Notting Hill Genesis (202534880)

Back to Top

 

Decision

Case ID

202534880

Decision type

Investigation

Landlord

Notting Hill Genesis

Landlord type

Housing Association

Occupancy

Assured Tenancy

Date

19 March 2026

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property, a ground floor flat, with her daughter since 2021. The landlord has reported vulnerabilities and both occupants have asthma. On 10 September 2025 the resident reported fungal growth. Subsequent investigations found it was caused by a previous leak from the property above.

What the complaint is about

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Reports of fungal growth.
  2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

  1. We found the landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s reports of fungal growth.
  2. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

  1. The landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports of fungal growth but failed to remedy it at the earliest opportunity. It has awarded appropriate redress for its failings.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints in line with its complaint policy and our complaint handling code (The Code).

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

The landlord should pay the resident the £250 awarded for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failures handling reports of fungal growth. Our finding of reasonable redress is based on this being paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date

What happened

17 September 2025

The resident complained of fungal growth. She asked the landlord to inspect and provide a schedule of work. She believed conditions were unsafe and asked for compensation for distress and the impact on health.

21 October 2025

The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It referred to remedial work following an inspection on 18 September 2025, but did not specify what it was. It hoped to find out if the resident was pursuing legal action by 24 October 2025 as the outcome of this would determine its next steps. It awarded £250 compensation for delays resolving the issue and failing to provide a clear plan.

30 October 2025

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint (no copy provided).

27 November 2025

The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It reiterated the contents of its stage 1 reply. It said it had been unable to complete work as the resident refused access. It agreed to provide a schedule of work and confirm if it would survey the property again by 11 December 2025.

Referral to the Ombudsman

The resident told us she wanted a second opinion as the landlord did not provide a clear plan of action and she feared mould would return.

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 the resident’s reports of fungal growth

Finding

Reasonable redress
  1. The landlord’s complaint responses say the resident first reported fungal growth on 10 September 2025, although we have not seen a record of this. While we refer to the problem using the umbrella term of mould, we acknowledge the fungal growth was significant.
  2. We do know the resident reported the issue again on 12 and 13 September 2025. She said fungus was growing above a bedroom door and asked for a call back. We have not seen that the landlord contacted her before her complaint 5 days later.
  3. It is positive the landlord inspected on 18 September 2025, in line with its damp and mould policy. This says it aims to inspect properties following reports of damp and mould, within 10 working days. The inspection confirmed the presence of fungal growth and that it was due to a recent leak (in the property above). The inspector recommended further investigation.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response referred to a subsequent survey in the week commencing 20 September 2025. We have not seen a record of this. However, internal emails say the surveyor recommended replacing 1m² of damaged plasterboard and applying an anti-mould paint.
  5. The surveyor said the resident did not need temporary accommodation while the work took place. The landlord’s temporary relocation procedure says it aims to carryout improvement works while residents remain in their home. However, it says it will decide on a case-by-case basis whether this is reasonable. As the work was not extensive, it was reasonable for the resident to remain in the property. The surveyor noted they hoped to minimise any disruption.
  6. While a contractor attended on 1 October 2025 to treat fungal growth, this did not happen. This is because they recommended further investigations to identify the cause and confirm if the leak from above was resolved. We understand the resident’s frustration that the issue was unresolved at that point.
  7. The stage 1 response confirmed a surveyor had visited the property, albeit on an incorrect date. However, the landlord should have confirmed what remedial action it intended to take, regardless of whether the resident was pursuing legal action. She disputes telling the landlord she intended to start legal proceedings, and such action would not remove the landlord’s repair responsibilities in any event.
  8. However, the following day the resident told the landlord she would not permit work until she had received a second opinion. She also cancelled an appointment to treat mould on 6 November 2025, which was 21 working days outside of the landlord’s repair policy timeframe. It was a condition of her tenancy that she allowed the landlord access to inspect the property and carry out repairs. While it may have caused additional inconvenience along the line, the landlord had a duty to remove hazards such as mould (and fungus) and the resident should have facilitated this.
  9. That being said, we understand the resident’s reluctance to allow treatment without a clear plan of proposed work. Particularly when the landlord had not completed the recommendations of previous surveys and subsequent visits from contractors recommended further investigation.
  10. It is positive the landlord recognised the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response. It also contacted her that day to confirm it had opened a new damp and mould case. Records show the resident was happy another person was reviewing the situation.
  11. While records suggest a contractor attended on 28 November 2025, we have not seen the outcome of this visit. However, an operative attended on 2 December 2025. They noted they removed fungal growths and made good the affected stained area. They recommended further investigations for issues unrelated to this complaint. The landlord’s remedy of the fungal growth reported in September 2025 was significantly outside the time limit that it intends to complete such treatments within.
  12. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those. The extent to which it has addressed any shortcomings, and the appropriateness of any redress, are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  13. The resident believes the issue affected the family’s health. We are not medical experts so we cannot assess whether something caused an impact to health or not. The resident could seek independent advice on this aspect or consider a claim through the landlord’s liability insurance (if it has such) or the courts. While we cannot determine impact on health, we have considered the impact of any failings by the landlord. This includes the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  14. The landlord has apologised for communication failures and delays remedying the fungal growth. It has acknowledged that the lack of a clear plan caused distress and inconvenience and that the resident spent time and trouble pursuing the issue. We acknowledge fungal growth would have affected the resident’s enjoyment of the property and that members of the household were vulnerable.
  15. The landlord’s award of £250 compensation for the impact of its failures, was in line with its compensation policy. This says that it can award up to £250 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failures (it may award more in cases of exceptional hardship). The award was also in line with our remedies guidance for failures that adversely affect the resident, albeit with no permanent impact. Therefore, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its failures handling reports of fungal growth.

Complaint

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

Finding

No maladministration
  1. 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.
  2. 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 7 October 2025 it said it was unable to do so and instead hoped to reply by 21 October 2025. This was in line with its complaint policy and the Code. These both allow the landlord to extend the date to provide a stage 1 response by up to 10 working days. The landlord complied with its complaint policy and issued the stage 1 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 30 October 2025. It told the resident it hoped to reply by 27 November 2025. As we do not know when the resident escalated her complaint, we cannot say if the landlord acknowledged it within 5 working days.
  4. However, the landlord issued the stage 2 response within the time limit promised. This was 28 working days from the earliest point the resident could have escalated her complaint. This was within the time limit allowed in the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code, allowing for any permitted extension. Therefore, the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint in a reasonable time limit and there has been no maladministration in its complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

  1. While the landlord has been transparent in its provision of records, repair records were often unclear. Also, it was unable to provide a copy of the resident’s escalated complaint. 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 on this subject.

Communication

  1. We have not seen that the landlord regularly updated the resident on the status of investigations or proposed work. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that landlords can avoid failures when they:
  1. Let residents know what to expect regarding repairs and provide a clear schedule for repair visits.
  2. Gather feedback from residents and conduct inspections to ensure work is satisfactory.