Gentoo Group Limited (202229870)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229870

Gentoo Group Limited

5 April 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:
1. Handling of reports of leaks from the resident’s kitchen sink.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom semi-detached house. The tenancy initially began in February 2020 but was later amended to start in July 2020. The landlord has explained that it amended the tenancy start date as the resident experienced leaks and water ingress at the beginning of the tenancy.
The resident reported numerous leaks from the pipes behind her kitchen unit from March 2020 until January 2023. On 13 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours team to report a severe leak in the property. The landlord attended the property to fix the leak on 13 December 2022, and on various dates from 17 December 2022 until 25 January 2023.
The resident made a formal complaint on 2 February 2023. In summary, she stated as follows:
1. Since she moved into the property 3 years ago there had been issues with the pipes underneath the sink leaking water and she did not believe the plumbers that attended the property were adequately qualified.
2. In December 2022, she had a severe leak. The pipes burst overnight and the downstairs of her property was flooded. All her flooring and carpet were severely damaged.
3. The landlord misunderstood the severity of the problem and sent someone with a ‘Henry Hoover’ to fix the problem. She was not provided with a dehumidifier as promised and the landlord did not offer to rehouse her and her small children even though the house was uninhabitable.
4. She and her family were left without a home for 6 weeks while she was waiting for her house to dry out and for her insurance company to replace her flooring and carpets. She still paid rent for the property during this time.
5. The very same day she moved back into the property, the pipes burst again and the newly fitted floors were drenched. She spent her own money buying paint and trying to replenish the walls and skirting boards and the landlord did not offer any decorating vouchers.
6. She was informed after she rang the out of hours office regarding a leak that she would be charged for a plumber attending the property if it was not an uncontainable leak.
7. The plumber advised her that the pipes were tightened as a temporary measure but they needed to be reinstalled as they were loose and would continue to leak in time. She was yet to receive a date for when her new kitchen would be fitted and she could not get the pipes fixed until she had a date for the kitchen to be fitted.
8. The level of communication from the landlord and its contractors was of very poor standard.
9. The landlord should have offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 February 2023 and issued a stage 1 response on 2 March 2023. In its stage 1 response, in summary it stated as follows:
1. It received the resident’s complaint on 3 February 2023 regarding an ongoing issue with leaking pipes under her kitchen sink. The resident submitted a claim through her home contents insurance for the excessive damage caused to her property because of the leak in December 2022.
2. The insurance claim was a lengthy process and the resident chose to reside at her parent’s home during this period. The resident returned home on 9 January 2023 and on the same day, the pipes leaked again and caused damage to her newly laid flooring, as well as to the kitchen units.
3. The resident felt let down by the service she received from the emergency out of hours repairs line.
4. It apologised for the upset and distress which the situation had caused the resident. It explained that emergency call outs were for uncontainable water leaks and so the advice of the out of hours team was in line with its policy.
5. There was an outstanding joinery repair to assess the resident’s kitchen units for water damage; she was advised that the joinery and plumbing repairs would need to be scheduled alongside each other if the kitchen units were to be replaced. This was because the pipes were partly covered by the kitchen carcass units and any pipework refitting would need the kitchen carcass units to be removed.
6. The joiner attended on 1 February 2023 to assess the resident’s kitchen units. Following the visit, the joiner advised that they would discuss her case with the repair manager regarding replacing the units.
7. Regarding the resident’s concerns over the lack of communication for the potential kitchen unit replacements, it apologised and stated that a structured approach would be required to ensure the joinery and plumbing repairs could be completed in synchronisation. In addition, it arranged for its staff to attend on 17 February 2023 to assess the kitchen units to ensure the required supplies could be ordered.
8. All kitchen units would be replaced as a goodwill gesture. An external order had been submitted to a subcontractor to stock the supplies for the kitchen replacement and the timescales for the units to be sourced depended upon the manufacturing times of its contractors. However, it had been requested as a priority case due to the resident’s circumstances.
9. It apologised for the timescales for the repairs to be completed and the number of leaks the resident had in her kitchen and said it had ensured that her concerns over collaborative working between various repair trades had been raised with senior management.
10. It stated that while it was still investigating the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and requesting for her case to be progressed as a priority, she had requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its process.
The resident’s escalation request stated that she had not received a date for the fitting of her kitchen units and no one had attended the property to assess the pipework underneath the kitchen sink. She also requested for compensation for stress and inconvenience that she had experienced.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalated complaint on 6 March 2023 and issued its final response on 29 March 2023. In summary, it stated as follows:
1. The resident was dissatisfied with the issues experienced due to a leak under the kitchen sink, as well as the time taken for renewal of her kitchen units due to water damage. It agreed that the timelines had been unsatisfactory and it apologised for the delays in service.
2. It agreed that the damaged kitchen units would be renewed on 14 April 2023, providing the date was convenient for the resident.
The resident contacted this Service on 31 March 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint as she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response. She requested compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident stated that she has experienced issues with leaks in the property since her tenancy began from March 2020. This Service has seen evidence of more than 10 repair appointments from 6 March 2020 to 30 March 2022 which related to leaks from her kitchen.
Under Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from December 2022 onward, which prompted the complaint that the resident brought to this Service.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks from the resident’s kitchen sink.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. Put things right, and;
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right.’
The landlord’s repair policy states it has a statutory duty to carry out repairs to pipes, basins, sinks, toilet, etc. Each job will have a priority allocated to it which reflects its degree of urgency. It is expected that all urgent, routine, or planned repairs, including any measurement, pre-inspection and making good, is carried out within the priority timescale.
The landlord’s repair records show it attended the property on an emergency repair on 13 December 2022 after reports of an uncontainable leak. This was reasonable and in accordance with its repairs policy. The repair records show it subsequently attended the property on 17 December 2022, 9 January 2023, 11 January 2023, and 25 January 2023 conducting various repairs in relation to the leak from the resident’s kitchen.
It is unclear from the records why so many visits were required, what specific actions were performed during each visit and why the issue persisted despite multiple visits. The landlord has a duty to keep adequate records of repairs. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
In this case, although the landlord attended the property on multiple occasions it is difficult to comment on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable because we do not know what happened at each visit and if the landlord investigated the resident’s reports of leaks properly. This Service finds there was a failure by the landlord regarding its record keeping and we will be making a recommendation regarding this at the end of the report.
Despite the landlord’s multiple visits to the property, the resident was not updated on the plan regarding what repairs would be completed and when. After one of the visits above, a plumber advised the resident that the pipes needed to be reinstalled as they were loose and so the leak would continue. The resident was understandably worried about the leaks causing another flood. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide some reassurance by informing her promptly about the date for repairs and how it thought its repairs plan would provide a long-term fix to what had been a consistent issue for the resident. This was a failing by the landlord and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The level of communication with the resident regarding the repair was poor and not in line with what this Service would expect. For example, there was no communication from the landlord regarding when dehumidifiers would be supplied or when the repairs would be completed after the resident’s initial repair request in December 2022, until her formal complaint in February 2023. This would have likely left her feeling unsupported and distressed.
Throughout the complaint, the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates and on multiple occasions explained the impact that the leaks had on her and her family. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and regularly updates them on the progress of the repairs.
The landlord eventually fixed the leak in April 2023, more than 3 months after the resident reported the latest leaks in the property. The landlord did not provide any explanation as to why there had been multiple leaks in the resident’s property and did not sufficiently consider the impact of the leaks on the resident and her family.
Given the history of leaks and the resident’s reports of severe damage to her possessions, this delay was unreasonable and would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. While the Ombudsman understands that delays can occur when trying to locate and repair complex leaks, landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of leaks are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord’s response in this case did not do so.
The landlord offered to change the resident’s entire kitchen unit and made apologies. This Service acknowledges that this was an attempt to ‘put things right’. However, considering the delays in fixing the issue of the leak in the resident’s kitchen and how long the problem had existed, the poor level of communication and inconvenience the resident accrued with regards to painting and decorating, the landlord’s apologies and kitchen units’ decision was insufficient and cannot be considered as reasonable redress.
This Service would have expected the landlord to be more proactive in resolving this ongoing issue of leaks in the resident’s property and to have kept the resident informed regarding when the repairs would be completed. The delays in solving the problem of leaks and the poor level of communication would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. This amounts to service failings by the landlord. This Service will be making an order for compensation to reflect these failings.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that stage 1 complaint responses should be issued in 10 working days. The resident made her complaint on 3 February 2023 and the landlord replied on 3 March 2023. The response was 10 days out of time. Furthermore, the landlord did not address this delay in its stage 1 complaint response. This was a failing and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to these. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in completing the repair works. However, it did not provide an adequate explanation about why these delays had occurred. Where something has gone wrong, a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to resolve the resident’s complaint.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to all elements of the resident’s complaint. For example, it did not provide any response to her concerns around the following:
1. Qualifications of the plumbers that attended her property.
2. Request to be rehoused.
3. Dehumidifiers not provided.
4. Cost of paint and decorating
5. Request for compensation.
Furthermore, the resident stated in her stage 1 complaint that her and her family were left without a home for 6 weeks while she was waiting for it to dry out and for her insurance company to replace her flooring and carpets. The landlord in its stage 1 response did not provided clarity on this issue; it simply stated that the resident chose to stay with her parents. However, the repair records do not give any indication as to whether the property was habitable for the 6 weeks when the resident stayed with her parents. There is no evidence to show that the property was surveyed, the damaged assessed, and the property deemed to be in a habitable condition.
The landlord’s stage 1 response would have been an opportunity for it to explain what actions it had taken to ensure the resident could have stayed in the property during the 6 weeks. This was a complaint handling failure in accordance with paragraph 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Landlords must address all points raised in a complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord did not consider offering the resident any compensation at stage 1 or stage 2 even though the resident requested compensation at both stages. The landlord did not provide any clear reasons for its decision not to award compensation or provide its insurance information to the resident. The decision of the landlord not to award any compensation was unreasonable and not in line with its compensation policy which states it will consider compensation for general repairs damage to decorations, programmed work, loss of services and where a complaint is upheld. This was a failure by the landlord.
Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord has apologised for the inconvenience caused, it failed to put matters right by addressing all the resident’s concerns at the earliest opportunity and taking steps to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures outline above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the reports of leaks from the resident’s kitchen sink.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £700. This amount must be paid direct to the resident and not offset against her rent account. This £700 is comprised as follows:
1. £250 for delays in fixing the issue of leaks in the resident’s kitchen.
2. £150 for poor communication.
3. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must consider whether the resident would still be able to make a claim against its liability insurance for any damage caused to her possessions and write to her to confirm its decision.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review its handling of this case and create an action plan to demonstrate how it will avoid these failings happening again in future. This should include:
1. how it communicates with its contractors and residents to ensure that they are kept updated about outstanding repairs.
2. how it monitors repairs through to completion, particularly where different trades are required.
3. how it communicates with, and offers support to, residents who have requested to move into temporary accommodation due to the condition of their property.
The resulting action plan/report must be shared with the landlord’s Member Responsible for Complaints and its Group Director for Climate, Homes & Economy.
The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information when reviewing its record keeping procedures. This sets out the benefits of good record keeping and provides recommendations for landlords.