Gentoo Group Limited (202422461)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202422461

Gentoo Group Limited

7 August 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. the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. the resident’s reports of asbestos in the property.
3. the resident’s reports of Antisocial Behaviour (ASB).
4. the resident’s request to be rehoused.
5. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has lived at the property since 2010 and in January 2014 became an assured tenant through succession of the property. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a mid-terrace property.
The resident raised reports of ASB from their neighbour in 2020 and 2021. On 29 April and 7 August 2023, they raised new incidents to the landlord of threatening behaviour from their neighbour. The resident wanted to be rehoused and for the backdoor to be repositioned from the alley to the rear of the property.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord inspected a part of the property for asbestos and sealed a gap in the ceiling. As part of a stock inspection, the landlord checked the property for damp and mould on 20 April and 18 May 2023. On both occasions, it identified and carried out a mould wash in the property. It completed a damp and mould inspection on 8 June 2023 and found that it needed to check behind the kitchen units and the bath panel.
On 15 October 2023 the resident raised concerns to the landlord that they did not trust previous asbestos surveys at the property. On 23 October 2023 the resident raised concerns about ASB to the landlord, and on 29 October 2023 raised a complaint about damp and mould. The resident wanted:
1. the asbestos checked across the property.
2. to be rehoused.
3. the damp and mould to be fixed.
4. the rear door to be repositioned from the alley to the rear of the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 6 November 2023. It said:
1. it did not support the resident’s request to be rehoused as a priority.
2. it arranged for a repair supervisor to assess the damp and mould on 10 November 2023.
3. previous surveys found no asbestos, so it had not arranged to assess the whole of the property.
4. it offered the resident victim support, and mediation with their neighbour.
On 8 November 2023 the resident disagreed with the stage 1 response. They said they wanted the damp and mould resolved, and all asbestos removed from the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. It chose to prioritise the resident’s request to be rehoused. It arranged to complete a mould wash behind the kitchen units, repair the external wall cavity and remedy damp proofing. It had not changed its response about asbestos in the property. It offered £50 compensation to the resident, as its appointments to repair damp and mould were outside its timescales and offered £50 compensation for how it handled the complaint.
On 9 April 2024 the resident contacted the landlord as they had not received the stage 2 response. The landlord provided a copy of the stage 2 response on 11 April 2024. On 13 August 2024 the resident made a new complaint to the landlord that damp and mould behind the kitchen units and appliances had not been treated. They were concerned that spores could have entered the oven.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 2 September 2024 and said it had not upheld the complaint. It said it washed down and repainted behind the units on 12 August 2024. The resident disagreed with the response on 9 September 2024. They said damp and mould behind the kitchen units and appliances were not remedied.
On 7 October 2024 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said it found repair work was needed to remedy the damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom. It confirmed it would not action a full property asbestos survey and reposition the rear door, without necessity. It confirmed a targeted asbestos survey was needed for the repair work.
The resident contacted this Service intermittently throughout their complaint journey with the landlord. The resident confirmed in March, July, and October 2024 that their complaint is about damp and mould, asbestos, ASB, their request to be rehoused and the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The resident wants support and assistance to be rehoused, for an independent asbestos survey at the property, for the door positioned in the alley to be moved to the rear of the property, and for the damp and mould to be resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident complained about their request to be rehoused due to safety concerns, and for their request to be considered as a priority within the landlord’s banding system. The resident also queried the local authority banding system in correspondence with the landlord.
The landlord’s allocations policy says it allocates some of its properties in accordance with nominations agreed with the local authority and referred through the local authority waiting list. The policy says that banding systems for lettings incorporates nomination agreements with the local authority.
Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996) sets out what local authorities must consider for the prioritisation and allocation of housing. This Service can consider complaints about applications outside of Part 6, but not complaints that fall within it. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) can review complaints about applications for rehousing that fall under Part 6. This can include complaints about local authorities banding.
Based on the information available, the resident’s request for their rehousing application to be considered as a priority likely falls within Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996), and we cannot investigate it. The resident’s complaint for their rehousing request to be prioritised with the housing association, and any concerns about the local authorities banding, is likely better suited to the LGSCO.
However, this Service can consider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling and response to their request to be rehoused, and whether it followed its policies and procedures.
The resident said there was damp and mould in the property since the start of the tenancy. It is not possible for this Service to conduct a thorough and effective investigation of events dating back that far. The Ombudsman will only consider complaints which have been raised within a reasonable time of the events occurring. Therefore, this investigation will consider events from October 2022 (12 months before the resident’s complaint).

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

On 8 June 2023 a contractor assessed damp and mould in the property, where it found it needed to check behind the kitchen units and bathroom panels.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will take account of investigations into damp and mould, as well as previous complaints and reports about it, to identify root causes.
The landlord’s damp and mould process says:
1. it will determine the priority of reports of damp and mould.
  1. if considered a slight priority, a damp and mould team will attend within 10 working days and complete remedial action within 28 working days.
  2. if considered a moderate to severe priority, an inspector will attend within 10 working days, and complete remedial action within 28 working days.
The landlord arranged for a joiner and inspector to check behind the kitchen units and panels on 26 October 2023. The inspector did not attend, although the joiner found mould in the property. The landlord had taken over 4 months to check behind the units and panels. This was inappropriate, and not in line with its policy.
On 29 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord that an inspector had not assessed the damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom. On 2 November 2023 the landlord requested a date to assess the damp and mould. This was unreasonable, as it had already found damp and mould in the property and had not set out a plan of action to remedy it.
On 10 November 2023 the contractor attended the property to assess the damp and mould but was not able to enter the property to do so. It visited again on 16 November 2023. It recommended to remove the units in the kitchen so it could wash the damp and mould, treat the walls, clear the wall cavity, and ensure it was damp proofed. It did not assess the bathroom wall.
It was reasonable for the landlord to consider actions to remedy the issue in the kitchen, although it had not categorised the severity of the damp and mould to ensure the correct tradesperson assessed it, such as the damp and mould team or inspector. It also had not set out any remedial works or further assessment for the damp and mould in the bathroom. This was unreasonable and not in line with its damp and mould policy.
On 22 January 2024 the contractor visited the property to wash and treat the damp and mould behind the kitchen units. On 29 January 2024 the contractor completed work on the external wall cavity. It was reasonable the landlord followed recommendations in attempt to remedy the damp and mould, although it had taken 2 months to complete remedial action. The time it had taken to remedy the issue was outside of the 28-day timescale in its damp and mould policy. This was inappropriate.
On 31 July 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about damp and mould behind the oven and washing machine. On 12 August 2024 the contractor assessed the damp and mould, washed it and treated the walls behind these appliances. It was reasonable for the landlord to attend within 10 working days and attempt to remedy the issue, in line with its policies.
However, the landlord did not categorise the severity of the damp and mould to determine the preferred tradesperson to assess it. This was inappropriate and not in line with its policy.
The resident complained on 13 August 2024 about mould spores in the oven. Following this, the landlord arranged for an inspection of the damp and mould on 17 September 2024. The inspection found the landlord needed to complete repair works to the kitchen wall, which it arranged for 11 November 2024. The delay to inspect the damp and mould and arrange repair works was outside of the timescales of the damp and mould policy. This was inappropriate.
On 24 September 2024 the resident told the landlord the bathroom and kitchen shared the same wall. It asked the landlord to fix the bathroom wall the same way it planned to fix the kitchen wall. On 7 October 2024 a contractor confirmed the bathroom wall required repair works.
The landlord had found damp and mould in the bathroom a year prior in October 2023, but there was no repair works that followed. It had taken the resident to prompt the landlord about the damp and mound in the bathroom, before it confirmed the repair work needed. This was not in line with the timescales set out in its damp and mould policy. This was unreasonable.
The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 7 October 2024. In its complaint responses, it apologised the resident had to report damp and mould issues and for its delay to respond. It recognised it had not kept within its timeframes when it booked appointments to assess and repair damp and mould on 22 and 29 January 2024. In total it offered £50 compensation as it had not kept to the timescales outlined in its damp and mould policy for remedial work.
When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered had put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we determine whether the landlord’s offer and commitments to remedy issues, have been in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In summary, the landlord apologised for the delay to assess and arrange some repairs for the damp and mould. It offered £50 for the appointments it booked outside of its damp and mould timescales. But the landlord had not recognised:
1. it had not followed its policy to categorise and prioritise the damp and mould to understand the type of assessment or inspection it required, and the remedial action needed.
2. it had not kept within its timescales to assess reports of damp and mould and remedy it, which caused delay.
3. it had taken a year to set out repairs needed in the bathroom, which the resident had to prompt the landlord to do.
4. learnings to categorise damp and mould in line with its policy, to direct an appropriate response and prevent delay to remedy the issue.
Considering this, we find there has been maladministration in its handling of the reports of damp and mould.
The landlord offered £50 to the resident for the damp and mould. But this was not proportionate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the issues listed above. Taking account of our remedies guidance, a fair way to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, is for the landlord to pay the resident a total of £300. It can deduct the £50 it previously offered if this has already been paid to the resident.
Since the final response, the resident told the landlord not to complete repair works until this Service provides a determination. The landlord assured the resident to allow the work to continue and it would also comply with any additional orders this Service makes.
The landlord should write to the resident and set out its action plan for repair works for the damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom, which should then be adhered to.

The resident’s reports of asbestos in the property

On 15 October 2023 the resident requested an asbestos survey throughout the property, as they did not trust previous inspections. On 4 November 2023 the resident raised further concern about asbestos in the property.
In the landlord’s complaint response on 6 November 2023, it said previous asbestos surveys had not found issues in the property. It offered to sample test the resident’s areas of concern in the property. The resident did not accept this offer, as they wanted the whole property surveyed.
The landlord’s asbestos policy confirms it would only complete a targeted survey for asbestos when making changes to the property. The landlord made a fair, discretionary offer to sample parts of the property the resident was concerned about.
The landlord provided its final response about asbestos on 7 December 2023. It reiterated previous surveys had not found asbestos and offered to sample any areas the resident wanted checked. It explained that any scheduled work to the property that may cause disturbance would have a targeted asbestos survey. This was reasonable and in line with its policies.
Considering the above, we find no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of asbestos. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and offered to inspect the property in line with its policies.

The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB)

On 26 April 2023 the resident reported to the police that their neighbour had been threatening toward them whilst outside their property on 9 April 2023.
On 29 April 2023 the resident reported their neighbour’s ASB to the landlord and local council within the same email. The resident told the landlord and council that the neighbour had also installed an outdoor auto-tracking camera.
The landlord’s ASB policy says:
1. it will respond to ASB reports within 1 working day.
2. it will assess the risk and vulnerability of the person reporting the ASB and provide a main contact who will update them with any developments.
3. it will work with external agencies, like the police and local council, to act where the alleged perpetrator is not the landlord’s tenant.
4. where the landlord is unable to act, it will explain this to the resident.
5. it can use various tools, such as internal and external victim support.
The landlord contacted the resident on 25 May 2023 to discuss the ASB. The landlord had not responded to the resident’s report of ASB within 1 working day and it had not assessed the risk involved. This was inappropriate and a failure to follow its policy.
The landlord had not considered the email from the resident to both the landlord and the council about ASB, and whether it had since taken a multi-agency approach with the council to ensure the ASB was addressed. It had also not told the resident what actions it could take to remedy the issue. This was not in line with its policies and a failure of its service to the resident.
On 5 occasions between 7 August and 13 November 2023, the resident reraised concerns about the ASB from April 2023. The resident asked to be rehoused and for the alley door to be moved to the rear of the property.
On 6 occasions between 21 September and 13 November 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about ASB.
The landlord confirmed that it would not move the alley door and change the structure of the property unless it was necessary to do so. The landlord’s repair policy confirms it is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, like a door. The residents request to reposition the alley door was not because of a repair. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord explained to the resident why it would not move the door to the rear of the property.
The landlord said it had engaged with external parties like the police, and it offered to refer the resident to its victim support team and external agencies for mental wellbeing support. It offered a video doorbell, mediation, and encouraged the resident to report new ASB incidents. The resident accepted the landlord’s offer of a video doorbell.
It was reasonable that the landlord offered ASB support in line with its policy. But this was some months after the ASB was reported and after the resident continued to raise it. The delay was therefore unreasonable.
The landlord sent its final response about the ASB complaint on 7 December 2023. In its complaint responses, it offered the resident support, a video doorbell, and apologised for the impact the ASB had. Its compensation policy says it considers redress on a discretionary basis, and it chose not to make an offer. While the landlord took some steps to address the resident’s reports of ASB it did not recognise that:
1. it had not responded to the residents ASB report within 1 working day and assessed the risk.
2. it had not provided a point of contact to explain what actions or support the landlord could offer in line with its ASB policy.
3. it had delayed its offer of ASB support to the resident for 5 months.
4. it had not recognised learnings from the failings above.
Considering this, we find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB.
Considering our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay £300 compensation to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the above failures.

The resident’s request to be rehoused

On 29 April 2023 the resident reported their neighbour’s ASB to the landlord and local council within the same email. They said they were living in fear and felt unsafe. They wanted to be moved.
The landlord’s allocation policy says:
1. it will assess whether housing applicants have an urgent need to move, such as severe harassment and being at risk if not rehoused.
2. it can consider housing allocations based on serious risk to the resident or detrimental impact to a resident’s health and wellbeing, which is approved on a discretionary basis by its head of operations or above.
3. the applicant will assess their own needs and be actively involved identifying a property that suits them.
It is unclear within the landlord’s allocation policy what information it may need to support the resident’s request for a managed move and what timescales it may hold itself to when responding to the request. From the landlord’s allocation policy, it has discretion to understand a resident’s request for a managed move, and whether it would approve it.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond to the resident within a realistic and prompt timeframe about their request for a managed move, considering they felt unsafe in the property. However, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request until 25 May 2023. The time taken for the landlord to respond to the resident was unreasonable in the circumstances.
On 25 May 2023 the landlord asked the resident what area they wanted to move to, although the line was unclear, and the call ended. The resident contacted the landlord about their request to be moved again on 16 June, 30 July and 9 September 2023. The landlord had not proactively contacted the resident to understand their request to be moved and whether this was urgent. This was unreasonable and not in line with its policy to assess the urgency of the rehousing request.
On 9 September 2023 the resident told the landlord they had asked police to endorse their rehousing request. The landlord responded to the resident on 14 September 2023 and confirmed it was in touch with the police about this. It contacted the resident again a week later and arranged an appointment to discuss their request for a managed move. This was appropriate to assess the urgency of the rehousing request in line with the landlord’s allocation policy.
The landlord told the resident on 20 October 2023 that the police had not endorsed their request to be moved, and it would therefore not complete a housing needs assessment. It is unclear when the landlord told the resident it would require endorsement from the police, before completing a housing needs assessment. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to gather evidence from external parties to better understand the resident’s situation and the risks involved as part of their assessment of their request to be rehoused.
The resident made a complaint about their request to be rehoused on 23 October 2023.
On 7 December 2023 the landlord confirmed in its final response that it made the discretionary decision to support the resident’s request for a managed move, due to the impact on the resident’s wellbeing. It was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident about its decision in line with its policy. However, it had taken over 7 months for the landlord to assess the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing. The delay was unreasonable and not in line with its allocations policy.
After the final response, the landlord had contacted the resident with different housing options before they were advertised. It signposted to alternative housing providers and registered the resident with housing at the local authority. It also discussed the resident’s circumstances to ensure it was aware of the property requirements, and the resident’s preferred area to be rehoused.
While the landlord took some steps to respond to the resident’s request for rehousing in line with its policies, it did not respond within a reasonable time to the resident’s initial request to be rehoused and took 7 months to assess the impact on their health and wellbeing. The landlord did not fully acknowledge these delays in its complaint responses. We have therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
Considering our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £200 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
Given the resident’s ongoing concerns, it would be reasonable for the landlord to write to the resident to confirm it has an up to date understanding of their housing needs and preferred areas to be rehoused.

The associated complaint

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) that was in place when the resident first raised their complaint, landlords must ensure they had:
1. acknowledged a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
2. responded to the complaint within 10 working days.
  1. if an extension was needed, it communicated the timescale to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. the response should confirm whether it is the landlord’s stage 1 response.
3. where additional complaints are raised during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage 1 response.
4. if the resident requested a stage 2 response, it should provide the final response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  1. if an extension was needed, it explains this to the resident, and that it was no longer than a further 10 working days.
  2. if it needs a longer extension, both parties should agree it.
The landlord’s policy at the time of the complaint was aligned with the Code.
The resident complained about ASB on 23 October 2023. The landlord acknowledged this complaint the next day. This was reasonable and in line with its policy and the Code.
The resident complained about damp and mould on 29 October 2023 and told this Service of their complaint about asbestos on 30 October 2023. We notified the landlord of this on 31 October 2023. The landlord incorporated the resident’s additional complaints into the stage 1 response. This was reasonable and in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord had until 7 November 2023 to provide the stage 1 response. It provided its stage 1 response on 6 November 2023. This was reasonable and in line with its policy and the Code.
The resident disagreed with the complaint outcome on 8 November 2023. The landlord provided the stage 2 response on 7 December 2023. The landlord offered £50 in compensation for the confusion caused during the complaints process by multiple members of staff contacting the resident. This was a reasonable response.
On 9 April 2024 the resident told the landlord they had not received the stage 2 response. The landlord sent a copy on 11 April 2024 and told the resident on 12 April 2024 that the response was originally sent in the post. The resident told the landlord on 24 May 202 that they were unhappy the stage 2 response was sent in the post as they did not receive it. The landlord apologised for this on the same date and explained that future responses in the post would be sent using recorded delivery.
The landlord followed its procedures by posting the stage 2 response to the resident. It assured the resident further responses would be sent out via recorded delivery. This was reasonable.
The resident raised a new complaint about damp and mould on 13 August 2024. New complaint handling guidance outlined in the Code had been published by this time and has been considered when assessing this complaint period.
Both the resident’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaints regarding damp and mould were acknowledged within 5 working days of him raising the matter with the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 September 2024. This was within 10 working days of its acknowledgement on 19 August 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 7 October 2024. This was within 20 working days of its acknowledgement on 9 September 2024. The landlord’s response times for the damp mould complaint were reasonable and in line with its policy and the Code.
The landlord’s responses can be said to have put some things right for the resident. It apologised and offered £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused for its complaint handling. It also committed to sending responses in the post using recorded delivery.
Considering this, we find there has been reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Taking account of our remedies guidance, the £50 offered by the landlord is fair to overall recognise the complaint handling failures. The landlord should pay this to the resident, if it has not done so already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders

Within 28 days from the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to:
  1. apologise for the failings outlined in this report and set out how it will learn from these to prevent them recurring in the future.
  2. set out its action plan for repair works for the damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom, which should then be adhered to.
  3. provide an up to date understanding of their housing needs and preferred areas to be rehoused.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £800, broken down as follows:
  1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of damp and mould (this amount is inclusive of the £50 offered in the stage 2 response dated 7 December 2023 – if this amount has already been paid, £250 remains due to the resident)..
  2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of ASB.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its handling of their rehousing request.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days from the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £50 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for its complaint handling (this was offered to the resident in the stage 2 response dated 7 December 2023 – if this amount has already been paid, no further payment is due to the resident).
2. Provide the resident with a copy of his tenancy agreement.