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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202329138)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329138

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

7 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
  1. Requests for it to clean and repaint the balcony.
  2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant under an agreement dated February 2022. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The landlord completed an inspection report of the condition of the property on 25 January 2022. It said the balcony appeared to be in good condition, and the flooring was discoloured due to normal weathering. It took photos that showed some moss between the flags and some green algae discolouration.
  3. On 19 April 2022 the resident told the landlord it had not cleaned the balcony prior to her moving in. She then asked it to clean and repaint the balcony on 7 occasions between 20 April 2022 and 9 May 2023.
  4. On 9 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord how to raise a formal complaint. She told the landlord the next day she wanted to raise a formal complaint due to how long they have been unable to use the balcony. She said she had already raised the issue several times.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 28 June 2023. It said:
    1. It had requested a quote to clean the balcony.
    2. It sent a letter to all residents on 9 June 2023 advising how to arrange the installation of netting. It asked the resident to tell it when she had arranged the netting so it could arrange a date for cleaning.
    3. It would assess if the balcony required painting after it had completed the cleaning.
    4. It apologised for the length of time taken to respond to the complaint and offered £50 to acknowledge that.
    5. It asked the resident to send all previous emails about the matter so it could consider compensation.
  6. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the complaint response the same day. She said the complaint response did not address why the landlord had told her it would clean the balcony but had not done so. She said there was no issue with netting and nothing to stop the landlord cleaning the balcony immediately.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 23 October 2023, stating as follows:
  1. It apologised for the delay providing its stage 2 response and offered £100 to acknowledge that.
  2. The maintenance and upkeep of the balcony area was usually a resident’s responsibility.
  3. It apologised as the contractor had not completed a deep clean of the balcony which it requested.
  4. An estate–wide issue of pigeons accessing balconies required new netting for pigeon proofing, followed by cleaning and painting. The resident’s balcony was not affected, and it apologised for the confusion that caused.
  5. It acknowledged the resident had chased for updates with no response, and it did not escalate to its contractors when it should have.
  6. It had now requested a deep clean of the balcony and would raise a paint job afterwards if required.
  7. It acknowledged there was service failure in the time taken to resolve the issues. It offered £250 for the service failure and £200 for distress and inconvenience having to chase up the repair.
  1. The total amount the landlord offered in compensation was £600.
  2. When the resident initially contacted the Ombudsman in November 2023, she wanted the landlord to clean and paint the balcony. However, the landlord’s contractor cleaned and jet washed the balcony in December 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests to clean and repaint the balcony

  1. According to the resident’s tenancy agreement, the resident is responsible to maintain any garden or yard or other outside part of the property in a clean and tidy condition. The landlord is responsible to decorate the outside of the building in accordance with its regular maintenance programme.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy says it is responsible for repairing outside spaces including paving, paths and decking in communal areas or balconies. It also says it will aspire to complete standard repairs within 20 working days from date of report.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 April, 20 April, and 23 August 2022. She said it had not cleaned the balcony before she moved in and asked it to clean and repaint the balcony. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s requests to give her appropriate advice, which was not reasonable.
  4. There was ordinarily no obligation on the landlord to clean the balcony, but this would have been expected prior to the start of tenancy. Its repair obligations extend to the balcony being in a state of disrepair such as damaged or cracked flags or if there was a risk to safety. Outside balcony areas are exposed to the elements and some discoloration or dirt would be expected. In addition, the tenancy agreement says the resident is responsible to maintain any outside part of the property in a clean and tidy condition. However, the landlord should have explained that to the resident in response to her requests.
  5. With regards to painting the balcony, that is the landlord’s responsibility. However, it is only required to complete this as part of its regular maintenance programme. It would therefore not paint the balcony until it was scheduled as part of a cyclical building painting job or required following repairs.
  6. On 20 April 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said it had arranged for a jet wash and cleaning of her balcony the next day. However, that email was an error. There was an estate–wide issue of pigeons accessing balconies, requiring them to need new netting and cleaning. The resident’s flat was not affected by this, but the landlord had mixed her flat up with another in the building that did require the work. The email therefore caused the resident inconvenience as she expected work to be done.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2023. She asked for an explanation why it had not cleaned her balcony on 21 April 2023 as promised. The landlord explained the same day that it had made a mistake and mixed up her flat for one that was affected by the pigeon infestation, which was a reasonable explanation.
  8. The resident asked the landlord to clean and paint her balcony a further 4 times on 4, 6 and 9 May 2023. The landlord contacted its contractor on 9 May 2023. It asked them to contact the resident to arrange access to the balcony and provide a quote to clean it. The landlord informed the resident of this the same day. There was no obligation on the landlord to clean the balcony. However, it was a reasonable action to take considering the erroneous email of 20 April 2023 and its failure to provide appropriate responses to her previous emails over a period of 12 months.
  9. Following further email exchanges on 9 May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident on 10 May 2023. It confirmed it would arrange for its contractors to clean the balcony. It apologised it did not clean the balcony before she moved in. It also apologised for the email that mixed up her flat with another that it had arranged to clean. This was a reasonable response.
  10. The resident continued to chase up the balcony cleaning and painting 7 times between 25 May and 25 September 2023. The landlord responded each time with apologies and said it would chase the matter up, but little action was taken. Included in those responses (on 26 May 2023) it told the resident it would not repaint the balcony unless it was included in the cyclical works. This was the first time it had provided that information despite the resident making many repeated requests to paint the balcony. The length of time taken to inform the resident was unreasonable.
  11. The landlord authorised its contractor to carry out the balcony cleaning on 25 October 2023. Once the landlord had committed to completing the cleaning job on 9 May 2023, it should have done so within the 20-working day timescale according to its repairs policy. The delay from 9 May 2023 to 25 October 2023 in arranging the work was inappropriate. The contractor completed the work, but the resident complained it was not up to standard on 7 November 2023. The landlord therefore asked its contractor to carry out a jet wash on 28 November 2023. The contractor provided evidence to the landlord on 18 December 2023 that they completed the jet wash.
  12. In summary, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s requests within appropriate timescales. It also failed to advise the resident of the correct responsibilities for cleaning and painting balconies within an appropriate timescale. This would likely have caused loss of time, trouble and inconvenience for the resident. There was also evidence of poor communication with the resident and mixing up repair job details with a different flat in the building, which caused confusion.
  13. In its final complaint response, the landlord offered £450 compensation. That included £250 for its service failures and £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused. It also since arranged for its contractor to jet wash the balcony.
  14. It is the Ombudsman’s view the offer of compensation is proportionate redress for the impact on the resident of the failings identified above. It is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
  15. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has made an offer to the resident that provides reasonable redress in relation to its handling of requests to clean and repaint the balcony.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

  1. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) landlords must ensure they acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. They must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgment at stage 1. They must also acknowledge an escalation request within 5 working days and provide a final response within 20 working days of the date of acknowledging the escalation request.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy follows the above requirements of the Code. The landlord also defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
  3. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s 9 May 2023 request for advice on how to make a formal request. She emailed it again on 10 May 2023 and said she wanted to raise a formal complaint. The landlord again did not acknowledge that request for a few weeks, which was inappropriate. It eventually advised her to do so via its online portal after a further chase on 7 June 2023.
  4. There is no evidence the landlord provided a written acknowledgement of the resident’s complaint of 9 June 2023. Furthermore, its stage 1 response of 28 June 2023 was outside of the 10-working day timescale. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay responding to the complaint and issued £50 compensation, which was a reasonable offer. Following the resident’s escalation request on 28 June 2023 the landlord did not acknowledge that this would be dealt with until 29 August 2023. It then did not issue its stage 2 response until 23 October 2023. This was significantly outside the 20-working day timescale. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay responding at stage 2 of the complaint process and offered £100 for that delay.
  5. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to its residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case the landlord delayed raising a complaint when the resident first asked in May 2023. It then further delayed in providing its stage 1 response once it had raised the complaint. There were also delays in acknowledging the escalation request and issuing the stage 2 response.
  6. However, the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation for this at both stages of the complaint. It is the Ombudsman’s view the total offer of £150 compensation is proportionate redress for the impact on the resident of the failings identified above. It is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
  7. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has made an offer to the resident that provides reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves its handling of the resident’s:
    1. Requests for it to clean and repaint the balcony.
    2. Associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the compensation it had previously offered totalling £600 if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.