Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202312382)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312382

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

12 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Her concerns about the installation of an air conditioning system.
2. Her associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the shared ownership leaseholder of the property. She purchased the lease in 2004. The property is a 1 bedroom second floor flat within a mixed use development. The landlord holds a head lease for the property, along with other flats in the development which it also leases as shared ownership.
In 2022, the landlord began a project to install air conditioning into its flats in the development. This was in response to complaints from residents about hazardously high temperatures during the summer. On 16 May 2022, the resident opted out of this project.
The landlord’s contractor began installing the air conditioning system on 5 July 2023. On the same day, the resident emailed the landlord asking to make a “formal complaint”. She said that:
1. The contractor had told her it had been instructed to install air conditioning to her flat. However, she had repeatedly opted out of this.
2. The contractor had made holes in the communal corridor ceiling outside the entrance to her flat. These were a fire hazard.
3. The current condition of the communal corridor reduced the resale value of her flat.
4. She wanted the landlord to confirm when it would remove the air conditioning unit from her flat and ‘make good’ all damage caused to the communal corridor.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 July 2023. It confirmed it had told its contractor that she had opted out of the air conditioning project. It said it would investigate the matter further and update her.
On 10 July 2023, the landlord informed the resident that the works in the communal corridor were to install the pipes serving air conditioning units in neighbouring flats. It advised that its contractor would be filling the holes in the corridor ceiling outside her flat with fire-rated plasterboard later that day. It said the contractor would begin full remedial and decorative works to the communal areas at the end of the project.
The landlord sent the resident a ‘final response’ on 18 July 2023. It said that:
1. Its contractor was “fully aware” the resident had opted out of the air conditioning project. Her flat was not on the list to have a unit installed.
2. It had previously explained the reasons for the holes in the communal corridor ceiling. Remedial works to the area outside of the resident’s flat had been completed on 10 July 2023.
3. The condition of the corridor had been temporary due to the works. It asked the resident to share details of how this had reduced the value of her flat.
After the resident approached us, we contacted the landlord on 13 November 2023. We asked it to clarify whether it had responded to her complaint under its complaints process, and if so at which stage.
On 20 November 2023, the landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response. This repeated the content of its ‘final response’ of 18 July 2023. It also offered the resident £50 compensation for its failure to log a complaint when she first requested this on 5 July 2023.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 1 December 2023. She asked the landlord:
1. Why its contractor had made holes in the communal corridor ceiling outside her flat when she was not having air conditioning installed.
2. To provide a survey showing that her property had not been devalued whilst the communal corridor ceiling was in disrepair.
3. When the corridor would be fully restored to its original condition.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 December 2023. It said:
1. It was necessary to cut holes in the communal corridor ceiling to install pipework and cabling serving the air conditioning units in neighbouring flats.
2. The resident had not provided it with any evidence the works had affected the value of her property.
3. It only had its properties valued for financial or insurance purposes. It would not be carrying out a valuation survey following the air conditioning programme.
4. Its contractors and consultants were still finalising the best electrical wiring to use for the air conditioning system. It expected this to be resolved in early January 2024 and the communal corridor fully restored to its original condition by the end of February 2024.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 February 2024. She said that “Happily the holes in the second floor corridor ceiling are filled and painted”.

Assessment and findings

Installation of air conditioning

The resident first raised concerns with the landlord on 5 July 2023. This appears to have been prompted by a conversation with the contractor, which was working in the communal area outside of her flat. The resident said the contractor told her it was installing air conditioning into her flat “just in case air conditioning is required in the future”. She expressed dissatisfaction with this, having repeatedly opted out of the project.
The landlord responded to the resident on 7 July 2023. It confirmed that it had instructed the contractor not to install air conditioning to her property as part of the project. It said it would investigate the matter further and update her.
The landlord has provided us with an email from the contractor dated 12 July 2023. Within this the contractor explained that it was installing pipework for air conditioning through the communal area up to the threshold of the resident’s flat. It said this was part of the agreed contract and would ‘future proof’ the project. Meaning that any future occupant of the resident’s flat could easily connect it to the air conditioning system should they wish to do so.
It therefore appears there was a miscommunication between the contractor and the resident as to the exact nature of works it was carrying out. The landlord had appropriately advised the contractor that the resident had opted out of the project and the contractor had correctly recorded this.
It was reasonable for the landlord to ‘future proof’ the project in this way. These works were contained entirely within the communal area and the landlord has advised us it had agreed to absorb all costs of the project. Therefore, it was not obliged to consult the resident or seek her approval to undertake the works.
On 10 July 2023, the landlord reassured the resident that its contractor was not installing an air conditioning unit in her property or in the communal corridor. It explained that the work was to install pipework serving the air conditioning units in neighbouring properties. The landlord advised its contractor would be filling the holes outside of the resident’s property that day. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had inspected and confirmed this work as complete on 11 July 2023.
The landlord told the resident that its contractor would fully repair and redecorate the corridor ceiling once it had completed all works. This was reasonable. Until it had fully installed and tested the air conditioning system, the landlord could not be certain that its contractor would not need to access the cabling or pipework in the ceiling again. Fully restoring the ceiling in advance of this risked the contractor having to repeatedly carry out remedial and decorative works to it each time it needed access.
The landlord provided a ‘final response’ to a range of queries the resident had raised about the works in its email of 18 July 2023. The content of this was largely repeated in its stage 1 complaint response 4 months later.
Amongst the resident’s concerns was that the works had compromised the fire stopping measures in the design of the communal corridor. In its ‘final response’ the landlord told her it would arrange for a fire risk surveyor to visit the development and assess this.
On 21 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident advising that the surveyor had visited on 19 July 2023. It said that its contractor would repair the remaining holes in the communal corridor once it had completed all pipework. This included carrying out ‘firestopping’ to ensure the corridor was “60 min fire resistant” as per its original design. The landlord advised its fire risk surveyor would return to post-inspect these works.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 based partly on the fact she wanted details of when the landlord would restore the communal corridor to its original condition. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that works were still ongoing, but it expected to complete them and ‘make good’ the communal corridor by the end of February 2024. The resident’s email of 20 February 2024 indicates that the landlord met this target and had appropriately managed her expectations.
As part of her complaint, the resident expressed concern that the condition of the communal corridor during the works had reduced the value of her flat. In its ‘final response’ of 28 July 2023, the landlord said that “the situation in the communal corridor was temporary and once the ceiling was re-instated the appearance was returned to normal”.
It asked the resident to provide evidence to support her claim that the valuation of her flat had fallen due to this. We have seen no evidence that the resident did so. Nor have we seen any evidence that the resident was attempting to sell her flat during the period works were ongoing. Therefore, we cannot say that there was any significant detriment caused to her by the temporary disruption of the communal corridor – which was restored to its original condition on completion of the project.
In summary, the landlord appropriately investigated and addressed the resident’s concerns about the air conditioning installation in a timely manner. A level of disruption to the communal corridor was unavoidable given the nature of the works. There is no evidence of any significant detriment, including a devaluing of her flat, caused to the resident by this temporary situation. The landlord ‘made good’ the corridor ceiling after completion of the works and within the timeframe it gave in its stage 2 complaint response. Due to this we make a finding of no maladministration.

Complaint handling

When raising her concerns to the landlord on 5 July 2023, the resident explicitly referred to her email as a “formal complaint”. She reinforced this in further emails on 11 and 12 July 2023 when she expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had not confirmed that it had started its complaints process.
Despite this, the landlord failed to log her email as a complaint. Instead, it chose to respond ‘informally’ to her concerns. It sent her a ‘final response’ via email on 18 July 2023. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this decision.
Our complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlords must accept a complaint unless an exclusion applies. We have seen no evidence to suggest the landlord relied on such an exclusion. Its later decision to log a stage 1 complaint, after we contacted it on the resident’s behalf, would indicate that there was not one.
Although it failed to log a complaint, the landlord did appropriately address all the resident’s concerns within its ‘final response’ of 18 July 2023. As evidenced by the fact its stage 1 complaint response was largely a repetition of the information contained in this. The landlord provided this ‘final response’ within 10 working days of the resident’s complaint. This met the timeframe the Code requires a landlord to provide a stage 1 response in.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it should have logged a complaint after receiving the resident’s email of 5 July 2023. It offered her £50 compensation for “any inconvenience caused” by its failure to do so. This amount is in keeping with its compensation procedure’s suggested remedy for ‘low impact’ service failures. It also falls within the recommended amounts in our remedies guidance for instances of service failure causing minimal impact.
As the landlord had already addressed the resident’s concerns in its ‘final response’. the impact of the landlord’s failure to log her complaint was reduced. It caused the resident to incur time and trouble in contacting us for assistance and delayed her complaint in completing the landlord’s internal process by several months. We believe that £50 compensation represents reasonable redress for this. We have seen evidence that the landlord has already made payment of this amount to the resident’s rent account.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of an air conditioning system.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress to the resident for its handling of her complaint.