Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202426512)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202426512

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

13 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the completion of the associated works.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communication.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for adaptations to her home.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement, which commenced in April 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom, basement flat in a house. The housing records confirm the resident has a visual impairment and previously experienced a brain aneurysm.
The resident told the landlord on 9 January 2024 that there was damp on the bathroom wall and the living room ceiling was water stained. The landlord visited the upstairs flat on 12 January 2024 and established there was no leak. A blockage in the shower waste pipe was cleared on the same day.
The resident made a complaint on 26 June 2024. She said the landlord had failed to provide her with an update regarding the outstanding repairs and she had to visit the office to find out what was happening.
The landlord carried out an inspection on 25 July 2024. The property was identified as being ‘‘extremely humid’’ and evidence of damp was found. A job was raised to repair a drainpipe and cracked concrete at the front of the property. The landlord also raised a repair to replaster walls in the bathroom and living room.
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2024 and said:
1. The housing officer had failed to respond to the resident’s enquiries within 24 hours on multiple occasions.
2. It had failed to raise repairs reported by the resident. This was due to human error and had been rectified.
3. Some of the repairs reported by the resident had been passed to different contractors due to the nature of the work. In future, it would try to coordinate repair request to reduce the number of appointments and inconvenience caused to the resident.
4. It would offer the resident £50 compensation.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 6 August 2024. She said the landlord failed to respond to her complaint in accordance with its published timescales and she was still waiting for repairs to be completed, some 6 months after they were reported.
The resident told the landlord on 8 August 2024 that it had failed to respond to her enquiries on numerous occasions and she had to visit the office. She said she did this despite being disabled and having a visual impairment. The landlord advised the resident on 23 August 2024 that the leak could be coming from the roof. It placed the internal plastering work on hold on 5 September 2024 pending the completion of repairs to the roof. The drainpipe and cracked concrete were repaired on 26 September 2024.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 11 October 2024 and said:
1. It could not complete the outstanding repairs until the roof was replaced.
2. Whilst some of the delays in replacing the roof were due to the complex nature of the work, it missed opportunities to start the work following the inspection that was carried out earlier in the year.
3. The work to replace the roof was due to start on 14 October 2024 and would take up to 3 weeks to complete, depending on the weather.
4. Despite acknowledging in its stage 1 complaint response that it had failed to respond to the resident’s enquiries within published timescales, the failures continued. This was due in part to the fact that it believed it had addressed the resident’s concerns when she visited the office and it did not need to respond to her emails.
5. It did not respond to the resident’s complaint escalation in accordance with its published timescales. This was because it was waiting to confirm the date the roof would be replaced. This took longer than anticipated.
6. It would offer the resident £700 compensation. This comprised of £400 for the delay in carrying out the repairs, £150 for its poor communication and £150 for the delay in providing its final complaint response.

Post complaint events.

Works to replace the roof commenced on 14 October 2024 and were completed in January 2025.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 29 January 2025. No evidence of damp was found in the bedroom. It was, however, recommended that damaged plaster in the hallway and living room was replaced, the living room ceiling painted and for the pavement directly below the rainwater pipe to be relevelled.
The resident told this Service that the problem with damp had been resolved. She noted the local authority’s adaptations team repainted the bathroom wall for her to avoid any delays in carrying out identified adaptations. She also said the landlord had not replastered the walls and she refused the offer of compensation given the landlord said it would credit the compensation to her rent account rather than pay it directly to her.

Jurisdiction

What this Service can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme.
Paragraph 42a of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion ‘‘are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’’
In this case, the Service has not investigated the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for adaptations to her home. This is because she has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints policy.
Should the resident wish to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she should make a formal complaint to her landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will carry out repairs in accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and its repairs policy. The resident’s handbook confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure of the building, including the roof, internal walls and ceilings.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will provide a prompt service and keep its properties in a good state of repair so that its residents can live in a safe and secure environment. Repairs are prioritised into the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs which pose an immediate danger or health and safety risk are made safe within 24 hours. Heavy water leaks between floors or properties are considered emergency repairs.
2. Standard repairs are completed within 20 working days.
3. Replacement and improvement work timescales are communicated to residents.
The landlord has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant. It is this Service’s view that landlords should take urgent action following reports of damp and mould.
This Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould (published October 2021) recommends landlords adopt a zero-tolerance approach to reports of damp and mould. It also highlights the importance of landlords taking a proactive approach to identifying problems and communicating clearly with residents to ensure they have confidence in it and understand the next steps. This includes explaining if follow up work is required and providing a clear timetable for any future works. If there is any slippage to the timetable, landlords are encouraged to inform residents as soon as possible and explain why the timetable has changed.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it takes a zero-tolerance approach to reports of damp and mould. The policy also says the landlord will:
1. Take account of residents’ vulnerabilities when prioritising appointments and work.
2. Carry out an initial inspection within 10 working days of receiving reports of damp and mould.
3. Complete any identified minor remedial works within 20 working days.
4. Carry out a technical inspection where severe damp and mould is identified. Any identified mould is removed pending the surveyor’s inspection.
5. Keep residents updated to ensure they understand the findings of any investigations and are clear on the next steps.
6. Carry out a follow-up survey within 6 months of completing any identified work.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer compensation if it fails to follow a policy or where there are unreasonable delays in providing a service. Awards up to £250 are made where there has been a serious service failure which has caused significant distress or inconvenience to a resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the completion of the associated works.

The resident told the landlord on 9 January 2024 that the was damp on the bathroom wall and the living room ceiling was water stained. The landlord carried out an inspection of the upstairs flat on 12 January 2024 to establish if there was a leak. Whilst no leak was identified, the landlord raised a repair on the same day to check the shower waste pipe. A blockage was cleared on the same day.
Whilst the landlord’s actions demonstrated it took the resident’s concerns seriously, there is no evidence it carried out an inspection of her home to establish the extent of the mould. This was not consistent with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. The lack of engagement around the potential damp issue was also contrary to the approach required under the HHSRS.
The resident reported a leak from the flat above on 14 March 2024. The landlord attended on 20 March 2024 and cleared a blockage on the washing machine pipe. This was in accordance with the timescales set out in its repairs policy. The landlord also visited the resident’s home but was unable to gain access.
The resident told the landlord on 11 April 2024 that no one had contacted her to advise her about the visit on 20 March 2024. Whilst the landlord arranged for a surveyor to carry out a property inspection of the resident’s home on 15 April 2024, it is unclear from the housing records when or if the inspection took place or what the outcome of the visit was. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord and led to the resident having to chase the landlord up on 7 May 2024.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for an update. This meant she was not clear on what action was being taken by the landlord to address her concerns about damp and mould and led to her having to chase up the landlord again on 20 June 2024 and 25 June 2024.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 25 July 2024. This was some 7 months after the resident first reported damp in her home and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
It was identified that the property was ‘‘extremely humid’’ and there was evidence of damp in the flat. It was also noted the resident had mobility issues and was struggling to cope given she had to regularly wipe down the windows and surfaces to remove the mould. The level of damp was graded as being at level 3 on a scale of 1 to 5.
A job was raised on the same day to repair a drainpipe and cracked concrete at the front of the property, which it believed could be the cause of the damp. It also raised a repair to re-plaster walls in the bathroom and living room. There is no evidence the landlord considered whether the work needed to be prioritised or advised the resident when the work would be carried out. This was not consistent with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2024. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In this case, the landlord did not specifically address the resident’s’ concerns about damp and mould, confirm when the work would be carried out or identify any learning from the complaint. Whilst the landlord offered £50 compensation, no specific compensation was awarded for the delays in resolving the issue of damp and mould.
The resident told the landlord on 6 August 2024 that the work had not been completed. She sent the landlord video footage of the damage that had been caused on 22 August 2024. The landlord responded on the following day and confirmed its contractor had visited other flats in the building to identify the source of the leak, although no details on the outcome of the inspection were shared with the resident.
The landlord noted on 23 August 2024 that the leak could be coming from the roof and advised the resident its contractor would be in contact. It placed the outstanding plastering work on hold on 5 September 2024 pending the completion of repairs to the roof.
The landlord noted on 20 September 2024 that damp was affecting other flats in the building and could be related to the roof, which was due to be replaced. An update was provided to the resident on the same day, although details of the conversation were not shared with this Service. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord.
The drainpipe and cracked concrete were repaired on 26 September 2024. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy, which says standard repairs are completed within 20 working days.
The landlord told the resident on 7 October 2024 that the work to replace the roof would commence on 14 October 2024 and take 2-3 weeks to complete, weather permitting. It also noted the work that was scheduled to be carried out in the resident’s home would commence once the roof had been replaced. This provided clarity.
The landlord confirmed again in its final complaint response on 11 October 2024 that its contractor would start work on the roof on 14 October 2024. It also said the work to her flat would be completed after the roof had been replaced. The landlord acknowledged there had been unacceptable delays in carrying out the work and offered an apology. This was appropriate. The offer of £400 compensation cannot, however, be considered reasonable redress.
In summary, there were delays in identifying the cause of the damp and carrying out the identified works. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble. Whilst the landlord offered an apology, the offer of £400 compensation cannot be considered reasonable redress. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the completion of the associated works, for which it is ordered to pay an additional £200 compensation on top of the £400 previously offered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communication.

It is not disputed that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times. The landlord acknowledged on 2 August 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that it had failed to respond to the resident’s enquiries in accordance with its published timescales on multiple occasions. Whilst it said it would take steps to improve communication, it did not identify any specific actions it would take to ensure the resident was kept updated in the future. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this as it would have helped rebuild trust. No specific compensation was awarded in acknowledgement of its poor communication.
The landlord acknowledged on 11 October 2024 in its final complaint response that there continued to be issues with communication and it had failed to respond to the resident’s emails. It said this was in part due to the fact that the resident regularly visited the office and its staff were under the impression that they did not need to respond to her emails. The landlord noted that the confusion could have been avoided if it had maintained better records. The landlord offered an apology and £150 compensation for the service failure. This was in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy.
In summary, the landlord acknowledged its communication with the resident was poor at times. It offered an apology and compensation for the service failure. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about communication.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The resident made a complaint on 26 June 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and said it would provide a response within 10 working days. Whilst this was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy, there is no evidence it sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes she was seeking. This was not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord issued it stage 1 complaint response on 2 August 2024. This was 27 working days after the resident made her complaint and was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and said it would commit to improving communication, although no specific details were provided. Whilst the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation, it did not offer any specific compensation for its poor complaints handling.
The resident escalated her complaint on 6 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and said it would provide a response by 4 September 2024. This was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint by the deadline date. It offered an apology for the delay and discussed the complaint with her on 10 September 2024. No timescale was given on when the response would be sent to the resident. This meant she was unclear when she could expect to receive a reply. This was a further failure. The landlord told the resident on 9 October 2024 that she would receive a response by 11 October 2024.
The landlord issued its final complaints response on 11 October 2024. This was some 2 months after the resident escalated her complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord offered an apology for the delay and £150 compensation. It also noted it had established a complaints team to improve its complaints handling. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it took learning from the complaint.
In summary, the landlord failed to follow its complaints policy at times and there were delays in issuing its complaint responses. This caused the resident time and trouble. The landlord did, however, offer an apology and compensation. It also took learning from the complaint. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request for adaptations to her home is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the completion of the associated works.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about communication.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology letter must be shared with this Service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of damp and mould and the completion of the associated works.
2. The £400 previously offered to the resident, if not already paid.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm its position regarding the outstanding plastering work and arrange for the work to completed, if appropriate.

Recommendations.

The landlord pays the £300 compensation previously offered to the resident, if not already paid for its poor communication (£150) and the delays in providing its final complaint response (£150).