Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202408282)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202408282

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

15 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the front door and hallway entrance door as well as defective windows.
2. The resident’s request to transfer his tenancy from a joint to a sole tenancy.
3. Issuing the resident a £500 refund.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has a 5-year fixed tenancy agreement with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy began in 2016.
The resident’s fixed–term tenancy was due to expire in February 2021. The resident chased the landlord in 2022 about whether it would offer a further tenancy. He requested repairs to windows and doors in his property in December 2022. He chased it regarding those repairs and the status of his tenancy into 2023. In March 2023 he requested it convert the tenancy from a joint to sole tenancy.
The resident complained to the landlord on 22 May 2024. He said he reported repairs to the windows and doors, but that the landlord had not completed them. He also said he had not yet received or signed a new tenancy agreement.
The resident made a further complaint on 11 September 2024. He said he wanted to escalate several long-standing complaints. This included the unresolved repairs to the front door and hallway entrance door, which had been first reported in January 2023. He wanted the repairs to be completed. He expected it to complete all necessary repairs promptly.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 16 October 2024. It said:
1. In respect of the repairs to the doors, it said it required a specialist contractor who provided a quote, and it was waiting to review this. It agreed that it took longer than expected to resolve and apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused.
2. Regarding the defective windows/replacement, it said it had checked with its planned investment team, but the property was not on the 2024/2025 planned investment cyclical works programme. It would arrange for an inspection of his windows to resolve any interim repairs.
3. Regarding tenancy transfer, it described it as a request to change the joint tenancy to a sole tenancy. It accepted there had been a delay in obtaining all signatures. It would refer it to its tenancy approval panel and hoped to have an update at the end of the month, once the panel had considered his case.
4. It would pay the resident £500 compensation made up as £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused and £250 for its handling of the complaint.
The resident escalated the complaint the next day as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He included an additional issue of a rent refund payment due to him for £500 which he said it had not paid him.
After the landlord confirmed on 23 October 2024 it had escalated the complaint, it issued it stage 2 response on 29 November 2024. It confirmed it had completed the outstanding repairs; its tenancy approval panel had rejected his request for a sole tenancy, and it had paid the refund of £500 to him. It did not offer any additional compensation.
In bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman the resident has confirmed the repairs have taken place and he received the £500 payment, but the tenancy issue remains outstanding. He would like the landlord to issue him with a new tenancy.

Assessment and findings

Front door and hallway entrance door and defective windows

On 16 December 2022, the resident raised an enquiry with the landlord. He said it visited him at his property 3 months prior and discussed problems in the property. It had not responded to him since the meeting regarding resolving the issues. These included:
1. Changing the windows because of heat loss.
2. Fixing or changing the frame of the front door of the house, which lacked safety and insulation. It moved if pushed and did not close normally.
In its response on 19 December 2022 the landlord said it had spoken to him that day and regarding the issues raised provided the following updates:
1. The windows would be on its planned works programme for 2024/2025 as it had already booked planned window works for the next year.
2. It had raised a repair for the front door and the porch door frame to be fixed or replaced.
As the landlord had confirmed it raised the repairs, it is expected to complete those repairs within the timescales of its repairs policy. Its policy states it will complete non-emergency repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord’s records regarding the door works show it raised the works on 11 January 2023. It noted it needed to conduct follow up works as the UPVC door, frame and panelling in front of the property was not stable. It needed contractors to refit these.
On 17 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and said he had received a message stating it completed the repairs, however, nothing had been done. He asked about the other 2 repair requests including the second interior door and the windows. He noted with the windows that water accumulated around the walls and windowsills and dark patches formed around the window frames.
The resident chased the landlord again for the repairs on 5 February 2023. Its records the next day show it spoke to him and explained there were further works required which it had referred to another contractor. It would update him when it established when they would be attending to complete works. There is no evidence it did so.
The resident chased the landlord again on 6 March 2023 and its records show on 10 March 2023 it stated it would chase the repair and update him. There is no evidence it provided an update until 2 May 2023 when it explained that it needed to pass the job to an external contractor.
On 25 May 2023 following a visit to the resident’s property, the contractor provided a report to the landlord. The report stated the timber porch door was difficult to operate and close, was loose from the frame and required refitting with fixings. They also found faults with the locking mechanism, handle, cylinder, gaskets, and architrave. They suggested replacement of the front door with a composite door as it was beyond repair and provided a quote of costs to the landlord.
There is no evidence of any further progress made by the landlord regarding the repairs. There was also no evidence of the resident contacting it again until 25 January 2024 when he chased it for the repairs. After this he made his complaint of 2 May 2024 which included the window and doors.
On 6 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the unresolved repairs to both the main door and the door at the entrance from the hallway. He requested it complete all necessary repairs. He also requested a written response addressing those concerns and outlining the steps that it would take to resolve them. There is again no evidence it responded to him.
Following further chasing on the issues, the resident made another complaint on 11 September 2024. He said he wanted to escalate several long-standing complaints. These included the unresolved repairs to the front door and hallway entrance door, first reported in January 2023. Those remained incomplete despite the security risk posed by the main front door. Communication had been sporadic and ineffective, with vague assurances but no action. He wanted immediate action to complete the repairs to his front door and hallway entrance door. He expected it to complete all necessary repairs promptly.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response on 16 October 2024, it said:
1. Regarding repairs to the front door and hallway, it initially raised those to its contractor who attended but were unable to rectify and advised it required a specialist contractor. It arranged for the specialist contractor to attend and provide a quote which it referred to its assets team for approval. The team had confirmed they had the quote and were in the process of reviewing that. It hoped to update him the following week. It apologised as it noted he contacted it numerous times for an update and that it had not fixed the door.
2. Regarding the defective windows/replacement, as his property was not on the 2024/2025 planned investment cyclical works programme, it could arrange an inspection to establish if any issues could be picked up as repairs. It would contact him in the next few days to arrange an appointment for inspection of the windows so that any identified repairs could be completed.
3. It offered the resident £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused. This compensation was for the delays in completing repairs and also for its handling of another element of his complaint – his request in changing his tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s stage 1 response regarding the windows which said the windows were not part of the 2024/25 planned works contradicted the information in its response on 19 December 2022. The landlord did not give an explanation for this which was a failing. There is no evidence it had informed him of this until the stage 1 response. However, it offered to inspect the windows for any issues it could repair, which was appropriate given its obligation under the tenancy agreement to keep the windows in good repair.
The landlord arranged appointments with the resident for taking the sizes of the front entrance door and to inspect the windows. It stated that it would repair the porch door. On 24 October 2024, the resident emailed confirming that someone had attended his property and taken measurements for the front door. They had also inspected the windows that day and informed him he should be placed on the list for replacement windows. He informed it the issue had been ongoing for over a year, as another inspector previously recommended the same, citing that the windows were 20 years old.
On 7 November 2024, the landlord’s contractor informed it they completed the repairs for the porch door on 30 October 2024. The front entrance door was under production and the delivery was week commencing 20 November 2024. On the same day, the landlord noted it agreed to place the windows on the renewal programme.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 29 November 2024, regarding the repairs, was as follows:
1. It provided updates regarding the progress made to date including its installers completing the installation for the composite front entrance door on 28 November 2024. It asked him to contact it if he was still waiting for further works.
2. Regarding defective windows, following the visit on 24 October 2024, it agreed it would be recommending his windows for the renewal programme. This would be for a future programme within 2 years. It was not a confirmed timeline.
Although the landlord did apologise for the delays the resident incurred, there was no further offer of redress made. Given the failures identified in its handling of the reported repairs since it issued the stage 1 response, additional redress for the further delays should have been considered.
Overall, the resident reported the front and back door repairs on 16 December 2022. The landlord completed the repair to the back door on 30 October 2024, a timescale of approximately 22 months. It replaced the front door on 28 November 2024, a timescale of 23 months. It has provided no explanation for such a delay in completing the works required and the communication from it during this period was unreasonable.
The landlord stated in the stage 2 response it would replace the windows as part of its window replacement programme within 2 years. It initially stated those would take place in 2024/25. It failed to replace the windows during that time, failed to keep him adequately informed and subsequently moved the windows to a later programme with no specific date. This extended an already significant delay from when it originally inspected the windows.
The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the delay and distress he had experienced in trying to get the repairs issue resolved and for the delay in issuing the new tenancy agreement. It did not specify how much was offered for each issue. We have considered the amount to be split 50% between the repairs and the tenancy. When there are failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The delays experienced by the resident in trying to resolve the issue were significant. The doors repairs took substantially longer than the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy. It failed to fulfil its initial commitment to replace the windows and moved it to a later programme. The £125 it offered was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience to the resident for the delayed repairs. We have ordered that the landlord pay a further £275. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for situations such as this where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Joint to a sole tenancy

The landlord’s fixed term tenancy review procedure states that it must make an assessment at the end of the fixed term. This is to determine whether it should grant the resident a new assured tenancy at the same property, a new assured tenancy at another property (by transfer) or no new assured tenancy (the fixed term tenancy is terminated).
The procedure states this review should begin 9 months before the end of the fixed term tenancy. The resident has an opportunity to clarify whether they are looking for a joint tenancy or prefer to move from a joint to a sole tenancy.
The resident’s tenancy began on 22 February 2016. The landlord has provided evidence it completed a fixed term tenancy renewal form between March and April 2021 and agreed an assured tenancy would be issued with a start date of 19 April 2021. There is, however, no further evidence of it issuing a new tenancy or of it communicating any decision to the resident.
Following a visit to the resident’s property in October 2022, the landlord noted he raised that the issuing of the new tenancy was still outstanding. He contacted it again in December 2022 stating he had received no contact from it. It advised him on 19 December 2022 that it would discuss with a manager the next day about signing his new tenancy and would update him on progress. There is no evidence it provided any further updates or a new tenancy.
The landlord has provided a tenancy surrender form to this Service. This form requested the ending of the joint tenancy from 10 March 2023. Although the resident and his ex-partner signed the form, it is signed at different dates. One party signed on 10 March 2023, the other on 9 October 2023. It has not made it clear in its evidence when it received the form.
From the evidence provided, it informed the resident on 2 May 2023 that he needed to sign the tenancy surrender form to change the tenancy from a joint to sole tenancy in his name. It said it would not be able to take him out of the property. It was only to remove his ex-partner from the tenancy. He would need to sign a new assured tenancy. It would attend his property that day with the surrender form.
The landlord’s records do not provide the outcome of any visit or further actions it took until 21 July 2023 when it internally noted the matter was a straight joint to sole transfer of the tenancy. Once done it could offer the resident an assured life-time tenancy. There is no evidence of it communicating this or any other updates to him.
On 4 October 2023 the resident requested a meeting with a manager regarding changing his fixed term tenancy to an assured tenancy. It arranged a meeting for the following week and completed a request form on 18 October 2023 for its tenancy approval panel. The form showed the resident’s ex-partner had left the property, both parties had sent emails to confirm this. There is again no evidence of the landlord keeping the resident informed of progress and he chased it on 9 November 2023 for an update.
The landlord’s records show on 26 January 2024 it noted it would submit the tenancy approval panel form, and it would hear his case the following week. This continued and unexplained delay would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, especially as it did not provide him any updates. He continued to chase it for information on the progress of the matter.
In his complaint of 11 September 2024, the resident said he requested the tenancy change in September 2023, and the agreement was to be completed by November 2023. The delay had left him uncertain about his housing status. He wanted prompt finalisation of his tenancy agreement and regular updates on the progress of the tenancy issues.
The landlord’s stage 1 response on 16 October 2024 said it understood it was a joint to sole tenancy request and initially that there was some delay in obtaining both signatures. It had all the paperwork to proceed to the next step. It added that the type of request had to be referred to its tenancy approval panel and it would be doing so. It also needed to get a new rent valuation as, if approved, a new tenancy would need signing. It hoped to have an update at the end of the month once the panel had considered his case.
As previously mentioned, the landlord offered the resident £250 in compensation. We have decided a 50% split between this issue and the repairs issue and will now consider whether the apportioned £125 was sufficient redress in the circumstances of this element of his complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 response provided no further clarity or explanation to the resident regarding why the tenancy approval panel had not yet considered the request. At the date of the stage 1 response, it was aware of the request to change the tenancy from at least March 2023, almost 18 months earlier. It is acknowledged it had some delay in obtaining both signatures for the surrender form. However, it was still a year since it had completed its panel submission form, thus the delay was unacceptable.
On 8 November 2024, the landlord informed the resident its panel refused his request to change the tenancy from a joint to sole tenancy. This was due to him having a fixed-term tenancy agreement. Its policy around fixed-term tenancies stated factors against granting an assured tenancy included under occupation. The household was under-occupying the property. The recommended outcome would be to transfer or mutual exchange to another of its properties. Both would be to downsize from his 3–bedroom to a 2-bedroom property. It said it would consider his choice of location, but this was not guaranteed. It could also not guarantee another property would be at social rent.
In response the next day the resident asked for clarification of his current tenancy status. He added that the landlord had previously provided a letter stating that, after the 1-month period following the surrender agreement, the assured tenancy would automatically become active according to the law. He and his ex-partner both signed the surrender agreement as it was a necessary step to transition to an individual tenancy. However, it seemed his agreement was considered a temporary fixed-term contract. He asked it to clarify all points. Regarding the suggestion to downsize from his current 3-bedroom property, he decided that it would be best to remain where he was as he would need the size of property in case 2 of his children returned to the property.
On 16 November 2024, the resident asked again for clarification on the status of his tenancy. He repeated his comments from 9 November 2024.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 29 November 2024, it reiterated the reasons why its panel rejected the resident’s request. It repeated that the panel had found that there were not enough people living in the property on a permanent basis to fill all the bedrooms. It understood he had other children who may live with him one day but was unable to factor that into the decision at that time. It explained that he currently had a joint tenancy which was a 5-year fixed term tenancy. It reviewed those types of tenancies after 5 years to verify whether the property is still suitable. As it found his property was no longer suitable, it would not sign a new tenancy with him for that property. However, it would be happy to help him move to one of its 2-bedroom properties and for him to sign a new tenancy there.
There is no evidence that the landlord had issued the resident any further tenancy agreement since the initial tenancy in 2016. It also did not make any reference to its decision in 2021 regarding the assured tenancy and its records are not clear why there was no progression with the decision at that time. It has not evidenced why 3 years after the expiry of the original fixed term tenancy it had not issued an updated tenancy to him.
Following the stage 2 response the resident has informed us that the landlord has not provided him with a new tenancy agreement, and he remains in the property. Thus, we conclude that the landlord has not clarified the tenancy status of the resident.
Overall, there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of this matter. Based on its tenancy renewal procedure it should have begun the process before the end of the initial fixed term tenancy. It is clear it completed a fixed term tenancy renewal form and agreed an assured tenancy would be issued with a start date of 19 April 2021. This would be consistent with that timescale, however, there is no evidence provided why this was not issued. By not providing the resident with either a new fixed term tenancy or assured tenancy agreement he was more vulnerable to eviction than he would have been if it had issued a new tenancy.
It is also clear the landlord noted in July 2023 the resident’s request was a straight joint to sole transfer, and it could grant a new assured tenancy. Again, there is no explanation why this did not take place. Based on its advice he completed the tenancy surrender form and a form to request it convert the tenancy to a sole tenancy. Since then, there was significant delays by it. This included the delay by it submitting the sole tenancy request to its tenancy approval panel. During that time there was poor communication from it to the resident resulting in him chasing it for updates. Once its tenancy approval panel made the decision to refuse to grant the sole tenancy, it failed to provide appropriate explanations to why the decision was different to what it had initially told him. At the end of the complaints process it failed to confirm the status of his tenancy following the expiry of the original fixed term tenancy in 2021. This has left him in a period of uncertainty for a considerable period and would have caused him significant worry, distress, and inconvenience which is currently ongoing. This was maladministration.
As previously stated, we have considered the landlord offered the resident £125 compensation for the delay and distress he had experienced in trying to get the tenancy issue resolved.
The delays experienced by the resident in trying to resolve the issue were significant and are ongoing. £125 was therefore not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident. Despite it initially informing the resident it would issue him a new tenancy, it has still not issued one to him. We have ordered that the landlord pay the resident the total sum of £500. This amount reflects the failure which adversely affected the resident and left him more vulnerable to eviction. Although the landlord made some attempt to put things right, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation

Issuing the resident a £500 refund

Following the stage 1 complaint response, the resident raised an issue about a refund of £500 that was due to him. In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed it had refunded that sum on 8 November 2024.
While the resident said this matter had been outstanding for over a year, the landlord and resident have not provided any evidence of correspondence regarding a payment of £500 prior to him referring to the issue in October 2024. We are therefore unable to reach a conclusion on what happened prior to that time. Considering the landlord’s actions once it was made aware of the issue in the resident’s escalation request, it acted appropriately to confirm the refund was correct and make the payment to him. We, therefore, find there was no maladministration.

The resident’s complaint

From the evidence provided it is clear the resident made a complaint to the landlord on 22 May 2024. He raised the issues with repairs, the tenancy issues and requested compensation. He contacted it again on 6 June and 4 August 2024 stating he was following up his complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, action or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. Residents do not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for an enquiry to be treated as such. It should have recognised his correspondence as a complaint and responded appropriately.
The resident emailed the landlord asking for escalation of several long-standing complaints on 11 September 2024. Its records show it noted on 16 September 2024 that there was a complaint raised on 22 May 2024 regarding the same issues. However, there is no evidence that it responded formally to him.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 16 October 2024, the landlord said the resident raised a complaint on 6 June 2024 which it closed as it was a duplicate of a similar case raised which it had responded to at stage 1. It has not provided evidence of this response. It noted that he requested escalation of his complaint raised on 11 September 2024 to stage 2 if not resolved. It apologised as it had not handled his complaint in accordance with its process. It apologised for the delayed handling of his complaint and inadequate communication. It offered £250 for the delay. It said it would escalate his complaint to stage 2 following its response. It however later stated if he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 to let it know. This response was inadequate and does not indicate that it took its own offer seriously.
The resident emailed the landlord the next day and provided reasons he wanted to escalate the complaint. It confirmed to him on 23 October 2024 that it escalated the complaint to stage 2. It issued the stage 2 response on 29 November 2024. The stage 2 response was issued 32 working days after he escalated the complaint. It did not acknowledge the further delay or offer any further redress to him. Its stage 2 response again failed to inform him if it had upheld his complaint.
Overall, the landlord apologised for its handling of the resident’s complaint and offered £250 which was appropriate for it to do so. However further failures occurred with its communication regarding escalation of the complaint and a further delay in issuing the stage 2 response. It failed to acknowledge this or offer additional redress. This was service failure. The Ombudsman has ordered additional compensation to reflect those failures at stage 2.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs including to the front door and hallway entrance door, defective windows, bathroom roof, and toilet replacement.
2. There was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer his tenancy from a joint to a sole tenancy.
3. There was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a refund of £500.
4. There was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the total sum of £1,200 in compensation. Comprising:
  1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s repairs. This includes the £125 it offered in its complaint responses.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request to change the tenancy. This includes the £125 it offered in its complaint responses.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his complaint. This includes the £250 it offered in its complaint responses.
3. Provide the resident with an update on the timescale for it to replace his windows in writing if it has not done so already. This must include a start date.
4. Provide the resident with its decision regarding either issuing him a new assured tenancy or another assured shorthold/fixed term tenancy for the property. It must also clarify his current tenancy status and provide him with the tenancy agreement in confirmation. If this is not possible, it needs to inform him about suitable alternative accommodation which he would not be under-occupying.