Notting Hill Genesis (202527809)

Background

1. The resident reported several concerns to the landlord about her home including leaks, a lack of heating, repairs, and pests. She was unhappy with its response.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks.
   2. Reports of heating issues.
   3. Concerns about a letterbox and door handle.
   4. Reports of pests.
   5. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
      1. Reports of leaks.
      2. Reports of heating issues.
      3. Reports of pests.
      4. Complaint
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a letterbox and door handle.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks

4. The landlord did not address the repairs within the timescales set out in its policies. Its communication with the resident was poor.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues

5. The landlord did not evidence that it communicated with the external managing agent to complete the repairs or support the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a letterbox and door handle

6. The landlord responded late to the resident’s enquiries. It did not adequately explain its position concerning the letterbox.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests

7. The landlord did not follow its policy. Its communication was poor and there were delays raising work orders.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

8. While the landlord responded within the timescales set out in its complaints policy, it did not fully address the concerns raised by the resident. This meant key issues were unresolved post complaint.

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 has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. The resident previously experienced leaks in the property. The landlord responded to a stage 2 complaint in January 2024 concerning a leak that had been ongoing since 2021. It compensated her £6,379.44. She continued to report the leak post-complaint and raised a second complaint. Within its stage 2 response of October 2024, it compensated her £2,530.20. Its repair records from 6 January 2025 indicate that it fixed 2 leaks.
10. The resident initiated the Pre‑Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims in January 2025. The claim partly related to leaks within the property and associated damage. In May 2025, she agreed to a settlement of £1,000.
11. It is not within our remit to assess the adequacy of the settlement. This would be a matter for the courts. The parties reached a settlement approximately 5 months before the resident raised another complaint with the landlord about leaks. We have referenced her legal claim and previous complaints for context. This investigation considers the landlord’s handling of her subsequent complaint and whether its responses were reasonable in the circumstances.
12. The resident reported a leak in her kitchen ceiling and behind a window in July 2025. Based on the evidence provided, it is unclear whether these reports related to new leaks or were a continuation of previously reported issues.
13. The landlord’s “leaks affecting ceilings procedure” states that it must raise emergency repairs for all leaks passing through ceilings. Where a leak may be originating from another property or affecting another dwelling, staff should contact those residents and advise of a 4‑hour attendance timeframe. It expects contractors to stop the leak and schedule any follow‑on works within 20 working days, subject to receipt of an asbestos survey.
14. In October 2025, the landlord’s records show it discussed gaining access to the property above the resident’s flat. Around this time, she raised further concerns about the condition of her kitchen ceiling, including worries about health and safety and the impact on her children. It raised a work order to address staining to the kitchen ceiling and an emergency order to investigate the source of the leak. Contractor records indicate it contacted her the same day but that she was not free for an appointment. The contractor noted further contact attempts the following day and later recorded that they had booked an appointment for early November 2025.
15. Contractor records indicate that during an attendance in early November 2025, they found no evidence of a roof leak and suspected the source was the flat above. Approximately 2 weeks later, it inspected the upper property and identified a defective window seal. It believed this allowed water ingress into the flat which then soaked into the floor and affected the resident’s ceiling. We have seen no evidence that it updated her on these findings or outlined the next steps.
16. In December 2025, the landlord arranged some repair works to the upper property, with an area temporarily boarded pending further remedial works. In February 2026, it made enquiries about access to a balcony above the resident’s home. Based on the evidence provided, the status of the repairs is unclear.
17. While the landlord provided some information about the actions it took to investigate the leak, it did not provide a clear or complete chronology. Furthermore, there were unreasonable gaps in between recorded actions, indicating a lack of urgency or oversight. The limited records mean we cannot assess whether any delays were avoidable.
18. The landlord has not demonstrated that it kept the resident appropriately informed during its investigation or that it provided a clear explanation of the cause of the leaks or how it intended to resolve them. These communication failures likely contributed to her frustration during what became a prolonged repair process.
19. The resident informed us that although the landlord completed internal works in her flat, the leaks remained outstanding as of April 2026, over 9 months after she had reported it, and damp and mould had started to return. It is unclear whether she had reported the damp and mould to the landlord. We have therefore informed it that there may be a hazard in the property and that it should consider whether further action is required in line with its obligations under Awaab’s Law.
20. The resident told us that all 3 bedrooms are unusable when it rains due to the noise of the leak. We empathise with her. However, we have not seen any independent evidence to demonstrate that the bedrooms were unusable during the period of complaint.
21. Overall, while the complexity of tracing the source of the leak may explain some of the delay, the landlord failed to provide clear, timely, and consistent updates to the resident. It also failed to handle the matter in line with the timescales set out in its repairs and leaks policies or evidence that it considered whether the property was safe. This represents failings in its repairs handling.
22. Although the landlord offered £150 compensation in its final complaint response, this was not proportionate to the failures identified and impact on the resident. We have awarded £500 in line with our compensation guidance. We have also ordered it to inspect the property and provide an action plan to remedy the issues.

23. The resident was concerned that the landlord’s handling of the matter impacted the health of her and her children. The courts are best placed to deal with health disputes. This is because they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any illness or injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. We can, however, decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
24. The resident told us that she had a lack of heating in the property for 2 or 3 years and relied upon electric heaters. She did not include the heating issues in her legal disrepair claim. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate matters which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months.
25. We have seen no evidence that the resident raised a complaint within 12 months of when she first became aware of the issue or that she was prevented from raising a complaint. Therefore, we have focused our investigation on the 12-month period prior to the resident’s complaint of 7 October 2025.
26. The landlord said an external managing agent (EMA) was responsible for the communal heating system. Its repairs policy required it to give the resident its contact details. It also required the landlord to liaise with the responsible party to ensure it completed the repairs satisfactorily.
27. The emails provided to us shows the landlord repeatedly advised the resident that the EMA was responsible for resolving heating issues and signposted her to contact it directly. While signposting was appropriate, it did not discharge its obligations under its policy.
28. In December 2024, the resident contacted it on 3 occasions stating the heating remained broken and that her flat was cold. Some of her emails referenced that children lived in the property. Despite this, there is no evidence that the landlord followed up on these reports with the EMA and checked they were being progressed. Given the essential nature of heating, particularly in a household with children, this lack of engagement represents a failing.
29. In 2025, the resident again reported that her heating was not working and said the EMA had not responded. The landlord maintained that the EMA was responsible. It later stated that the heating was restored after works were completed to the communal plant room. It provided no information to explain what occurred in the plant room or how the heating in the building was affected. The only evidenced action was copying staff into emails. This was not sufficient to meet its repairs policy obligation to liaise with the EMA and ensure the EMA had satisfactorily completed repairs. To date, she has told us that the property is still without heating.
30. The landlord did not provide records of its communications with the EMA. This has affected our investigation. Without evidence of referrals, follow‑up actions, or escalation, we cannot be satisfied that it took reasonable or proportionate steps to support the resident or progress the repair. This is despite knowing she may have been without heating for a prolonged period. We also recognise that she has not provided evidence of her own contact with the EMA or its contractors to us.
31. The landlord did not fully address the heating matter within its complaint responses. It failed to acknowledge the length of time the resident reported being without heating or assess whether it had complied with its own policy. Nor has it demonstrated that it offered reasonable support. These represent missed opportunities to put things right.
32. The landlord’s compensation policy provides redress for loss of heating only where it is the energy supplier. This does not apply in this case. However, the failings identified contributed to the resident’s distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble. We have therefore awarded £500 compensation. This is in line with our compensation guidance for failings which adversely affected a resident. It is also consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy for failures resulting in a high impact on a resident.

Door handle

33. On 3 October 2025, the resident told the landlord that the main door handle had broken the previous week. She said she had paid for a “handyman” to fix it and asked it to reimburse her. It declined to do so.
34. The landlord’s decision not to reimburse the resident was reasonable. There is no evidence that she gave it an opportunity to inspect the door or conduct the repair itself. In such circumstances, landlords are generally entitled to refuse reimbursement.
35. The resident argued that the landlord had previously reimbursed her for other works. We understand why she may have believed reimbursement would be acceptable in this case. However, she should nonetheless have checked with it beforehand.
36. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiry was poor. She contacted it on 3 October 2025. It did not provide a response until 1 December 2025, almost 2 months later. The delay was not appropriate, particularly as she had incurred costs and was seeking clarity on responsibility and reimbursement.
37. In view of the delay, we have made a failure finding and ordered the landlord to apologise. This is in accordance with our compensation guidance for failings which had a minor impact and did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Letterbox

38. Following the resident’s report of issues turning her key in the letterbox on 3 October 2025, the landlord stated internally that it would need to check with the EMA. It told her on 4 November 2025 that it was her responsibility to repair the letterbox and that it did not hold a spare key.
39. It is not clear from the evidence available whether the resident’s letterbox is communal. The landlord’s repair policy states that where it is responsible for communal repairs, it looks after communal letterboxes. The tenancy agreement does not clarify whether the landlord or the EMA is responsible for communal repairs. It also did not provide evidence of contact with the EMA on this issue.
40. In the circumstances, we cannot conclude that the landlord acted fairly or in line with its repairs policy. We have therefore ordered it to write to the resident to explain its position, with reasons, and to pay her £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused

41. An inspection report from March 2025 found no evidence of mice at the property. This assessment therefore considers events from September 2025 onwards, when the resident again reported the presence of mice to the landlord.
42. Following the report in September 2025, the landlord asked a staff member to arrange pest control. We have seen no evidence that it did so. Records show that the resident continued to report mice in her home on 3 and 7 October 2025.
43. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it would raise a work order. However, it has not demonstrated this. Moreover, these actions were not in line with its pest control procedure. This states that when a resident reports a rodent issue, an officer will attend, take photographs, complete a checklist, and arrange treatment if they identify mice. They will then follow‑up within 3 months.
44. The landlord’s records show it raised a communal pest control work order in December 2025, with works scheduled for 22 December 2025. We have seen no evidence that it informed the resident of this. While landlords would not ordinarily update residents about all communal works, given her repeated reports and the issue forming part of her complaint, an update would have been appropriate.
45. The landlord has evidenced that it contacted pest control regarding the resident’s home in March 2026, approximately 6 months after her initial report in September 2025. There is no evidence of any interim action, monitoring, or follow‑up during this period. We consider this delay to be unreasonable.
46. In February 2026, the resident told us that she had resolved the issue by purchasing pest control items. This should not have been necessary, as the landlord’s policy stated it would intervene as soon as possible. Also, she gave it several opportunities to address the problem. We have therefore ordered it to pay her £85 compensation. This comprises £35 in recognition that she occurred costs which would not have arisen but for its failings, and £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay.

47. Under our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days. This is extendable by up to 10 and 20 working days respectively in agreement with the resident.
48. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response times were in line with the Code. However, its extension timescales were not. They were 20 working days at stage 1 and 30 working days at stage 2. We have raised a learning point regarding this.
49. At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint in 2 working days and responded 10 working days later. At stage 2, it acknowledged her escalation request 1 day late and responded in 20 working days. This is broadly in line with the timescales set out in its complaint procedure.
50. The Code requires landlords to address all complaint points, provide clear reasons for decisions, and set out any outstanding actions. Although the landlord upheld the complaint at stage 2, it failed to adequately address the resident’s outstanding repair concerns or explain the current position and next steps. It also did not meaningfully engage with some of the repair issues, referring only briefly to a historic legal disrepair claim without providing clarification. These were several failures in its complaint handling.
51. We have ordered the landlord to pay £200 compensation. This includes £50, as previously offered, for failing to identify relevant information at stage 1. It also includes £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failures that resulted in a complaint not being fully addressed and confusion about how the landlord intended to resolve the issues.

Learning

General learning

52. It is important for landlords to see complaints as opportunities to recover failings. Landlords need to set out commitments to resolve outstanding issues within the complaints process and complete them. Otherwise, it compounds the breakdown of trust and damages the landlord/resident relationship. The landlord may wish to review our Spotlight Report on Repairing Trust.
53. Landlords ought to ensure their complaint procedure fully aligns with our Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

54. When an EMA is involved in repairs, it is vital the landlord keeps detailed records of correspondence and liaise on behalf of residents where they repeatedly raise the same issues.

Communication

55. Our Spotlight report on Repairs and Maintenance highlights that failures can be reduced when landlords clearly explain what residents can expect and provide clear repair timescales. The landlord may wish to review this report to improve communication within its repairs service.