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

Notting Hill Genesis (202313623)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313623

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

  1. The resident has complained about the landlord’s response to her request for compensation due to a communal light being connected to her electric meter.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy commenced on 15 October 2001. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a house conversion. The property has a communal light in the hallway that is activated by a sensor.
  2. The resident found out when an electrician attended her property that the communal light was connected to her electrical supply. She asked the landlord for a refund. It offered her £250 on 15 June 2023.
  3. On 14 July 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint. She stated:
    1. she had been asking the landlord for a year to refund what she had paid towards the communal lighting in her building.
    2. she had provided bills to her housing officers.
    3. the landlord had offered £250 but not responded to her request to explain the offer.
    4. she had made a calculation based on the number of bulbs in her flat, but the landlord had not got back to her. She requested that the landlord refund her £708.61 for the period 7 May 2019 to 7 March 2023.
    5. She wanted to know how the landlord would be refunding her for the rest of the time, from the start of her tenancy
    6. She wanted to know how the landlord would prevent the issue recurring in the future.
  4. After the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond, it sent the stage 1 response on 25 September 2023. It stated:
    1. it accepted the resident’s calculation and would refund the sum of £708.01 for the period 7 May 2019 to 7 March 2023. (The Ombudsman understands from other correspondence that it intended to say £708.61). It would also compensate until the end of 2023 if resident could calculate the amount.
    2. the resident did not provide records from before 7 May 2019. Therefore, it was difficult to compensate back from that date back to the start for the tenancy. It asked resident what she considered reasonable.
    3. it was waiting for an update on the installation of a new meter and works to separate the communal electric supply. It would offer £250 per year for future power usage in the communal area.
  5. The resident declined the landlord’s offer and requested compensation of £18,758.61. The landlord sent a revised offer on 1 November 2021 of £1,850. This comprised £250 per year from May 2019 to April 2024 plus £250 for 2018-19. The landlord also awarded £250 for distress and inconvenience and £100 in the delay in resolving the issue.
  6. The resident declined the offer and escalated her complaint. She disputed the landlord’s decision to pay compensation for 6 years as she thought it should have corrected the issue before she moved in. Also, she only found out about the issue after an electrician traced the communal light to the meter box.
  7. On 2 January 2024, the landlord sent the stage 2 response. It stated:
    1. it would offer £5,850 comprising:
      1. £5,500 for electrical costs from the start of tenancy to the upcoming 2024 financial year. It considered this a reasonable amount as electricity costs were cheaper previously.
      2. £250 for stress and inconvenience.
      3. £100 for the delay in logging the complaint.
    2. It was not installing a communal landlord meter in any of its converted properties. Instead, it would offer £250 to residents where the communal power supply was connected to their individual meter.
  8. On 18 January 2024, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as the landlord’s offer had not resolved her complaint:
    1. She accepted the landlord’s offer of £5,500 for electrical costs, although she believed it should have offered £5,558.61 (£1,058.61 for 7 May 2019 to 5 April 2024 + £250 x 18 years = 1,058.61 + £4,500)
    2. However, she wanted it to also pay £50 per month for stress and inconvenience for 22 years = £13,200.
    3. She did not accept the offer of £250 per year in the future as she did not know what the cost of electricity would be. She wanted the award increased to £300.
  9. The resident later informed the Ombudsman on 2 July 2024 that she had revised the outcome she sought. She still wanted £600 a year for stress and inconvenience. However, she now wanted the landlord to pay the full amount of her calculation of £5,558.61 not £5,500, a further £10,000 for “intentionally” installing the communal light to her meter, and £300-£350 a year for future use.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair common parts. This includes common entrances, halls … passageways… including their electrical lighting. In this case, there was a communal light for the building that was connected to the resident’s electrical supply. Where a house has been converted into flats, it is sometimes the case that a communal light is connected to the electrical supply of a flat. It is not clear whether the landlord converted the property or acquired the property in this way. Regardless, it is unreasonable that one resident pays the full cost of running a light if the light is communal, as in this case.
  2. The resident has advised the Ombudsman she found out that the communal light was connected to her electric meter in 2022. This was after an electrician attended to complete a separate repair, to a kitchen light. The landlord’s records indicate that she in fact reported the issue earlier, in October 2021. The landlord informed her how she could claim reimbursement of electrical costs.
  3. Neither party has provided evidence of further contact about the matter until 17 February 2023. On this date, the resident told the landlord it had not responded to emails where she advised she was paying electricity for communal areas. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a substantive response until 15 June 2023. This was 4 months later which was an unreasonable delay. In the response, the landlord stated that it would offer £250. In response, on 21 June 2023, the resident asked the landlord to explain its offer of £250. She suggested that as there were 7 light bulbs in her flat including the communal area, it should pay her one-seventh of her monthly bills.
  4. As the resident did not receive a response, she submitted a formal complaint on 14 July 2023. Within this, she requested £708.61 for the period 7 May 2019 to 7 March 2023. A spreadsheet provided confirms she totalled her electrical costs for the period, £4,960.61, and divided by 7. This was because she was paying for 7 light bulbs, 6 in her property and the communal one. The landlord accepted her request in the stage 1 response. This was more than reasonable as the resident was likely to use other electrical appliances that consumed electricity.
  5. The resident also wanted reimbursement for the preceding period, to the start of her tenancy. Given that there was no evidence of costs, it was reasonable that the landlord asked the resident to provide a figure in the first instance. The resident advised she wanted £250 per year for 18 years, totalling £4,500. In addition, she wanted £50 per month for 22 years. This took into account her difficulty paying electricity bills. This totalled £13,200. As well as the £708.61 agreed based on actual bills, she wanted £350 to the end of the 2023-24 financial year, which totalled £1,058.61. Altogether, she requested £18,758.61.
  6. On 1 November 2023, the landlord sent a revised offer to the resident. It stated that it would offer £250 per year from May 2019 to April 2024 making a total of £1,250. Again, this offer was more than reasonable as it exceeded the sum of £708.61 for the period, which had been evidenced and agreed. The landlord stated it would offer £250 for 2018-19 but not reimburse to the start of the tenancy due to the statute of limitations of 6 years. It also offered £250 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for its delay in resolving the issue. This made a total of £1,850.
  7. After the resident escalated her complaint, the landlord revised its offer again. It offered £5,500 for electrical costs from the commencement of tenancy to the upcoming 2024 financial year. This equated to £250 per full year since the start of the tenancy. As noted above, the sum of £250 a year was more than reasonable, especially given its observation that electricity costs were cheaper previously.
  8. The landlord advised it would pay the resident £250 in future years for the cost of the communal light. Again, this proposal was more than reasonable as it exceeded the resident’s own calculations. Furthermore, on 15 April 2024, the landlord finalised a “Refunding Costs for Landlord’s Electric Supply Procedure”. This noted the charge for a 100W Incandescent bulb is £0.027 per hour. Assuming 2 hours use a day, the estimated cost of 1 light bulb per year is £19.71. The cost is cheaper for Halogen, Compact Fluorescent and LED bulbs. By this standard, its offer to pay the resident £250 exceeded the policy it later implemented and therefore was generous. We recommend, however, the landlord confirms to the resident whether it will continue to pay her £250 per year for the communal light bulb cost. This includes clarifying the circumstances when it may review and revise the amount.
  9. In summary, the landlord negotiated and finalised offers to reimburse the resident for her previous and future electrical use. Through this, it took more than reasonable steps to put her in the position she would have been in had the communal light not been connected to her electric meter. We also note that the landlord has the right to recharge the occupants of the building for the cost of communal services. This includes communal electricity costs. Therefore, had there been a communal meter from the start of the resident’s tenancy, she may have had to pay half the cost, in any case.
  10. In the stage 2 response, the landlord advised that it was not installing its own communal meters in its properties. An internal email notes that where the communal electric supply ran off a resident’s supply in a converted street property, this usually only powered a bulb which cost “very little”. It would cost several thousand pounds to separate this, therefore it should reimburse residents instead. Landlords have an obligation to be financially viable. Within this, it must manage finite repair and maintenance budgets and prioritise works. Its primary obligation is to keep properties in good repair and habitable. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord considered whether it would be an efficient use of its resources to install a communal meter in the resident’s building.
  11. The Refunding Costs for Landlord’s Electric Supply Procedure states that “This is a temporary arrangement whilst NHG seek to provide a separate landlord’s supply.”  This statement is subsequent and different to the stage 2 complaint response. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord confirm to the resident whether it will be installing a communal meter or not.
  12. The landlord also offered the resident £250 to recognise her stress and inconvenience. Its Compensation Policy in effect at the time stated that it may offer up to £250 where “There has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident.”  The landlord’s offer was in line with the policy.
  13. The resident wanted an award for distress and inconvenience from the start of her tenancy. She suggested £50 per month due to difficulties paying electric bills. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, generally within a year. This enables the landlord to have reasonable opportunity to consider and resolve the issues whilst they are still ‘live’. A timely complaint also ensures evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. Here, the resident did not complain to the landlord about her electrical bills prior to reporting the communal light being connected to her meter. She knew the communal light was in use so had the opportunity to enquire who paid for it. In any event, there is no evidence that the communal light significantly affected her bills. Indeed, the light is on a sensor and would only be on for a limited duration. As such, the landlord’s offer of £250 for distress and inconvenience was proportionate to the circumstance of the case. Consequently, it was reasonable that it maintained this award in the stage 2 response.
  14. The landlord also offered £100 compensation for its delay in logging the complaint. Its complaint procedure states that at stage 1, it will acknowledge the complaint in 2 days and send the response within 10 working days. The landlord did not respond in line with this timeframe. In fact, the resident had to pursue her complaint though the Ombudsman. She therefore incurred additional time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. The landlord had also delayed in responding to her earlier email of 17 February 2023.
  15. The Compensation Procedure states it may offer up to £125 in “medium impact” cases. This is defined as “The service has markedly failed to meet service standards and this failure has caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable for the resident”. It was appropriate that the landlord offer redress for its delays in responding to the resident. Its offer of £100 was in line with the procedure and proportionate to the length of the delays.
  16. To conclude, in identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers the events which initially prompted a complaint. We also consider the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaint procedure. 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. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. Through its award to reimburse the resident, the landlord took more than reasonable steps to put her in the position she would have been in had the communal light not been connected to her electric meter. In deciding to reimburse future expenditure, it was appropriate that the landlord considered whether it would be an efficient use of its resources to install a communal meter. It also offered compensation for distress, inconvenience, and delays that were in line with its Compensation Procedure and proportionate to the circumstances. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord offered reasonable redress, prior to investigation, which resolved the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the resident’s complaint about its response to her request for compensation due to a communal light being connected to her electric meter.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that:
    1. the landlord pays the resident the compensation offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.
    2. the landlord confirms to the resident whether it will be installing a communal meter or not.
    3. the landlord confirms to the resident whether it will continue to pay her £250 per year for the running cost of the communal light. This includes clarifying the circumstances when it may review and revise the amount.