Notting Hill Genesis (202404192)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404192

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

21 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident’s tenancy started in August 2017. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 4-bedroom ground-floor maisonette within a block of 30 apartments. The landlord recognises there are health and communication vulnerabilities for the resident and 2 other household members.
The resident’s daughter raised the complaint on her mother’s behalf. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to them both as ‘the resident.’
A resident management company (RMC) is responsible for the plant room and heating and hot water supply to the resident’s block. The plant room also serves an additional block of approximately 160 apartments of various tenures. The RMC employs a managing agent (MA) to oversee the plant room. The MA has an agreement with a heating contractor to service and maintain the heating and hot water services. This includes the calculation and collection of heating charges.
On 27 January 2024 the block’s resident association complained to the landlord about the loss of heating and hot water since November 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident’s association and all affected resident’s on 7 February 2024. It explained the responsibilities of the MA and the investigations to identify the root cause of the heating and hot water service faults. It said it had provided electric heaters to affected households. And it said it also arranged for residents to use the showers at the local leisure centre during the fault investigations and repairs.
On 11 March 2024 the resident complained separately to the landlord. She said the intermittent loss of heating and hot water remained ongoing. The resident also said she had needed to purchase additional heaters as vulnerable household members were extremely cold. The resident considered this the cause of her father’s 2 week hospitalisation in November 2023. She also described the need to boil a kettle for hot water to wash.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 11 March 2024 and sent its stage 1 response on 14 March 2024. It summarised its communication with all residents since the reported heating and hot water loss in November 2023. It also said it had:
1. Arranged a heating engineer appointment in December 2023 via the MA to suit the resident’s availability.
2. Continued to make block wide visits and phone calls to work closely with affected residents.
3. Offered to provide heaters which the resident initially declined. However, following the conversation on 11 March 2024 it would arrange delivery of additional heaters.
4. Asked the resident to consider a temporary move under its decant policy which the resident declined.
5. Encouraged the resident to continue to report all service loss issues to the MA and heating contractor.
6. Raised a further engineer appointment request on the resident’s behalf on 13 March 2024.
7. Empathised and apologised for the inconvenience of the loss of service.
The resident escalated the complaint on 18 March 2024. She said the service loss remained intermittent and questioned why the landlord had not offered a temporary move sooner.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 4 June 2024. It acknowledged that its stage 2 response was late, apologised, and offered £50 compensation. The landlord remained satisfied with its efforts to communicate with the MA and residents regarding the ongoing faults. It was also satisfied it had used its discretion to offer the resident a temporary move, which she declined. However, it accepted it should have provided temporary heaters sooner. It apologised and offered an additional £150. Therefore, taking its total compensation offer to £200.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. She said she had paid the MA for a heating and hot water service which she had not received. Furthermore, she considered the issues had affected the health of household members. The resident also said the landlord would not agree to reimburse or install an electric shower while the repair investigations continued.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident states she considers the loss of heating and hot water the cause of her father’s hospitalisation in November 2023. She also says the issues affected the mental health of all household members.
Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to prove legal liability. Nor can we award damages for personal injury. Such matters require a decision by a court or an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a claim for damages.
The resident also states paying for a heating and hot water service which she did not receive. Therefore, she seeks a refund and compensation.
The resident’s tenancy agreement and annual rent statements show the resident does not pay the landlord for any water or heating service charges. The MA charges the resident for these services. Therefore, the resident should raise any dissatisfaction regarding the disruption to services and the associated charges directly through the MA. We will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

Response to the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water

The landlord’s relocation (decant) policy states emergency relocations are necessary when an event makes a property uninhabitable. The landlord will assess each emergency situation on a case by case basis.
The landlord’s vulnerability policy states:
1. It will not complete detailed vulnerability assessments where the needs of a resident are complex. It will work with social services and external agencies to determine the appropriate support required.
2. It will assess the impact a housing issue is having on an existing vulnerability and whether it is a contributory factor to or exacerbating an existing circumstance.
3. It will consider a reasonable adjustment which may include a physical change to the property or how the landlord delivers its services.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will not offer compensation where it is not responsible for a repair or loss in service.
The landlord does not dispute knowledge of the intermittent heating and hot water loss across 2 blocks in November 2023. It accepts this affected the resident’s household. It also acknowledges that some residents have experienced intermittent issues since 2016.
The evidence shows the landlord communicated that the repair was not its responsibility. It also supported the resident by arranging heating engineer appointments on her behalf. The landlord also took steps to provide alternative wash facilities while the responsible parties investigated the root cause of the faults.
The evidence shows the landlord maintained communication with the MA regarding the issues affecting its residents. There is further evidence heating engineers completed multiple heating network system reports. These reports identified necessary repairs and corrective design work to the plant room. The landlord shared updates with the residents when it received information from the MA. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to reassure residents and maintain communication.
Furthermore, there is evidence the landlord paid the MA a proportion of the anticipated repair costs to speed up the repair progress. This action demonstrated its efforts to progress matters to minimise future disruptions to its residents.
However, evidence shows private leaseholders of the RMC disputed the additional service charge costs associated to the repairs and redesigned heating and hot water system. As such, this dispute caused delays to the repairs beyond the landlord’s control. This was a legal matter for the RMC to resolve.
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 is a legal requirement for landlords to inform and consult leaseholders before carrying out major works. This process comes with strict timeframes which a landlord must follow when works will cost a leaseholder more than £250.
In this case, the RMC had responsibility for the legal consultation with its leaseholders. As such, while the repair delay would understandably have been upsetting for the resident, this matter was beyond the landlord’s control. It was therefore reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to ensure affected residents had additional heaters and access to local facilities, free of charge, to wash when the heating system intermittently failed.
That said, the landlord has a responsibility to make sure their homes are safe, warm, and free from hazards such as excess cold. When a resident reports a risk, the landlord should determine if the home is safe and fit to live in. Ignoring hazards can lead to consequences for everyone involved.
The landlord accepts being aware of the service loss in November 2023. It is therefore unclear why it did not demonstrate assessing the household needs or providing fan heaters before January and February 2024.
While we note the resident declined additional heaters in early 2024, the evidence indicates she had already purchased her own due to the cold. Had the landlord acted on the loss of services sooner, it may have avoided the need for the resident to resolve this issue for herself. The landlord apologised for this delay and offered £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused.
There is no evidence the resident’s property was uninhabitable during the intermittent service losses. However, following the resident’s complaint in March 2024, the landlord offered the resident additional heaters, a temporary move, and offered to refer the resident to the adult social services for a care assessment. The latter being its response to the resident’s request for an electric shower. These actions were consistent with the landlord’s relocation (decant) policy, vulnerability policy, and considerations for reasonable adjustments.
While the resident accepted additional heaters at this stage, we note she declined the landlord’s offer of a temporary move. The evidence indicates household members were either staying temporarily with family or abroad. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to consider the household needs at this stage and the resident’s prerogative to decline the landlord’s offers.
We note the resident expressed dissatisfaction to us that the landlord did not fit an electric shower while the repairs remained ongoing. In such circumstances, there is no obligation for a landlord to fit a shower. It should however demonstrate how it has considered the needs of its residents. In this case, the landlord had arranged local alternative wash facilities and it also offered to complete a referral for an adult care assessment. These steps demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to support the household during the repair investigations.
However, while there is evidence the resident helped one member of the household access the leisure centre, there is no evidence of the landlord considering if these facilities were suitable for every household member. Given the known health conditions and vulnerabilities within the household, it is reasonable to have expected the landlord to have documented how it assessed this. The lack of evidence of the landlord assessing this matter in November 2023 was not consistent with its vulnerability policy.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s position not to install an electric shower. However, an occupational therapy assessment provides landlords with crucial information. The assessment evaluates a person’s ability and challenges to carry out tasks. This information is important to ensure any changes made by the landlord are appropriate and suitable for the needs of the assessed household member. The landlord’s offer of a care assessment was consistent with its relocation (decant) policy and vulnerability policy.
We also note the resident expressed dissatisfaction the landlord did not offer a temporary move sooner. While the landlord has documented its efforts to regularly visit and telephone affected households in early 2024, it is unclear how it assessed the needs of this vulnerable household from November 2023.
Offering the resident a temporary move in November 2023 might not have been a proportionate response to the identified intermittent issues. However, we would expect the landlord to have demonstrated making reasonable enquiries and documenting how it assessed the household support needs. Had it done so, it may have determined the need to offer the additional support sooner.
Given the reports of excess cold and household circumstances, the lack of evidence of action did not demonstrate the landlord giving due regard to the household vulnerabilities. Nor how it mitigated the effects of the initial service loss and repair delays.
When there has been an admission of failure, as is the case here, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
Our determinations should also recognise the fact that the distress caused to an individual resident is unique to them. Not all residents will experience the same distress in response to the same instance of maladministration. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability (‘aggravating factors’). Consideration of any aggravating factors could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Based on our findings we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of this matter. While the repair itself was not the landlord’s responsibility, its offer of £150 for the delay to provide heaters to a household of 3 vulnerable people (aggravating factors) was not proportionate redress.
Furthermore, while there is no evidence the resident raised concerns regarding the suitability of the property prior to her complaint, the landlord was aware of the service loss and the household vulnerabilities. It is therefore unclear why it did not demonstrate assessing the suitability of the leisure centre facilities for all household members. Nor complete a temporary move assessment sooner.
We have considered the service loss occurred during the winter. We have also considered the delay to provide heaters and the landlord’s knowledge of the household vulnerabilities. We have made further consideration that these issues should have been a sufficient trigger for the landlord to have demonstrated an assessment of the household’s suitability for a temporary move sooner.
We order the landlord to pay a total sum of £350. This is made up of £250 for the delay to provide heaters. And a further £100 for not demonstrating it enquired about the household support needs in November 2023. This sum is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged matters and not fully put things right.

Complaint handling

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage internal complaints process (ICP). It would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 and 2 within 5 working days. It would provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. This was appropriate and in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day raised, 11 March 2024. It then provided it stage 1 response within 3 working days. These actions were appropriate and within the landlord’s complaint policy response times.
The landlord’s stage 1 response explained how the MA and heating contractors appointed by the RMC were responsible for the repair. It was reasonable for the landlord to summarise its actions to engage with all parties and to manage the resident’s expectations of its ability to resolve matters for her. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to communicate the complexities of the situation and actions the responsible parties were taking.
Having discussed the resident’s complaint and household circumstances on 11 March 2024, it was also reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident a temporary move. The resident does not dispute declining the landlord’s offer at the time as vulnerable household members were staying with relatives. This demonstrated the landlord using its ICP to identify opportunities to ensure the needs of a vulnerable household.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request the same working day, 18 March 2024. However, it later accepted that it did not send its stage 2 response within the expected 20 working days. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to apologise and offer £50 compensation for sending its response 33 working days late. This demonstrated the landlord’s efforts to put things right.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was empathetic to the resident’s situation. It explained which parties were responsible for the repair and demonstrated efforts to help engagement. The landlord’s complaint investigation identified delays to provide a timely stage 2 response and offered £50 compensation. This was consistent with our remedies guide when there has been a loss in confidence in the landlord’s services.
Therefore, based on our findings, we find the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the matter of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Apologise to the resident for the findings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £350 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a loss of heating and hot water. The landlord may deduct £150 offered during its ICP, if already paid.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Reoffer £50 compensation for its delayed complaint handling, if not already paid.
2. Asks the MA to provide monthly updates to affected resident’s, if not doing so already.
3. Contacts the resident to ensure its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the current household circumstances.
4. Reassess the household needs in terms of heating and hot water before winter 2025, if the intermittent problem persists.
5. Uses this case as learning to consider how it will respond, document, and support known vulnerable households in future.