Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202302010)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302010

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

13 March 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 queries and concerns about her energy use.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured shorthold tenant. Her tenancy began in 2014. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a block with a communal heating system. It has a prepayment system for heating and hot water. A home energy meter displays information about the property’s energy use. A third-party billing agent (‘the agent’) provides metering and billing services for the landlord.
4. The resident’s complaint mainly relates to billing information. She says, at her request, the agent supplied monthly “readings reports” (detailing her energy usage) from 2014 onwards. In December 2022, she began to have problems obtaining the reports. The landlord eventually told its agent to stop providing them. The resident feels its approach is unfair. She wants access to the reports.
5. In mid-December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the agent’s service. The landlord issued an informal response a few days later. The resident asked to escalate her complaint soon afterwards. On 1 February 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said the agent was not obliged to supply reports. However, it noted the resident could obtain information via an online portal. The landlord acknowledged there were problems with the tone of the agent’s emails. It also acknowledged a complaint handling delay. It awarded the resident a total of £125 in compensation to address these issues.
6. The resident continued to request readings reports subsequently. The agent complied with some of these requests. It eventually told her it should not have supplied any reports previously. The resident made a similar complaint to the landlord on 20 March 2023. It included concerns about a disputed energy charge. The landlord declined to accept it. It said it had already addressed matters in its stage 1 response. It changed its position on 16 June 2023.
7. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 7 September 2023. It said it had nothing to add to its previous comments at stage 1. It said the disputed charge was consistent with the resident’s usual pattern of energy use. It did not uphold her main complaint. It did award her £75 in compensation for a complaint handling delay. The resident remained unhappy afterwards. She updated the Ombudsman during a call in March 2025. She said the landlord was in the process of changing its agent but the original billing agent was still in place.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

8. The resident has other concerns about the landlord’s activities. In September 2023 she told us the property’s hot water temperature fluctuated at times. She also said its Heat Interface Unit (HIU) was “not fit for purpose”. She said this several days after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The landlord did not address these matters in its response. There is no indication it was aware of them when it investigated the resident’s complaint about energy use.
9. In general, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. We also need sufficient information to make a full and fair assessment of any complaint points. Given the above, the resident’s additional concerns are out of scope for our investigation. If she is still unhappy, she can bring them to the Ombudsman after they have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries and concerns about her energy use

10. On 25 November 2022 the resident asked the agent for her latest “hourly readings report”. The agent supplied a report around 2 hours later. This was a reasonable timeframe. Since it was acting on the landlord’s behalf, the landlord was ultimately responsible for the agent’s actions. There is no evidence of any failures by the landlord or its agent at this point.
11. The resident asked the agent for an up-to-date report on 1 December 2022. She chased it several hours later. The agent replied it had recently supplied a report. The resident reiterated that she wanted a report which covered the period to date. The agent complied with her request on the same day. This was also a reasonable timeframe.
12. The resident made a further request on 12 December 2022. She wanted a report for December 2022. She chased the agent on the following day. It replied she should direct her request to its support service (rather than emailing a specific member of its staff). The resident redirected her request. She then chased the agent around 10 minutes later. She copied the landlord into her email. The agent replied her home display would provide “all the information [the resident] needed”. The evidence suggests this information was inaccurate.
13. The landlord supplied a user guide for the property’s home display system. It shows the display can provide some historical usage information. This includes “total consumption” and “accumulative consumption” for the last 7 days. Based on the user guide, there is no indication the display can generate the type of detailed information the resident had asked for. There were also problems with the agent’s tone. For example, it said if the property’s display unit was defective or lost, it could send the resident a replacement for around £125. It is noted the resident did not mention the display in any of her information requests.
14. Subsequently, the resident repeated her information request multiple times on the same day. This shows the matter was important to her. She told the agent that she felt it was necessary to complain about its service. In response, the agent asked her to explain the reasons for her complaint. It said it would investigate when she had confirmed them. From the evidence both parties provided, it is unclear if the resident responded to this request. The evidence suggests she eventually complained to the landlord instead.
15. In its response to the resident on 13 December 2022, the agent said it would provide the report she had requested in due course. The resident then asked for a specific timescale. She repeated her question around 20 minutes later. The agent supplied a report soon afterwards. It said it would respond to requests within 24 hours in future. It is reasonable to conclude that repeat requests were avoidable and time-consuming for both parties. It was therefore reasonable for the agent to apply a specific response timescale to manage the resident’s expectations. The timescale it applied (24 hours) was reasonable. However, subsequent events show it did not always adhere to this timescale.
16. The resident was unhappy with the agent’s approach. She felt it had told her  when she could request reports. She told the landlord it should be “embarrassed” by the agent’s service. She subsequently asked the agent to provide an “hourly report” for December 2022. She chased the agent around 24 hours later. There is no indication it responded at this point. This was not consistent with its 24–hour timescale. The agent should have reasonably provided some form of response to the resident. The evidence suggests the resident complained to the landlord on the same day (14 December 2022). The landlord did not provide a copy of her complaint. This is concerning and points to a record keeping issue.
17. The resident repeated her request to the agent on 15 December 2022. She said the report it had supplied (2 days prior) was not in the format she had asked for. The agent supplied another report on the same day. This was in line with its 24–hour timescale. However, it did not apologise for its delayed response to her previous request. This was unreasonable given there was a short delay and the resident had repeated her request. The agent was acting for the landlord.
18. Events followed a similar pattern on 4 January 2023. The resident requested a report and the agent complied on the same day. In response, the resident said the document was not a “full report”. The agent said its document had “all the information [she] needed”. It asked what other details she wanted. On the next day, the resident sent the agent a detailed reply. Its content shows she was distressed by the tone of its communications. Her key points were:
    1. The resident wanted a report that covered the whole month in question.
    2. The agent should provide 2 reports going forwards (in the format it had previously supplied and in the format it recently provided). This would avoid further communication issues.
    3. The agent’s tone was “hostile and combative”. Its unhelpful service caused the resident to repeat her requests. This was tiresome and unnecessary.
    4. Historically, the agent had supplied reports without any problems. It had changed its approach “abruptly” without notifying the resident.
    5. The agent should not “talk down” to the resident.
19. The agent replied on the same day. Its email included the report the resident had requested. It did not acknowledge the other points she had raised. It should have reasonably apologised for any distress caused. Similarly, it could have said whether it agreed with the resident’s request for 2 reports going forwards. This is further evidence of issues with the agent’s tone. Some of its emails can be reasonably perceived as abrupt. Some of the resident’s emails were also noted. The evidence suggests relations were strained between the parties.
20. On 1 February 2023 the resident requested 2 reports. The agent swiftly supplied a single report. This prompted the resident to repeat her request. The agent provided a second report soon afterwards. The resident replied some crucial information was missing from the document. She notified the landlord about the back–and–forth interaction with the agent. Subsequently, the agent emailed her a report that included the missing information (about account credits). The resident replied it should provide full reports in the future. Her frustration was understandable given the parties had exchanged multiple emails. If the agent was unable or unwilling to provide information requested by the resident, or to provide it within the previously agreed timescale, it should have explained this in order to avoid repeated requests.
21. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on the same day. It acknowledged the agent had supplied meter readings to the resident on request. Significantly, it said the agent was not obliged to do this under the terms of its contract with the landlord. It also said the agent had an online portal that prepayment customers could use to download their readings. It felt the resident had been told about the portal previously (it did not say when). The landlord’s other key points were:
    1. It had noted a change in the tone of the agent’s emails to the resident. The new tone was “not acceptable”. The landlord would raise this with the agent.
    2. The resident did not always give the agent enough time to respond. She should allow an adequate timeframe. The resident could call about any urgent queries.
    3. The landlord was about to tender a new contract for its billing services. It would consider its residents’ feedback during this process. It would notify them when the process was complete.
    4. The agent had not met its service standards. This was based on its tone. The landlord awarded the resident £50 in related compensation.
22. The landlord recognised the problems with the agent’s tone. It rightly compensated the resident. It also took steps to address the matter with the agent. These were appropriate actions. However, its response included contrasting information. It said the agent was not obliged to provide the reports. It also said the resident should give it adequate time to respond to requests. If the landlord felt she should stop requesting reports, it should have said this clearly in its response. Ultimately, it should have confirmed how it would respond to any further requests. This may have avoided any subsequent confusion between the parties. The landlord’s lack of clarity was unreasonable.
23. In its case evidence to the Ombudsman, the landlord supplied a copy of the agent’s service contract. It details the agent’s obligations. It says the agent is obliged to issue “a bespoke annual statement” to residents who use the prepayment service. This wording indicates the agent is only obliged to supply the resident with an annual statement. A separate provision (about general customer service standards) says the agent “will make available on request advice, assistance and information in multiple formats to cater for the needs of all residents”. This wording indicates the agent is obliged to comply with the resident’s information requests on behalf of the landlord.
24. Given the tension between these provisions, it is unclear if the agent is obliged to fulfil the resident’s requests for reports or not. The Ombudsman is unable to resolve the tension in the contract. The evidence suggests this is a legal matter. If necessary, the landlord could have obtained legal advice in relation to the resident’s information requests. This may have improved its decision making.
25. On 13 March 2023 the resident asked for 2 readings reports. She wanted them to cover February 2023 and the period between 1 and 13 March 2023. The agent supplied 2 reports within hours. The resident repeated her request 2 days later. Her email included an example of her preferred format for the reports. There is no indication the agent responded to her. This was unreasonable. The agent and the landlord should have adopted a coordinated and consistent approach. It was unfair to respond to some requests and not others. It is reasonable to conclude the inconsistency was frustrating for the resident.
26. The resident repeated her request again on 16 March 2023. She also asked the agent to provide an additional report for January 2023. She subsequently chased the agent on 16 and 17 March 2023. The agent replied at this point. It said that the resident had a home display, that prepaid customers “would not typically receive reading reports”, and that her request was “not part” of its contract with the landlord. The evidence points to a short delay at this time. This is based on the period between 15 and 17 March 2023. The agent had told the resident it would respond to her requests within 24 hours. In the absence of any stated change to its position, the delay was unreasonable.
27. On 20 March 2023 the resident responded to the agent in detail. With reference to its contract, she asked why it had provided her with reports from 2014 onwards. She also questioned its customer service. She said the agent was “hostile” towards the landlord’s residents. She felt requesting reports was her only way of checking her energy usage. She also queried a charge she incurred between 11 and 12 March 2023. She said she had been billed £7.08 for hot water during this period and the amount was excessive. She reiterated her belief that the agent had unfairly changed its approach to her requests. In response, the agent said:
    1. There were too many prepaid customers for it to send individual reports.
    2. It should not have sent reports to the resident previously.
    3. The resident should use the property’s home display.
    4. The resident had used 37kW units during the period in question (the agent felt the disputed charge was correct).
    5. It was not obliged to send reports to the resident.
28. The parties exchanged further emails on the same day. The resident made additional enquiries. Significantly, she asked how she could download the readings reports herself. The agent replied there was no way of downloading this information. This points to an inaccuracy in the landlord’s stage 1 response (it said the resident could download readings information). The agent also said she should “check and monitor” her display. In response, the resident asked it to raise a formal complaint about the interaction. She referenced a “lack of billing evidence” from the agent. She wanted an expert to review the disputed charge. She felt it was unusual and a billing error had occurred. The resident was entitled to query the charge.
29. Soon afterwards, the agent agreed to raise a complaint and have a specialist check the disputed charge. The landlord intervened on the following day. It took a different approach. It said it had issued a stage 1 response about the same matter. This referred to its response on 1 February 2023. The landlord reiterated its previous information about the agent’s obligations and the property’s home display. It also mentioned a formal warning that it issued to the resident on 8 February 2023. It said she had sent “numerous emails” and chasers subsequently. Overall, it said the matter was closed and it would not respond to “the same” complaint. This interaction is evidence of a lack of coordination between the landlord and its agent, which was unsatisfactory.
30. The landlord should have clearly explained its approach to the resident and the agent. The evidence, including its stage 1 response, shows it did not do this. This was unreasonable. The resident was given conflicting information about whether she could complain or not. It is reasonable to conclude this stemmed from the landlord’s prior failure to set the parties’ expectations around further requests for reports. In addition, there is no indication a specialist checked the disputed charge at this point. The agent told the resident it would do this. It should have fulfilled its promise. The landlord did not mention the disputed charge during its intervention. Again, the resident was negatively impacted by a communication issue between the landlord and its agent.
31. The parties did not provide a copy of the landlord’s formal warning to the resident. Later, during a call in March 2025, the resident told us the warning did  not relate to her queries and concerns about energy use. On that basis, she felt the landlord should not have referred to the warning at this point. The Ombudsman has not seen sufficient evidence to consider the warning. We can consider the landlord’s decision not to accept her complaint. We have done this in the relevant section about the landlord’s complaint handling.
32. There was a gap in the evidence following the landlord’s intervention. Subsequently, the resident exchanged emails with the landlord on 16 June 2023. During the interaction, it agreed to respond to her complaint from 20 March 2023. Its correspondence indicates the landlord was not aware of its subsequent intervention. This points to a record keeping issue on its part. The landlord should be able to provide consistent and accurate information.
33. On the same day, the agent told the landlord the resident had requested a readings report. It said it had declined to supply the requested information. It asked if the landlord agreed with its approach. The landlord confirmed it did. This exchange shows it took the parties around 6 months to agree a consistent approach. This is based on the period between 12 December 2022 (when the problems began) and 16 June 2023. This was an unreasonable timeframe in the circumstances. It confirms the landlord’s communication was inadequate.
34. On 23 June 2023 the agent updated the landlord about the disputed charge. Its email included a readings report. It showed a breakdown of the resident’s energy use between 11 and 12 March 2023. The email also included a weather report that covered the same period. In summary, the agent said the resident’s energy use varied. However, the charge fell within the range of her normal pattern of use. It felt the charge stemmed from the resident’s use rather than “hardware, software”, or other issues. Its correspondence shows a senior specialist had investigated the charge. The agent completed a reasonable investigation on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of relevant specialists.
35. On 7 September 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. It reiterated that it had already addressed the resident’s concerns about billing information. It said it had nothing to add to the information it had provided in its stage 1 response. In relation to the disputed charge, the landlord relayed the information it had received from the agent in June 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s main complaint about energy issues. The landlord’s other key points at stage 2 were:
    1. It had raised the identified issues with the agent’s tone as promised. The agent had assured it the problem would not recur.
    2. It would change its billing agent within the next 3 months.
    3. Its current agent was not contracted to supply monthly reports.
    4. The resident should use the property’s home display.
36. There were problems with the landlord’s stage 2 response. Again, it did not say how the landlord would handle further requests for reports. This information may have helped to manage the resident’s expectations. In addition, it did not acknowledge the inconsistencies in the agent’s service or the corresponding impact to the resident. As mentioned, the agent supplied some reports after the landlord’s stage 1 response. Similarly, the landlord did not acknowledge its inadequate communication had contributed to the confusion between the parties. Its response was inadequate overall. It should have awarded the resident further compensation to address the impact of its additional failures.
37. The landlord’s relevant compensation policy was effective from August 2023. It says the landlord will take a “proactive approach ensuring that any failures in [its] service are compensated accurately”. It shows the landlord can award a proportionate amount of discretionary compensation based on the impact to the resident. It can award up to £125 in cases where its service has failed to meet expected standards and the resulting distress and inconvenience has “not been manageable for the resident”. The resident’s case is consistent with this criteria. The landlord should have responded accordingly in line with its policy. 
38. On 11 September 2023 the resident sent a detailed update to the Ombudsman. She wanted the landlord to restore the agent’s previous level of service (when it supplied reports on request). She felt this level of service should be included in any new contract the landlord arranged for its billing services. She also felt its agent should provide services that were equivalent to other utility firms. She said the agent “stigmatised” her “as a social housing tenant” and treated her “with contempt”. The update shows she had serious concerns about unfair treatment from the agent. From the evidence both parties provided, there is no indication she had raised this specific allegation with the landlord previously.
39. The landlord has commercial freedom to arrange contracts. The Ombudsman cannot compel it to include any provisions. It is unclear if the landlord has arranged a new service contract yet. We cannot assume that any new contract would contain the same wording or provisions. In relation to the resident’s allegation about unfair treatment, we kept her concerns in mind when we considered the case evidence. As mentioned, there were problems with the agent’s tone at times. However, there is no information to show they were linked to the resident’s position as a social housing tenant. There is a lack of evidence to support a related failure by the landlord or its agent.
40. In summary, the resident was impacted by the landlord’s inadequate communication and unreasonable lack of clarity. She received contrasting information and an inconsistent service from the landlord and its agent. These issues point to a lack of coordination by the landlord. The landlord identified some failures at stage 1 and tried to put things right. However, it did not acknowledge other failures had occurred, or that some of them took place after its stage 1 response. Since it overlooked a number of failures and impacts, the landlord’s compensation award was not sufficient to put things right. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
41. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident some additional compensation. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s most relevant compensation policy, and our own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

42. The evidence suggests the resident complained on 14 December 2022. The parties agree the landlord subsequently responded through its “Quick Fix” process. The landlord says it issued a Quick Fix response on 16 December 2022. It also says the response included an apology and the reports the resident had requested. It did not provide a copy of the response. Its relevant complaints policy was effective from August 2022. It defines Quick Fix cases as “low-level, single issue” complaints that do not require a complex investigation or a formal response. Crucially, residents must agree to a Quick Fix approach.
43. In this case, there is no indication the resident agreed to a Quick Fix approach. The evidence suggests she wanted to raise a formal complaint instead. If it was unsure, the landlord should have asked her how she wanted to proceed. Without her agreement, it was unfair to treat her concerns as a Quick Fix case. It was also contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord says the resident promptly queried the nature of its response. It also says she asked to escalate her complaint on the day it was issued. The resident’s query shows the landlord’s informal and inappropriate response did not meet her expectations.
44. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 1 February 2023. This was around 32 working days after the resident complained. Its applicable complaints policy shows it should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. The landlord did not respond in line with its relevant policy. In its response, it acknowledged the resident had not agreed to a Quick Fix approach. It also acknowledged its stage 1 response was delayed. It said it had arranged some staff training around complaints to address the issue. It awarded the resident £75 in compensation based on its “poor [complaint] handling”. These were appropriate measures and the compensation the landlord awarded was in line with its applicable policy. It did enough to put things right for the resident at this stage.
45. There is no indication the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint at this point. However, she tried to raise a similar complaint on 20 March 2023. On the following day, the landlord declined to accept this complaint. It said it related to the same issues as its previous response. Its relevant complaints policy contains a list of exclusions. They detail the circumstances when the landlord will not accept a complaint. The most relevant exclusion says it will not accept a complaint if it has already responded to the matter at stage 2 in line with its policy. This wording shows it should not have declined a complaint based on a stage 1 response. The landlord’s approach was contrary to its policy and therefore inappropriate. It may have caused some frustration for the resident.
46. On 16 June 2023 the landlord agreed to respond to the resident’s second complaint. Ten days later, it told the resident it would issue a stage 2 response by 24 July 2023. There is no indication it provided any subsequent updates. The landlord’s complaints policy shows it should respond to complaints within 20 working days at stage 2. More time is available providing it keeps the resident informed. On 27 July 2023 the resident told the Ombudsman the landlord had not issued a response. It should not have been necessary for her to contact us at this stage. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient for the resident. The landlord should have kept her updated in line with its policy.
47. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 7 September 2023. This was around 6 months after the resident complained again. It acknowledged it was responsible for a delay. It awarded the resident £75 in compensation to address this. It was appropriate for the landlord to award compensation given the duration and impact of the delay. The resident was impacted during the period from 20 March to 7 September 2023. For example, there is no indication the landlord responded to her concerns about the disputed charge during the interim period.
48. The landlord’s calculation was consistent with the impact guidance in its relevant compensation policy. However, there is no indication it recognised the full extent of its failures or the corresponding impact to the resident. As mentioned, they include potential frustration (from the landlord’s decision to decline her second complaint), avoidable inconvenience, and a delay in obtaining key information about a disputed charge. The landlord could have reasonably awarded some additional compensation in line with its policy.
49. There was a procedural issue with the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses. They did not include a clear complaint outcome (upheld or not upheld). The applicable version of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) was published in March 2022. Section 5.16 details the information that must be included in a stage 2 response. This information includes a clear decision in “plain language”. There is an equivalent requirement for stage 1 responses. The landlord’s responses were not consistent with the Code in this case. The lack of a clear decision may have caused some confusion for the resident.
50. In summary, the landlord identified its key complaint handling failures and took steps to address them. Its approach was consistent with the guidance in its compensation policy. However, the evidence suggests it did not recognise the full impact of its failures on the resident. Had it done so, the landlord could have  reasonably awarded some additional compensation in line with its policy. Since there was not a large disparity, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered it to pay additional compensation. Our calculation reflects the available evidence, the landlord’s most relevant compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries and concerns about her energy use.
    2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant manager to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology must reflect the key failures highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
53. The landlord must pay the resident a total of £325 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. It comprises:
    1. £125 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to her queries and concerns about her energy use. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord should deduct the £50 it previously awarded at stage 1.
    2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord should deduct the £150 it previously awarded across stages 1 and 2.
54. The landlord must share our report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should stress the importance of coordination with agents to provide clear and consistent information to residents. It should also stress the importance of the Code and its complaints policy. It is especially important to refer to these documents in situations where the landlord feels it should decline a complaint. The landlord must share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

55. The landlord to consider obtaining legal advice about its agent’s contractual obligations. This is because it is unclear, from the service contract, if the agent should comply with the resident’s information requests or not. The resident wants to continue requesting reports. A definitive outcome may help to improve the landlord and tenant relationship.