Notting Hill Genesis — case 202539785

Decision Case ID 202539785 Decision type Investigation Landlord Notting Hill Genesis Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 29 May 2026 Background The resident asked the landlord to move her due to overcrowding. She provided the landlord with supporting information to explain why she thought the property was not suitable. This included medical and school information, as well as issues with pests, damp, and mould. She said her local housing team had not done enough to help her.

What the complaint is about The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Damp and mould. Pest control. Her transfer request. Staff responsiveness. The complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of pest control. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of her transfer request. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of staff responsiveness.

No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord carried out repairs to address leaks and cosmetic damage. It inspected for damp and mould. It was reasonable for it to rely on the findings of its qualified staff. The resident disputed the landlord’s account of events, but we have seen no evidence that the property is unsafe for habitation. The pest control was completed.

The landlord recognised it had been delayed unreasonably and offered the resident proportionate compensation. It also identified why the delay occurred, which demonstrates learning. The landlord has a responsibility to balance the needs of the resident with its other residents waiting for a transfer. Its policy sets out this approach. The landlord correctly followed its procedure and awarded the resident an appropriate banding in line with its policy. It discussed alternative housing options with the resident, including the local council and mutual exchange.

The landlord recognised its response to the resident had not been to standard and offered compensation. It followed up on the actions it promised in its stage 2 complaint response. It committed to improve the service the resident received from specific staff members. The landlord extended both the stage 1 and stage 2 response deadlines. This was mitigated by its contact with the resident to inform her of the new deadline and signposting to us. The landlord’s complaint responses were thorough and identified appropriate ways to put things right.

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 The landlord should reoffer the resident £150 compensation, if this has not already been paid. If this has been added to her rent account, it should provide her a rent statement to explain this.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 3 July 2025 The resident complained to the landlord, and contacted her MP, about: issues in relation to its management of her housing estate pest control for mice in her property a leak to the ceiling of her bedroom, and requested removal of mould a transfer due to overcrowding and safety concerns 10 July 2025 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint. 17 July 2025 The landlord told the resident it needed more time and would issue a response by 7 August 2025 7 August 2025 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response.

It: recognised the delayed pest control and partially upheld her complaint confirmed its position regarding her transfer application confirmed it would carry out a damp and mould inspection and carry out a mould wash if needed confirmed details of estate management work it had completed in response to issues raised 13 August 2025 The resident requested the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2, because she remained dissatisfied with its response. She: disagreed with its position regarding the estate management issues said the pest control remained unresolved and her housing officer had not been in contact with her about this, instead 2 other members of staff had helped said the landlord had closed her damp and mould case after confirming there was not an active leak, and “underlying issues” remained unresolved asked the landlord to consider her for a bigger property as soon as possible 17 September 2025 The landlord told the resident it had received a high volume of complaints which had caused delays in its complaint response.

It said it would issue a stage 2 response by 16 October 2025. 16 October 2025 The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It: acknowledged some of its communication had not been to standard, apologised, and offered £50 compensation confirmed further pest control work would go ahead and offered £100 compensation for delays after its stage 1 response confirmed repairs scheduled in relation to a leak confirmed its position on the other matters she had raised remained the same as at stage 1 Referral to the Ombudsman The resident contacted us in December 2025.

She wanted the landlord to recognise her property was not suitable, transfer her, pay compensation, and change her housing officer. 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 Damp and mould Finding No maladministration The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete standard repairs within 20 working days from the date they are reported.

It says it may extend these for another 20 days in complex cases and it will contact the resident where this is the case. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will arrange an inspection within 10 working days where requested. If the inspection identifies a significant hazard, it will complete works within 5 working days. Otherwise, it will start works within 12 weeks and complete them in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord carried out several repairs to leaks in the bathroom, including the toilet and sink.

Its repair case records show it repaired the leaks in line with its repairs policy timescales. It noted discussions with the resident around her availability for appointments, which delayed some work. This included a damp and mould inspection. The landlord’s contractor tried to arrange in August and September 2025 and completed it in October 2025. This delay was reasonable given its attempts to contact the resident. The landlord had previously carried out work to the building’s roof, and the resident queried whether there was water ingress due to this.

The landlord’s records demonstrate it took appropriate steps to investigate and address the damp and mould the resident had reported. Its inspection confirmed there was no live leak and no mould present. It took photos which supported its assessment. Evidence shows that it arranged and completed follow-up work to paint over a water stain on the bedroom ceiling. The resident disputed the landlord’s assessment and findings on this matter. The landlord provided us with evidence to show why it took the steps it did in relation to her reports of damp and mould.

It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its qualified staff and contractor. The resident is able to report any new issues to the landlord for investigation under its damp and mould policy. Complaint Pest Control Finding Reasonable redress The resident reported mice in early July 2025. The landlord’s contractor inspected and began treatment at the end of July 2025. The landlord acknowledged this delay in its stage 1 response and said treatment would continue as needed.

In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it raised jobs with 2 contractors after its stage 1 response, which delayed further treatment. It apologised and offered £100 compensation. This was appropriate, as service standards had not been met and the issue took longer than expected, causing inconvenience to the resident. The amount offered was in line with its compensation policy. The landlord carried out further pest control into 2026. This appears to have resolved the infestation.

It is common for several treatments to be needed. It was appropriate to arrange repeat visits to ensure the issue was addressed. Complaint Transfer Request Finding No maladministration The resident applied for a transfer on the grounds of overcrowding. She provided the landlord with supporting evidence to show why this had particular impact on members of her household. The landlord has followed its housing transfer policy which requires it to carry out an assessment of the resident’s needs, including consideration of the supporting information provided.

It also provided evidence that the banding decision was signed off by 2 managers, as required by its policy.It awarded a high banding in line with its policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to contact her local council for advice about her alternative housing options. The council is responsible for assessment of whether her family meet statutory homelessness criteria. This can include consideration of overcrowding where it is severe enough to affect whether the accommodation is reasonable to occupy.

The landlord also suggested the resident consider the option of mutual exchange. This demonstrates it made her aware of alternatives to the transfer process, which it anticipated could involve a long wait due to demand. In her complaint, the resident asked the landlord to transfer her on the grounds the property was not safe, in addition to overcrowding. Those safety issues have been addressed under the other elements of her complaint. Complaint Staff Responsiveness Finding Reasonable redress The resident raised several estate management matters to the landlord.

She complained that a member of staff either did not respond or provided late or unhelpful responses, when she tried to contact it about various matters. The landlord accepted its service was below its expected standards. It apologised, offered £50 compensation, and arranged for a manager to contact the resident. These were appropriate and proportionate steps to put things right. It was also appropriate that the landlord did not share details of its internal discussions with staff, as these are internal employment matters.

The landlord has not changed the housing officer as requested by the resident. It is not always reasonable to expect landlords to do this. Landlords often assign staff to specific areas, as in this case. Terms and conditions of employment will be set out in a contractual agreement between a landlord and its staff, and it is for a landlord to decide how it allocates its resources. The landlord has provided reassurance that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and would address any similar staff issues in future.

It awarded £50 compensation, which was proportionate in the circumstances. The amount offered is consistent with our compensation guidance when there has been a loss of confidence and minor delays in getting matters resolved. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding No maladministration The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2022. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.

The landlord logged and acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 and 2 complaints in line with timescales in its policy and the Code. The landlord extended its response times at both stage 1 and 2. It informed the resident of these extensions and provided revised response deadlines in line with the Complaint Handling Code. Its communication meant the resident was aware of when to expect a response. While the overall timeframe was longer than the Code’s standard timescales, the landlord acted appropriately by keeping the resident updated and explaining the delay.

The landlord’s responses were thorough, empathetic and demonstrated it had identified the reasons for failures on its part. It identified appropriate resolutions in its complaint responses and demonstrated it had made effective use of the complaints process. Learning The landlord had to extend its complaint response timeframes at both stages. It may be helpful for it to consider how it allocates resources to the investigation of complaints, to ensure this is not a regular occurrence.

Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord demonstrated a good standard of record keeping. Communication The landlord acknowledged that its communication had not met the expected standard. It apologised, offered compensation, and arranged for a manager to contact the resident. This demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and provided a clear route for ongoing support. The resident is not clear as to whether the landlord has paid compensation it offered.

The landlord should confirm this to her. Its policy allows for compensation to be used to offset rent arrears. If it has done this it should provide her with a rent statement to show why this was necessary.