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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202401239)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401239

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

3 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:
    1. Handling of repairs for a leak, damp and mould in the resident’s property, including a faulty window and a faulty balcony door.
    2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. It confirmed to us on 16 August 2024 that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for her. The resident occupies a flat (the property).
  2. On 6 June 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that she had a fault with her toilet. Its log of the repair also noted that there was also a leak from the shower which went behind the wall and had flooded the floors in the corridor and behind the wardrobe in the bedroom. The leak had affected the skirting boards and caused damage. The landlord’s records showed that it repaired the resident’s toilet on 13 June 2023.
  3. On 5 December 2023 the landlord logged a new repair for the resident, noting there was a “Leak from bathroom to the back of the bedroom into a wardrobe and also seeps out into the corridor.” Between 18 December 2023 and 8 February 2024, the resident and landlord exchanged contact about the outstanding work. She said she was unhappy with its “dismissive” response, the long wait for a repair, and that it would not compensate her for her damaged possessions. The resident asked to be moved to another property as she was due to undergo surgery and was concerned about her ability to recuperate in the property because of the outstanding repairs. The resident also highlighted that her window would not stay open for ventilation. The landlord provided the resident with a transfer form and said it would arrange a surveyor inspection of the damp and mould.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 27 February 2024 in response to their enquiry on the resident’s behalf. It acknowledged that it had taken an “unacceptable” period to fix the leak. The landlord set out a list of repairs which it would arrange with the resident. It confirmed with her on 29 February 2024 that the work had been arranged for 2 April 2024, and it would carry out a mould wash once the work was done.
  5. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 2 April and did not complete the work as they uncovered extensive damage from damp in the bathroom wall. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 4 April 2024. She was unhappy the work was not complete, there was damage to the property from damp, and her possessions had been damaged by the mould in the property. The resident said that she was unable to advertise the property for a mutual exchange because of its condition. She highlighted that sleeping in the property was affecting her health and she could not ventilate it because her window and balcony door were faulty.
  6. The landlord completed repairs to the bathroom wall and tiling on 8 April 2024.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, dated 22 June 2024, acknowledged that it had delayed in both responding to the complaint and completing the repair. It assured the resident the repairs had since been completed satisfactorily. The landlord offered £200 compensation for its handling of the repairs, and £200 compensation for its handling of the complaint.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s procedure on 21 June 2024. She said the landlord had done no further work since completing the repairs to the bathroom wall and tiling, and the property remained damp and mouldy. The resident highlighted again that her window and balcony door were faulty, and she could not ventilate the property. She repeated her concerns that the damp and mould were affecting her health, and her possessions had been damaged.
  9. On 9 and 11 July 2024 the landlord’s contractors attempted to make appointments to fix the window, balcony door, and skirting boards.
  10. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 10 December 2024. It upheld its previous response and offered an additional £50 compensation to recognise its delay in responding.

Events after the landlord’s final response

  1. The landlord carried out a pest control treatment at the property on 15 January 2025. On 16 January 2025 the landlord wrote to the resident. It noted that the case had been brought to the Ombudsman and said she had “been put through an unacceptable experience”. The landlord acknowledged that the repair issues had affected her recovery from major surgery. It also acknowledged that there were “long standing damp and mould issues that has led to a possible infestation of mites”. It offered a further £1,500 to the resident in addition to the £450 it previously offered her. £1,000 of this was for replacement of her belongings and £500 was for the distress and inconvenience she experienced from the repairs.
  2. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 21 January 2025 and raised a list of repairs. It has not provided this schedule or the inspection report to the Ombudsman. The resident told us the landlord carried out a further pest treatment on 27 January 2025. It moved the resident into temporary accommodation while it carried out repairs, which it said it completed on 1 February 2025, although the window repair remained incomplete.
  3. Subsequent communication between the resident and the landlord in February 2025 showed that she disputed that all the repairs were complete. She also highlighted that she become aware of more of her possessions being damaged by the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs for a leak, damp and mould at the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when it receives a report of damp and mould from a resident, it should visit the property within 10 days. As part of this inspection, it should consider “any evidence of detrimental impact the damp is having on the resident’s or anyone in the household’s health”. The landlord should then arrange remedial work “and “contact the resident to ensure they have been completed and the issue has been resolved”. The policy goes on to say that in severe cases a follow-up surveyor’s inspection will be arranged within 10 days of the first inspection.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days. These are repairs which do not present an immediate risk to people or the property.
  3. There were significant failures by the landlord in its handling of the repair of the leak, damp and mould. Despite it being aware of a leak from the shower since 6 June 2023, it did not carry out its first repair until around 19 December 2023. This was when the resident acknowledged that the landlord carried out a repair under the shower. It was unreasonable that it allowed the leak to continue for 6 months and required another report from the resident before it carried out its first repair. This was a failure to complete a repair in line with its responsive repairs policy.
  4. The resident reported on 19 December 2023 that the water was still penetrating the wall through gaps in the tiling. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not attempt to contact the resident to arrange a repair until 27 February 2024, which it then completed on 8 April 2024. This was again a failure to complete the repair in line with its responsive repairs policy.
  5. The resident reported to the landlord on 19 December 2023 that there was damp and mould in the property, which had damaged parts of the property and her possessions. In line with its damp and mould policy, it should have inspected this within 10 days, but there is no evidence that it did until sometime between 7 and 27 February 2024, approximately 2 months later. This was a failure to follow its damp and mould policy.
  6. There was no evidence that the landlord completed a mould wash at the property or considered any other methods of reducing the effect of the damp and mould on the property. The Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Damp and mould – It’s not lifestyle” report was published in October 2021. This recommended that landlords take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. In line with this, the landlord should have put temporary measures in place to reduce the damp and mould while awaiting the completion of the repair. It was unreasonable that it did not.
  7. The landlord failed to recognise that the resident reported, as early as 19 December 2023, she was unable to ventilate the property. The resident said this was because of her faulty window and balcony door. It was unreasonable that it did not attempt to arrange to fix these until July 2024, approximately 7 months later. In line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report, the landlord should have considered other ways of ventilating the property to reduce the build up of damp and mould.
  8. The landlord’s damp and mould policy also states that it should consider the health effects on the resident when considering a report of damp and mould. However, it did not acknowledge that the resident may have a vulnerability from her surgery until 16 January 2025. This was over a year after she first highlighted her concerns over recovering from surgery in damp conditions in the property. This was a failure by the landlord to consider the resident’s vulnerability and was not in line with its own policy.
  9. The landlord repeatedly told the resident that it would not responsible for the costs of any damage to her possessions from the leak, damp and mould. It directed her to her own home contents insurance to claim for this. This was unreasonable since home contents insurance was unlikely to cover this. Also, the landlord did not consider that its significant delay in addressing the leak, damp and mould may have led to the damage to the resident’s possessions. The landlord should have assessed its own part in the damage and either considered reimbursing her directly or providing the details of its liability insurer to determine liability.
  10. Despite the significant failings above, it was positive that the landlord, on 16 January 2025 recognised that it had been responsible for the resident having an “unacceptable experience”. It was positive that it then acted quickly to complete the outstanding repairs and treat the property for the pests which had developed because of the damp and mould. It is still unclear if all repairs have been completed, and the Ombudsman has not had sight of any inspection reports of the property. We will therefore order the landlord to complete a new inspection and provide the report to the resident.
  11. It was also positive that the landlord offered the resident £1,000 to recognise her losses from the damp and mould. It is unclear how it arrived at this figure and whether it consulted with the resident prior to offering this. The resident has told us that the landlord said it would offer more if the damage to the resident’s possessions exceeds this amount. It will therefore be ordered to contact the resident to clarify this.
  12. The landlord acted appropriately to increase its offer of compensation for the resident’s distress and inconvenience to £700. This offer is in line with what the Ombudsman would typically award in cases where there has been severe maladministration. This is set out in our remedies guidance, available on our website, which provides for awards of £600 to £1,000 when there has been a significant physical and/or emotional impact on the resident from the landlord’s failings.
  13. The landlord’s recent offer of compensation was broadly in line with our remedies guidance, however, it does not represent an offer of reasonable redress. This is because it took approximately a year to recognise its failures and take steps to put these right, and this was prompted by the resident referring the case to us for investigation.
  14. Overall, the landlord failed significantly in its response to the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould. This may have merited a finding of severe maladministration. However, this is offset by it eventually making reasonable efforts to compensate the resident and complete the repairs, although after a long delay. Therefore, on balance, the landlord’s overall handling of the matter amounts to service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a 2-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1 of this procedure, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 10 working days of this. At the final stage it should respond within 20 working days of the escalation of the complaint. These timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all landlords who are members of the Scheme must comply with.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy contains the following definition of a complaint: “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by (the landlord), its employees, or those acting on its behalf (such as contractors), affecting an individual resident or group of residents. An expression of dissatisfaction does not need to include the word complaint to be handled in line with this policy.”
  3. On 7 February 2024, the resident voiced her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her repairs, its response to her concerns about damage to her belongings, and its lack of response to her enquiry about transferring properties. She explicitly said that she wished to make a complaint. However, the landlord failed to recognise this as a complaint. It did not log a complaint for the resident until she repeated her concerns on 4 April 2024. This was a failure to act in accordance with both its policy and the Code and led to a delay in the resolution of her complaint.
  4. The resident told the landlord on 11 April 2024 that she was aware that her stage 1 complaint had been deleted by a member of staff, as she had been unable to access her complaint online to add photographic evidence. She repeated this to the landlord on 15 May 2024.
  5. The landlord took 50 working days to provide its stage 1 complaint response, dated 22 June 2024. This response may have been mis-dated as that date was a Saturday. This was significantly longer than its published timeframe. The landlord’s response did not acknowledge her report of her complaint being deleted. This was a failure to act in line with the Code. The Code say that “Where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. “
  6. The resident escalated her complaint on receipt of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and the landlord failed to acknowledge her escalation. It did not acknowledge the escalation of the complaint until 2 August 2024, after the resident obtained the Ombudsman’s intervention. It then took 92 working days to provide its final response to her, which was another delay that significantly longer than its published timeframe.
  7. The landlord, in its complaints responses, acknowledged that it had responded late and offered a total of £250 for its complaint handling delays. Its final response said it had recognised, on 27 June 2024, that the resident had escalated her complaint. However, the landlord did not explain why it had taken so long to acknowledge and respond to the escalated complaint. It also failed to recognise that it could have logged the stage 1 complaint approximately 2 months earlier, which prolonged the distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  8. The landlord did not follow the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle of ‘learning from outcomes’ in its complaint responses. It did not explain why there was such a long delay in responding to complaints, nor did it address the resident’s concern about her complaint being deleted by a staff member. This meant that the landlord did not identify how it could improve its process in the future.
  9. While the landlord did not acknowledge all of its failings, it was positive that it recognised that the resident had been negatively affected by its handling of the complaint. It was positive that it offered her £250 compensation to address its failings. This offer was broadly in line with our remedies guidance, mentioned above. This guidance provides for awards of compensation between £100 to £600 when there has been a failure by the landlord which had a negative effect on the resident, but which may not be permanent. Therefore, we consider that its offer of compensation represents an offer of reasonable redress to the resident for the failures identified.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs for a leak, damp and mould at the resident’s property, including a faulty window and a faulty balcony door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman to evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,700. This is made up of:
      1. £700 it offered her for distress and inconvenience from its repair failures.
      2. £1,000 it offered to reimburse her for damaged belongings.
    2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. This should come from a senior member of staff at director level or above and comply with our guidance for apologies in our remedies guidance.
    3. Contact the resident to gather information on the cost of her damaged belongings and confirm if it will pay further reimbursement. It must give consideration to damage that may have reasonably arisen from its repair failures and it must write to her to confirm its position on this.
    4. Complete an inspection of the property and provide a copy of the report from this to the resident and the Ombudsman. This inspection should consider whether the cause of the leak, damp and mould has been adequately resolved.
    5. Taking into account the outcome of the damp and mould inspection above, the landlord must provide the resident with a schedule of any work required to resolve any outstanding repairs linked to the leak, damp and mould, the windows, and the balcony door.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £250 it offered her for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures, unless it has done so already.
  2. The landlord should review its procedures for handling complaints and consider complaints refresher training for its staff. This is with a view to ensuring that it handles future complaints in accordance with its policy and procedure and the Code.