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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202312706)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312706

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

3 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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. A repair to a skylight in the kitchen.
    2. A leak from the roof above the kitchen.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a flat in a block. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for her.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to report a leak into her kitchen from the property above on 25 August 2022. The landlord attended on 26 August 2022 and the notes from the visit state that further investigations of the flat roof above were needed as this was likely the cause. It is unclear what action it took at the time. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2022 to ask for an update about the repair. She explained she was told that it related to works needed on the flat roof that occurred when it was raining heavily. It is unclear what action the landlord took at the time.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 October 2022 to report the skylight in the kitchen was “rotten”, would not close properly, and let water in when it rained. She said the roof near the skylight was also leaking. The landlord completed an inspection on 2 November 2022 and reported the skylight needed replacing.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 December 2022 and said she was unhappy about its handling of the leak above the kitchen. She said it had conducted 2 repairs visits that had not fixed the issue, and she was still waiting for it to replace the skylight.
  5. The landlord opened a complaint investigation about the issue and sent its response on 30 January 2023. Based on the information available it is not possible to determine the contents of its complaint response at the time.
  6. The landlord replaced the skylight in the kitchen on 26 April 2023. The resident raised concerns about the quality of the works done, and said it damaged the area around the window. The resident made a complaint about its handling of the matter on 24 June 2023. She said the replacement of the skylight took too long and she was now expected to wait “months” for it to complete the follow up works.
  7. The landlord sent the resident an “update” stage 1 complaint response about the skylight and roof repairs around June/July 2023. (it is not possible to determine the exact date). It apologised for its handling of the skylight repair, and said it would inspect on 24 July 2023, as the resident reported the new skylight did not close properly. It outlined the roofing repairs it planned to do and said it would start on 15 July 2023.It offered £500 for its handling of the repairs and £100 for its complaint handling delays.
  8. The landlord completed works to the roof above the kitchen on 4 July 2023. It replaced a defective vent and broken tiles near the skylight. The landlord attended to complete works around the skylight around 4 September 2023, it is unclear what works took place at that time.
  9. The resident asked her complaint to go to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 22 September 2023. She was unhappy with its handling of the skylight repair and the length of time it took to resolve the water ingress issue. She asked for compensation for the increased costs of heating the kitchen when she could not close the window. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 October 2023 and said the roof above the kitchen was still leaking.
  10. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 31 October 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for its handling of the repairs. It offered £200 in compensation for its handling of the skylight in the kitchen (including £50 for a failure to offer compensation at stage 1). It explained it took to long to complete the roof repairs. It said there was a lack of “proactive updates” which led to delays in instructing a contractor to progress with the repair. It advised it was investigating the resident’s reports that the leak had returned and its contractor was in the process of erecting scaffolding to investigate. It offered It offered £200 in compensation for its handling of the roof leak (including £50 for a failure to offer compensation at stage 1).

Events after the complaints process

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 14 November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said the leak issue was not resolved, and there was still “water damage” around the skylight and paint peeling off the walls.
  2. The landlord did further making good works around the skylight in in January 2024. The landlord completed a further inspection of the reported leak to the roof in December 2024. The notes from the visit stated that scaffolding was needed to complete a further inspection.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. When the resident made her complaint to the landlord, and when she asked us to investigate her complaint, she raised a concern about the condition of the property when she moved in, including a concern about a rodent infestation. The evidence shows the resident moved in to the property in 2019. In line with its complaint policy the landlord set out that it could not look into historic issues, due to the passage of time. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and in line with the approach set out in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time.
  2. We are also unable to investigate matters dating back to 2019, due to the passage of time. This is because evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult to carry out a thorough investigation and make informed assessments of the landlord’s actions. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from July 2022. We consider this a reasonable period leading up to the complaint.
  3. The resident also raised a concern in her complaint about the landlord’s handling of asbestos removal works and an intercom repair from 2022. In particular the length of time her property was without power following the asbestos works and the fact it disconnected the intercom when completing the asbestos works. Again, in line with its complaint policy the landlord set out that it could not look into the asbestos works due to the passage of time. The landlord responded to the asbestos works complaint at stage 1 in May 2022, and the intercom complaint in October 2022.
  4. Residents are encouraged to raise complaints within a reasonable period, and we and have seen no evidence to indicate the resident asked either complaint to go stage 2 of its procedure at the time it responded. The landlord said in its later stage 2 complaint response (about different issues) 2023 that it could not investigate these matter due to the passage of time since it arose, and the time passed since its responses. As above, these aspects of the complaint is not within the scope of this investigation.
  5. It is worth noting that the landlord offered the resident £100 in compensation for the asbestos works and the condition of the property in its final complaint response of October 2023. It said that it could not investigate each issue, but offered compensation as a “gesture of goodwill”. We welcome the landlord’s effort to repair the relationship with the resident. Considering the above, we have deducted the total of compensation offered for the above issues when considering whether the landlord’s offer of compensation put right the failings it identified in its handling of the repairs.
  6. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint she raised a concern that repairs to the heating and hot water system were outstanding, and she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. The evidence shows the landlord responded to this issue at stage 1 of its procedure on 24 October 2023. At the time the resident brought her complaint to us, this matter had not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, and as such it is not within the scope of this investigation. This is in line with paragraph 42.a. of our Scheme that states we may not investigate a complaint that is made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. If the resident has since received a stage 2 complaint response regarding this issue, and remains unhappy, she may wish to contact this Service to ask us to investigate.
  7. When the resident brought her complaint to this Service, she said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her mental wellbeing. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  8. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.

 

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a skylight in the kitchen

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. For the purposes of the Act the roof and windows are considered part of the structure of the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours. The policy states it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. The policy states when it needs to replace windows or a door it will discuss the proposed timeframe with the resident.
  3. According to the landlord’s repair log, it was on notice about the issue with the skylight from 6 October 2022. The evidence indicates the landlord to not attend to inspect the issue until 2 November 2022, nearly a month later. While it is noted its attendance was within 20 working days, considering the resident reported water ingress and that she could not close the window, this was an unreasonable delay. The resident was evidently distressed at the condition of the window, the lack of appropriate urgency on the part of the landlord may have increased the distress she experienced.
  4. At its inspection in on 2 November 2022 the landlord identified the skylight needed replacing. We have seen no evidence to indicate that it discussed a timeframe in which it hoped to complete the repair, which was a failure to apply its repairs policy. The resident experienced time and trouble due to the need to chase it about the repair on 3 November 2022. Clearer communication from the landlord about its plan for the repair may have helped reduce the frustration the resident experienced. It is noted that a complex repair such as this was unlikely to be completed within 20 working days, but an explanation about this would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
  5. Based on the evidence provided it is not possible to determine the content of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response from January 2023. It is noted the landlord provided a complaint response dated 30 January 2023 for this investigation. However, the content of that letter referred to repairs it had completed in April 2023 and upcoming repairs in July 2023. Within the response did also said it was an “update” having issued a response in January 2023.Its stage 2 complaint response also apologised for not offering compensation at stage 1, which the response provided for this investigation did in fact offer £500 in compensation for its handling of the repairs.
  6. Based on the above it is reasonable to conclude the complaint response dated 30 January 2023 was in fact sent as a follow up response after it had completed repairs in April 2023 and prior to further repairs in July 2023. The above amounts to a record keeping failing and the landlord was unable to provide the earlier response when asked during our investigation.
  7. The landlord replaced the skylight in April 2023, 6 months after it was on notice about the repair. While it is noted the replacement of a window is a complex repair that is likely to go beyond its target of 20 working days, 6 months was an unreasonable delay. This is of particular concern considering the conditions the resident reported in her kitchen, and it was through the winter months. The resident was inconvenienced by the delay. Its poor communication may have increased the distress the resident experienced.
  8. On 2 May 2023, the resident raised concerns about the quality of the works to install the new skylight. She claimed there was damaged caused by “heavy handed” work. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord responded at this time, or booked in follow up repairs. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter that inconvenienced the resident.
  9. The landlord decided to issue a stage 1 follow up response around June/July 2023, after the resident raised another complaint about its handling of the substantive issues. The reasonableness of its decision to do so is dealt with in more detail below. That it set out its position on when it hoped to progress with the follow up repairs to the skylight was appropriate and went some way to putting right its lack of communication about the issue. That it offered redress for its evident failings in its handling of the matter was appropriate. This is evidence it sought to adopt our dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes.
  10. According to the landlord’s repair records it completed making good works around the skylight in September 2023. This was 4 months after the resident raised concerns about the quality of the work completed and amounts to an unreasonable delay. The resident was inconvenienced by the unreasonable delay. We have seen no record of the outcome of its inspection due to the new skylight reportedly not closing. This is a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of October 2023 appropriately apologised, offered redress for its handling of the skylight repair. It also showed learning about improvements it was making to its repairs service, which we welcome. However, its complaint response lacked clarity and appeared to disregard the compensation it had offered in its stage 1 follow up response, of July 2023. This may have been confusing for the resident. The response was also silent on her concerns about increased heating costs she claimed to experience due to the length of time the issue was outstanding. This was inappropriate and the landlord must set out what evidence it needs to consider in relation to the resident’s concern about this matter.
  12. When the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response the matter was outstanding. This impacts on the degree to which the compensation it offered put right errors in its handling of the matter. The matter of follow up decoration works were still outstanding in January 2024. An email seen as part of this investigation from 1 December 2023 described a “very poor standard of finishing” around the skylight, and the quality of works as “embarrassing”. This email also referenced the fact the resident still had difficulty closing the skylight, and it had not yet fitted the blind to it. The landlord completed “patch decorations” around the skylight in January 2024, and a “recall” about the window around this time. The landlord was unable “definitively verify” when these works went ahead when we asked for further information as part of this investigation. This amounts to a record keeping failing.
  13. We have determined the landlord offered the resident a total of £400 in compensation for its handling of the skylight issue. This comprises the half of the total it offered in its stage 1 follow up response of June/July 2023, and the £150 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for a further £200 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof above the kitchen

  1. The landlord’s repair records show it was on notice about the leak when the resident reported it on 25 August 2022, and it inspected the issue the next day. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously. Thee notes from the visit indicate it wanted a roofer to inspect the roof, and it followed this up on until 5 September 2022. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It is noted it tried to book a further inspection with the resident, but was unable to get hold of her. It is reasonable to conclude that this impacted on its ability to respond at the time. However, the landlord then marked the repair as complete on 10 October 2022. The outcome is not recorded and we have seen no evidence it completed any works at that time.
  2. The conclusion it did not complete any works at the time is supported by the fact the resident contacted it to chase the repair in December 2022. The lack of proactive follow up by the landlord inconvenienced the resident, and is of concern considering the issue she reported.
  3. The resident experienced further time and trouble due to the need to chase the repair again in January 2023. We have seen no evidence to indicate the landlord progressed with the repair in early 2023, this was unreasonable delay. The resident was evidently distressed at the conditions she was reporting, the unreasonable delay may have increased the distress she experienced. The resident experienced further time and trouble of needing to chase the progress on the roofing works again in April 2023.
  4. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it did not do any works to the roof until July 2023. This was nearly a year after it was on notice about the issue, and an unreasonable delay that inconvenienced the resident. It is noted the requirement of scaffolding means the landlord was unlikely to be able to complete such a repair within its 20 working day timeframe. However, the length of the delay was unreasonable which may have increased the distress the resident experienced. That the landlord offered redress for its handling of the repair in its stage 1 follow up response was appropriate and went some way to putting right the above failings.
  5. According to the landlord’s repair records, the resident raised a concern that the issue was not resolved in October 2023. Between the works in July 2023 and October 2023 the landlord could have reasonably concluded the matter was resolved, as the resident did not report the issue during that time.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response set out that its contractor was progressing with the repair. While appropriate to acknowledge it understood the matter was outstanding that it did not set out when it hoped to progress with the repair was a shortcoming in its response. The resident was inconvenienced by not knowing when it planned to progress wit the repair. We welcome the fact the landlord sought to put right its failings by offering further compensation at stage 2. That the matter was outstanding a the time of its stage 2 complaint response impacts on the degree to which its offer of compensation put right the errors in its handling of the repair.
  7. As with the skylight issue, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response lacked clarity and failed to acknowledge the compensation offered in its stage 1 follow up response. This was confusing for the resident.
  8. The landlord completed a further inspection of the roof in December 2024. This was over a year after the resident reported the issue had returned in October 2023, and an unreasonable delay. From the information provided it is not clear what action the landlord sought to take in the intervening period. The landlord told this Service in January 2025 that it planned to erect scaffolding to complete a further inspections of the reported roof leak. As the evidence indicates the landlord is progressing with the repair, we have not made orders for a further inspection.
  9. We have determined the landlord offered the resident a total of £400 in compensation for its handling of the leak from the roof. This comprises the half of the total it offered in its stage 1 follow up response of July 2023, and the £150 it offered in its stage 2 complaint response. Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for a further £300 in compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
  2. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues in this case on 18 January 2023. While the resident did not explicitly state it was a complaint, the landlord opened a complaint investigation. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it adopted the approach set out in our Code, which states a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, and does not need to include the word complaint.
  3. We have been unable to corroborate the content of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 30 January 2023, as outlined above. Based on the information available it is reasonable to conclude it did send a response on 30 January 2023. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent within the timeframes set out in its complaint procedure, and the Code, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. When the resident expressed further dissatisfaction with its handling of the substantive issues in the complaint in June 2023, the landlord decided to issue a stage 1 follow up response. This was inappropriate and in doing so the landlord created a 3 stage complaints process. This created a protracted process for the resident, which caused an inconvenience. This was an unreasonable delay and it operated outside of the approach mandated in its policy and the Code.
  5. We acknowledge the landlord did so as it had failed to follow up at stage 1, despite stating it would revisit its offer of compensation. It would have been appropriate to progress the resident’s complaint to stage 2 so as not to delay her seeking assistance from this Service. We also welcome the fact it offered £100 in compensation for its complaint handling failings at that time. This is evidence it adopted our dispute resolution principle of putting things right.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 4 months after the resident first expressed dissatisfaction with the outstanding issues addressed it in stage 1 response of January 2023. As set out above, the landlord’s stage 2 response appeared to disregard the follow up response of June/July 2023, which was inappropriate. While we welcome the fact it offered redress for errors in its complaint handling at stage 1, it failed to apologise for or acknowledge the fact it created a 3 stage protracted process for the resident. This was a failing in its complaint handling, and evidence it failed to thoroughly investigate its complaint handling. This lacked learning.
  7. The landlord offered a total of £200 in compensation for errors in its complaint handling. The lack of learning shown about errors in its complaint handling, and its failure to acknowledge the creation of a 3 stage protracted process was unreasonable. We have determined that there was service failure in its complaint handling. We have also determined that its offer of £200 was reasonable in the circumstances and have therefore not made orders for additional compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a repair to a skylight in the kitchen.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof above the kitchen.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £1,500 in compensation. The landlord’s offer of £1,000 (comprising the £500 it offered in its stage 1 follow up response, and the £500 it offered at stage 2) should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
      1. £600 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the skylight repairs.
      2. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repairs from the roof above the kitchen.
      3. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by errors in its complaint handling.
    3. Write to the resident explaining what evidence it needs to consider a payment to cover costs of the increased energy costs she claimed to experience. This could be annual energy bills covering the relevant period.