Notting Hill Genesis (202540091)

Decision
Case ID	202540091
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Notting Hill Genesis
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	15 June 2026

Background

1. The resident reported that the windows in her building were not fit for purpose and asked the landlord to replace them. She was unhappy with its response and therefore complained in September 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:

a)     Request for all the windows in her building to be replaced.

b)     Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for all the windows in her building to be replaced.
4. The landlord offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of her complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for all the windows in her building to be replaced

5. Other than the landlord acknowledging its communication with the resident about the window issue had been poor, its response was vague and did not answer the key points of the resident’s complaint.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

6. There were complaint handling failures at both stages of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The failings at stage 1 were minor. At stage 2, the landlord recognised its failings, apologised and offered a reasonable level of compensation.

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	Update order By the due date specified the landlord must write to the resident and answer the following points she raised in her original complaint: Whether it intends to replace all of the windows in the resident’s buildings? If it does not intend to replace the windows, why? If it does intend to replace the windows, when? Why it only replaced the windows in one of the building’s flats rather than the whole building? The landlord must also provide evidence of this correspondence to us by the due date specified. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response she will need to raise this as a new complaint to it.	No later than 13 July 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint responses. This is in addition to the compensation it has already offered.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 13 July 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If the landlord has not already done so, it should now pay the resident the £450 compensation it offered in its stage 2 response.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 September 2025	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of issues with the windows in her building. She said all the windows in her building were not fit for purpose. She also said one of its managers had recently told her these windows would be replaced by the end of the year but had received no updates since. She also queried why one of the flats in the building was having its windows replaced in the coming months, but not the others.
30 September 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged its service had been poor and attributed this to a recent change in the resident’s appointed housing officer as well as staff on annual leave. It acknowledged she had been chasing for updates about the building windows potentially being replaced and said a manager would call her in October to discuss further.
9 October 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord’s stage 1 response failed to address her complaint sufficiently. She felt it had failed to confirm if, and when, the building’s windows would be replaced.
12 December 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said it was committed to fixing any outstanding issues the resident had and that her housing officer would oversee the requested works. It acknowledged there had been complaint handling delays and apologised. In total it offered her £450 compensation for poor communication, inconvenience and complaint handling.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us. She said the landlord had failed to address the key issues of her complaint in its response. She wanted it to replace all the windows in the building.

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	Landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for all the windows in her building to be replaced
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

7. When the resident referred her complaint to us she complained that she, and another neighbour, had repeatedly asked the landlord to replace the building windows across several years.
8. Our Scheme states we may not investigate matters which arose over 12 months before a resident’s complaint to the landlord., Therefore we will not look at historical issues here. This investigation will centre on the landlord’s handling between September 2024 and when she made her complaint in September 2025.

What we investigated

9. The resident complained the windows in her building were not fit for purpose and she had repeatedly asked the landlord to replace them. She said the single-glazed windows did not retain heat and allowed noise from a nearby main road. She also said a manager told her they would be replaced by the end of the year, but she had received no update. She questioned why the landlord was replacing windows in a neighbouring void flat but not in the rest of the building.
10. In response, the landlord acknowledged communication with the resident had been poor relating to her request for it to replace the windows. It attributed this to a recent change in the resident’s allocated housing officer and a poor handover. It said it would resolve the outstanding issues. At stage 1, it said a manager would contact her to discuss the issue further. At stage 2, it advised her to discuss the issue with her housing officer.
11. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. While it did acknowledge its communication with the resident had been poor, the rest of its response was vague and did not address her key concerns. These included whether it would replace the windows, when this would happen, and why only one flat was currently receiving window replacement.
12. The landlord also failed to take the action it promised in its response. At stage 1, it said a manager would contact the resident within a week to discuss her concerns, but there is no evidence this happened. When she raised this at stage 2, it did not acknowledge this failure and instead told her to contact her housing officer if she still had queries.
13. In addition, nothing in the evidence shows the landlord had considered the resident’s concerns about the building’s windows. This was a failing considering this was a key part of her complaint.
14. Overall, while the landlord appropriately recognised its communication with the resident over her request for the windows to be replaced had been poor, the remainder of its response was vague and unclear. It failed to fully answer key parts of her complaint and left her queries unresolved.
15. As such, the £300 compensation the landlord offered the resident (£200 for inconvenience and £100 for poor communication) did not reflect the level of failing identified above. We have therefore ordered it to pay the resident an additional £250 in light of its poor complaint response and lack of investigation about her concerns.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

16. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and its response timescales were in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
17. There were complaint handling failings at both stages of the landlord’s internal complaints process. At stage 1, it issued its response 11 working days after the resident logged her complaint. While this was a minor delay of 1 day over the 10 working day timescale outlined in its complaints policy, it failed to address this in its response. However, the delay was minor and had no significant impact.
18. At stage 2 the landlord issued its response 46 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was significantly outside the 20 working day timeframe set out in its complaints policy. However, it acknowledged this delay in its response, apologised and offered her £150 compensation. Its response was reasonable given the length of the delay and the compensation was in line with its compensation policy for the impact caused.
19. Overall, while there were delays at both stages, the stage 1 delay was minor and it appropriately apologised and for its poor complaint handling at stage 2. The amount of compensation it offered the resident was also reasonable given the impact caused and was in line with its compensation guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. Part of the landlord’s record keeping were poor. It failed to evidence whether it was considering the resident’s request for the windows to be replaced outside of its internal complaints process. Furthermore, it did not have records of any calls it had with the resident. The landlord is reminded to ensure it keeps robust records of all communications, including copies of emails and notes following calls. For further guidance it should refer to our spotlight report on knowledge information management.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. It often did not respond to the resident’s enquiries and there were issues with how updates were shared between housing officers and their management on her case. The landlord is reminded to ensure it acknowledge and respond to resident’s queries and ensure clear internal communication between colleagues. For further guidance it should refer to our spotlight report on communication.