Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202310067)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310067

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Concerns about deterioration of the property.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident has been the leaseholder of the property, the upstairs flat in a house, for about 15 years. The landlord is a housing association.
About 10 years ago, a tenant (the neighbour) moved into the flat below the property. The neighbour had mental health difficulties. Within 2 years, they began to cause noise nuisance and became increasingly abusive toward the resident. The resident reported incidents to the landlord.
In October 2021 the neighbour received an injunction barring her from abusing the resident and other neighbours. The resident continued to report ASB periodically.
In September 2022 the resident sent a surveyor’s report to the landlord which stated that works were required at the rear of the property after the collapse of a lintel above a downstairs window.
From October 2022 the resident raised her concerns both about ASB and the condition of the building frequently with both the landlord and her MP, who contacted the landlord on her behalf. The landlord assured her its legal team was dealing with the ASB.
In January 2023 the neighbour was convicted of aggravated assault against the resident. In February 2023 the landlord conducted a survey of the property which found that a downstairs wall might be bowing but the problem was not severe.
In February or March 2023 the resident complained formally to the landlord about ASB and the repairs she believed were necessary. In its stage 1 response of 21 April 2023 the landlord listed her complaint points as follows:
1. Her MP had asked to know when the neighbour would be evicted and had not received an answer.
2. She had told the landlord about urgently needed repairs, and no one had contacted her to arrange them.
3. It had not given her a copy of its surveyor’s report.
4. It had not told the surveyor to survey the downstairs flat as well as the property (which would be necessary as the problem was structural).
5. She wanted it to carry out the works recommended by her surveyor.
6. She wanted it to clear blockages in the exterior drain.
The landlord said:
1. It could not share details of actions about evicting the neighbour for data protection reasons but these matters were in hand.
2. It was currently seeking a contractor to carry out repairs.
3. It had now provided the survey to the resident but was unable to do so sooner as it did not receive it until the end of March 2023.
4. Its surveyor had found that no survey of the downstairs flat was required.
5. It would shortly contact the resident to arrange for drain works.
The resident escalated her complaint on 22 April 2023. Both she and the MP continued to contact the landlord about her concerns throughout the remainder of 2023. The resident also contacted us for assistance in the latter half of 2023.
Over the course of 2023 the landlord carried out surveys to various areas of the property and agreed to carry out some works. This included works to the drains and the removal of a tree from the neighbour’s garden. It also rehoused the neighbour in July 2023.
The landlord remained in contact with the resident about the complaint. It introduced various new elements into the complaint over the summer of 2023, including her concerns about tree roots in the drains and a radiator which she said needed to be drained because of cracks appearing in her walls. She wanted it to appoint an independent structural engineer to survey the property.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 20 November 2023 it said:
1. It had removed a tree from the garden on 13 November 2023.
2. It would not appoint a structural engineer or conduct a further CCTV drain survey. However it would ask its contractor to do some works in relation to a bulging wall, the window lintel, a brick arch, and cracks in the walls.
3. It had dealt with the resident’s concerns appropriately, but acknowledged a delay in doing so.
4. It offered £450 compensation (£250 for its delayed response to the issues, £100 for poor communication and £100 for the delayed complaint response).
In her referral to us the resident said she wanted us to:
1. Employ a structural engineer to survey the property and provide a report.
2. Arrange a further CCTV drain inspection.
3. Employ qualified builders to carry out repairs (she does not want the landlord’s contractors to do the works).
4. Provide her with information about her case under a subject access request.
5. Inform her of the procedure for follow up and quality control.
6. Compensate her for the cost of employing a surveyor and a drain surveyor.
7. Compensate her for the stress and ill-health she has suffered.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

While the resident has reported ASB by the neighbour for some time, she did not raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports until 2023. In the interests of fairness, and considering the availability of evidence, this investigation is focused on events from March 2022 onwards.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will take ASB seriously. It should respond to reports within 1 working day and offer to visit the complainant within 5 working days. It should complete a risk assessment and be clear about potential outcomes. It says it will keep risk assessments up to date where there is a danger of a change in the risk level posed by a perpetrator.
The policy says the landlord will use various approaches when responding to reports of ASB. It will try to intervene early to prevent matters deteriorating. It will provide support to tenants with mental health and other difficulties. It says that, where necessary, it will take enforcement action.
There was a background of known aggressive ASB by the neighbour stretching back several years, and she was subject to an injunction barring her from harassing the resident. The neighbour also pleaded guilty to assault in October 2021.
After a gap of several months, the resident made further allegations about the neighbour in March 2022 and the neighbour began to be confrontational towards the resident. The landlord took some action to make the neighbour remove a padlock from a communal gate which had blocked the resident’s right of way. It also checked whether her “ramming” the resident’s door was a breach of the injunction.
The resident had already contacted her MP in late-2022 to encourage the landlord to prosecute the neighbour or enforce the injunction. The MP had written repeatedly to the landlord without any response and ultimately contacted the landlord’s chief executive in June 2022. The subsequent investigation showed that the MP’s emails had been blocked by the landlord’s foul language filter and quarantined.
Therefore, the landlord was aware by June 2022 of the recurrence of ASB by the neighbour and the distress this was causing the resident. It took some actions to control the neighbour’s behaviour, including prosecuting them for assault. The neighbour pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and battery on 1 January 2023. She received a suspended sentence which, again, failed to control her behaviour.
The landlord had a responsibility to the neighbour who was also its tenant and was vulnerable. While the resident wanted the landlord to prosecute the neighbour, this would not, necessarily, have resulted in her being evicted. Ultimately, in July 2023, the landlord rehoused the neighbour elsewhere. This was a sensible solution to the problem which ended the ASB the resident experienced.
However, given its policy commitment to address ASB swiftly, the 17 months it took from March 2022 to do so was too long. This delay allowed the resident to continue to suffer considerable distress. It is accepted that taking robust enforcement action can be a lengthy process which requires evidence to be gathered and processes to be followed. However this must be balanced with the landlord’s responsibility to take ASB reports seriously, adopt a proactive approach to resolution and manage escalating risks effectively. In this case, the landlord did not do enough to implement the provisions of its ASB policy in a timely manner, and keep the resident informed of its approach. Its failures to do so amount to maladministration.
The landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Gesture Policy says it offers compensation payments where it has failed to meet its service standards and this has caused inconvenience or distress to residents. Its awards are broken down into 3 categories: low impact, up to £100; medium impact, up to £250; and high impact, up to £500.
High impact cases are those 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 resident contacted the landlord and her MP about her concerns frequently over a lengthy period and it is clear from her communications that she was very distressed. This, therefore, is considered a “high impact” case and we have considered a suitable remedy accordingly.
The resident says these events had a severe effect on her health and she has asked us to award compensation for this. We do not doubt her comments, but it is beyond our remit to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and her ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress or inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
While the landlord did offer the resident compensation at stage 2, this related to other aspects of its service delivery. It did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the ASB and did not, therefore, offer any remedy for the associated distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This contravenes of our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord did not adequately address the duration or severity of the resident’s experience and we therefore order it to pay £500 compensation. This reflects our own remedies guidance for cases of maladministration.

The landlord’s response to concerns about deterioration of the property

The landlord’s repairs policy applies only to its rental properties. It says its responsibility to conduct repairs for leaseholders are set out in the terms of individual leases. The resident has a repairing lease which says she is responsible for all repairs and maintenance to the property.
Nonetheless, the landlord, as the owner of the flat below, is responsible for any damage to the property caused by its failure to adhere to its repairing responsibilities for that flat. It is not our role to determine what the condition of the building was or what works, if any, were required. Instead, we assess how the landlord dealt with the resident’s concerns and whether it followed proper procedure and good practice and acted reasonably in the circumstances.
The resident noticed cracks in internal and external walls in mid-2022 and engaged a building surveyor to prepare a report. The report, delivered in September 2022, said the problems were caused by a broken lintel above a window in the flat below which was owned by the landlord. It recommended a drain survey for the property. The resident approached the landlord on 27 October 2022 and asked it to carry out repairs to both properties to prevent the cracks from getting worse.
The landlord responded on 1 November 2022, saying it would investigate. The resident contacted the landlord in late January 2023 to say she had had no contact about the issue for 2 months. It seems this contact spurred the landlord into action. Emails show that its own surveyors believed that any problems did “not look very serious or extensive”. However it decided to appoint its own surveyor to investigate.
This was an appropriate, albeit delayed, response, but it was unacceptable that it took 2 months to reach this position. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any action to respond to the resident’s concerns in the intervening period. A surveyor attempted to survey both properties on 28 March 2023, but the neighbour refused to admit them. The delay at this point was, therefore, not due to any failure by the landlord. In late June 2023, the landlord sent someone to carry out works on the drains.
In her complaint of 19 April 2024 the resident said she wanted the landlord to carry out a complete building survey. She asked why it had not commissioned a structural engineer to report on the building and why it had not sent a copy of its report to her. She also asked why the landlord had not followed its own disrepair policy. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it had acquired a report and was seeking a contractor to progress works. It said it understood the resident’s frustration but all was now in hand.
The resident’s main concern throughout mid-2023 was the ASB, but her regular emails also mentioned the condition of the building and the drains. Despite the landlord’s statement that it was ready to make progress in the stage 1 response, very little happened throughout the rest of the year. It is clear the resident found these delays frustrating. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not apply in this case, we would still expect it to have managed its response appropriately and to have ensured there was no undue delay. This was particularly so as it had undertaken to progress matters smoothly at stage 1.
There were periods of several months at a time where the landlord did nothing to progress the matter. This was an inadequate response. While we cannot say whether this delay caused any deterioration to the building, it is clear that it caused the resident distress. The landlord was not clear on the progress of her reports and it failed to effectively manage her expectations.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 November 2023. It said a tree surgeon would fell a tree on 13 November 2023 to prevent damage to the drains. It said its surveyor had now attended and it was awaiting a report. It was working to arrange a CCTV survey. It said it would pay for the removal of a radiator which the resident said had to be removed due to cracks in a wall. It also said it would monitor the state of the building over 12 months to see if there was any subsidence.
In its stage 2 response the landlord explained the steps it had ultimately taken to address the substantive issues and offered £350 for its delays and poor communication. These were legitimate responses to the resident’s concerns. It properly considered her reports, accepted responsibility, apologised, offered compensation and committed to taking action to remedy any damage to the property. It said it would not do so in exactly the way the resident prescribed, but it did not have to. It used its own expert knowledge to address her concerns in a professional way.
However, the landlord’s offer of £350 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this report. Given the extent of the delay by this point, a higher level of compensation would be appropriate to reflect the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. In line with the landlord’s Compensation and Goodwill Gesture Policy and our own remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation (inclusive of the £350 already offered).
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the repair issue was not yet resolved. The landlord had begun a year-long monitoring period to see if any bowing and cracks became worse. If the resident is dissatisfied with any actions the landlord took after she referred her complaint to us, she can make a further complaint to the landlord and, if not happy with its response, can return to us. This would then be considered as a separate case under a new reference.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and it met this timeframe in this case.
The complaints policy says the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of a request for escalation. It may agree a short extension, usually of no more than 10 days if necessary. The landlord does not appear to have attempted to meet this policy commitment in this case. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 11 May 2023 and received a stage 2 response on 20 November 2023. This was 136 working days later, which represents an unnecessary and unacceptable delay.
The landlord did acknowledge the delayed complaint handling in its stage 2 response and offered the resident £100 compensation. However, given the length of the delay, and the time and trouble expended by the resident on pursuing the matter, this was not an adequate offer. In our view, an award of £200 compensation would have more adequately remedied the complaint handling failings identified in this report. An order is therefore made for the landlord to pay the resident that sum (inclusive of the £100 already offered).

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Concerns about deterioration of the property.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
1. Sent the resident a letter of apology for the failures identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident £1,200 (inclusive of the £450 already offered) as follows:
  1. £500 for its handling of her reports of ASB.
  2. £500 for its handling of her concerns about deterioration.
  3. £200 for its handling of the associated formal complaint.