Gentoo Group Limited (202307324)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307324

Gentoo Group Limited

19 December 2024

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 response to the resident’s concerns about
1. The planned rewiring works and replacement kitchen.
2. Asbestos.
3. Conduct of staff.
4. The damage caused to personal belongings.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 25 March 2013. The landlord said it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It did acknowledge that during the complaint process it was made aware that the resident was dyslexic and suffered with attention deficit disorder.
On 12 December 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said:
1. She had been left with less kitchen units than before the kitchen renewal. A kitchen unit had been damaged, and her carbon monoxide detector had been stolen.
2. She felt that communication regarding the kitchen plans was inadequate as the plans were provided in black and white and should have been in colour as she suffers with dyslexia.
3. One of the sockets following the re-wire had an orange spark.
4. Her personal belongings had been damaged during the works. These included her sofa, blinds, fridge, carpets, wardrobe and a limited-edition picture.
5. During the works contractors had been entering her property unannounced and urinating over her bathroom floor. The contractors had also been talking about her in a derogatory way to neighbours.
6. She was dissatisfied that the loft insulation and boards were removed.
7. There were cracks in the plaster on the walls.
8. She did not consider the asbestos was handled safely.
On 31 January 2023, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. In summary it said:
1. It had installed a larger kitchen wall unit following the resident’s concerns about the size of the corner unit that was due to be installed. The kitchen had been fitted to the design and the resident would not be losing kitchen units as the cubic capacity was the same as the previous kitchen.
2. In respect of asbestos following surveys, it had concluded that no asbestos was present. Following concerns made by the resident it did instruct its asbestos removal team to remove the flooring under controlled conditions. This was agreed to alleviate stress for the resident. There was no risk to health and safety at any time due to no asbestos being present.
3. Delays were caused to the kitchen works due to no access. Further delays were because the loft boarding needed to be removed to facilitate the works. It had been unable to gain access initially to check the concerns raised relating to the plaster. It had now completed an inspection and the work to the plaster had been completed.
4. It was sorry to hear that the resident was dissatisfied with the conduct of its contractors.
5. It had advised the resident to complete a claim form in respect of damage to belongings so that it could investigate the matter further.
6. It was aware that an incident had taken place between the resident and its contractors because the loft was left without being boarded. Following this it was agreed that future visits to work in the property would be completed by 2 members of staff.
On 7 February 2023, the resident requested that the matter be escalated to stage 2. She said she remained dissatisfied with the following:
1. She disagreed that she had the same amount of storage in her kitchen.
2. She is unhappy that the contractors let themselves into her property particularly when she was in the shower.
3. She has not heard anything in relation to her compensation claim for damaged items.
4. She was unhappy that she had been accused of swearing at staff. She said this was a frustrated response due to the lack of help given to prepare for the works.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. In summary it said:
1. It had visited the resident at home with its surveyor on 25 April 2023 to discuss the complaint. It listed the repairs that it had agreed to complete during the visit.
2. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused by the intrusive works. It explained the work was necessary to ensure that it kept the resident safe in her home.
3. The kitchen was the same cubic capacity in terms of the cupboard storage.
4. In relation to the socket placement this was necessary due to the location of the joists and furniture which it was unable to move.
5. It was aware that the resident had completed an insurance claim form which needed to be assessed. The resident had not however provided costs for items and refused access to enable it to view the damage to drawers and wardrobes.
6. It had agreed to arrange for the resident’s carpet and sofa to be cleaned as a gesture of goodwill.
7. It had arranged for the resident’s fridge freezer to be looked at which found that the markings were not impacting the performance of the fridge, and it was working as it should be. It had also found no evidence that the damage had been caused by its contractors.

Post complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. She said she wanted reimbursement for the damaged items. She wanted the landlord to recognise her disabilities and act accordingly. She also wanted the landlord to reconnect the light in the loft and install the boards and insulation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about planned rewiring works and replacement kitchen.

The Decent Homes Standard, a standard for social housing introduced by the UK government, advises that properties should have reasonably modern facilities such as kitchens, bathrooms, and windows. The landlord’s obligations therefore include repair or replacement of old components where this is considered required.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point such modernisations are required, as this Service considers that the landlord, its staff, and contractors are best qualified to determine whether components are still functional and fit for purpose and when repairs or replacement are required.
When this Service spoke to the resident in December 2024. She said that loft insulation had only just been reinstated 2 months ago. While the resident’s concerns about this matter are acknowledged, this element of her complaint has not yet been raised and considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Her concerns relating to the removal of the insulation and the loft boarding has however been considered as it was raised during the complaint process.
Paragraph 42(a) of the scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. The resident has therefore been advised to raise these concerns with the landlord in the first instance.
It is acknowledged that there were a considerable number of issues reported during the period leading up to, during and after the complaint. The landlord also visited the resident and spoke to her on the phone during the complaint process. While this was appropriate to clarify the issues. The records provided to this Service have not fully explained what the landlord discussed with the resident. That it does not is a record keeping failing. This has made it difficult for this Service to fully establish the issues the resident was concerned about.
Record keeping is core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. Furthermore, it enables the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The resident said that she had less storage in her kitchen after the new kitchen had been refitted. The landlord addressed her concerns within its stage 1 response. It said that it had at the resident’s request installed a larger wall unit during the kitchen re-fit. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord was listening to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord said that the kitchen had been fitted to design and the cubic capacity was the same as the previous kitchen. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable in the circumstances. It had fulfilled its obligation to replace its old components. It had fitted the kitchen to the design, and it was reasonable for it to rely on its surveyor’s advice in respect of the cubic capacity.
The landlord failed however to address the resident’s concerns about its communication regarding the kitchen plans. The records provided to this Service do not show how it communicated with the resident during the planning phase of the kitchen. The landlord failed therefore to evidence that it had done all it could to ensure works had been clearly communicated to the resident. That it had not was a failing and a missed opportunity to put matters right.
The resident had also raised concerns that one of the kitchen units was damaged and that her carbon monoxide detector was stolen. The landlord failed to address these concerns within its response which is a further failing in its handling of the matter.
In respect of the rewire the resident reported a concern with the plug socket sparking. The landlord raised an emergency repair. This was appropriate as the records do not show that it was aware of this issue prior to the complaint. When this Service spoke to the resident in December 2024. The resident said the landlord had attended previously but she still had issues with her plug socket sparking. It is unclear whether the landlord had been put on notice that there was still an issue. The resident has been informed that she will need to raise the repair with her landlord directly. A recommendation has also been made in respect of this below.
The landlord visited the resident prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response. Which was appropriate. During the visit, the resident raised concerns about where some of the plug sockets had been placed. The landlord explained that the position had been determined by where joists were situated and furniture that could not be moved. Its response was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it is unclear whether it communicated this to the resident during the works as the records fail to show this. This is a further record keeping failure.
The landlord failed to set out its position in respect of the removal of the loft insulation and boarding and the cracks in the plaster board. This was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
In summary this Service considers there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns. Its record keeping failed to show that it had communicated effectively with the resident. In particular it failed to document its discussions with the resident during the complaint process. The lack of records hindered this Service’s ability to fully assess what the issues were. The landlord also failed to address several issues that had been raised by the resident. The resident had to spend time and effort pursuing her complaint further because she had not received an adequate response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos

The resident was concerned that the asbestos in her kitchen floor was not removed safely. This Service has not had sight of any records to show what was agreed in respect of removing the flooring. The landlord states in its stage 1 response that a survey had been completed. It said that and further testing confirmed that there was no asbestos present.
The landlord said that it had agreed with the resident to remove the flooring under controlled conditions to alleviate stress to the resident as she continued to remain concerned. This was reasonable and it showed that the landlord was listening to the resident and taking her concerns seriously.
The resident advised this Service that she had not seen a copy of the survey report. Given her concerns this Service considers it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide copies of the relevant surveys or provide a written explanation of its findings to confirm its position. That it did not was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
The resident also told this Service that only part of her flooring had been removed and she did not understand why. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to set out its position relative to removal of the flooring. This has been considered in the orders below.
In summary this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos. The landlord took the appropriate action by completing surveys and tests. It put in place precautions to remove the floor because of the resident’s concerns. It did not however show that it had communicated its findings and clearly set out to the resident that there was no asbestos present.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about conduct of staff

The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
The landlord said it was sorry that the resident had felt that its contractors had not conducted themselves appropriately. It said that its contractors were committed in supporting residents through the work. It then referred to an incident that had taken place where the resident had used offensive language. While this Service acknowledges that there had been issues between the resident and its contractors. It should have had a more balanced approach to the issues within its complaint response. Its response did not foster a good landlord tenant relationship. Furthermore, it was a missed opportunity for the landlord to put matters right at an early stage. This caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
The resident raised her concerns again in her stage 2 request. The landlord’s stage 2 response failed to address the concerns which was a further missed opportunity. By failing to consider what went wrong it failed to put things right. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s contractor without receiving a detailed response.
This Service considers the above failings amount to maladministration. The resident had to spend time and effort pursuing her complaint further. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damage to her personal belongings

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it does not accept complaints about damage to personal property unless it has been caused by something it has done. It said that if personal property had been damaged due to its negligence it would offer information on how to submit a public liability claim.
The resident advised this Service that she had made an insurance claim for her personal possessions however, this was not accepted. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the outcome of the insurance claim as this Service can only consider the actions of the landlord, and the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction over the landlord’s insurers.
The landlord said within its stage 1 response that the resident had been advised to complete a claim form and it would investigate the issues. This was appropriate. Within its stage 2 response the landlord said the claim form had been submitted but costs for items had not been provided. It also said that the resident refused access to enable it to review the damage to the drawers and wardrobe. The response however does not clearly explain what this means and whether on this basis it is unable to consider the claim. The landlord should have clearly set out the position for the resident within its response. That it did not was a failing.
The landlord’s agreement to clean the carpet and sofa was appropriate. Its action of inspecting the fridge freezer was also appropriate. Although this Service acknowledges that the resident’s version of events relative to the damaged fridge are different. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its specialist engineer in respect of the damage to the resident’s fridge.
In summary the landlord had appropriately directed the resident on how to make a claim for the damage to her belongings. By way of resolution, it reasonably offered to clean the resident’s carpet and sofa. Its stage 2 response however was vague in what the outcome of the claim was or whether the resident needed to do anything further to progress the claim. This failing amounts to a service failure. This has caused the resident uncertainty of what if any action she needs to take. Furthermore, it caused the resident further time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy gives ten working days for a stage one complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage two response. The landlord took 34 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 request made on 12 December 2022. It took 65 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 request made on 7 February 2023. This was not in accordance with its own policy and a failing in its complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident in particular the resident’s concerns about:
1. Damage to her kitchen cupboard
2. The missing carbon monoxide alarm
3. Its communication of the kitchen plans.
4. Cracks on the walls.
This was a failing but also a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
The stage 1 and 2 complaint responses did not show a meaningful assessment of how the landlord had handled the issues. It was unclear what records it had relied upon to satisfy itself that it had done all it could. The responses were vague and demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. By failing to consider what went wrong it failed to put things right. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s handling of the issues, without receiving a detailed response.
This Service considers the above failings amount to maladministration. The resident had to spend time and effort pursuing her complaint further. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about planned re-wiring and replacement kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about conduct of staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about damage to her personal belongings.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £725 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about planned re-wiring works and kitchen replacement.
  2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about conduct of staff.
  4. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her personal belongings.
  5. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to set out its position relating to the following:
1. What vulnerabilities it has recorded for the resident including any required reasonable adjustments
2. The missing carbon monoxide detector and damaged kitchen unit.
3. The removal of the boarding and the insulation in the loft.
4. The resident’s concerns about cracks in the walls.
5. The outcome of the asbestos surveys and tests completed.
6. The removal of any remaining flooring.
7. The outcome of any claims for the resident’s personal belongings. It should include whether the resident is required to take further action to progress the claim and if so what.
A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord contacts the resident to determine if there are still issues with the plug sockets and if appropriate raise any repairs.
The landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to raise a formal complaint to investigate its handling of the reinstatement of the loft insulation.