Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Gentoo Group Limited (202305971)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305971

Gentoo Group Limited

9 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to his windows due to draughts.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom house. On the evidence available it is not possible to determine when the resident’s tenancy started. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in November 2022 to report that the windows in his property were allowing draughts in. The landlord attended on 11 November 2022 and replaced the seals on the windows.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again in January 2023 to report that the windows in his property were still allowing draughts in. The landlord inspected the windows on 10 March 2022, and the officer in attendance reported a draught was getting in. The notes reflect that it “possibly needed manufacture help” as there was no “obvious answer” as to why the issue was occurring.
  4. The resident made a complaint on 13 March 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the issue. He said that his house was “very windy” due to the issue with the windows. He said the landlord’s operative had identified the vents on the windows needed replacing, but he did not think this would resolve the issue. The resident asked for a refund of some of his rent, and a contribution to his utility bills.
  5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 27 March 2023, and did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It provided a history of the repairs visits it had attended for the windows, and it had identified that the vents needed replacing. It asked the resident to get in touch if the issue was not resolved after it replaced the vents. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response and asked his complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 5 April 2023. He said that he did not believe replacing the vents would resolve the issue.
  6. The landlord installed new vents on the windows on 27 April 2023. It sent its stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2023. It said it had attended the resident’s property as part of its stage 2 investigation and found no significant draughts that warranted further repairs. It planned to attend to replace a vent on a window on the first floor, and asked the resident to contact it if the replacement vent did not resolve the issue in that area.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 17 May 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said that the landlord had not done enough to investigate the cause of the issue, and he could still “feel” draughts coming through. He said he wanted the landlord to refund some of his rent, and repair/replace the windows.

Events after the complaint

  1. The resident contacted the landlord in October 2023, the exact date is unclear, and said the issue was still ongoing. The landlord said it would arrange for an “independent inspection” of the windows. The landlord completed an inspection of the windows on 26 January 2024. It used a thermal imaging camera to identify areas of heat loss from the windows. It reported that there was “prominent heat loss” around the window seals. The landlord decided to replace the windows, and did so in March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the windows

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. For the purpose of the Act, the windows are considered to be part of the structure of the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it has 4 categories of responsive repairs and has the following target timescales:
    1. For emergency repairs it will attend within 24 hours.
    2. For urgent repairs it will attend within 7 calendar days.
    3. For routine repairs it will attend within 28 calendar days.
    4. For planned, “more complicated”, repairs it will attend within 180 calendar days.
  3. When raising his complaint with this Service, the resident expressed a concern that the draughts from the windows, and the resulting heat loss from his property, impacted on his health. The serious nature of this is acknowledged and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  4. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  5. As part of his initial complaint to the landlord, and when he raised his complaint with this Service, the resident asked for a “£20 per week” rent refund due to the issue. He also asked for a contribution towards his utility bills due to increased heating costs. Concerns about the reasonableness of rent charges are not within the remit of this Service. Complaints related to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges/rent are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further. It is worth noting we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a contribution towards his utility bills.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 May 2023. This Service has received correspondence between the landlord and the resident about the complaint, and substantive issue. The evidence shows that some of the substantive issues of the complaint were outstanding beyond the final complaint response. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
  7. When the resident first reported the issue with the windows, in November 2022, the landlord raised an urgent repair. It attended within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. This was appropriate in the circumstances, given what was reported.
  8. When the resident reported the issue persisted, in January 2023, the landlord did not complete a further inspection until March 2023, 2 months later. This was an unreasonable delay that caused the resident an inconvenience. He was evidently distressed at the conditions he reported. That the landlord did not attend within its target timeframe increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  9. While appropriate to set out its latest position on the repairs, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2023, gave no acknowledgement of the delayed inspection. This was inappropriate and lacked learning. Overall, its stage 1 complaint response showed little assessment of its handling of the repair, which lacked learning. The response was also silent on its position on the resident’s request for a contribution towards costs he claimed to have incurred. This was inappropriate and inconvenienced the resident, as he was left unaware of the landlord’s position on this specific request.
  10. The evidence shows that the landlord attempted to replace the vents on the windows on 29 March 2023, which was in line with its policy timeframes. However, it was unable to access the resident’s property. It replaced the vent on 27 April 2023, which was outside of its policy timeframes. While it is noted there was an unreasonable delay in inspecting the windows, the later delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. The evidence showed it attempted to attend to the repair within a reasonable timeframe after its inspection in March 2023.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of May 2023, offered little assessment of its handling of the repairs up to that point. While we welcome the fact the landlord conducted a visit to the resident’s property as part of its investigation, its final response lacked learning. It simply set out its position on the repairs it had done, and planned to do. It, again, failed to acknowledge or apologise for the fact had not adhered to its target timeframes for inspections. This was inappropriate, and the lack of learning means the landlord missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident.
  12. Again, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was silent on the resident’s request for a contribution towards costs he claimed to have incurred. It is not within the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether the landlord was liable to pay a contribution to utility bills, or provide a rent refund. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to use its complaint response to outline its position on the matter. That it did not do so was inappropriate, and caused the resident an inconvenience.
  13. It is noted the landlord told this Service, in February 2024, that the resident had not supplied evidence of the costs he claimed to have incurred. While we have seen no evidence the resident did so, we have also seen no evidence to indicate that the landlord formally set out its position on the matter. Neither did it set out what evidence it needed the resident to provide for it to consider his request. This was inappropriate and evidence that the landlord was dismissive of the resident’s request. Considering this failing, an appropriate order is set out below.
  14. When the resident raised further concerns about the issue, in October 2023, the landlord raised a further inspection. We have seen no evidence to indicate that the resident raised the issue between May 2023, when the landlord issued its final complaint response, and October 2023. It is reasonable to conclude that in the intervening period, the landlord was of the view it had resolved the issue by replacing the vents. That it raised a more thorough inspection when the resident reported further concerns was appropriate in the circumstances.
  15. The further inspection of the windows did not take place until January 2024, 3 months later. This was another unreasonable delay that was well outside of the target timeframe set out in its policy. This was a further failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter which increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
  16. That the landlord decided to replace the windows following its inspection in January 2024 was reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence shows the windows were defective and there was “prominent heat loss”. Its decision to replace them was appropriate. It replaced the windows 2 months after its inspection. This was a reasonable timeframe considering the complexity of replacing multiple windows in a property.
  17. There were multiple delays in attending to inspect the windows, which the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for. While it is noted the landlord used its complaint response to outline its latest position in the repairs, which was appropriate. Its complaint responses lacked learning, or an appropriate assessment of its handling of the issue, which was unreasonable. Both complaint responses were silent on the resident’s request for a contribution towards costs he claimed to have incurred. Considering the identified failings, and the distress and inconvenience caused, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to his windows due to draughts.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £250 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the issue.
    3. Write to the resident to outline its position on the costs the resident claimed to have incurred. It should outline what evidence it needs the resident to provide for it to consider.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to conduct a review into its handling of the window repairs. The review must consider the failings identified in this report, and what it can do to prevent similar failings happening again. The outcome of the review must be shared with the resident, and this Service.