs on 7 May 2025. The landlord issued its response to this on 16 June 2025. This was outside of the timescales specified in its policy for a stage 1 complaint response.
28. In that stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had previously responded to another stage 1 complaint about the same issues and had arranged for the new stage 1 complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaints procedure, due to his continued dissatisfaction. Whilst this was appropriate, the landlord has not provided us with a copy of the other stage 1 complaint it referred to. This was a failure as we are unable to determine what course of action was or was not taken at the time of the previous stage 1 complaint.
29. The landlord then issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 August 2025. The time between the landlord’s stage 1 response and its stage 2 response was 45 working days. Whilst this was outside of the landlord’s timescales for a complaint response, it did email him on 18 July 2025 to explain it needed more time to investigate the complaint. It was positive the landlord communicated this to extension to the resident. This approach is also set out in its complaints policy.
30. In summary, although there were no significant delays in the landlord’s complaints handling, the duplication of complaints at stage 1 would have been understandably confusing for the resident. The landlord recognised the errors in its complaints handling, and the confusion resulting through the duplication of complaints. It offered him £100 compensation for this and apologised for the errors. It also explained it had centralised its complaints service to improve its complaints journey.
31. It was positive the landlord reflected on its handling, recognised the errors, and made a reasonable offer of compensation.
32. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to pay this compensation to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

33. Although we were able to complete the investigation, the landlord’s records were unclear. As previously mentioned, the landlord did not provide us with a copy of the stage 1 complaint response, despite saying the copy it sent us was a duplicate. In addition its repairs logs were unclear which created difficulty in fully understanding when things took place and what the outcomes were. The landlord could reflect on its record keeping approach to ensure it can evidence and clearly demonstrate when things took place.
34. Good record-keeping is essential for transparency, accountability, and assessing whether actions were reasonable. The landlord and its contractors also did not appear to keep the resident fully updated during the delay, which shows a further failure to maintain communication. These shortcomings may have reduced the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s repairs service and caused him further distress and inconvenience. .

Communication

35. Although the landlord kept in contact with the resident, it was often unclear what actions it was taking. This was related to the lack of understanding about what other services were taking to address the resident’s concerns. There is an opportunity for the landlord to reflect on this and consider how issues which require the involvement of various services and contractors are communicated to residents.