From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202306374)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306374

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

30 April 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 landlords handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s platform lift.
    2. The resident’s requests for interior decorating.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette. There is a platform lift in the property (for ease this will be referred to as “the lift” in this report). The landlord is aware of the resident’s disability.
  2. The resident reported a several faults with his lift in November 2022. He requested the landlord paint the interior of his home on 2 December 2022. He said he was unable to paint himself due to his disability.
  3. The resident contacted this Service on 22 May 2023 because the landlord had not provided him with a stage 1 complaint response. He wanted it to investigate several issues including his lift and request for internal decoration. We told the landlord to provide a stage 1 response by 7 July 2023.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. It said it was not responsible for painting walls. It agreed to request a copy of its contractor’s report about the lift.
  5. The resident requested stage 2 escalation on 8 September 2023. He was unhappy the landlord refused to decorate. He said it had previously told him it could. He knew that other landlords offered that service for their disabled tenants. He also raised issues about the level of service he had experienced from landlord’s lift contractor.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. It apologised its lift contractor had not provided prior noticed when attending repairs. It said it had contacted other agencies to see if they could assist with decorating the resident’s home. Those attempts to had been unsuccessful. It reminded him that decorating the interior of his home was his responsibility.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 28 September 2023. He was unhappy the landlord continued to refuse to decorate his home. He initially said he did not want us to investigate the issue about his lift because he had instructed a solicitor to act on his behalf about that matter.
  8. The resident told this Service on 16 April 2025 that he had ceased legal action about the lift. He asked us to investigate the landlord’s handling of lift repairs. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show the resident filed a claim with the courts.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Although the resident provided an e-mail from the landlord dated 1 November 2018, which stated it would explore the possibility of painting the interior of his home, our investigation has focused on more recent events. Specifically, we have looked at the resident’s requests for it to paint his home from December 2022. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence remains available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. The resident has also said he had experienced issues with his lift since July 2020. We have looked at his concerns about his lift from when he raised them to the landlord in November 2022 for the above reason.

Lift repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy separates repairs into 2 categories, emergency and routine. It defines emergency repairs as there being an immediate danger to a person’s safety, major damage to the property or the property is not secure. It defines routine repairs as non-urgent work to rectify or prevent damage to and ensure the proper working order of the property and its fixtures. It aims to attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours and restore major services within 24 hours. It says it will respond to routine repairs within 20 working days of when the repair is raised.
  2. The resident told the landlord his lift was faulty during its annual visit to his home on 21 November 2022. He said for the last 2 years engineers had been unable to repair the following recurring faults:
    1. Oil dripping.
    2. A light did not work.
    3. The auto-dialler did not work.
    4. The emergency light and alarm occasionally came on without prompt.
  3. In an e-mail to the resident on 29 November 2022 the landlord told him it had raised the lift repair. It said it was waiting for its Repairs Team to schedule an appointment date with its contractor. The resident had raised several other repairs during the annual visit but asked the landlord not to schedule them until 2023. The landlord explained that the lift repair was the only repair it had raised. It did not explain that it had treated the repair as a routine repair. Given the lift was operational it was reasonable that it treated it as a routine repair in line with its repairs policy.
  4. The resident e-mailed the landlord to chase up the repairs he had requested (including the lift) on 2 and 23 December 2022. He raised concerns that he could be trapped in an emergency if the lift did not work. The landlord replied on 23 December 2022 and said it had not assigned a contractor for any of the repairs because he had said he wanted to wait until the new year. It did not address that it previously told him the lift repair had been raised. It was not appropriate it had not arranged an appointment with its contractor following its previous e-mail. It listed the repairs, including the lift and asked him to contact it to confirm he wanted to progress with the repairs.
  5. Following further contact from the resident in March 2023 the landlord identified that its contractor had not repaired the lift. It raised a new repair job on 6 April 2023. It was not appropriate that it took further contact from the resident for the landlord to identify the lift repair had not been completed. When it requested the new repair job with its contractor it would have been reasonable for it to have established why it had not attended to the original repair request but it did not. The landlord did not show it was effectively monitoring its contractor.
  6. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2023. He requested a copy of the service report from its lift contractor’s 14 March 2023 inspection. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not appear to have a record of that inspection or its findings. As the resident had previously reported faults with the lift the inspection was an opportunity to establish what repairs it needed to complete. The resident requested copies of the inspection report again as part of his stage 1 complaint.
  7. The landlord assured the resident it would ask its contractor for a copy of its report in a letter on 17 April 2023 and again in its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. It was appropriate the landlord arranged for a copy of the report to be shared with the resident. The evidence provided does not show when it provided the resident with a copy of the report but in his stage 2 escalation he referred to having seen the report. However, it is not appropriate that there is no evidence the landlord considered the findings of that report. It missed an opportunity to consider the condition of the lift.
  8. The resident raised further concerns about the maintenance of his lift at stage 2. He was unhappy with its lift contractor’s level of service. The landlord apologised that its contractor had failed to notify him of appointment dates in advance. It said it had employed a new lift contractor with it due to start on 1 October 2023. It assured him its new contractor would visit his home to carry out a maintenance check. It would then conduct a service every 6 months. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not go far enough in putting things right. Although it was appropriate to arrange for its new contractor to attend the landlord did not address the repairs for the lift that had been outstanding since November 2022. It also missed an opportunity to consider whether compensation was appropriate.
  9. The landlord’s new lift contractor completed several repairs to the resident’s lift on 28 November 2023. The evidence provided does not show it attended previous to that date to complete a maintenance check. That appointment was completed more than 20 working days after the new lift contractor was employed. While the delay was reasonable given the new contractor had only recently been employed the landlord should have kept the resident updated but there is no evidence it did that. At the appointment the contractor identified that the lift required a new auto-dialler. The current auto-dialler could not be programmed or reset. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised a new repair to fit a new auto-dialler but there is no evidence it did that. In the resident’s communication with this Service he said that the auto-dialler remained defective. He was concerned that he would be unable to call for help in case of emergency. The landlord has not provided evidence to show whether further repairs or services have been completed since November 2023.
  10. Under the landlord’s repairs policy it should have fully repaired the resident’s lift within 20 working days from 23 November 2022. As it took over 1 year to complete repairs and because the auto-dialler remains defective there has been maladministration in its handling of repairs to the resident’s lift. The auto-dialler was included in the list of faults discussed in November 2022 so it is unreasonable that remains unresolved. It has not shown that it has taken the resident’s safety concerns seriously.
  11. When considering a remedy this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the landlord’s compensation policy. Where the Ombudsman makes a determination of maladministration he will usually order compensation of between £100 and £600. The landlord will pay up to £125 for a medium impact service failure. It defines medium level impact to be when it has markedly failed to meet service standards, and the failure had caused inconvenience and distress that has not been manageable for the resident. For high level impact it will pay up to £250. That is where there has been a serious service failure over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  12. While the level of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident is reduced because the lift has remained operational the Ombudsman has decided an order of £350 compensation is proportionate to the failings. It may be helpful to explain how the Ombudsman has reached this amount. The amount falls within the mid-point of the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance. It is broken down into 2 parts using the landlord’s compensation policy as a guide:
    1. £100 to reflect a medium level service failing as the resident has experienced unmanageable distress in not feeling safe when using the lift due to the auto-dialler not working.
    2. £250 to reflect a high level service failing as the 1 year delay to complete the repairs was unreasonable. It has also failed to provided evidence to show that the auto-dialler has been replaced in the almost 17 months since that appointment.

Decoration requests

  1. The landlord was unable to provide a signed tenancy agreement. It provided a blank agreement and said the terms of the blank agreement matched those of the original signed document. That agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair internal walls, skirting boards, floors and ceilings, but not including painting and decorating. It says it is the tenant’s responsibility to keep the interior of their home in good and clean condition and to decorate all internal parts of their home as frequently as is necessary to keep it in good decorative order.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that its tenants are responsible for internal decorations except for where it needs to paint to cover an area affected by a leak or other damage. Under the resident considerations section it says its staff are required to follow its policy when assessing requests for repairs. Where it identifies a resident has a need that directly impacts on their ability to carry out a repair themselves, or if there are circumstances, conditions or risks that would require a quicker response, it should assess the case on its merits, and it may agree to carry out the repair on their behalf or as an emergency. It reserves the right to recharge tenants for the costs of those discretionary repairs.
  3. The resident-emailed the landlord on 2 December 2022. He raised several repair requests not related to this complaint. He also asked it to paint the inside of his home. He provided a copy of its email from 1 November 2018 where it said it would look into whether it could assist in painting his home for him. The landlord responded to some of the repair requests on 23 December 2022. However, it did not address his request for it to paint his home. That was not appropriate and left the resident uncertain of its position.
  4. The resident included the landlord’s failure to respond to his request for painting in his stage 1 complaint. He highlighted the resident considerations section of its repairs policy where it says it may agree to carry out repairs if it identifies a resident has a need that impact their ability to do it themselves. He also said he was aware of other landlords offering that service to their disabled tenants.
  5. In its stage 1 response on 6 July 2023 the landlord set out its position that it was not responsible for internal decorations. It provided a copy of its repairs policy. The landlord’s position was reasonable as it reflected the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy. However, it missed an opportunity to explain why it would not apply the resident considerations section of its repairs policy to his request for it to paint inside his home.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. He provided a letter from the landlord dated 24 October 2018 where it “assured he would receive the appropriate assistance from it”.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 19 September 2023. It told him that it had spoken to other agencies to see if they could offer any assistance with decorating but that it was unsuccessful in securing any assistance. It said the letter dated 24 October 2018 referred to assistance with issues raised in a previous complaint, not with internal decoration. It accepted it had told him it would make enquiries about painting his home. It had not found any communication where it had told him it would carry out internal decoration or painting to his home. It reminded him of tenant obligations to decorate all internal parts of their home as frequently as is necessary to keep it in good decorative order. The landlord’s response was appropriate because its position reflected the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy.
  8. While the landlord had an opportunity to set out its position that it was not responsible for interior decoration earlier than it did there has been no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s requests for it to paint inside his home. The resident has regularly provided evidence showing another landlord will decorate and carry out small repairs for disabled tenants. It is worth explaining that Landlords are responsible for setting their own policy. They are not obliged to mirror the same services that other landlords offer. The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy are clear that internal decoration is the responsibility of tenants. The resident considerations section of its repairs policy does not commit it to accepting requests for repairs outside of its responsibility. At stage 2 it satisfied the resident considerations section of its repairs policy when it explored with other agencies whether they could assist the resident. That those efforts did not identify a solution is not a failing on the landlord’s behalf.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time of the resident’s complaint stated that landlords must have a person or team assigned to take responsibility for complaint handling. This was to ensure complaints received the necessary attention and were reported to the governing body. It also said that 2 stage landlord complaint procedures are ideal to ensure the complaint process is not unduly long.
  2. The Code also set out timescales for acknowledging and responding to complaints. A landlord should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It must provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of receiving the complaint. If the resident requires an escalation, it should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy that was compliant with the Code at the time of the resident’s complaint.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 15 April 2023 about its handling of several repairs. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 April 2023. It did not consider its complaints policy or the Code. It told him to consider its letter as its response to his complaint because it did not have a complaints team who dealt with issues related to repairs. It is unclear why it said that because its complaints policy did not include mention of that. Under the Code the Ombudsman expects landlords to consider complaints about repairs under their complaint procedures. As it did not treat the complaint as a stage 1 complaint it did not give the resident information about how to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord’s approach was not appropriate. It should have responded to the resident’s complaint under stage 1 of its complaints policy.
  4. The resident contacted this Service on 22 May 2023. He said that the landlord has not responded to his complaint. We contacted the landlord on 29 June 2023. We reminded it of its responsibility under the Code and gave it until 7 July 2023 to provide its stage 1 response.
  5. The landlord provided it stage 1 response on 6 July 2023. Had it treated his initial complaint under stage 1 it would have been expected to provide its response by 29 April 2023. That meant it delayed the resident by over 2 months. It did not address its failure to provide a stage 1 response to the resident’s April 2023 complaint. Given it took intervention from this Service to prompt its stage 1 response it would have been appropriate for it to have apologised. There were no issues with its complaint handling at stage 2.               
  6. The landlord unduly delayed the resident’s complaint when it initially responded to his complaint outside its internal complaint procedure. It inconvenienced him as he had to approach this Service to prompt its response. As it also missed an opportunity to identify that and apologise in its stage 1 response there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to offer up to £50 for a low impact service failure. As that amount also falls within the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 for its poor complaint handling at stage 1.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs published in March 2019 states that the landlord and its contractor’s should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair, and its responses, including details of appointments, inspections, surveyors’ reports work carried out and completion dates. Additionally, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (published during the period of the resident’s complaint, May 2023) recommended that landlords had a minimum standard for key data recording, to ensure quality records are available to support wider business processes.
  2. Within the lift repairs section of the report, concerns with the landlord’s record keeping have been identified. The landlord did not have records of its communication with its contractors or information about contractor’s appointments with the resident. The issues with its record keeping negatively impacted on the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s service provision to him as it contributed to the delays in completing the repairs to the resident’s lift. Had it maintained records of its contractor’s appointments and reports it could have acted sooner to repair the lift.
  3. Based on the identified record keeping failings, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. It is noted that in March 2024, following a determination of maladministration for record keeping on an earlier complaint, the landlord completed a desktop review of compliance with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. As it completed this review after the period of the complaint investigated in this report there is no merit in duplicating that order.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s platform lift.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for interior decorating. 
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £400 compensation to the resident broken down as:
      1. £350 for its handling of repairs to the resident’s lift.
      2. £50 for poor complaint handling.
    3. Schedule an inspection of the resident’s lift with its lift contractor. Any repairs identified should be scheduled to start within 4 weeks of the inspection.
  2. The landlord must provide proof of compliance to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this report.