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

Notting Hill Genesis (202336066)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336066

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

23 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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Concerns regarding the delays in the window and kitchen replacement.
    3. Associated complaint and communication requirements.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has lived in the 1-bedroomed house since 2004. Although the resident told the landlord of her mental and physical vulnerabilities and communication requirements, the landlord has not confirmed its knowledge of these in its evidence.
  2. In March 2023 the resident reported problems with the windows which she said were in poor condition and contributing to damp and mould. The landlord inspected the windows in March 2023 and recommended replacing them. It completed a mould wash on 27 April 2023 and raised windows repairs in May 2023, which were declined by the resident as she was expecting new windows.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 6 December 2023. This was not logged by the landlord at the time. She submitted a further complaint on 15 January 2024. The resident was unhappy with:
    1. the lack of contact from the first complaint submitted
    2. the delay in the windows being replaced which she said was contributing to the damp and mould in the property
    3. the affect the damp and mould was having on her physical and mental health
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 25 March 2024. The landlord:
    1. said the delay in the complaint being assigned was due to a long-term absence
    2. confirmed it had visited the property when the resident had also highlighted the condition of the kitchen, arranged an inspection, and raised the following work:
      1. the replacement of the fans in the kitchen and bathroom (completed 15 March 2024)
      2. a mould wash and stain block to all window reveals and affected areas (completed 19 March 2024)
    3. confirmed the kitchen was beyond repair and would be replaced on the renewal programme for the upcoming year
    4. offered £50 compensation for not responding to the resident’s email in an acceptable time frame
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 April 2024. She remained dissatisfied with:
    1. the handling of her complaint
    2. the delay in the kitchen replacement which she said she had been waiting for since 2018
    3. the condition of the windows which she believed needed to be replaced to resolve the damp and mould
    4. the level of compensation offered
  6. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 7 June 2024. The landlord:
    1. said it had installed new fans in the bathroom and kitchen, and completed multiple mould washes
    2. advised the windows were part of the renewal programme for the upcoming year, however due to the ongoing issues, it would try to escalate the work after it had completed a survey
    3. confirmed it would continue with mould washes until the windows were renewed to help alleviate any mould concerns
    4. said investment work on properties in the area had been put on hold due to a stock transfer to another provider, however the kitchen replacement was on the programme for that financial year (ending April 2025), and it would try to provide a more accurate timeframe as to when the work would be done
    5. agreed it had not fully addressed the complaint delay in its initial response and apologised for the lack of communication and inconvenience
    6. apologised for not considering the communication needs requested by the resident
    7. confirmed it now had a dedicated complaint team to oversee the full complaint process
    8. offered £200 compensation in acknowledgement of the complaint handling, £150 for the inconvenience caused in having to chase the landlord for updates, and £150 for its failure to recognise the communication needs
    9. said it would visit the property within the next 2 weeks to discuss the complaint response, survey the property, determine the frequency of mould washes, identify any other damage and repairs needed, and schedule a call every 6 weeks to check on the mould
  7. The resident referred her complaint to us on 3 October 2024. She said:
    1. the fans installed were unsuitable for a 1-bedroomed property
    2. only 1 mould wash had been completed from the start of the complaint, and it had not resolved the issue
    3. the landlord had not attended the property as per its final complaint response
    4. the landlord sent an email on 25 June 2024 which confirmed:
      1. the kitchen would be replaced before September 2024
      2. a Surveyor was to review the photographs of the windows and assess what was needed to address the damp and mould
    5. after the email, the landlord visited the property and told her the windows would not be replaced due to a stock transfer
    6. despite the ventilation, when the cold weather returned, she had water running down the windows, and damp and mould which was affecting her health
  8. On 11 June 2025, the resident advised us the kitchen was replaced in September 2024. She had received confirmation that the windows would be replaced but she was still waiting for the replacement date. The resident confirmed a mould wash was completed approximately 4 or 5 months ago but these were only done when she requested them.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to the length of time the issues outlined above have been ongoing. This is not disputed, however we expect a resident to raise a complaint with the landlord within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. As there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made prior to those referred to above, it is reasonable to focus on events from March 2023.
  2. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint. It is important the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by us as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included for context.
  3. The resident referred to the impact the situation has had on her health. We can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she should seek legal advice.
  4. The resident has referred to the condition of her bathroom and the delays with her front door being replaced. These issues are noted but did not form part of the complaint therefore we cannot assess these as part of our investigation. If the resident is experiencing problems with either of these issues, she may wish to raise a new complaint with the landlord.

Reports of damp and mould

  1. In line with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the resident’s Tenancy Agreement, the landlord’s Repair Policy confirms it is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the premise (including windows). The policy states:
    1. it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours to make safe or complete a temporary repair, and it will complete standard repairs within 20-working days from the report
    2. in cases where a repair can be more cost effective if carried out as part of a programme of planned or cyclical works, it will consider this option and inform residents accordingly
    3. all programmes of planned and cyclical maintenance, including a stock condition survey, seek to replace and/or improve components to ensure properties continue to meet the Decent Homes Standard when it undertakes responsive repairs on them
    4. it will communicate with residents about the timeframe to complete the work, where it has identified the need for replacement or improvement
  2. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy states all initial reports of damp or mould growth will be prioritised as urgent with consideration given to any vulnerabilities. The policy states:
    1. the enquiry is passed to the Local Officer (LO) who will contact the resident within 5-working days to arrange a visit within 10-working days when any health issues should be discussed
    2. the LO will assess the cause of damp and mould, discuss any actions that can be taken to reduce the occurrence of mould, complete a report with recommendations for any minor remedial works, and submit any necessary repairs within 2–working days
    3. minor remedial works will be completed within 20-working days, with vulnerabilities being considered to ensure correct prioritisation, and where severe mould is present, an initial repair will be raised to remove the immediate risk pending the Surveyor’s inspection
    4. if a technical specialist is required, a Surveyor will inspect the property within 10-working days, provide a full report within 3-working days to outline the root cause and required work, and will discuss the work with the resident
    5. in certain circumstances and depending on the identified issues there may be a need to prioritise individual cases due to vulnerabilities
  3. The resident reported an issue with the windows on 14 March 2023, and the landlord inspected the property on 20 March 2023. The landlord confirmed there was a lot of damp and mould, and the walls were wet due to the condition of the windows. The landlord arranged a mould wash that was completed on 27 April 2023. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the Damp and Mould Policy for minor remedial work.
  4. The resident reported the ongoing damp and mould in her complaint on 6 December 2023. She acknowledged the landlord had treated and painted over the affected areas, but said the problem was getting worse because of the condition of the windows. The resident told the landlord her health had deteriorated, and she had attended hospital on 2 occasions with breathing difficulties. The landlord told the resident it would gather information on the repairs and provide a detailed update, however there is no evidence it did. This was unreasonable and was a communication failure by the landlord.
  5. Furthermore, according to the resident, the window replacement was scheduled for 2023 but was then changed to 2024 to 2025. The landlord’s Damp and Mould Policy states it will consider prioritising work due to a resident’s vulnerability. As the landlord had made a direct link between the condition of the windows and the damp and mould, and was aware of the resident’s health vulnerabilities, it should have considered prioritising the window replacement. There is no evidence it did this. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the Damp and Mould Policy. This did little to reassure the resident it was committed to providing a permanent solution in a timely manner.
  6. The resident raised her complaint again on 15 January 2024. She said she had not received any contact regarding the action to address the damp and mould. The landlord observed the windows and damp and mould during a visit on 22 January 2024 when it asked a Surveyor to inspect the property and report back. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The Surveyor visited the property on 31 January 2024 and asked for an inspection of the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, and a mould wash of all affected areas. The fans were both replaced on 18 March 2024, and a mould wash was completed on 27 February 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
  7. The resident raised the ongoing damp and mould in her complaint escalation on 11 April 2024. She said the issue had not been resolved because the windows still needed to be replaced. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 7 June 2024 when it said it had taken steps to address the damp and mould by installing new extractor fans and completing “multiple mould washes” in February 2024. The landlord’s records do not corroborate with its response as records show only 1 wash was completed on 27 February 2024. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
  8. In its final complaint response, the landlord said it would visit the property within 2 weeks to survey the property, determine a schedule of mould washes, and schedule a call every 6 weeks to discuss the damp and mould. This was reasonable but there is no evidence it fulfilled this commitment. As the window replacement remains outstanding, the issue with the damp and mould is ongoing. Furthermore, as we have not seen the landlord’s survey report, we cannot determine if the landlord has identified all the factors contributing to the damp and mould or put a plan in place to address these. This was unreasonable as the landlord has not demonstrated it has fulfilled its repair responsibilities.
  9. In summary, we find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. This is because the landlord:
    1. did not complete the mould wash in April 2023 in line with its repair timescales
    2. failed to provide the resident with an update on the damp and mould following her complaint in December 2023
    3. did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities by prioritising the replacement of the windows which it confirmed was a direct link to the damp and mould
    4. did not provide records that supported its final complaint response
    5. did not highlight any of the above service failures or offer any redress
    6. did not follow up on the commitments it made in its final complaint response which included agreeing a schedule of mould washes
  10. We order the landlord to pay the resident £400 in compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance and is to acknowledge the landlord’s failings as highlighted above and to recognise the impact and distress caused to the resident.

Concerns regarding the delays in the window and kitchen replacement

  1. The resident raised concerns with the condition of the windows on 14 March 2023. The landlord inspected the windows on 20 March 2023 when it confirmed all the windows were in “extremely bad condition” with lots of mould build up as a result. The inspection confirmed the windows needed to be replaced, but there is no evidence the landlord made any progress following the recommendation. This was unreasonable.
  2. The landlord raised a repair to replace the gaskets and any blown units. On 18 May 2023, when it contacted the resident to arrange the repair, its notes state the repair was declined as she said the repairs would not fix the problem, and she had been told she was getting new windows. The landlord inspected the windows for a second time on 23 May 2023. We have not seen a copy of the inspection report, or any evidence of the action taken as a result. This was unreasonable as the landlord has not demonstrated it responded to the findings. Further, there is no evidence of any communication with the resident regarding its intentions. This was unreasonable and a communication failure by the landlord.
  3. On 4 December 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an update on the window replacement. She said she had received confirmation via a letter in April 2023 that the windows would be fitted once made. She reiterated this in her complaint when she highlighted the damp and mould was due to the condition of the windows.
  4. The landlord visited the resident on 22 January 2024. The resident raised the condition of the kitchen and the windows which the landlord noted were both in a poor state of repair. The visiting officer’s notes state it had raised jobs for the replacement of both components previously but had been told they would be added to the cyclical programme. There is no evidence this happened. Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord inspected the components further to assess if any repairs could be completed in the interim. This was not appropriate as the landlord has not evidenced it fulfilled its repair obligations.
  5. On 22 January 2024, the landlord sent an internal request to ask if the windows and kitchen could be replaced at its discretion without being on the programme. This was reasonable. The landlord agreed to visit the property, but confirmed if the windows did need replacing it would not be done by the landlord due to the stock transfer. The landlord inspected the property on 31 January 2024. The landlord has not provided the inspection report as evidence or of any related communication to the resident about the outcome. This is a communication and a record keeping failure and makes it difficult for us to assess if the landlord fulfilled its repair responsibilities.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint on 25 March 2024. It referred to the damp and mould due to the windows, but did not confirm what action would be taken to address the condition of the windows. This was unreasonable and did little to reassure the resident it had understood her concerns. The landlord confirmed the kitchen was beyond repair and that it would be replaced as part of the renewal programme for the “upcoming year.” This was reasonable, however, to set the resident’s expectations, it would have been helpful if it had provided a more definitive timescale. Further, it would have been helpful to assess if any repairs were needed in the kitchen until it was renewed. There is no evidence it did this, despite the landlord noting it was beyond repair. This was unreasonable.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 April 2024 when she reiterated the damp and mould problem due to the condition of the windows and asked for a revised plan for the windows and a quicker resolution for the kitchen.
  8. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 7 June 2024. The landlord confirmed the windows were part of the renewal programme for that year, however it would try to escalate the work based on the survey it would do in the next 2 weeks. The landlord confirmed the kitchen replacement had initially been put on hold due to a stock transfer, but it would be done that financial year, and it would aim to provide a date as to when it would be done. This was reasonable as the landlord demonstrated a desire to provide a customer focussed resolution.
  9. Despite the commitments made in its final complaint response, the landlord has not provided evidence to demonstrate it followed up on these. This was unreasonable and offered little reassurance to the resident that it would deliver on what it said it would.
  10. The resident confirmed the kitchen was replaced in September 2024. On 2 April 2025, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would replace the windows. A survey was completed on 24 April 2025, however due to some of the windows being aluminium, the landlord had to confirm if planning permission was needed from the Local Authority. This process is ongoing.
  11. We find maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the delays in the window and kitchen replacement. This is because the landlord:
    1. did not respond appropriately or in a timely manner to the inspections completed which continued to have an impact on the damp and mould and the resident
    2. did not respond to the Surveyor’s recommendations to replace the windows and raised repairs which would not provide a solution
    3. did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding the renewal programme for both issues
    4. did not consider any interim repairs to the kitchen while waiting for it to be replaced
    5. did not follow up on the commitments made in its final complaint response
    6. failed to recognise the inconsistency in its communication to the resident, or offer any redress
  12. In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation. While there was no permanent impact on the resident, the landlord has failed to acknowledge the failings identified in this report and has not made any attempt to put things right. Furthermore, it has not identified any learning to prevent a recurrence of the issues raised.

Associated complaint and communication requirements

  1. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states the complaints service must acknowledge complaints within 5-working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days. A stage 2 complaint can be completed by the landlord or a review panel.
  2. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
    3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
  3. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states:
    1. it may offer a discretionary goodwill gesture to acknowledge a service failure that the landlord is committed to putting right and to restore good relations
    2. where residents experience distress and inconvenience following a service failure, it can make a discretionary payment of up to £250. This includes cases of inconvenience, hardship, distress or a ‘making good’ payment             
    3. compensation is guided by the level of impact on the resident and can range from low impact (up to £100), medium impact (up to £250), and high impact (up to £500)
    4. in exceptional circumstances where there have been multiple failures, or the resident has experienced exceptional hardship it may offer higher levels of compensation than outlined above
  4. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 6 December 2023. The landlord responded to the resident the same day advising it would assist her with her enquiries relating to her recent repair concern. The landlord did not log the complaint. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy, or the Code, and was a missed opportunity by the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint earlier than it did.
  5. The resident submitted her complaint again on 15 January 2024. Within the complaint the resident told the landlord she was unable to read therefore asked for all correspondence via phone or voicemail initially, followed by an email if applicable. The resident received an automated acknowledgement to her email which advised it “normally responds to complaints within 10-working days”. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the policy or the Code.
  6. The resident contacted us on 18 March 2024 advising she had not received a response to her complaint. We asked the landlord to respond by 26 March 2024. It was unreasonable the resident felt the need to contact us for support in obtaining a response from the landlord.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 March 2024. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the policy or the Code. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord tried to contact the resident by phone as per her communication request. This was a failure by the landlord. The landlord explained the initial complaint had been sent to a colleague who was on long term absence, but did not address its complaint handling failure in enough depth. Consequently, it formed part of the resident’s escalation. The landlord offered £50 for its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged the request on 2 May 2025, and provided its final complaint response on 7 June 2024. This was not appropriate as neither response was in line with the policy or the Code.
  9. Given the known vulnerability of the resident, the landlord would be expected, under the Equality Act 2010 to demonstrate it had taken steps to communicate with the resident in a way that met her needs. There is no evidence it did this. This was a failure by the landlord.
  10. The landlord acknowledged its service failures and apologised to the resident. It highlighted the learning taken and explained it had implemented a new team to oversee the complaint process. The landlord offered £500 compensation in recognition of its complaint handling failures across both stages of the process, the inconvenience to the resident having to pursue the landlord for updates. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for failing to consider the resident’s communication requirements. The compensation took this failure into account. The offer was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s Compensation Policy.
  11. The landlord’s offer was in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there was no permanent impact on the resident, but where the landlord has acknowledged its failures and made some attempt to put things right. The landlord demonstrated it had followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put it right and learn from outcomes. As such a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the delays in the window and kitchen replacement.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint and communication requirements.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has:
    1. written a letter of apology to the resident that addresses the failings highlighted in this report
    2. paid the resident £600 compensation, broken down as follows:
      1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to the reports of damp and mould
      2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident by the delays in the window and kitchen replacement
    3. contacted the resident to obtain details regarding her vulnerabilities, recorded these on the system, and agreed a preferred method of communication that suits the resident
    4. contacted the resident to confirm the date the windows will be replaced
    5. agreed a period of monitoring with the resident following the installation of the windows to ensure it has been successful in alleviating the damp and mould
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has reviewed the failures associated with the damp and mould and window replacement and identified learning to prevent a recurrence of such issues.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £500 that was offered in its final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint is made on the basis this compensation is paid.
  2. The landlord should review its process for recording and responding to residents in a way that meets communication requirements.