The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Gentoo Group Limited (202013767)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013767

Gentoo Group Limited

22 November 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a repairs visit to his property on 24 November 2020.
    2. Delays in the landlord’s complaint responses.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 10 October 2016. The property is a semi-detached one bedroom bungalow. The landlord has confirmed that at sign up the resident’s wife advised that she had a long-term disability and general mobility problems.
  2. The resident has an ongoing disrepair claim with the landlord. The landlord has advised that the resident issued a claim that his property was in disrepair on 10 February 2020.
  3. On 24 November 2020, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that a tiler was in his kitchen when two operatives arrived at his front door. The resident said that the call was unannounced and that the operatives demanded access even though he had explained that there was already another operative working in the property. The resident said he told the two operatives that this was a breach of COVID rules but they still entered the property causing distress to both him and his wife. The resident said that his property was small, and his kitchen was only 1×2 metres and that the operatives did not keep two metres apart. The resident also expressed concerns about the floor test that the two operatives had carried out, stating that they had just jumped and down on the floor.
  4. The landlord issued its stage one response on 8 December 2020. The landlord confirmed that it had attended the resident’s property on 24 November 2020 to check the floor structure following a report sent by his solicitor as part of his ongoing disrepair claim. The landlord agreed with the resident that the visit should have been communicated with him prior to their arrival and apologised that this did not happen, and for the distress that the situation had caused the resident. The landlord noted that the resident felt that the unannounced visit was a breach of Covid-19 regulations but confirmed that it had a stringent process in place to ensure that it maintained Safe Systems at Work guidelines. The landlord also confirmed that the joiner ‘‘jumping up and down’’ on the floor was a justified method of checking for any faults with the floor structure.
  5. On 8 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to escalate his complaint. The resident said that he was disgusted and humiliated by the landlord’s explanation, which he did not accept.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 January 2021. The landlord:
    1. Offered its sincere apology for its unannounced attendance at the resident’s property on 24 November 2020 to assess his floor. The landlord explained that the joiners were asked to attend the property as the landlord already had an operative in attendance, its intention being to try and complete the work collectively, so that the resident would not have to wait for another appointment and to avoid any further inconvenience to the resident. The landlord acknowledged that this was not acceptable to the resident and that it should have contacted the resident prior to the joiners attending. The landlord assured the resident that this would not happen again.
    2. Confirmed that as part of its investigation it had spoken to both the joiners and the tiler that attended the resident’s property on 24 November 2020. The landlord said that the tiler, who was already at the property when the joiners arrived, advised that he was working in the kitchen completing some tiling work and that he wore a face covering whilst working and ensured he maintained a safe distance, although there was limited space. The landlord said that the tiler had also confirmed that although the joiners were there for a short period of time, they also wore face coverings.
    3. Explained that in order to test a floor weight must be applied and that the operatives had confirmed that they did jump on the floor in order to test the springiness in the structure.
  7. In a follow up letter to the resident on 5 February 2021, the landlord noted that the resident’s main concern was that he felt the landlord had breached COVID rules by allowing three operatives to be in his kitchen, which he had described as very small, that they could not possibly maintain a safe distance from each other and that the joiners were not wearing face masks on arrival and when entering his property. The landlord said that when interviewed the two joiners confirmed that they were wearing face masks on arrival and prior to entering the resident’s home and asked if anyone in the house was experiencing any COVID symptoms. The landlord confirmed that this was part of its current protocol and part of its safe system of working, which also provided guidance for situations where two metre social distancing could not be maintained, such as when working in small or enclosed spaces.
  8. The landlord said that the operatives it interviewed confirmed that they had followed this system and it had no reason to doubt what they had said. The landlord noted that the resident had advised that he was currently searching through his own CCTV for evidence to contradict this and encouraged the resident to share this with it if he was able to find it. The landlord said that it was sorry to hear that the resident remained dissatisfied with how it had handled his complaint, however, it was satisfied that it had acknowledged that it made a mistake with the unannounced visit and had apologised for that.
  9. The resident referred his complaint to this service on 9 February 2021 and the case come under the Ombudsman’s formal remit for investigation on 31 March 2021.

Assessment and findings

Relevant agreements, policies and procedures.

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy the landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the building. This includes, but is not limited to, internal walls, floors and ceilings, and general repairs to the kitchen due to reasonable wear and tear.
  2. The tenancy handbook confirms that the landlord will ask for the resident’s permission before entering their home, noting that it has the legal right to enter the resident’s home, at reasonable time of the day, to carry out repairs which it is legally responsible for and to inspect the condition of the property. The tenancy handbook goes on to say that the landlord will give the resident at least 24 hours’ notice in writing before it inspects the property.
  3. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of its Safe System of Work for ‘‘Covid 19 – Entering tenant’s properties to carry out repairs and maintenance work’’ document. The document states that before entering the tenant’s property operatives should ask the tenant to confirm a whether they or any members of their household have symptoms of Covid-19 or have been diagnosed with Covid-19 and are self-isolating. If anybody in the household is self-isolating the operative must inform their manager. Operatives are put a face covering on before entering the property if they are concerned about being able to maintain two metres social distancing. The document goes on to state that when carrying out works inside the tenant’s property, operatives should again wear face covering any time they are concerned about being able to maintain two metres social distancing from the tenant or any other member of the household.
  4. The landlord has a two stage complaints process. The policy states that the landlord will aim to provide the resident with a written response within 10 working days at stage one and within 20 working days at stage two. If the complaint cannot be resolved within these timescales the policy states that the landlord will agree a mutually agreed resolution date with the resident.
  5. The landlord’s claims policy states that compensation may be considered in circumstances where there has been inconvenience/distress to the resident.
  6. The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance suggests awards of compensation of £50 to £250 for instances of service failure which had an impact on the resident, including distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, but was of a short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a repairs visit to his property on 24 November 2020.

  1. The resident has complained to this service about the landlord’s response to his complaint, that the actions of the landlord and its operatives on 24 November 2020 put him and his wife at risk of Covid-19, and that he was seeking financial compensation, and a full apology, for the unnecessary stress this had caused.
  2. On 24 November 2020, a tiler was working in the resident’s kitchen when two joiners arrived to inspect the resident’s flooring. The resident complained the same day to the landlord that the additional two joiners had attended unannounced. This was not in accordance with the tenancy handbook, which states that the resident will be given at least 24 hours’ notice in writing before it inspects the property. When making appointments with residents the Ombudsman also expects the landlord to provide sufficient notice to the resident and try to accommodate their preferred timing.
  3. In its complaint response the landlord explained that its intention had been to try and complete the work collectively, so that the resident would not have to wait for another appointment and to avoid any further inconvenience. Whilst this was a reasonable explanation for what happened, the landlord failed to communicate this to the resident prior to the joiners attending.
  4. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord, in its stage one and subsequent responses, for the landlord to acknowledge that the visit should have been communicated with the resident prior to the visit, to apologise that this did not happen and to recognise the distress the situation had caused the resident
  5. In normal circumstances, the landlord’s acknowledgement, explanation and apology would have been sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for its failure. However, given that at the time there was a second national Covid-19 lockdown, it was understandable that the unannounced arrival of two further operatives at the resident’s property not only caused the resident inconvenience but also additional distress beyond what may have been caused were there not to have been a lockdown in place.
  6. To remedy this, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation for the additional distress caused to both him and his wife as a result of its failure, during a national lockdown, to notify the resident before the visit took place.
  7. When residents make complaints about the conduct of the landlord’s operatives, in this case that the two joiners that attended unannounced on 24 November 2020 failed to follow Covid-19 regulations, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to carry out an investigation into the allegations made. There is no evidence of the landlord doing so in its stage one response, in which it simply advised the resident had it had ‘‘a stringent process in place to ensure that we maintain Safe Systems at Work guidelines’’.
  8. The landlord did, however, provide a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns regarding the joiners ‘‘jumping up and down’’ on the resident’s floor, explaining in its stage one response that this was a justified method of checking any faults with the floor structure and then providing further information about the method used by the joiners to test the floor, in its stage two response, explaining that they had jumped on the floor to test the springiness in the structure.
  9. Following the escalation of the resident’s complaint, the landlord then acted appropriately by carrying out an investigation into his allegations. This is did by speaking not only the two joiners that had attended unannounced, but also to the tiler that was already in attendance at the property when they arrived.
  10. Following its investigation, the landlord advised the resident that, without further evidence, it had been unable to uphold his complaint as it had found no evidence to substantiate his allegations. The landlord reported that the tiler had confirmed that he wore a face covering whilst working and ensured he maintained a safe distance, in accordance with its Safe System of Work for Covid 19. The tiler also confirmed that although the joiners were only in the property for a short period of time, they also wore face covering, again in accordance with its Safe System of Work for Covid 19.
  11. Following its final response, the landlord issued a further response on 5 February 2021 in which it confirmed its position in its Stage two response. The landlord also confirmed that when it spoke to the joiners as part of its investigation into the resident’s allegations, they had confirmed that they were wearing face covering on arrival and prior to entering the resident’s home, and that they had also asked if anyone in the house was suffering any symptoms of Covid, all of which were in accordance with the landlord’s Safe System of Work for Covid 19. The landlord also confirmed that all the operatives that were interviewed had confirmed that they had followed its Safe System of Work with regards to working in small or enclosed areas where two metre social distance cannot be maintained.
  12. In its follow up response, the landlord noted that the resident had indicated that he may have CCTV evidence to contradict the landlord’s findings, which it encouraged the resident to share if he was able to find it. In correspondence with this service on 2 August 2021, the landlord confirmed that no CCTV was provided to support the resident’s claims although this was requested.

Complaint handling.

  1. In its communication with this service, the landlord has advised that the resident was dissatisfied with the timing of its responses to his complaint, most especially in relation to the landlord’s stage two response.
  2. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 24 November 2020.
  3. The landlord complaints procedure states that the landlord will aim to respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. The landlord complied with the timescales laid down in its complaints procedure, providing its response until 8 December 2020.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint to the landlord on 8 December 2020
  5. The landlord complaints procedure states that the landlord will aim to respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days. The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 January 2021, five weeks later. The landlord has confirmed that its offices were closed between 25 December 2020 and 4 January 2021, although it did have skeleton staff working over this period for repairs.
  6. When bank holidays and the landlord’s office closure is taken into account the landlord’s final response was issued within 18 working days, in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about a repairs visit to his property on 24 November 2020.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord addressed all the issues raised in the original complaint. The landlord identified what went wrong and apologised for its acknowledged service failure with regards to the unannounced visit by the joiners on 24 November 2020. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for the method used by the joiners to test the floor and carried out an appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns that the operatives that attended his property that day failed to comply with Covid regulations. However, given that the visit took place during a national Covid-19 lockdown, the landlord’s acknowledgement and apology for its failure to provide the resident with any notice of the attendance by the joiners was not sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for the upset caused to him and his wife as a result of that failure.
  2. The landlord’s responses at both stage one and stage two of the complaint were issued in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaint handling policy.

Orders and recommendations

Order.

  1. That within 28 days of the date of this letter, the landlord is to pay the resident £100 for the additional distress caused to both him and his wife as a result of its failure, during a national lockdown, to notify the resident before the joiners attended his property on 24 November 2020.