Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Notting Hill Genesis (202306812)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306812

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

  1. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the entry gates and intercom for the estate.
    2. The estate management.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat on an estate owned by the landlord. The estate is comprised of residents with various tenures.
  2. The resident is the chair of the resident’s association (RA). She complained to the landlord on 6 February 2023 on behalf of the RA. She described issues with the entry gates in November 2021, February 2022, and October 2022. She said the main gates were broken and had been left open for months, whereas the pedestrian gate was difficult to open. She also referenced an issue with the intercom system. She asked it to confirm how it intended to resolve the problems and requested a strategic review of the management of the estate.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 February 2023. It acknowledged it took a few months to obtain the parts needed to complete the most recent gate repair. It stated it attended the pedestrian gate the same day the issue was reported. Going forward, it would test the pedestrian gate more regularly. It committed to updating residents regularly on the status of repairs and having a presence on-site at least twice per month. It offered £125 compensation.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 6 March 2023. She said the pedestrian gate was difficult to open for those less physically able and the landlord had not addressed her concerns regarding the intercom system.
  5. On 15 May 2023, the landlord responded at stage 2, setting out its repair timescales. It apologised for its previous ineffective communication. It confirmed it had fixed the vehicle gate and was installing an additional mechanism to help with the weight of the pedestrian gate. It apologised for the delay responding to the complaint and set out a list of actions it would take. It offered additional redress of £125 to the resident, making a total compensation award of £250.
  6. The landlord’s final complaint response dissatisfied the resident. She referred the complaint to this Service. To resolve the complaint, she wants the landlord to compensate all the affected residents within the estate. In addition, she requested transparency about what party was responsible for the estate, a review of the underlying problems leading to poor estate management, and a review of the issues that residents have previously reported.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Within the resident’s complaint to the landlord, she referenced issues with the pedestrian gate going back to 2021 and concerns about the historical management of the estate. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happen. Paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which the resident did not bring to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. At the time these issues occurred, the timescale was within 6 months of the matter arising. Taking this into account, we have focused on the request for repairs from February 2023 up to the date of the stage 2 response dated 15 May 2023.
  2. This Service can only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, as per paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme. We recognise that after the landlord issued its final complaint response, the resident expressed other concerns such as its handling of an enquiry about service charges and its fire safety guidance. It is open for her to contact the landlord directly and make a separate complaint. We would expect a landlord to consider additional concerns through its formal complaint procedure.

 

 

Entry gates and intercom

  1. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the resolution offered by the landlord put things right and remedied the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The lease requires the landlord to keep in good and tenantable repair, and clean, maintain and when necessary, renew the common parts, including the forecourt and access to the parking area.
  3. Once on notice of a repair, the landlord must conduct the works it is responsible for within a reasonable period, in accordance with its obligations under the lease and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is – this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy explains it aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days. It reserves the right to conduct some repairs to communal areas as part of its cyclical works programme, rather than as a responsive repair.
  5. The landlord submitted a copy of its repair records to this Service as part of our request for evidence. These records show it raised a work order on 6 February 2023 as the vehicle and pedestrian gates were not working correctly. It recorded the job as completed the next day. Contractors did not provide a completion report. From the limited evidence available, the Ombudsman is unable to determine what happened here. These records show the landlord did not raise further repair jobs for the gates until October 2023.
  6. From the information available, the resident next mentioned issues with the pedestrian gate in her escalation request dated 6 March 2023. She described it as being difficult to open for those who are less physically able. The landlord said it raised a repair for the gate in an email dated 4 April 2023, however the repair records it provided do not reflect this, as explained above. This is a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping and repairs management.
  7. Records show the resident and landlord met on 14 April 2023 to discuss matters in more detail. An email of the same date summarised:
    1. The vehicle gate was still open due to issues with it failing and residents sharing the access code.
    2. The intercom (on the main gate) has functionality to call resident’s phones, but only 1 number per flat, which required updating.
    3. The pedestrian gate was heavy and hard for residents to hold open.
  8. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord said its contractor had fixed the vehicle gate and it was distributing fobs to residents. It explained it would deactivate the code system once it had released all fobs. It also said it had booked a further repair to add a mechanism to the pedestrian door, and it would arrange a meeting with an engineer to discuss the intercom concerns. The repair record provided by the landlord to this Service does not feature all the repairs referenced here. Thus, we cannot assess how the landlord handled these matters or whether it communicated effectively with the resident. This is another example of a record keeping failure.
  9. It is vital for landlords to keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of events. This helps the Ombudsman to understand the landlord’s actions and decisions. If this Service investigates a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to determine that an action took place or that the landlord acted fairly and in line with its policies. Moreover, landlords cannot thoroughly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records, and this could result in unfairness to residents. In this case, the lack of contemporaneous records to demonstrate the landlord’s actions has made it difficult for us to thoroughly investigate the issues.
  10. Since this complaint, this landlord has shared a copy of its self-assessment against the recommendations contained within our knowledge and information management spotlight report and confirmed its intentions within its proposed workplan for 2024/2025. Similarly, it has planned improvements relating to recording keeping. As such, we have not made any recommendations surrounding these issues in this specific case, however lessons learnt from this determination should still be considered in its future handling of repairs.
  11. At stage 1, the landlord offered £125 for a failure in service as the most recent gate repair took several months to complete due to waiting for parts and it did not communicate this to residents. Our remedies guidance, available on our website, suggests that compensation of £100 to £600 is appropriate where there has been a failure that adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. While the £125 offered falls within this range, we find compensation of £200 more proportionate to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays and poor communication surrounding the gate repairs, and the landlord’s failure to thoroughly investigate the reported issues with the intercom within a reasonable period.

Estate management

  1. In relation to the issues regarding the estate management, the resident outlined the open issues to the landlord in April 2023. Some of these issues included cross departmental communication, grounds maintenance, repairs, cleaning, gardening, graffiti and lift maintenance. In response to the concerns the resident raised regarding estate management, the landlord acknowledged its failings within the stage two response dated 15 May 2023. It provided steps it would implement to improve its service, this included:

–          Monthly resident drop-in sessions.

–          Monthly Email Newsletters.

–          Joint site inspections.

  1. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that it would provide the resident with an excel spreadsheet detailing all the items that were outstanding to bring the site back up to an acceptable standard. We have reviewed evidence of the excel spreadsheet the resident provided detailing the landlord’s action plan. It was reasonable that the landlord provided this to the resident and is taking steps to progress with the improvement of the estate. Having considered everything, it is our view there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the estate management. When the resident reported different issues to it regarding the estate, these were not always progressed or completed within reasonable timeframes. Additionally, the landlord’s communications were not always clear to residents of the estate.
  2. Under the circumstances, it is our view there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this issue due to the failings identified above. It is important to highlight that we have also considered the fact that the landlord acknowledged its failings in the stage two response, provided learnings and took steps to improve upon its management of the estate (the action plan it provided to the resident). It is due to its response at stage two to proactively improve upon its management of the estate that only a finding of service failure has been made.
  3. To put things right following the above failing, we consider compensation of £150 to be proportionate when considering the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the landlord’s handling of the estate and the period of our investigation. The amount awarded is in line with our remedies guidance; therefore, we consider the amount to be reasonable.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies that a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with a further extension of 20 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
  2. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 28 February 2023, 16 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. She escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 6 March 2023, to which the landlord responded on 15 May 2023, 47 working days later. The Code serves to illustrate the landlord kept the complaint open at stage 2 for longer than we would reasonably expect.
  3. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the complaint handling delay compounded the detriment to the resident as she was uncertain how seriously the landlord was taking her concerns, and she had to chase it for a response. The landlord’s delay in progressing the complaint also prevented her from referring her case to this Service at the earliest opportunity. Nonetheless, it recognised the shortcomings in its complaint handling, apologised, and offered compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  4. We recognise the landlord agreed to meet face-to-face with the resident to discuss the complaint. This demonstrated a willingness to understand her concerns and resolve matters. This was reasonable and pragmatic in the circumstances.
  5. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. In this case, the landlord said it would implement monthly drop-in sessions for residents to speak about any issues and a monthly email newsletter for leaseholders and tenants. It also explained it recognised the limitations of emails and had developed an online portal instead, where it aimed to respond to messages within 24 hours.
  6. Since the period of this complaint, the landlord informed this Service of its plans to improve its overall complaint handling by implementing a new centralised complaints service. It aims to expedite complaint resolution and enhance resident satisfaction through clear communication channels and a customer-centric approach. We recognise the landlord is taking positive steps to improve its complaint handling provision, with a greater focus on root cause analysis and learning. Therefore, no recommendations have been made in this regard.
  7. The landlord offered £125 compensation for its complaint handling failures. In the Ombudsman’s view, this sum was reasonable and in line with our remedies guidance to reflect the extent of its shortcomings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the entry gates and intercom for the estate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the estate management.   
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, we order the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her repair requests to the entry gates and intercom system. This is inclusive of the £125 previously offered.
    2. Pay the resident £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the estate management.
    3. Write to the resident to provide more clarity over which parties are responsible for the various aspects of estate management and information about how she can escalate performance concerns.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance of the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £125 previously offered for its handling of the complaint, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers whether the compensation awarded in this case should be issued to the other residents similarly affected. If the landlord considers that the other residents’ were affected by the issues investigated in this case and it believes there was a service failure in its handling of the issues, it should award compensation to the other residents’ to put things right.