Notting Hill Genesis — case 202402004

Decision Case ID 202402004 Decision type Investigation Landlord Notting Hill Genesis Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Assured Tenancy Date 4 February 2026 Background During July 2023 the resident asked to be moved because she did not feel safe at her property. She is vulnerable due to past trauma and has medical diagnoses. What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s: response to the resident’s request to be moved handling of the associated complaint Our decision (determination) We found that there was: maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be moved reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons Resident’s request to be moved The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for a move in line with its lettings policy. It did not always respond to her communication. Handling of associated complaint The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint at both stages of the process was delayed. However, its offer of compensation to try to put things right was reasonable in the circumstances. 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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.

It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 04 March 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures in its response to her request to be moved. 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 any payments it has already paid. No later than 04 March 2026 3 Take specific action order The landlord should contact the resident to offer to meet with her.

It should offer to discuss any current support needs such as improving security at the property. It should write to her to confirm the outcome of their communication including any actions as agreed. No later than 04 March 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £100 for its complaint handling failures as offered in its stage 1 response if it has not already done so.

Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 2 May 2024 The resident emailed the landlord to say she was unhappy with the delay in moving her to another property. She said she was in danger. 17 May 2024 The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on her behalf to set out her dissatisfaction and asked it to investigate. 3 June 2024 The landlord emailed the MP to confirm it had approved a Band A management move. It said it had already informed the resident. 6 September 2024 We wrote to the landlord to say the resident had tried to raise a complaint about her request to move.

We asked it to respond by 13 September 2024. 13 September 2024 The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said: the resident was granted Band A priority and could start bidding it was sorry it had only responded to the MP’s enquiry it would respond to any future correspondence from the resident within its service standard it offered £100 compensation for its failure to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint 23 September 2024 The resident contacted the landlord to say she was unhappy with the amount of compensation.

23 December 2024 The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said: its offer of £100 was in line with its compensation policy it apologised that the resident had not received call backs in line with its service standards It offered £250 comprised of: – £100 for not responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint – £150 for not meeting service standards 25 February 2025 The resident emailed us to say she felt the compensation was not enough and she had not accepted it.

30 January 2025 During a call with us the resident said she was currently too ill to move and was concerned about the security of her front door. 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 Resident’s request to be moved Finding Maladministration The landlord’s lettings policy says it will award Band A priority to residents who face imminent personal risk which is life threatening by remaining in their home. On 24 July 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the outcome of their conversation earlier that day. It said it would try to assist her with her request for a move. It said once she returned the attached forms it would “fast track” her application for approval.

The landlord submitted a draft transfer approval form on 26 July 2023. The form refers to supporting evidence from professionals and states that the resident feared for her life. A note from the police dated 8 August 2023 confirmed that the resident reported she’d received threats and was vulnerable. The landlord’s email to the resident dated 24 August 2023 said it could not resubmit her transfer application. It’s unclear why this was necessary. The landlord’s response to us dated 19 January 2026 confirmed it failed to keep “accurate records” for the period between 26 July to 24 August 2023.

The landlord was therefore unable to demonstrate that it responded in line with its lettings policy. This includes whether it carried out an appropriate assessment of risk of harm. On 1 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say it had forwarded documents she provided to the housing team for them to consider. It said a request was made to the housing officer’s manager to call her as requested. There’s no evidence that the landlord considered the documents or returned the resident’s call which was inappropriate.

During March and April 2024 professionals submitted medical evidence to the landlord on behalf of the resident. On 2 May 2024 the resident emailed the landlord to say she’d provided information to support her transfer request and that she’d done the same the previous year. She said she was told the request would be considered by a panel but they needed further information. She said the landlord failed to consider her safety throughout the process. On 10 May 2024 the landlord submitted a management transfer request form for approval by the panel.

While this was positive there’s no evidence it updated the resident accordingly. It therefore failed to reassure her it was taking the situation seriously. The landlord’s inaction caused time and trouble to the resident who contacted her MP for assistance. The MP emailed the landlord on 16 May 2024 to ask for an update on the panel’s decision. On 29 May 2024 Band A priority was approved for the resident. On 30 May 2024 an application form was submitted to the landlord’s reciprocal housing scheme.

On 3 June 2024 the landlord emailed the MP to confirm that the resident’s request had been approved and she had been given Band A priority. It said she would be registered on its lettings system where she could bid for properties because she would need to look for homes herself. This was not in line with the landlord’s lettings policy which says where a resident is awarded Band A priority it will make one reasonable direct offer. It said it had already informed the resident.

This is disputed by the resident who said she was not told about the decision. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 September 2024 to say it had updated her MP on 3 June 2024. It did not refer to having also told her. It therefore provided no evidence to support its earlier position. It’s therefore our view that, on balance, the resident had not been updated before then. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 13 September 2024 said the resident had not bid on any properties. It confirmed it had provided her with all the information she needed and asked her to start bidding.

As set out above this was not in line with its lettings policy. The landlord’s file note of 9 December 2024 said it would contact her when a suitable property was found. While this was in line with its lettings policy, it was contrary to the information it had provided previously. By not following its lettings policy it may have delayed the resident being offered a suitable property. This was particularly inappropriate given her circumstances. Our dispute resolution principles are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right.

The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 23 December 2024 appropriately acknowledged that it had not always responded to the resident’s communication. While this was positive, it failed to also acknowledge the delays in its response to the resident’s request to move. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments over £100 are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident.

The landlord’s offer of compensation is not proportionate to the distress caused to the resident by its delays in progressing her request for a move. This was compounded by her vulnerability and her concerns about her safety. In ordering £400 compensation, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays, failure to comply with its lettings policy, and its communication failures. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Reasonable redress Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints.

The landlord aims to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It says it will issue its response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. The evidence shows that the resident tried to make a formal complaint herself on 2 May 2024. She made a further complaint via her MP on 17 May 2024. The landlord failed to provide a response to both complaints. It therefore failed to comply with both the Code and its policy.

Furthermore, it caused time and trouble to the resident who contacted us to ask for assistance. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 13 September 2024 appropriately acknowledged its failure and offered compensation to try to put things right. The landlord’s file note dated 23 September 2024 set out its call with the resident who did not want to accept the compensation and remained dissatisfied with its response. It acknowledged that the landlord arranged to meet with the resident on 3 October 2024.

This was cancelled due to her work commitments. It’s unclear if the meeting was rearranged. However, this does not account for the delay in the stage 2 complaint response which was issued on 23 December 2024. This was 65 working days after the complaint was first made and well outside the landlord’s timescales. Our remedies guidance sets out that payments of £100 and over are appropriate to put right failings where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident. Therefore the landlord’s offer of £100 for its complaint handling failures was in line with our guidance.

It was also in line with its compensation policy which says it will consider compensation where an issue has taken longer than expected. Therefore, this investigation considers that while the landlord’s complaint handling could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact on the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances. Learning In line with our dispute resolution principles the landlord should set out its learning from the complaint in its complaint responses.

In this case it could have set out what it will do differently to ensure it responds to all communication. Knowledge and information management (record keeping) The landlord has acknowledged that it had not kept accurate records for the entirety of the complaint. It should consider why this happened and what it will do differently. Communication The landlord acknowledged that it did not always respond to the resident’s communication.