Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202228630)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228630

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

3 June 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Planned works.
2. The resident’s claim of discrimination.
3. The associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident has been a fixed–term tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2015 (with a starter tenancy for the year before). The property is a 1-bedroom, ground-floor flat. The landlord has recorded vulnerabilities for the resident because of his disability.
The resident made a complaint on 19 August 2021, saying the landlord had left an old job unfinished. He said new windows were installed several months before, and the doors were measured but not replaced. He said the doors were included in the original worksheet. He felt discriminated against as he was disabled, and his safety concerns were being ignored (he did not specify what these were). He wanted all doors and windows for ground floor flats to be replaced as per planned works.
The resident added other concerns in later correspondence, which were referred to in the landlord’s complaint responses but have not been provided to us by either party. The additional points were about the resident feeling he had been treated unfairly and being inconvenienced in dealing with the landlord’s staff and contractors during the planned works. He also registered the same complaint for other residents of the ground-floor flats.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 2 September 2021 and said:
1. It was responding to all complaints in one as they were about similar issues (it has since told us this is no longer how it handles such complaints).
2. It understood that allowing access to contractors and surveyors could be inconvenient and challenging, especially when works were lengthy, and personal health might be impacted. While it might be irritating, it was necessary to identify works needed.
3. In planning for the programme, the landlord engaged contractors to survey all areas that might need work. However, that did not mean all areas surveyed would be included in the work schedule. It had to budget to ensure all its properties were maintained adequately.
4. Work was prioritised based on the condition of each component of the property; only the windows, trees, and fencing were included in the final schedule. The doors were assessed and measured in the initial scope but were not included.
5. While the doors were not included in the planned works, it was willing to assess their condition to see if they should be prioritised.
6. It was working on a responsive repair for a window in another flat (setting out actions taken).
7. It found that communication had been poor. Information was conveyed by contractors that was not wholly accurate, which caused confusion. While it had contracted the work, it had failed to inform residents of the final works sanctioned.
8. It was offering £100 to each resident for the poor communication about the planned works and the distress caused.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 September 2021 and said:
1. He was asking the landlord to complete the works it should have done months ago; replace all 4 doors and 1 window.
2. Its offer to assess the doors did not make sense as they were in the same condition when the surveyors inspected them a few months ago. If they could not be included in the old job, why would it now raise a new one?
3. It should complete the original job or explain why it failed to notify residents it would not be replacing the doors.
Following our intervention, the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 November 2023. It said:
1. It could not evidence it responded to the resident’s escalation request in 2021.
2. The resident felt its failure to replace the doors had caused pest problems, noise, and cold. He had solved the pest problem following its contractor’s recommendations.
3. It appreciated the issue of noise pollution; the block was close to a main road with pedestrian traffic, and older doors and windows were less efficient in blocking noise and cold. It understood newer models would offer benefits but as a social housing provider it had to manage budgets to ensure it maintained its housing stock. It must repair where possible and, even if able to replace, then it may be the same or a similar specification unit.
4. It would assess blocks for inclusion on a forthcoming program, but this would always be provisional. Final plans were based on priority, and any notification of inclusion sent to residents could not be an agreement as it was always subject to subsequent review.
5. Communication around this decision-making process was not always as it should be, and it was working on improving this aspect of block-management.
6. Residents should never feel discriminated against or neglected and should be afforded an opportunity to discuss works that were removed from the programme in the planning stage. That had not happened.
7. It was deeply sorry to learn how the residents felt around this time, although it was glad he felt the service had now improved.
8. It offered £300 compensation (£200 for complaint handling failures and £100 for poor communication, distress, and inconvenience).
9. The resident had mentioned damp and mould being caused by the doors and windows. It was arranging a visit to inspect them for potential repair or replacement. It would look at any other factors that may be contributing to damp and mould issues at the same time.
The resident remained unhappy and referred his complaint to us in December 2023. He said he wanted the landlord to:
1. Complete the cyclical repairs job of 2020/2021.
2. Explain why its online repair reporting system does not work and fix this.
3. Stop discriminating against disabled residents by requiring them to take pictures of reported issues and denying them repairs and refurbishments.
4. Pay compensation for the problems and suffering caused by its actions.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord grouped the complaints at stage 1 and offered separate compensation to each resident, even though some had issues individual to them alone. At stage 2, while it acknowledged that the resident had brought the complaint on behalf of others, it did not separate the compensation awarded. We asked it for clarification, and it said the compensation offer was made to the resident alone, and it was up to his discretion to share this if he wished.
We explained to the resident in June 2024 that we can investigate group complaints where the circumstances, impact, and potential remedy are all identical. That is not the case here. We advised the resident to ask the other residents to approach the landlord directly and request its response. After this, should they remain unhappy, they could bring their individual complaints to us. Should the other residents wish, they could appoint the resident as a representative to act on their behalf with the landlord and us.
The resident raised new concerns after the landlord’s stage 1 response, such as damp and mould. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained steps it would take to investigate this further. The resident believes these problems occurred because of the landlord’s failure to replace the doors. However, this issue cannot be investigated under this complaint as it has not gone through the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP). If the resident is dissatisfied with the actions the landlord has taken about this, he should raise it as a formal complaint with it in the first instance. Once this has completed the landlord’s ICP, and should he remain unhappy, he can then refer it to us.
The resident has told us that he wants the landlord to fix its repair reporting system. He also wanted it to stop denying repairs. However, these did not form part of the original complaint and so cannot be investigated under this one. The resident should raise this as a formal complaint with the landlord in the first instance. Once it has completed the landlord’s ICP, and should he remain unhappy, he can then refer this to us.

Planned works

Neither party has provided us with documentation regarding the original programme of works. Therefore, we are unable to establish if the doors were included within it. We must be fair in our assessment and therefore must not speculate and only rely on the evidence available. We have considered what are good industry practices and our own expectations in the handling of this matter.
As the landlord has explained, it is accountable for its public expenditure, and we accept that must be why work was prioritised in order of need. It is ultimately for the landlord to decide what it includes within a programme of works. However, we expect those decisions to be based on proper assessments. We asked to see the surveyor reports produced at the time which the landlord relied upon to finalise its plans. Unfortunately, due to the time that has passed, and the landlord since undergoing a merger, it has struggled to provide this to us.
Although the landlord has failed to provide the assessments conducted at the time, evidence shows it offered to carry out individual assessments on the doors when the resident made his complaint. This was the right thing to do. Even if a landlord has excluded components from an estate wide programme of works, it still has an obligation under its responsive repairs policy to consider them individually when concerns are raised. It has shown willingness to do this. Any decision to then repair or replace the reported item would be considered under its repairs policy.
While it is for the landlord to decide what it includes in its final schedule of work, we expect it to communicate clearly with its residents about this. We also expect it to keep residents informed of changes and updates. The landlord has not provided us with evidence to show it had informed the resident the doors would not be included in the replacement programme. In its complaint responses it has accepted that it did not communicate properly with him.
The landlord has accepted its failings, sincerely apologised, and offered £200 compensation. This sum is in line with our own remedies guidance for maladministration. It has also taken steps to learn from its mistakes to ensure it does not repeat them going forward. These actions demonstrate that the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore 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.
Considering the full circumstances of the case, including the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the £200 compensation offered is considered reasonable. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the planned works.
A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the offered £200 for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.
Due to gaps in the records provided, this investigation has needed to piece together what happened from the wider correspondence. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. Without this we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. In this case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information available. However, the omissions indicate poor knowledge and information management by the landlord as it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against our Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations made in that report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report, unless it has done so already.

Discrimination

The resident feels he has been discriminated against because of his disability. He believes the landlord replaced doors for others but did not do so for him. He also believes the landlord’s surveyors and contractors’ visits and a request to provide photographs amount to discrimination. We cannot legally say whether a landlord has discriminated against a resident. That is a decision for the courts. However, we can consider whether the landlord properly took account of the resident’s disability in the way it treated him.
There is no evidence that the landlord replaced doors for other residents across the block and intentionally excluded the resident because of his disability. Neither party has provided details of doors that were replaced. From the correspondence exchanged between them, we established that a main entrance door was replaced while the garden door was not. The landlord explained it carried out work based on a priority of need and no evidence has been provided to undermine that position.
While the landlord is required to consider the resident’s disability in the way it conducts itself, it is not expected to treat him more favourably than others because of it. Therefore, as the doors were not included in the landlord’s final schedule of work, we do not consider it had an obligation to replace them because a resident is disabled, if they were fit for purpose. It has offered to review the resident’s repair needs outside of the cyclical repairs and that was an appropriate response.
The landlord did request pictures of the doors to assess their condition, but it also offered to visit to make an assessment if that suited better. This was a reasonable offer. We would not expect the landlord to assume that a resident was unable to take pictures because they were disabled. It was appropriate for the landlord to provide options as it did. We did not find evidence that the landlord had insisted on the resident taking and providing photographs to it.
As the landlord explained, there would be some inconvenience and trouble due to visits its operatives made. It is not clear how else it might have made the assessments required without accessing the areas under consideration. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised the visits as a concern or as being particularly troublesome at the time they occurred, or that the landlord ignored him.
It might have been appropriate if the landlord had advised the resident he could appoint someone to liaise with it on his behalf. However, we also do not expect it to assume that a disabled resident is unable to act on their own behalf unless it is brought to the landlord’s attention as an issue. If it has not done so already, it is recommended that the landlord has an open conversation with the resident about his needs and how it can better accommodate and support them.
There is no evidence that the landlord treated the resident unfavourably because of his disability or that it did not take his disability into account in the way it treated him. Therefore, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s claims of discrimination.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy applicable at the time defined a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by it, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’. A complaint could be made by phone call, in writing, via its website or social media. It set out timeframes; 2 working days for acknowledgement and 10 working days for a full response at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was issued within 10 working days. However, its stage 2 response was issued outside the 20 working days timescale. Further, the resident had to seek our help to get a response at stage 2, which should not have been necessary. Because of the gap between its stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord then commented on issues in its stage 2 response which had not been raised or addressed at stage 1.
Prompt responses allow both the resident and the landlord to draw a line under an issue. Instead, as the matter was kept outstanding, later issues such as damp and mould and the pest infestation, became inextricably linked for the resident with the planned works and what he believed to be the landlord’s failings in this.
The landlord has accepted there were failures in its complaint handling. It has apologised and offered £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures. These actions show that, again, the landlord took the complaint seriously, openly acknowledged areas for improvement, and took action to rectify the identified failings.
The compensation the landlord offered was proportionate to its failing and in line with our remedies guidance for findings of maladministration in complaint handling. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the formal complaint. A recommendation is made for the landlord to pay the offered £200 for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the:
1. Planned works.
2. Formal complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to pay the £400 it offered for its failures (if it has not already done so). The reasonable redress findings are made on the basis of this sum being paid.
The landlord is recommended to have a discussion with the resident about his needs and how it can better accommodate and support them.