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

Gentoo Group Limited (202314560)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314560

Gentoo Group Limited

20 June 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:
    1. The condition of the property when it was let to the resident.
    2. The landlord’s handling of reported repairs.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Part of the resident’s complaint is that when the tenancy began in October 2020 the property was in poor condition as repairs had not been completed during the void period and the garden was uneven. The resident has said that at the time it was agreed the landlord would support her with resolving the issues with the garden but this has not happened.
  3. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme in effect at the time says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  4. Therefore the condition of the property and anything promised when it was let is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the complaint was made to the landlord in June 2023.
  5. Whilst historical incidents and those that occurred after the internal complaints process provide contextual background to the current complaint, this assessment focuses on events from January 2023 onward which is 6 months prior to the formal complaint being made.

Background

  1. Since October 2020 the resident has been an assured tenant of a semi-detached house with 3 bedrooms. She lives with her 2 children and has mobility issues which the landlord is aware of.
  2. On 11 January 2022 a member of the landlord’s repairs team attended the property to assess the condition of the roof tiles and it was determined that a cherry picker would be required to complete a repair. An appointment was arranged for 15 February 2022 and the work was then completed.
  3. A member of the repairs team attended again on 25 March 2022 to inspect and assess the rear of the property where large pieces of concrete had fallen from the window sills. The repair need identified on this survey was booked for 28 October 2022 but this could not be completed as its contractors did not attend with the required scaffolding.
  4. At the resident’s request a new appointment with the correct scaffolding was made for 6 June 2023. The landlord’s contractor attended on that day but was unable to finish the works due to time constraints. It fully completed the repair works on 9 June 2023.
  5. On 12 June 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint with the landlord, she confirmed there were no outstanding repairs but she was unhappy with her experiences during the repairs process. The resident specifically mentioned:
    1. “That a cherry picker should have been sent out in the first instance.
    2. The wrong scaffolding had been installed and the time it took to repair the window sills.
    3. Poor communication.
    4. Only 1 layer of warm wall paint being applied to the damp and mould when she was told there would be 2.
    5. Issues with repairs to the fence.
    6. The electrician had not fixed the holes left in the wall when the thermostat was removed.”
  6. The landlord issued it’s stage 1 response on 27 June 2023. It acknowledged there were issues with communication and the timescales for repairs as well as the lack of information about policy and procedure provided to the resident. It apologised for the confusion and frustration these issues caused.
  7. The response explained that a cherry picker could not have been sent out in the first instance because it first needed to assess the repairs and determine what equipment was needed before booking future appointments.
  8. It also addressed the resident’s comment regarding the incorrect scaffolding being sent out in the first instance. The landlord explained that the repairs team were not able to accurately diagnose the repairs required to the sills until the mobile scaffolding was available and as such could not determine which type of scaffolding was required to complete the repairs. It acknowledged it can be frustrating for tenants to experience delays in repair timescales due to ordering appropriate equipment, but this policy and procedure must be followed to ensure the safety of the repairs team. Additionally, having the correct equipment “enables it to complete the repair correctly and efficiently”.
  9. The stage 1 response was hand delivered to the resident along with flowers as an apology for the electrician not having filled in the holes in the wall when they attended.
  10. The resident spoke to the landlord and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 28 June 2023, she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response because:
    1. The wooden support props used during the window sill repairs had not been removed.
    2. There had been unfinished repairs when she moved in and the garden had been in poor condition, which had impacted her health. She also said that at the time she had been promised that the landlord would support her with fixing the garden.
    3. She confirmed the fencing repair issues she’d previously raised in her complaint had occurred in 2021.
    4. She did not feel the stage 1 response offered a full explanation of all the issues she had endured and some of the information in the complaint response was not accurate.
  11. During the call the landlord told the resident that as the fencing repair issues happened 2 years before it would be difficult to investigate these, but explained how Covid19 had impacted resources and services.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 18 July 2023. It said it believed  the stage 1 response had provided a proper explanation why things had happened as they did with the repairs. It also explained that when the tenancy started it had not been standard practice to take photographs and evidence the condition of void properties. For this reason it was unable to find any logged notes regarding what was or was not agreed at the time.
  13. The landlord also confirmed there was no record of the resident having been promised support with the garden and says that generally the garden is considered the resident’s responsibility. It apologised that she felt like she had been promised things that did not happen, but it would be very difficult to investigate any further given the amount of time since she had moved in.
  14. The stage 2 response also sets out how the landlord had improved its repair services and void standard since October 2020.
  15. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 September 2023 because the wood from the window sill repair had still not been removed and she wanted the landlord to help her sort out the front garden as she had been promised.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. The landlord’s repair policy confirms it is responsible for carrying out repairs to the structure and exterior of the residents home including the roof, walls and windows. It also confirms that routine repairs will be completed within 28 calender days.
  2. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
  3. The records show the window sill repair was classed as routine, but while the inspection was in March 2022 the repair was not attempted until October 2022. This was in breach of the timescales set out in the landlord’s repair policy and the Ombudsman has not seen any rationale or explanation for the unreasonable delay.
  4. The landlord’s records also have a note which says that when arranging a new appointment for the repair the resident asked that it be booked for June 2023. However this call was not recorded and as such there is no information to show why the resident wanted the works completed 8 months later.
  5. That said, the Ombudsman has not seen a record to show the resident disputes having requested the repair be conducted in June 2023. However while there is no evidence that this delay was a source of dispute, this does not change the fact that the landlord failed to deliver on its repairing obligations as set out in statute and its repairs policy.
  6. Also of note is that the job ticket for the window sill repairs do not contain notes regarding what work was completed nor if there were any outstanding actions to be completed at a later date. Therefore, while there may be a valid reason why the wooden props were left in place as long as they were, due to the landlords poor record keeping it is unclear why they were left in place following completion of the repair.
  7. Clear record keeping is an essential part of responding to complaints, as it allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works, contractor performance and provide accurate information as well as an effective service to its residents. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records including, but not limited to, resident repair reports, attendances by contractors, notes of inspections, actions taken as a result of the inspection, details of any complaints received and its responses to complaints.
  8. However the above shows a failure in the landlords record keeping because it should have detailed notes to reflect why it took 7 months for the repair to be attempted, why the resident asked for the repair to be completed 8 months later and why the wooden support props were left in place.
  9. While the resident has not explained how the wooden support props being left in place impacted her, these failures would have caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident and cumulatively amount to a service failure. An order for this has been made below.
  10. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as:
    1. Unnecessary delay between inspection of the window sills and the first attempted repair.
    2. Inadequate record keeping which led to there being no record to explain why the window sill repair was put on hold for so long and to the wooden support props being left in place after the repair was complete.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
  2. In this instance the stage 1 response was issued 11 working days after the complaint was raised. While this means the landlord did not adhere to its own timescales, such a short delay would have had minimal, if any, impact on the resident.
  3. However the Ombudsman’s Code in operation at the time says 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.
  4. The stage 1 response did not address the resident’s concerns about only 1 layer of warm wall paint being applied to the damp and mould in the property when she was reportedly told that 2 layers would be applied.
  5. One of the reasons for the resident’s escalation of her complaint to stage 2 was that she did not believe the stage 1 response adequately explained why there had been issues with the repairs, such as the cherry picker not being sent out in the first instance and the incorrect scaffolding being erected in October 2022. Although the landlord’s records say the resident did not elaborate on why she felt the explanations in the stage 1 response were inadequate and only spoke of a general negative experience of repairs during Covid-19, they also do not state that it investigated and responded to this.
  6. The stage 1 response explained that a cherry picker could not have been sent out in the first instance because the landlord had to first assess the repairs and determine what equipment was needed before booking future appointments.
  7. Similarly it also explained that the repairs team had been unable to accurately diagnose the repairs required for the window sills until the mobile scaffolding was available, only then could it determine which type of scaffolding was required to complete any identified repairs.
  8. The landlord acknowledged the residents frustration caused by the delays in the repair timescales due to it not ordering appropriate equipment, but states this policy and procedure had to be followed to ensure the safety of its repairs team as well as the fact that having the correct equipment enables it to complete the repair correctly and efficiently.
  9. Based on the above information the landlord’s response adequately addressed the resident’s concerns about the cherry picker not being sent at the first appointment and incorrect scaffolding being erected to repair the window sills. It explained why it had taken the action it did at each appointment and why the works were not completed at the earlier appointment.  The landlord apologised and offered flowers for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays and the electrician’s error, which was a proportionate redress for these issues.
  10. That said, the landlord’s failure to address the resident’s complaint about the number of warm wall paint layers amounts to a service failure.
  11. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as:
    1. Failure to address all complaint points raised by the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the repair reports and record keeping.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team and should follow the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has paid £150 compensation directly to the resident comprised of:
    1. £100 for its identified failings in its achievement of its repair obligations in a timely manner and the resultant inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failure to remove the wooden support props.
    2. £50 for its failure to address all the complaint points raised by the resident.
  3. If the landlord has not already done so, it is ordered to arrange inspection and removal of the wooden support props. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence that this work has been completed.
  4. Within 8 weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has undertaken a review of this case and identified learning opportunities, in particular a suitable methodology to ensure adequate oversight, for example by dip sample, of its complaint report capture and response coverage.

Recommendation

  1. If the landlord has not already done so, it should consider arranging a survey of the reported uneven garden issues and effect suitable repairs in line with its obligations.
  2. If it has not done so already, the landlord should consider making clear to residents on its website and any associated material who is responsible for the maintenance of gardens.