Gentoo Group Limited (201813223)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201813223

Gentoo Group Limited

1 March 2021

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 request for the resident to carry out repair works to the property within two days, before she could move to a different property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured transferring tenancy agreement with the landlord, which commenced in March 2001. The landlord took over from the local authority through a secure tenancy transfer in 2001. The resident lives in a in a three-bedroom property.
The resident explained that she suffers from mental health problems, was 75 years of age at the time of the events and lived alone, therefore, she was vulnerable. The landlord was aware of her mental health condition and age but did not consider her to be vulnerable.

Policies and procedures

Vulnerable residents

Under the repairs manual guidance, the landlord’s understanding of vulnerability is that it is “not always a permanent state it can be temporary, periodic, recurring due to mental health or ongoing” and “vulnerable groups may include residents with mental and physical health needs”.

Repair responsibilities

The tenancy agreement sets out the resident’s right to repair, including the right to compensation for improvements for authorised works on ending the tenancy.
The tenancy agreement and the sample tenant handbook states that the resident is responsible for:
1. repairing and maintaining any fixture, fitting or appliance you or a previous tenant have installed unless we have an agreement to maintain it for you
2. decorate the inside of the home and keep it clean
3. door bells/door knockers/door numbers/door stoppers
4. adjustment needed to doors if you have fitted new carpets in the house
5. minor adjustments to kitchen cupboards and doors (except fire doors)
6. looking after your garden and keeping it neat and tidy
7. the decoration and cleanliness of your home (including the cleaning of windows and the supply and fitting of floor coverings)
8. improvements carried out by previous tenants that you have accepted as fixtures and fittings, or items that have been gifted’ to you, and
9. keep the garden neat and tidy and not construct garages or sheds, along with several other buildings, without prior permission from the landlord.
The agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for:
1. repairing or replacing doors damaged due to reasonable wear and tear, and
2. general repairs to your kitchen due to reasonable wear and tear.
Under the repair policy, void repairs (12.0), the landlord “aim to minimise the void repair time with a view to reduce the unoccupied period and increase revenue. We also aim to provide good quality homes to our customers and have standards in place to help us achieve this”.

Repairs guidance manual

Under the repairs guidance, there is an approach called ‘ARCH repair works’ for customers with repairs higher than the average. This involves a joint visit with a housing management and repairs representative to:
1. assess the full condition of the property, both internally and externally
2. record any repair works that are required and / or any actions the customer needs to take
3. carry out any works required (we will aim to co-ordinate trade staff to do this in one visit)
4. holistically approach the problem for the customer and the business and negate any future repeat visits
In respect of the pre-void inspection, the guidance manual states:

“When a customer advises us they wish to terminate their tenancy, a pre-void inspection should be carried out. For all transferring tenants (ie. customers moving from one … property to another), this inspection is mandatory. It should be a joint inspection between local area office staff and the Void Supervisor / Inspector. Transferring customers will be advised of any remedial action they need to take before they are allowed to move. Any customer who leaves their property in an unacceptable condition may be recharged for any work we are required to carry out”.

Lettable Standard

This standard is set to ensure that the property is “in a good state of repair”. The property will have been inspected for “any repair work and all major works completed.”
The repair standard is set out as follows:
1. the property will be inspected for any repair work that is needed and all major works completed
2. the property will be free of dampness
3. minor repairs which do not impact upon this standard will be carried out once the tenancy has been granted
4. the kitchen will have facilities to prepare and store food. This will include a minimum of a single drainer sink unit with hot and cold water, double base unit and worktop, double wall unit or equivalent all of matching design
5. internal doors and woodwork will be clean, tidy and hole free
6. there will be a minimum of one light fitting in each room
7. all plug sockets will be in working order
8. floor coverings are the customers responsibility, however all floors will be inspected and prepared for the incoming customer prior to key handover. Any existing floor coverings left by the previous customer will be inspected and only left in property if they are in good condition.

Allocations process

The landlord’s allocations policy states that it will make informal offers of accommodation subject to checks which include property inspections, where appropriate as well as needs and debt to landlord.

Ending the tenancy

The tenancy agreement states that at the end of the tenancy, the resident must:

“leave the property, including the garden and outbuildings, in a clean, neat and tidy condition, with fixtures and fittings intact, and remove all furniture and personal property. You will be charged for …repairs for which you were responsible which are required when you leave the property”.

Under the landlord’s local service offer standards, the landlord is expected to provide residents with timely information specific to their tenancy. Under the repairs and maintenance standards, the landlord is expected to diagnose repairs and respond within appropriate timescales.
The policies are silent on whether outstanding repairs in former property will prevent the resident from being allocated a new one or the process for when a resident wishes to downsize.
The landlord confirmed it does not have a kitchen renewal policy but it manages replacement of elements according to its asset management delivery plan and decent homes standard.

Complaint policy

The landlord has a two-stage complaint process. The formal complaint is acknowledged within two working days and responded to within ten working days. The policy states the complaint owner will contact the resident to understand the complaint, agree a mutually agreed date with the resident, agree on how often the resident will be updated, conduct activities to investigate the complaint and ensure records are uploaded to the complaint system. The landlord “may choose to close a complaint without resolution where, after a reasonable number of attempts have been made, the complainant cannot be contacted, or where the complainant chooses not to engage”, residents will be “notified in writing”.
If the complaint is escalated, the landlord’s policy states this should be within fifteen working days after the stage one response. Then the matter will be acknowledged within two working days before following the same timescale and processes as stage one complaints.

Summary of events

The resident explained that several years ago she met with a member of staff and explained that the property was too large for her to maintain and that she suffered from mental health problems. As a result, she was placed on a housing list and, in 2018, she found a property that she felt was suitable for her needs.
The bungalow the resident wished to move to was listed as ‘ready to let’ on 17 October 2018. She was offered this property after bidding for it and then viewed it on 18 October 2018. Her own property was inspected on 23 October 2018; as a result of the inspection, she was given a list of repairs to carry out before she could move. The property she wished to move to was eventually re-let to a different resident on 5 November 2018, the records show that the landlord “assessed (the resident’s) application as unsuitable”.
The resident made a complaint on 23 October 2018, on the date of the inspection of her property, she explained that:
1. she had been offered a two-bed bungalow but on being inspected she was told to buy new kitchen doors for her current property within two days before she could move
2. she had put the kitchen in herself as the previous kitchen was in a bad state when she moved in 1999. She was granted permission from the local authority, who were the landlord at the time, to put a new kitchen in and she had since been maintaining it. The landlord had not put in a kitchen in 18 years
3. she waited four years for the bungalow and lost it
4. she cannot manage her big house
5. the works she was told to complete required £500 for doors in two days
After receiving the complaint, this was logged by the landlord on 24 October 2018 as “informal/own it fix it” within its system. The notes suggest the resident was distressed following the inspection, as the resident’s daughter was contacted to “calm the situation”. The resident and landlord had telephone conversations before the matter was logged as a formal stage one complaint on 26 October 2018.
In an internal note dated 26 October 2018 the landlord discussed the situation; it did not however discuss the issue of the time that was given to the resident to undertake the repair works. It focused on the possible unauthorised kitchen works, stating that:

“there was no record of …granting permission. Made reference to a note on file made in 2000, where a conversation had maybe took place about having no permission for the kitchen works…(the resident) was informed that a case had been opened for the unauthorised alterations and that (the inspector) would work with her”.

After sending an acknowledgment on 26 October 2018, the landlord contacted the resident on 13 November 2018 about the complaint. The stage one response was sent on 17 December 2018. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding. The landlord acknowledged that the resident said she could not do the repairs, but it confirmed that there were repairs required by the resident to maintain the property and it also summarised its approach to the kitchen.
The landlord said that the resident did not get back to it while the resident said that the landlord did not respond to her. There is no record of further communication again until February 2019, when the resident sent the landlord images of the kitchen. In her complaint escalation of February 2019, the resident explained her concerns again; that the inspector arrived, not showing his ID badge, and “pulled my house to bits”. She said that she became upset and ill, citing her mental health issues. The resident went on to detail the outcome of the inspection of 23 October 2018 and said that she was asked to undertake the following works in her property within two days:
1. all the kitchen cupboards to be changed back to matching set
2. matching handles for the units
3. new living room door (like for like, six panel door)
4. remove extra unit in the kitchen
5. all flooring and carpets to be taken up
6. all flooring and carpet to be taken up
7. stick ons to be removed from bathroom
8. mirror to be removed from bathroom wall
9. all garden pots and items to be removed, and
10. she had to pay for a bath panel to be replaced she was told by the workmen they had not known of a resident to pay for a bath panel.
The resident said that the kitchen was her own that she fitted in 1999 (before the tenancy transferred to this landlord, previously held with the local authority). She had to maintain the kitchen and never received a kitchen from the landlord. The resident said that she had painted the kitchen units and was in the process of replacing the handles, she had to save up for this.
She queried:
1. how the landlord could have expected her to carry out the repairs in two days
2. where she would get the money from to do the works; she said the landlord would not wait for her to get a benefit loan
3. the landlord’s operatives told her they had never heard of anyone paying for a new bath panel, after she arranged to replace this as part of the required works
4. the houses she had since seen were not suitable, due to reported damp
5. she explained that she had lost her balance when she was 73 and fell, putting a dent in the kitchen bench, and queried who would be responsible for this kind of repair.
In April 2019, the resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service to convey her outstanding concerns about the landlord’s actions, she explained that she remained in the property that was too much to manage and the landlord had not resolved the complaint. She explained that the landlord had not looked into wear and tear from 1999-2018.
The landlord made a home visit on 1 April 2019; the resident informed the landlord’s staff of her mental ill health and that the October incident triggered her anxiety, as she felt her housekeeping was criticised and prevented her from moving to the desired property. The landlord was notified of the anxiety the resident has about people in her home, especially men.
The landlord apologised and said future inspections would support the resident’s needs. It said that the kitchen was not up to standard, the painted kitchen doors were not up to fire safety regulations, and any tenant in the same position would be asked to take the same corrective action. The resident said that the landlord previously agreed to replace the kitchen; the landlord confirmed this and said that the kitchen works “would not prevent (resident) from moving house in the future”.
On 2 May 2019 the landlord’s notes show that a further visit took place to inspect the kitchen and the landlord offered to replace the kitchen components. The following week on 8 May 2019 the landlord visited again to discuss the kitchen choices. The landlord “reiterated the need for the property to be restored to lettable standard should (the resident) decide to move in the future. (The landlord) tried to persuade (the resident) that a kitchen upgrade would be of benefit to her”. The notes state that the landlord told the resident to contact her mental health professionals regarding her low mood.
Following notice of the resident’s dissatisfaction, on 11 June 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident about its internal complaint process. It re-opened the complaint and escalated it to stage two.
On 21 June 2019 the landlord provided its final stage two response to the complaint. It held:
1. the staff disagreed with the resident’s claim that they were rude and they also did not intend to offend her, they did not know about the state of her mental health. The landlord apologised for their manner and said that it was committed to raise awareness about mental health within its organisation and training in this regard had commenced.
2. The landlord said it did not charge for works less than £50 and its operatives were not aware of the costs of all the works or bath panel which is why they may have miscommunicated to her as to its practice of charging residents for repairs.
3. Employees wear ID and it apologised if its staff failed to do this, it reminded staff of this requirement.
4. It agreed that the resident’s property was “very clean and in good condition” but said the kitchen units had been painted by the resident and were missing handles, so did not meet its standards.
5. It did not dispute the resident’s claim that she was given two days to put things right. It said that the short timescale given to put things right was “done as a matter of course” due to how quickly properties are allocated. It referred to additional prospective tenants who could move in.
6. It said it would support the resident and would replace all the doors and worktop in the kitchen without replacing the whole kitchen, at no cost to the resident after she replaced the kitchen herself years ago. It acknowledged that this was something which could have been discussed in its visit of October 2018. It held that “there would still have been other work to be carried out at your home which would have prevented you from moving at that time”.

After the internal complaint procedure

After the complaint was concluded, the landlord’s records show that the resident contacted the landlord to discuss the progress of the kitchen work. There were further discussions between the parties, it was noted that:
1. the resident was concerned about workmen in the property
2. the landlord said it was up to the resident for the kitchen to be upgraded “otherwise she would encounter the same issues in future if she decided to move”
3. the resident said she was told by the landlord that allowing the kitchen works to proceed would speed up the process if she wanted to move again, however, she felt the kitchen was in a good state of repair, and
4. the resident partially completed the work, but some repairs were outstanding.
The resident said she had lost out on the chance to move to a suitable property and remained in the same position as before; struggling to maintain the three bedroom property and now as an older resident.
The landlord reviewed the case in July 2020 and held that whilst it did not identify anything that it should have handled significantly differently, “there are a couple of points where our service could have been improved upon and our responses more ‘joined up’. With that in mind we would offer (the resident) an ex gratia payment of £200 as a gesture of goodwill”. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer.

Assessment and findings

The landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with all of the requested records, such as the inspector’s records or logs of repairs. However, it has not disputed the resident’s claims of the repair works or the timescale she was given to complete these. Both the landlord and resident have agreed that the resident’s property was clean and tidy, the outstanding dispute was the level of repairs which the resident was asked to carry out and the timescale in which she was asked to complete this.

The Ombudsman has not had sight of the inspector’s reports, nor any repair logs or reports showing how the property was before it was let to the resident, nor any records relating to void works. There has been no evidence provided that demonstrates that the landlord considered wear and tear of the property’s components, either before or after identifying the repair works which it posed to the resident. As wear and tear would fall under the landlord’s responsibilities, there is no evidence that the outstanding works which it requested of the resident were the resident’s responsibility. Therefore, the landlord’s decision in requiring the list of works to be completed by the resident was not appropriate. It has failed to evidence that these were the resident’s responsibility before asking her to complete them.
The landlord was aware of the residents’ mental health condition, that she was a sole occupant and her age. Objectively, this would have limited her ability to satisfy the required list of works under the deadline the landlord imposed. The landlord failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities. It did not engage with alternative arrangements to complete the works; for example, it did not consider carrying out the works itself and recharging the resident for this as per the choice to do so under the tenancy agreement. The landlord said that it would ask any tenant the same, however, given the resident’s circumstances, this was not a reasonable or fair request to make.
Though the landlord’s policy stipulates that residents with mental health conditions are considered vulnerable, the landlord has not demonstrated that it has applied this consideration to the resident in particular with its contact with the resident in October 2018.
The resident was asked, among other tasks, to take up the carpet/flooring, to remove an extra unit in the kitchen, replace a living room door (like for like), and to carry out repair or replacement works to the kitchen. The resident was told to complete this within two days. The landlord’s repair standards refer to delivering services in a ‘timely’ manner and within ‘appropriate timescales’. Its repair and maintenance policy carry a timescale of seven days for urgent repairs, by way of comparison. It is therefore not appropriate to have placed a disproportionate burden on the resident, who had limited capacity, and set up an unrealistic task which she had to complete before being allowed to move. The landlord acknowledged this as part of its reasoning in regard to the kitchen, stating that even if it discussed completing some of the kitchen work itself at the time, there were “other repairs which would prevent (the resident) from moving”. Having demonstrated an understanding of the strain that the resident was put under through this point, it did not act reasonably by demonstrating a consideration of how similar situations might be avoided in future. It did not recognise the impact of its actions on the resident under its complaint process, having instead offered compensation for its “disjointed” communication.
The landlord’s actions were also unreasonable due to the fact it posed a hurdle for the resident to take a step which she needed in light of the pre-existing difficulty she expressed to the landlord about maintaining a three-bedroom property. The resident’s circumstances were made clear to the landlord prior to the inspection which took place in October 2018 and remain an issue for her, as per her communication to the landlord and Ombudsman. The landlord should therefore have offered a more flexible approach to help the resident satisfy any obligations before she could move, such as extending the timescale for her to complete the works, discuss her options in obtaining the necessary funds to arrange for the works to be completed, or consider to completing the repairs and recharging the resident for this as allowed for under the tenancy agreement. Under the circumstances, the evidence suggests that the landlord relied on the resident to complete the void works, which was not appropriate.
Having had the opportunity to address the matter under its complaint procedure, the landlord offered redress for its communication in respect of the kitchen works but it failed to address the overall impact of its actions on the resident or identify appropriate learning from the complaint. The landlord defended its actions by stating that it made similar requests of residents “as a matter of course”. It remains a concern if this is a routine practice or a standard request made to vulnerable residents who are looking to move. Therefore, the landlord should take the opportunity to review the circumstances of this complaint to identify appropriate learning in case a similar situation arises.
The redress offered by the landlord after the conclusion of the complaint process was insufficient as it was not proportional to the impact of the landlord’s failings and detriment caused to the resident. The resident did not receive a reasonable service from the landlord as it failed to consider if the repairs were appropriately attributed to the resident before making it a condition that she needed to satisfy being able to move. It failed to adapt its approach, in consideration of the resident’s known vulnerabilities, by stepping in and carrying out the repairs itself then charging the resident, which was an option that was available to it. In addition, it did not evidence that the resident was notified of the repairs with a reasonable timescale. Its offer of redress did not consider the impact of its service failure on the resident’s outstanding needs and that, as a result of the landlord’s actions, the resident remains in a property that is difficult to maintain.
The resident also complained about other issues, such as staff conduct (not showing ID upon entry). In terms of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about staff, the landlord apologised on their behalf. Its records also reflect its acknowledgment of the resident’s concerns about male staff present in her home, this is reasonable.
In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration by the landlord as it has acted in a heavy handed and unsympathetic manner towards the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect its request for the resident to carry out the repair works within two days.

Reasons

The landlord did not take into account the resident’s personal circumstances despite being aware of these before it requested her to carry out a list of repair works in the property, some of which could have been due to wear and tear and therefore not the resident’s responsibility. The landlord failed to consider carrying out the works itself and charging the resident, instead placing the responsibility for the works and the two-day deadline solely on the resident. This was unrealistic and unfair. This ultimately resulted in her missing out of the opportunity to downsize to her desired property. The detriment caused to the resident has not been recognised by the landlord who defended its action by citing its actions being due to a matter of course.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should carry out all of the orders below:

Offer the resident compensation of £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its request that she carry out the repair works in two days before she could move.
Offer the resident an apology for the distress and inconvenience which she experienced.
Confirm that it will discuss the options available to resolve repairs which it considers the resident is responsible for, taking into account any limitations she may have due to her personal circumstances.
Contact the resident in writing and by telephone to explain her re-housing options and set out the support services that it has available to her.
Confirm that it will review its policy on transferring residents to ensure that the issues under this complaint, such as the short timescale for extensive works, do not recur.

Recommendation

Confirm that it will offer training to its housing officers and letting team to understand mental health vulnerabilities and how it can adapt to these.

Compliance

The landlord is requested to confirm compliance with the above orders and its intention with the above recommendation to the Ombudsman within four weeks of the date of this report.