Notting Hill Genesis (202234288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234288

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

25 July 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to concerns about:
   1. The administration of service charges.
   2. A pre-existing sinking fund.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder living in a 4-bedroom flat and pays a variable service charge. In 2018, the resident’s landlord, Genesis Housing Association, merged with Notting Hill Housing.
4. In April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord about a surplus on her 2021/22 service charge account. She believed this surplus, along with one from the previous year, should have been credited to her account. She also raised concerns that the 2022/23 service charge estimate was much higher than her actual charges in previous years. On 28 April 2022, the landlord explained the increase was due to a cyclical fund (a fund paid into by leaseholders to cover major building works). In May 2022, the resident queried parts of the estimate again and chased in December 2022.
5. On 15 February 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about what she saw as unexplained service charge increases, and asked for a refund. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 April 2023. It said the service charge increase was mainly due to the introduction of a sinking fund charge in 2022/23, which had not been applied before. It also noted her account was in arrears because her monthly payments were less than the charges, and said her housing officer should be able to adjust this payment to the correct amount. The landlord offered £100 for the delay responding to the complaint.
6. The resident continued to question the increased estimates and disputed the arrears, stating for the past 2 consecutive years she had a surplus rather than a deficit on her account, but received no response. On 4 August 2023, the landlord again said the increase was due to the new sinking fund charge for 2022/23. On 15 August 2023, the resident asked to escalate the complaint. On 7 November 2023, she gave the landlord evidence showing she had paid into a sinking fund in 2016/17 and 2017/18.
7. The landlord issued its final stage 2 response on 14 December 2023. It repeated that the sinking fund charge was not applied before 2022/23 but did not comment on the evidence provided by the resident. Regarding her request for a refund, it said her account was in arrears because she was paying less than the monthly charge. It said there was no credit to refund and asked her to speak with her housing officer to agree on a payment plan.
8. In her referral to the Ombudsman, the resident said the landlord ignored the evidence she provided of prior sinking fund contributions. She also said her monthly payments matched the direct debit plan set up by the landlord. She wanted the landlord to address discrepancies in her service charge account and explain what had happened to her earlier sinking fund contributions.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

9. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about how her 2022/23 estimated service charge was calculated, noting it was much higher than in previous years. The Ombudsman will not usually consider complaints about the amount of a service charge or any increase in it. If a resident wants to challenge the amount or recover charges, they should consider taking their dispute to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
10. However, we can consider how a landlord has handled the administration of the service charge and the complaint. This includes whether it responded to the resident’s queries, gave enough information to explain the charges, and informed the resident of their options if they remained unhappy with the service charge administration.

The landlord’s response to concerns about the administration of service charges

11. The resident raised concerns in April and May 2022 about a surplus in her service charge account and questioned some costs. She chased again in December 2022 and, receiving no reply, made a formal complaint in February 2023 about why charges were higher and why she had not received refunds for surpluses in the past 2 years, despite speaking with her housing officer.
12. The landlord did not respond until its stage 1 response in April 2023, almost a year after her initial enquiry. The resident chased in the intervening time, which should not have been necessary.
13. In the stage 1 response, the landlord explained which services were being charged for such as electricity and insurance and these would be reviewed at year-end and offered to meet to discuss further. It also explained the resident was in arrears because her payments did not cover the full monthly charge and said that if she paid by direct debit, her housing officer could adjust the amount.
14. However, the landlord was aware the resident paid by direct debit. The evidence includes a review sent to her on 18 February 2022 of her increased monthly charges effective from April 2022, which stated that the landlord would change her direct debit payments automatically.
15. The resident subsequently received a direct debit payment schedule showing she was paying less than the new service charge amount. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2023 saying it would automatically adjust her direct debit amount to the correct amount, but it did not do this, and again a direct debit payment schedule showed a lower amount than the review had stated.
16. The resident was, because of these conflicting communications, unclear about the correct amount to pay and she was told by the landlord only in April 2023 that her account was in arrears. She asked her housing officer on 22 May 2023 about the monthly charge, but the landlord did not reply until over two months later, saying it would write to the resident once 2022/23 accounts were finalised, and that any surpluses or deficits would then be credited or charged. As a result, she continued to pay less than the notified amount well into 2024/25.
17. The resident had been informed of the service charge increase and had information showing her direct debit payments were lower than they needed to be. However, in its response to her complaint the landlord overlooked or ignored the fact she was already paying by direct debit, and that it had previously said it would increase the payment itself. It also ignored the fact that the resident had been attempting to clarify the correct amount to pay. While the landlord’s explanation for the arrears is supported by the evidence, its omissions and failure to identify its own role in the confusion was a failing which it did not resolve.

The landlord’s response to concerns about a pre-existing sinking fund

18. In response to the resident’s enquiry and complaint about the property’s sinking fund. The landlord said there had not previously been one. It explained the increase in the service charges was mainly due to the introduction of a new sinking fund.
19. On 7 November 2023, the resident gave the landlord evidence of her past contributions to a sinking fund. This included service charge statements from 2016/17 and 2017/18, and a 2018/19 service charge estimate that showed a “contribution to other sinking funds.” The resident said that after the merger, these earlier contributions were no longer mentioned in the service charge statements she received.
20. There is no indication the landlord considered this information, despite confirming receipt of it on 14 November 2023 and promising to respond. Overall, the landlord failed to respond properly to the resident’s concerns about a pre-existing sinking fund. It did not investigate the evidence provided nor mention it in its final complaint response.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

21. The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. If the resident is not satisfied, it can request an escalation to stage 2, where the landlord aims to respond within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord will inform the resident and agree on a new timescale.
22. The resident complained on 15 February 2023 but did not receive a response within the 10 working days set out in the landlord’s policy. As a result, she contacted the Ombudsman. After our involvement, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 April 2023, 48 working days later which was well outside its policy timescale.
23. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and offered £100 in its stage 1 response, which was paid in July 2025. While this offer aligned with our remedies guidance, which suggests awards up to £100 for service failures that may not affect the outcome, the landlord did not apologise or explain the delay, which was inappropriate.
24. The resident escalated the complaint on 15 August 2023. After receiving no response, she contacted us again in September 2023. The landlord issued its final stage 2 response on 14 December 2023, over 80 working days after the escalation request.
25. As a result of the Ombudsman’s contact on 13 November 2023, the landlord contacted the resident the next day to ask if she agreed to an extension. It then missed its promised deadline of 11 December 2023 for the final response.
26. The stage 2 response did not acknowledge these delays, leaving the landlord’s poor complaint handling incompletely remedied.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1.        Response to concerns about the administration of service charges.
    2.        Response to concerns about a pre-existing sinking fund.
    3.         Handling of the complaint.

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Contact the resident directly to discuss her service charge account and support her to clear any arrears by agreeing a way forward.
    2. Respond to the resident’s complaint that the property has historically had a sinking fund which she was contributing to, taking into consideration the evidence she provided about it. The response should include its conclusions about any such fund, and its current status. The landlord has informed us that it is already in the process of doing this.
    3. Pay the resident £250 made up of:
       1. £100 for the failings identified in responding to concerns about the administration of service charges.
       2. £100 for the failings identified in responding to concerns about a pre-existing sinking fund.
       3. A further £50 for the failings in its complaint handling.
29. The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks to confirm that it has complied with these orders.