Notting Hill Genesis — case 202513996

Decision Case ID 202513996 Decision type Investigation Landlord Notting Hill Genesis Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Shorthold Tenancy Date 27 January 2026 Background The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since September 2023 and lives with her 3 young children, 1 of which has additional needs. The property is a ground floor, 2 bedroom flat. Around 23 October 2024 the resident experienced a leak from the flat above into her bathroom. The leak was reportedly fixed and repairs were carried out to the resident’s bathroom.

However, on 31 January 2025 the resident reported that the leak had returned and was damaging the bathroom ceiling. On 20 January 2025 the resident reported to the landlord that her kitchen sink was leaking. She also reported on 5 February 2025 that there was damp and mould in the kitchen caused by the previous leak. The resident was unhappy with the way the landlord dealt with the reported issues and raised a complaint on 11 March 2025. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Reports of a leak from the kitchen sink.

Reports of a leak from the flat above into the bathroom. Reports of damp and mould. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) There was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports of a leak from the kitchen sink. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports about a leak from the bathroom ceiling. There was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of reports of damp and mould.

There was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons There was poor record keeping on the part of the landlord in relation to its handling of the leak from the kitchen sink. However, this did not impact the resident and the landlord fixed the leak within its repairs policy timescales. Some of the delays to the bathroom repairs were outside of the landlord’s control.

However, there were also failings on its part that caused delays as well as failings with its communication with the resident and record keeping. That said, the landlord acknowledged these failings and offered suitable compensation for the impact on the resident. The landlord acknowledged its poor handling of the damp and mould repairs and offered compensation. However, the amount offered does not adequately reflect all the failings identified in this report nor the impact of these failings on the resident.

As such, we have ordered it to pay more compensation for its poor handling of the damp and mould. We have also recommended the landlord consider carrying out a structural survey to identify the root cause of the general mould issues the resident has told us about. The landlord acknowledged its failures relating to its handling of the complaint and offered a reasonable amount of compensation in recognition of this. 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. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by the landlord’s management team.

The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 24 February 2026 Compensation order The landlord must increase the compensation offered for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of reports of damp and mould from £325 to £600. This would bring the total amount of compensation offered for its handling of the repair issues to £925. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 24 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £325 offered in its complaint responses for its handling of the bathroom repairs. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid.

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £25 offered for its handling of the complaint. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this amount is paid. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 11 March 2025 The resident raised her complaint. A copy of the complaint has not been provided. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response described the complaint as being about: – Damage caused by a leak from the bathroom ceiling and the kitchen sink.

– Damp and mould in the property. 11 April 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had been proactive in raising jobs to resolve the issues reported by the resident. However, it acknowledged there had been delays in it carrying out these works. In recognition of this it offered £150 compensation. 15 April 2025 The resident escalated her complaint. She said she remained unhappy with the delays and lack of communication from the landlord. She said the landlord had still not carried out the repairs for the mould in the kitchen.

She said the repairs should have been treated as a matter of urgency. 7 July 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It acknowledged it had not effectively managed and addressed the repairs or damp and mould in line with its policies and procedures. It also acknowledged that the resident had contacted it numerous times about the outstanding issues. In recognition of these failings and the impact on the resident the landlord offered £500 compensation. The landlord also acknowledged there had been failings in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

In recognition of these it offered £25. 7 July 2025 The resident confirmed to this Service that she wanted us to investigate the complaint. She said she felt that the £525 compensation offered did not fairly reflect the trouble and distress caused nor the impact on her children. 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 Leak from the sink Finding No maladministration The landlord’s repairs policy says it will aim to complete standard repairs within 20 working days of the repair being reported. The repairs policy says that in some cases the landlord may need to inspect the level of repair to determine the best course of action. However, it does not provide a timescale for these inspections.

On 20 January 2025 the resident reported that there was a leak coming from under her kitchen sink. The evidence seen shows the landlord raised a job the same day and scheduled the appointment for 17 February 2025. It also contacted the resident the next day and asked her to provide photos of the leak. The evidence seen also shows the landlord raised a second job for this repair on 5 February 2025. The landlord then attended on 12 February 2025 and fixed the leak. The appointment notes say it was a ‘very small leak on isolation valve under sink’.

We have also noted that despite the leak having been fixed, a contractor attended the property on 17 February 2025. However, the resident told them that another contractor had already fixed the leak. It is unclear why the landlord raised a second job for this leak. However, the fact that the landlord did not update its records after the leak was fixed on 12 February 2025 indicates poor record keeping. Clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints.

It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents. That said, this did not impact the resident and the landlord fixed the leak under the sink within its repairs policy timescales. We have noted that on 17 April 2025 the landlord was informed by a contractor about a potential leak from behind the kitchen cabinets. It is not clear from the landlord’s records precisely where the leak was possibly from, i.

e. from the kitchen sink or elsewhere. However, the records show the landlord attended on 30 April 2025 and did not find evidence of a leak. The landlord carried out this inspection in line with its repairs policy timescales. Overall, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a leak from the kitchen sink. Complaint Leak from the bathroom ceiling Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s repairs policy says that emergency repairs include those involving water leaking between floors or properties.

It says the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make the property safe. The policy also says it will complete non-urgent repairs within 20 working days of it being reported. On 23 October 2024 the resident reported a leak from the flat above into her bathroom. The flat above the resident’s is not owned by her landlord. The evidence seen shows the landlord inspected the resident’s bathroom on the evening of 23 October 2024. It also says it knocked on the neighbour’s door but there was no answer.

The landlord visited the property again on 24 October 2024. The job notes say they knocked on the neighbour’s door but again there was no answer. The notes also say the leak had stopped and was not an active one. Given the nature of the issue, it was appropriate for the landlord to visit the property as quickly as it did and to try and contact the upstairs neighbour. On 25 October 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had contacted the relevant landlord and the repairs were in progress.

The landlord has not provided copies of its communication with the neighbour’s landlord. While we have not seen these communications, it was appropriate for it to contact the relevant landlord promptly and ask them to carry out repairs. That said, evidence has not been seen to show the landlord kept the resident updated about the situation. On 27 November 2024 the resident asked for an update on the repairs to the bathroom ceiling. In response the landlord asked if the leak had stopped.

The resident confirmed that it had. The resident chased the landlord again on 6 December 2024. It replied the same day and said there had been a delay in the repairs as the area needed to dry out before works could take place. However, it apologised for this delay and for not having kept the resident updated on the situation. The landlord then carried out repairs to the bathroom on 12 December 2024. Despite the delay it caused, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait for the ceiling to dry before carrying out any repair works.

However, it should have kept the resident informed about the status of the works and it was appropriate for it to acknowledge this failing. On the 31 January 2025 the resident reported that the leak from the flat above into her bathroom had returned. She said the leak occurred whenever the upstairs neighbours used the bath. The evidence seen shows the landlord raised a work order for this repair on 3 February 2025. The landlord also confirmed to the resident on 4 February 2025 that it had contacted the freeholders and asked them to inspect the leak.

It was appropriate for the landlord to contact freeholders for them to inspect the leak. However, evidence has not been seen to show the landlord inspected the leak into the property within 24 hours of the resident’s report. As such, it failed to follow its repairs policy procedure for emergency repairs. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that its contractor visited the property on 14 February 2025. It said they found there was no active leak from the upper floor property, but the bathroom ceiling had considerable damage from a previous leak.

It said they recommended the bubbled areas of the ceiling be sanded down, any gaps filled in and sanded as well as paint the ceiling. The landlord said it rejected the contractors initial quote on 18 February 2025 but approved the works on 21 February 2025. It said it chased the contractors on 26 February 2025, and they said they had been unable to arrange an appointment with the resident. However, it then arranged an appointment for 1 March 2025. The landlord said that on 1 March 2025 its contractors attended the resident’s property and found the ceiling was still wet.

It said they also inspected the flat above and found the source of the leak was from the bath. It said its contractors recommended that the bath components be replaced. The ‘repair details’ record the landlord has provided contains images taken during an inspection of the resident’s bathroom. However, these are undated and there is no entry for an inspection on 14 February and 1 March 2025 or the landlord’s findings. This indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.

That said, the evidence seen indicates that on 15 March 2025 the landlord carried out repair works to the resident’s bathroom. This was only a day outside of the policy timescales despite the delay caused by the ceiling still being wet on 1 March 2025. This was a short delay, and we have not seen evidence of a significant impact on the resident. The evidence also indicates that repair works were carried out to resolve the leak coming from the upstairs neighbour’s bath that same day.

Based on the evidence seen, the resident did not make any further reports of a leak from the flat above following these repairs. Overall, as set out above, the landlord’s failings can be summarised as failing to: Keep the resident adequately updated about the repairs. Adhere to its repairs policy timescales. Keep adequate records. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.

The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has used the complaints process to fully acknowledge any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that it felt it had been proactive in raising work orders in response to the resident’s reports.

However, it acknowledged that there had been delays in it carrying out the repair works. In recognition of this it offered £150 compensation. In its stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged its failure to resolve matters in line with its repairs policy and offered £500 compensation. The stage 2 response does not say that the landlord increased the previous compensation offer to £500. Therefore, it is our understanding that the total amount of compensation offered was £650.

Neither complaint response broke down the compensation between the heads of complaint. As such, it is our understanding that £325 of this offer was for the failings related to the leak from the flat above. While the other £325 related to the failings in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. Having taken into consideration the landlord’s failings and the impact these had on the resident, we find that the total amount of £325 compensation offered for this head of complaint is proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

This is because the landlord has compensated the resident for the tangible detriment caused by its failings, in particular those which it had direct control over. Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress. Complaint Damp and mould Finding Maladministration Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.

Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. The landlord’s damp and mould policy (June 2024) says all initial reports will be prioritised as urgent with consideration given to any vulnerabilities. It says it will then contact the resident within 5 working days and agree to visit the property within 10 working days. It says it will complete an inspection and compile a report with recommendations based on its findings.

It also says it will complete minor works within 20 workings days. In the resident’s correspondence she has referred to how the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould had an impact on her and her son’s health. The Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any effect on health and wellbeing. Personal injury claims must, ultimately, be decided by the courts, as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman can consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident.

Based on the evidence seen, the damp and mould in the bathroom, kitchen and under the flooring was caused by recent leaks in the property. As such, the landlord’s repairs carried out on those leaks resolved the root cause of the damp and mould. Therefore, this section of the investigation focusses on the landlord’s treatment of the damp and mould itself. On 1 July 2024 the resident reported damp and mould in her property. The landlord responded the next day and confirmed her housing officer (HO) would be in touch to arrange an appointment to inspect the damp and mould.

The evidence seen shows an appointment was arranged for 10 July 2024, but the resident cancelled this on 8 July 2024. The job notes show that on 15 July 2024 the HO was asked for an update on the damp and mould. They also show that on 25 July 2024 another task was created for the HO to reschedule the damp and mould inspection. On 1 August 2024 the landlord contacted the resident and said a further task had been created for the HO to inspect the property. It also said they had 10 working days to do so.

The evidence seen does not confirm when this inspection took place or what the landlord’s findings were. This indicates poor record keeping on the part of the landlord. However, it does show that a quote for repair works was accepted on 25 September 2024. Ultimately, the landlord failed to carry out a damp and mould inspection within its policy timescales and it has not provided an explanation for the delay. This was unreasonable and caused a delay in the landlord being able to resolve any identified areas of damp and mould.

Furthermore, the landlord has not provided evidence to show what kind of inspection the HO carried out or that they were suitably qualified to do so. The landlord’s records show it carried out a mould wash and stain block on the bathroom ceiling on 12 November 2024 under a separate work order. However, in relation to the quote accepted on 25 September 2024, the works were not carried out until 12 December 2024. The work notes for the 12 December 2024 say the contractor carried out a mould wash in the kitchen as well as painted the bathroom ceiling and kitchen in anti-mould paint.

The landlord has not explained why it took nearly 3 months for it to carry out these damp and mould works. This delay was unreasonable, especially when considering that most of the mould was in the kitchen and 3 young children live at the property. The delay also caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience, time and trouble as she contacted the landlord for updates on several occasions during this period. On 20 January 2025 the resident reported that there were outstanding repairs at the property, including mould in the property.

The landlord responded the next day and said that during its visit on 9 November 2024 it had not seen any mould at the property. It asked the resident to provide photos of the mould and said it would then raise an order for a mould treatment. On 31 January 2025 the resident chased the landlord for an update about another repair issue. In its response the landlord said it was still waiting for the resident to send photos of the reported mould. We acknowledge that it would not have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange a mould treatment without evidence of the mould.

However, its policy says it will inspect a property within 10 working days after acknowledging a resident’s report of damp and mould. No evidence has been seen to show the landlord inspected the resident’s property in response to her report on 20 January 2025. The landlord visited the property on 5 February 2025 and found there was mould all over the kitchen walls and behind the units. It then wrote to the resident and confirmed it had raised a job for the removal of the mould and its contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment.

The landlord’s records indicate that 2 separate jobs were raised relating to the mould in the kitchen on 5 February 2025. The jobs were for the removal and treatment of the mould as well as the repair or replacement of kitchen units damaged by the mould. The evidence seen indicates the work to repair or replace the kitchen units was booked for 6 March 2025. However, the landlord cancelled the appointment on the day due to contractor illness. When it informed the resident about the cancellation it said it would reschedule this as soon as possible.

However, evidence has not been seen to show it contacted the resident to reschedule the appointment. The landlord’s records indicate an appointment to remove and treat the mould in the kitchen was arranged for 5 March 2025. However, the landlord was not able to access the property on the day, and a new appointment was scheduled for 24 March 2025. The records seen do not evidence what the landlord found during that appointment. However, in its stage 1 response the landlord said it found significant damp issues affecting the kitchen ceiling and walls.

It said its contractor had recommended it remove all peeling paint, apply filler to repair any damaged areas and apply stain blocker. The records show the landlord carried out these works on 9 April 2025. It took around 2 months for the mould in the kitchen to be treated and this was not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. However, it is our understanding that the appointments were agreed with the resident to ensure she would be able to provide access. On 9 April 2025 the resident contacted the landlord and said she was not happy with the works carried out.

She said the contractors should have treated the mould behind the kitchen cabinets but they only treated the walls and ceiling. On 11 April 2025 the landlord raised a further job for the treatment of the mould. The records show that on 17 and 24 April 2025 the landlord carried out the mould treatment works to the kitchen. The resident then confirmed on 29 April 2025 that the mould in the kitchen had been removed. The landlord’s internal records indicate there was confusion among staff as to where the mould in the kitchen was and what treatments had been carried out.

This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord which caused a delay in all the mould in the kitchen being treated. This in turn caused the resident avoidable time and trouble as she had to contact the landlord about the areas of mould it had missed. The records indicate that on 30 April 2025 the landlord started works to replace the flooring damaged by the previous leaks. The notes say that when the carpet in the hallway was lifted they found black mould underneath. The wording of these notes suggests the landlord was unaware of the mould underneath the carpet before this point.

However, the evidence seen shows that on 11 and 12 March 2025 the resident told the landlord that the contractor that had originally come to replace the carpet found black mould underneath the old one. The evidence seen indicates the inspections and treatment the landlord carried out on the mould were solely in relation to the kitchen. No evidence has been seen to show the landlord inspected or treated the mould under the carpet after the resident’s reports in March 2025. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not to attempt to inspect and treat that mould.

This subsequently caused a delay in the mould under the carpet being treated. The landlord’s records indicate that on 11 and 30 May 2025 it inspected the property. The report says it did not find any visible mould because the resident had laid new carpet over where the mould was reported to be. On 5 June 2025 the landlord asked the resident why she allowed the carpet to be laid when there was mould in the hallway. She said if the carpet had not been laid then the mould would have been exposed and that would have been dangerous for her family.

While we appreciate why the resident allowed the carpet to be laid, that did hamper the landlord’s ability to investigate the mould in the hallway. However, the evidence seen indicates the landlord did not look into this further until 14 July 2025. This was an unreasonable delay and not in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy. It raised a job for the treatment of the mould in the hallway on 17 July 2025 and carried out the treatment on 5 August 2025. The records show that a further mould wash was carried out on 12 August 2025.

The job notes say no mould was found but the treatment was carried out as a precautionary measure. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as failing to: Adhere to its damp and mould policy timescales. Adequately communicate with the resident. Evidence that its HO was suitably qualified to inspect the mould. Keep adequate records. As mentioned earlier in this report, in its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged the delays and its failure to resolve matters in line with its repairs policy.

In recognition of this it offered a total of £650. It is our understanding that £325 of this was for its failings relating to the damp and mould. The other £325 was for its handling of the leak in the bathroom. It was appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged its poor handling of the repairs and offer compensation. However, the landlord has not acknowledged its poor communication and we find the amount offered does not fully reflect the circumstances of the case. We find this after having taken into consideration the extent of the mould, its location, the delays and the impact on the resident and her young family.

In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this report and increase the compensation for this complaint to £600. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. The resident confirmed to this Service on 22 January 2026 that the mould issues considered in this complaint have been resolved.

As such, we have not made orders relating to the treatment of the mould itself. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. It also says the landlord will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 5 working days and issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement.

The policy says that should more time be needed at either stage the landlord will inform the resident. It says that an extension will not exceed a further 20 working days at stage 1 or 30 working days at stage 2. The resident raised her complaint on 11 March 2025 and the landlord acknowledged this the same day. On 28 March 2025 the landlord told the resident it needed more time to issue its stage 1 response. It said it would issue it by 14 April 2025. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 11 April 2025.

This was within the timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 April 2025 and the landlord acknowledged this on 15 May 2025. This was outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge and log the escalation request within its policy timescales caused a delay in it responding to the resident’s complaint. On 17 June 2025 the landlord told the resident it needed more time to issue its stage 2 response.

It said it would issue its response by 11 July 2025. It then issued its stage 2 response on 7 July 2025. It was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it needed more time to issue its stage 2 response. However, it should have done this within the initial 20 working days deadline. In this instance, the landlord informed the resident of the extension 22 working days after it logged the escalation request. This further delayed the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Overall the landlord’s failure, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to follow its complaints policy timescales. Having taken into consideration the delay and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the total amount of £25 offered for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 2 complaint was proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord’s complaint handling failure did not have an impact on the outcome of the complaint nor a lasting impact on the resident.

Therefore, we have made a finding of reasonable redress. Learning Communication and record-keeping Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that failures can be avoided when landlords let residents know what to expect regarding repairs. Similarly, clear record keeping is an essential part of providing a repairs service and responding to complaints. It allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works and contractor performance, as well as provide accurate information and an effective service to its residents.