Notting Hill Genesis — case 202445989

Decision Case ID 202445989 Decision type Investigation Landlord Notting Hill Genesis Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 30 January 2026 Background The resident applied to the landlord’s housing transfer scheme. It assessed her application and awarded her B and C priority status. The resident appealed this decision as she wanted it to award her B and B status on medical grounds due to her mental health conditions. She subsequently complained that the landlord had mishandled some of the evidence she submitted and delayed in hearing her appeal.

She also complained about its appeal decision in which it upheld it original banding decision. She was unhappy with its response to her complaint and asked us to investigate. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the complaint. Our decision (determination) The landlord provided reasonable redress to the resident’s complaint about its handling of her transfer application.

The landlord provided reasonable redress to failures in its handling of the complaint. We have not made orders for the landlord but have made a recommendation. Summary of reasons Handling of the transfer application The landlord acknowledged it delayed in passing the resident’s appeal request to its lettings panel. It apologised and compensated her in line with its compensation policy. It otherwise handled her transfer application in line with its allocations and lettings policy.

Handling of the complaint The landlord acknowledged it delayed in issuing its complaint responses. It apologised to the resident and compensated her in line with its compensation policy. Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations If the landlord has not already paid the resident the £250 compensation it offered in its complaint responses, it should pay this to her. We have found reasonable redress on the basis that this has either been paid or that the offer remains open. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened Between 26 April 2024 and 6 June 2024 The resident applied to the landlord’s housing transfer scheme. She explained she required a 2 bedroom property as she and her child lived in a one bedroom flat and the conditions were affecting her mental health.

She provided a supporting letter from her GP which confirmed she had various mental health conditions. The landlord assessed the application, taking into account advice from its own medical assessor, and awarded the resident Band C status due to “overcrowding”. Between 13 June 2024 and 20 September 2024 The resident asked to appeal the landlord’s decision. She suggested it should have awarded her Band B status due to medical need. She provided a supporting letter from a psychiatry doctor.

10 October 2024 The landlord sent the resident’s appeal request to its lettings panel. 15 October 2024 The resident complained that the landlord had lost medical evidence she provided for her appeal and had delayed in passing the information to its lettings panel. 22 October 2024 The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and said it would respond by 5 November 2024. 7 November 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint. It said that due to a change in housing officers, it had misplaced medical evidence and then delayed in passing the information to its letting panel.

It apologised, offered £100 compensation for inconvenience and confirmed it had since sent the documents to the panel. It also offered £50 compensation for its delay in issuing the stage 1 response. 12 November 2024 The landlord’s lettings panel considered the resident’s appeal. It determined, based on advice from its medical assessor, that medical priority was not applicable and Band C was the correct banding. 14 November 2024 The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 as she was unhappy it had not awarded her Band B status.

The landlord acknowledged receipt and said it would respond by 12 December 2024. Between 12 December 2024 and 30 January 2025 The resident contacted the landlord 3 times to ask it when it would issue its stage 2 response. On 30 January 2025 it told her it needed more time and would reply by 14 February 2025. 7 March 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It said: It based its original decision and appeal decision on advice from its medial assessor that medical priority banding was not applicable.

She was unable to appeal again unless there was a change in her circumstances, in which case she should send it the new evidence. It had previously advised her of other moving options such as contacting the local authority or mutual exchange. Her housing officer could discuss these options with her further if she wished. Its stage 2 response was delayed as it was dealing with a high volume of complaints. It apologised and offered £100 compensation. Between 31 March 2025 and 22 October 2025 The resident provided the landlord with supporting letters from an NHS mental health team and from her child’s school.

It then reassessed her transfer application and decided in October 2025 to award her Band B status on the grounds of “severe social hardship”. Referral to the Ombudsman The resident referred the complaint to us as she was unhappy with how the landlord had assessed her transfer application. Although it has since awarded her Band B, she confirmed she would still like us to review how it dealt with her transfer application in 2024. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy provides that any appeals against how it has processed a transfer application, including its decisions around banding, will be heard by its lettings panel. Within its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that when it received the resident’s appeal request, it misplaced some of the evidence she provided and then delayed in passing this to its lettings panel.

It appropriately apologised and explained the reason for this was due to a personnel change in housing officers. It took reasonable steps to ensure this would not happen again by highlighting the failing with the resident’s new housing officer and their manager. The landlord put things right by ensuring that by the time of its stage 1 response, it had passed the resident’s appeal request and all relevant documentation to its lettings panel in line with its policy. The panel then asked the landlord’s medical assessor to consider all the information.

The assessor provided the panel with a report which acknowledged the resident’s medical conditions and the medical evidence, but explained why it did not consider a Band B award based on medical priority was applicable. It was reasonable for the panel to rely on this evidence-based advice from a professional advisor in reaching a decision. The landlord recognised in its stage 1 response that although its initial failure to promptly process the information had no bearing on the panel’s decision, it caused the resident inconvenience.

It therefore offered her £100 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy which suggests awards of up to £100 where its service standards have not been met but there is no long-term impact. By the time the resident asked to escalate her complaint, the lettings panel had issued its appeal decision not to award her Band B status. She complained about this within her escalation request. The landlord appropriately explained in its stage 2 response that she was unable to appeal this decision further unless her circumstances changed, in which case she should provide it with evidence of this change.

This advice was in keeping with its allocations and lettings policy. As the landlord was at the time of its stage 2 response unable to accept a further appeal, it appropriately considered if there was any other support it could offer the resident. It explained within its response that it had already advised her of other moving options and suggested that she contact her housing officer if she wished to explore these further. It also suggested that her housing officer would liaise with their manager to see if there were any other ways in which it could assist her.

Following further discussions with her housing officer, the resident provided the landlord the following year with more medical evidence and also a letter from her child’s school. The landlord then followed through on its commitment to reconsider her case. This led to the lettings panel awarding her Band B status due to “severe social hardship” in line with the allocations and lettings policy. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s initial complaint and escalation request in line with its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

However, it delayed by 2 working days in issuing its stage 1 response and by almost 3 months in issuing its stage 2 response. It appropriately acknowledged these delays in its responses and apologised to the resident for its “poor complaint handling”. It offered her £50 compensation for its stage 1 delay and £100 for its stage 2 delay. This was within the guideline amounts set out in its compensation policy and proportionate to the length of its delay at each stage. We are satisfied that other than its delayed responses, the landlord complied with its policy and the Code when handling the resident’s complaint.

It explained that it would learn from the mistakes it had identified at each stage and that it had shared its findings with the resident’s housing officer and manager. It reminded them that they should respond to her queries in a timely manner and that transfer applications should be handled robustly and efficiently. This was in keeping with our dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Learning Communication We remind the landlord that if it is likely to be delayed in issuing a complaint response, it should advise the complainant of this delay in advance of the deadline date.

It should explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response date in line with the extension provisions set out in its complaints policy and the Code.