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

Notting Hill Genesis (202422574)

Back to Top

       A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422574

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 May 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 was about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
    1. The resident’s fuse box “sparking”.
    2. Damp in the resident’s bathroom.
    3. A pest infestation.
    4. The condition of the resident’s kitchen.
  2. We will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied her home with her children under an assured tenancy agreement. She had been rehoused after fleeing domestic violence. No vulnerabilities were recorded for the resident.
  2. Under her tenancy agreement, the landlord must carry out repairs as set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the repairs policy of the landlord. Repairs must be carried out within a reasonable period. The policy set out timescales. Under the policy the landlord was responsible for the fixtures, kitchen units, doors and frames, water leaks and baths.
  3. Section 9A of Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies into the tenancy agreement an obligation that the landlord must ensure that the property is fit for human habitation throughout the lifetime of the tenancy as regards hazards arising from mould and pest infestation.
  4. Under its policy on pest control, the resident was responsible for keeping the inside of their home clean and tidy and not to encourage pest infestation, and to conduct internal pest control of their home. However, rat and mice infestation which can carry and transmit serious diseases were the landlord’s responsibility to attend to.
  5. Under the landlord’s vulnerable residents policy, it defined vulnerability as “when a housing issue disproportionately impacts a customer due to their personal circumstance or characteristic (either protected or un-protected) experience of domestic abuse or violence, a short-term health issue. You should also be routinely informing residents that disclosing a vulnerable situation can potentially result in additional support being provided.”
  6. On 24 May 2024 the resident made a complaint as follows:
    1. When she tried to reset the fuse box, it “sparked” and “set on fire”. It was “terrifying”. The family “could have died”. She had been told the fuse box had been incorrectly fitted. She was told it was a “ticking time bomb”. It was frightening not to have any electricity and be without lights which caused further distress to her children. She queried the qualifications of the landlord’s electricians. She wanted to know the cause of the fire.
    2. She reported that her flooring was swollen from water damage and there were mushrooms growing under the bath panel which was affecting her health. She was told there was no money to repair it. She felt the floor was at risk of collapse. She suffered from eczema and had a skin allergy to mushrooms.
    3. The property had been mice infested since she moved in in 2020.
    4. The kitchen cupboards were not secured allowing rodent entry. She was told there were no funds for a new kitchen.
  7. The landlord attended the property on 29 May 2024, when the resident reported the following:
    1. There was a pest infestation in the property.
    2. She wanted a bathroom and kitchen refurbishment as that would assist with the pest infestation.
    3. She also reported she was in a vulnerable situation having fled domestic violence.
  8. On 7 June 2024 the landlord wrote with its Stage 1 response as follows:
    1. It understood how frightening and unsettling the fuse box incident of 16 May 2024 must have been. It took health and safety very seriously.
    2. It set out:
      1. the qualifications of its contractors and procedures on works and the Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR).
      2. an explanation why equipment on the fuse box did not stop the fire or cables from burning.
      3. Its policy and timescales for safety checks/inspections.
    3. The property was due to be tested.
    4. The incident was reported to the out of hours service on the evening of 16 May, contractors attended on 17 May 2024 to carry out works. This installation was certified as satisfactory. It provided a copy of the EICR.
    5. The resident declined the installation of a smoke detector in the lounge, which would have upgraded the system.
  9. The landlord did not address the remaining issues that the resident raised in her complaint, such as the mould and pest infestation.
  10. On 6 August 2024, the landlord wrote with its Stage 2 response. It addressed further issues as follows:
    1. It considered that she experienced stress and anxiety as a result of the incident on 16 May 2024. It offered £150 compensation.
    2. The resident had reported damp and mould in her bathroom. Its contractors carried out works on 30 May 2024 including fitting a timber bath frame under the bath and applying sealant, replacing flooring with moisture resistant plywood. As this repair took slightly longer than its 20 days timeframe, it offered £50.
    3. It offered £100 as it considered that the associated health issues would have caused her stress, upset and inconvenience.
    4. It enclosed the “recent” safety certificate regarding the fuse box for her peace of mind.
    5. It apologised that proofing works had been ineffective. It had raised a job with its pest control company. They would visit 3 times to proof and bait the property, and report back to the landlord after the third visit with any recommendations.
    6. Baiting may also be carried out in the communal areas on an ongoing, long-term contract if recommended. It did not carry out long-term baiting in individual flats.
    7. It had sent her photos of the kitchen to the relevant team to assess whether it would be considered for major works or by its day-to-day repairs team. The team would liaise with her housing officer.
    8. It had raised a repair for the balcony and to have an alarm fitted.
    9. It hoped the steps taken made her feel more positive about the landlord. It apologised. The new Housing Officer was a “passionate and proactive member of staff”.
  11. On 10 September 2024 the resident told us that:
    1. The fuse box was secured but it took a month to be repaired.
    2. The bathroom was “somewhat” addressed but the landlord did not consider the impact on her and her children.
    3. She had to make a complaint for the landlord to take action.
  12. On 1 May 2024 the resident told us that:
    1. The work carried out to the bathroom was inadequate and did not address the mould underneath.
    2. Pest control had not revisited. She had had to leave the property due to a rat infestation. There was an infestation in the building.
    3. She had not heard further about repairs or works to the kitchen.
  13. The landlord told us in May 2025 that it was addressing the pest infestation and the kitchen was due to renovation in 2026/7 but did not provide satisfactory evidence of this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. The resident reported how the events complained of affected her physical and mental health. The Ombudsman cannot conclusively assess the extent to which a landlord’s actions or lack of actions has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells us about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them. We may, where appropriate, set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant by a particular service failure by a landlord.
  2. We have investigated events that occurred following the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Those events are closely connected and arise from the resident’s complaints. We would expect the landlord to have monitored the actions taken so that the complaint resulted in a resolution for the resident.

The fuse box

  1. We appreciate the incident of 16 May 2024 was frightening for the resident. We note that repairs were carried out. According to the Stage 1 response, the landlord’s contractors carried out the remedial work on 17 May 2024. According to its internal emails, including an email of 7 June 2024, it replaced the relevant equipment. It had also carried out some “fire stopping” inside the fuse box cupboard in February 2024. On 29 May 2024, a fresh EICR (electrical inspection condition report) was obtained which was passed as “satisfactory” and “safe for continued use”.
  2. In its Stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the impact on the resident. While in many respects, the impact of the anxiety caused cannot be measured, we consider that the apology and compensation to be reasonable redress. This is because that, while frightening, the landlord attended on the same day to make the property safe, it carried out repairs albeit there was a delay, and the compensation of £150 was in line with its policy and our own remedies guidance. The landlord will pay up to £250 where the landlord “has markedly failed to meet service standards and this failure has caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable for the resident”.

Mould under the bath

  1. An inspection report of 8 May 2024 stated that there were no leaks from the pipework or waste traps, the bath was coming away from the wall creating a gap in the silicone seal. The report also noted that the subflooring plywood had been damaged by water. It recommended replacing the bath or the frame. The completion report showed that works were carried out and completed on 30 May 2024. The works were as described in the Stage 2 response. According to the final report of 30 May 2024, it had identified an issue with the flooring and it was replaced.
  2. It was not clear when the resident first reported issues of mould in her bathroom. The Stage 2 response stated she had made the report on 30 April 2024. We were not provided with the resident’s report itself apart from historic reports in 2019 which, in any event, do not appear to be connected to this complaint. That is not satisfactory. The complaint responses stated that she made the reported the issue on 30 April 2024. In those circumstances, the compensation the landlord offered of £150 for the few days delay was reasonable. It was in line with the landlord’s policy and our own guidance.
  3. The resident told us that she continued to experience damp in the bathroom. Her view is that the contractors simply lay plywood on top of the previous mouldy flooring. We do now know when or whether she reported this or has evidence of this. The contractors’ report stated that the plywood flooring was replaced.  In the circumstances, we do not have evidence that indicates the landlord was at fault. However, given the resident’s concerns, we will make a recommendation that the landlord inspect under the bath for damp and mould, by removing the bath panel. This should give reassurance to the resident that her concerns have been taken seriously and investigated appropriately. 

Mice

  1. There was evidence that a mice infestation has been ongoing for some time. Works took place in 2022 and 2023. The resident raised this at the meeting on 29 May 2024. There was then a delay. On 17 July 2024, the landlord raised an instruction to pest control contractors to carry out 3 visits and invite recommendations in line with its Stage 2 response. There was an unexplained delay to 29 August 2024 when the pest control contractors first attended. This was unreasonable. The contractors identified breaches in the proofing. On 3 September 2023, the landlord established that the further works did not require the kitchen cabinets to be moved. The quote for pest control works was approved.
  2. There was a further delay. In mid-September 2024, the pest control contractors reported to the landlord that it had identified a leak and that it could not carry out the further proofing while there it was ongoing. The contractors sent a photo to the landlord on 2 October 2024. The landlord raised a job to investigate the leak on the same day. The inspection did not take place until 5 and 16 December 2024. The contractor found no evidence of a leak even though it inspected the boiler and under the washing machine.
  3. On 7 January 2025, the landlord was to raise an inspection of the boiler. An appointment with contractors took place on 20 March 2025. We do not know if this was connected to the leak or what the outcome was. However, this was a further delay.
  4. On 7 January 2025 the landlord chased pest control, the resident having chased the landlord. On 16 January 2025, the pest control contractors informed the landlord that it had not been able to carry out the works due to a leak and the quote had now expired.  There is no evidence that the landlord has reinstructed the pest control contractors. This indicated that the landlord had not monitored the situation.
  5. While these events were after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaint process, we would expect the landlord to abide by its assurances and carry out the works it had promised in its Stage 2 response. If it does not do so, it has not provided resolution. We have not investigated the more recent rat infestation as we consider this to be a fresh event.
  6. There was a delay from mid-September 2024 to the present day in addressing the pest infestation. The delays were partially due to the landlord having to inspect a leak. However, the delays were largely due to the delays in inspecting the property and in not reinstructing the pest control. In the circumstances we find maladministration.
  7. We will make an order that the landlord reinstructs pest control and pays the resident compensation in order to address the distress caused by the pest infestation and the time and inconvenience, given the resident has had to chase the landlord. The compensation will recognise the disproportionate impact on the resident due to her circumstances, both her history which she had told the landlord had made her additionally vulnerable, and that she has small children.
  8. At the meeting of 29 May 2024, the resident also reported she was in a vulnerable situation having fled domestic violence. We note there are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It is likely that her personal circumstances would have been known to the landlord when the resident applied for or was nominated to the property. She told the landlord of her circumstances on 29 May 2024 in any event. There was no evidence that the landlord took action such as asking the resident if she would like this recorded centrally and, in accordance with its policy, “routinely informing residents that disclosing a vulnerable situation can potentially result in additional support being provided.” We will make an order that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss with her whether and how her vulnerabilities are recorded and to explain to her how this will make a difference to the landlord’s service.

Kitchen 

  1. The resident requested a replacement bathroom and kitchen at the meeting on 29 May 2024 in order to eliminate the pest infestation. There was again a delay before the landlord took steps.
  2. On 17 July 2024 the landlord raised an inspection of the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord identified some damp and mould in a kitchen cupboard. In its Stage 2 letter, it had promised to either replace or repair the kitchen. The housing officer requested a replacement kitchen. The asset team responded on 4 October 2024 that it could not make any guarantees.
  3. The landlord told us in May 2025 that the kitchen was to be replaced in 2026/7. It relied on a tracker as evidence. The asset team, whose decision it was, had commented on 4 October 2024 internally that the wording in the tracker stating the property had been added for a replacement was incorrect. The referral had been made but there was no guarantee the kitchen had been added to the programme. We are therefore not satisfied that the asset team has made a decision on this.
  4. The landlord carried out repairs to the kitchen cupboards in March 2025. This was a significant delay to the repairs, given the resident’s reports of 29 May 2024. We do not know if this resolves the rodent entry points in the kitchen. In addition, there is no evidence of a response by the asset team. This is not reasonable. We would expect the landlord to carry out its assurances in its Stage 2 letter to either replace or repair the kitchen within a reasonable period of time. In the circumstances, we find maladministration in relation to the condition of the kitchen.
  5. We will therefore make an order that the landlord carries out a further inspection of the kitchen and affects any further repairs and assesses the kitchen for a replacement. We will make an order for compensation to again reflect the resident’s circumstances, her distress and inconvenience but will also take into account that repairs were carried out in March 2025.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. We are concerned that the landlord did not acknowledge that the issue with the fuse box may have been due to faulty installation. According to a record of a visit on 29 May 2024, it was noted that the previous installation of the fuse box had been incorrect. On 7 June 2024, electrical contractors advised that, from the photos, it considered that the fuse box had not been fitted properly. We do not know if that was absolutely the cause of the fire. While the landlord put this right, and it may have not wished to worry the resident, it did not share this information within the complaint response. This would have given the landlord the opportunity to reassure the resident as to what steps it would take to ensure this did not reoccur and lessons it had learnt.
  2. The explanation it provided was that “Depending on where the fault occurred and the size of the fault. If it was due to arcing on the incomer to the RCD then they wouldn’t trip as its prior to the equipment, if after the RCD then if the fault is a small difference between phase and neutral then it may not trip and over time caused the fault”.  We do not consider this to be a clear explanation. While we cannot be sure what caused the fire, given the resident’s very specific question about the cause of the incident, the response lacked transparency.
  3. On 3 September 2024, the landlord noted that the resident had referred her complaint to this Service and therefore required action in relation to the pest control. We are concerned that a factor in the steps taken by the landlord was that the resident had referred the complaint to us. Part of the resident’s dissatisfaction was that she felt she had had to make a complaint to get anything done. We would be concerned if residents who refer complaints to this Service or issue claims receive better service than those who do not. This would not be fair to other residents or be transparent.
  4. It was unreasonable that the stage 1 response did not address all of the resident’s issues she raised in her complaint.
  5. While we can see that the complaints team investigated the resident’s complaints, there were a number of failings, including that it did not monitor resolution. In the circumstances, we find maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. We will make an order for compensation to reflect the frustration, inconvenience and distress for the resident. The complaint handling did not resolve the issues for her, there was a lack of monitoring and a lack of transparency.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s report of the fuse box.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s report of damp in the resident’s bathroom
  3. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the pest infestation.
  4. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the condition of the resident’s kitchen.
  5. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
    1. Within 3 weeks, the landlord should reinstruct pest control with precise instructions including a direction to report back to the landlord with a copy to the Ombudsman.
    2. Within 3 weeks, the landlord should offer a single point of contact in relation to the pest control works who will monitor progress, expedite any works that are required to support pest proofing and keep the resident updated. 
    3. Within 3 weeks, the landlord should contact the resident to discuss with her whether and how her vulnerabilities are recorded and to explain to her how this will make a difference to the landlord’s service under its vulnerable residents’ policy. A copy of the outcome should be sent to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
    4. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should pay the resident the sum of £1,500 including the £300 already offered for the electrical incident and the bathroom repairs, and consisting as follows:
      1. £600 in relation to the pest infestation consisting of £400 for her distress and inconvenience and £200 for her time and trouble in chasing repairs and numerous attendances. 
      2. £400 for the condition of the kitchen consisting of £300 for her distress and inconvenience and £100 for her time and trouble in chasing repairs.  
      3. £200 for the complaint handling.
      4. The compensation reflects that the delays for which the landlord was responsible had a significant impact on the resident. We also take into account that the resident had young children and was a survivor of domestic violence. The landlord promised a resolution which has not been forthcoming.
    5. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should carry out a further inspection of the kitchen and effect any further repairs and confirm the position to the resident and the Ombudsman regarding a kitchen replacement.
    6. Within 6 weeks, if the resident’s property is not on the list for a kitchen replacement, the landlord should arrange for the asset team to inspect the property and make a decision.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 and 6 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
    1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord should inspect under the bath for damp and mould, by removing the bath panel.  
    2. Within 6 weeks, the landlord should review the complaint handling in this complaint, the failures highlighted in this report and confirm to the Ombudsman that it will use those lessons in its staff training.
  2. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 6 weeks of this report.