Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Gentoo Group Limited (202200176)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200176

Gentoo Group Limited

20 September 2022


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:
    1. Report of repair issues to the roof.
    2. Report of repair issues to patio doors.
    3. Report of repair issues to windows.
    4. The resident’s request for compensation for redecoration following fire place removal.
    5. The resident’s report of damage to the fencing.
    6. The formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident had raised to this Service that he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of an outstanding repair to the fence, following a storm.  Under paragraph 39 (a) of the Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Therefore, we are unable to consider this element of the complaint as there is no evidence to suggest that it has been raised to the landlord. If the resident has any further concerns with the other repair works, it is recommended that he raises a new complaint with the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his new complaint, he may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint at that stage.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 October 2021 stating that the roof and windows in his property were beyond repair, and he wished to complain about this. On 7 October 2021 the landlord contacted the resident about the complaint, and he asked the landlord to visit the property to inspect and discuss the repair issues. The landlord did so on 21 October 2021, and its record of this visit notes that the resident raised concerns about the patio doors in the dining room (that the trim kept failing), a roof leak (the landlord determined that there was no leak during the visit), and the roof coming down on one side. The resident also asked if the obsolete fire would be removed from the living room. On 23 November 2021 the resident added concerns about all of the windows in the property requiring replacement. The landlord provided its stage one response on 21 December 2021.
  3. In his complaint escalation of 19 January 2022, as well as being dissatisfied with the time taken to repair the patio doors and roof, the resident said that a contractor had failed to replace gaskets on two windows when it attended to complete these works on 6 January 2022. He also raised concerns regarding the level of compensation he would receive for redecorating when the fireplace was removed.
  4. In the landlord’s final response, it said that the roof repair was completed on 31 January 2022 and the patio doors were scheduled to be replaced on 28 February 2022. It apologised for the delays in completing these repairs, which said was due to the requirement for scaffolding and the impact of COVID-19 on the availability of materials. It said that it was unable to grant compensation for increased heating bills as had been requested by the resident, as it had acted in line with its repairs policy to complete the repairs. It advised that £250 for renewing carpet or £50 for redecoration was standard following removal of a fire (but not both), and recommended leaving the hearth in place to prevent the need for the flooring to be renewed. It also explained that it had booked an appointment for the gaskets to be fitted to the two windows on 24 February 2022.
  5. In his 18 April 2022 complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident stated that he remained dissatisfied as the patio doors had still not been replaced,  the roof repair had been ‘bodged’ and needed to be done correctly, and no agreement regarding compensation for damage to decorations due to fire removal had been agreed. He would like the repairs be completed, and financial compensation for increased energy bills and for decorations.

Assessment and findings

Roof

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord was responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. As a result, when the resident reported repair issues with the roof, the landlord was obliged to investigate and complete these. Its repairs policy states that routine repairs would be carried out within 28 days.
  2. The landlord was made aware of the roof issue at its visit on 21 October 2021 (with no other issues with the roof having been reported in the previous 12 months). A contractor then attended on 27 October 2021, with the resident recalling that it said that scaffolding may be required, and it would be back in touch. However, it seems that no further action was taken following this, and so the resident chased up with the landlord. A contractor attended to re-assess on 23 November 2021, seemingly as no information had been passed on from the first visit. Following this a work order was raised that same day, as scaffolding was needed to complete the required repairs, with a due date of 21 December 2021 (showing that the matter was to be addressed as a ‘routine repair’ within 28 days). While the landlord attended swiftly following the initial report, there was then a month delay in the landlord progressing the repair. 
  3. In the landlord’s stage two response it advised that the roof repair was completed on 31 January 2022. The landlord therefore failed to adhere to its 28 day repair response timeframe by one month from the date that the order was raised (which itself was delayed by a month). While the landlord explained in its response to the complaint that it had experienced delays as scaffolding had to be erected to complete repairs to the roof, it did not acknowledge that this was not the only reason for delay.
  4. In line with the 28 day timeframe, the repair (which the landlord was made aware of in late October 2021) should have been completed by the end of November 2021, and so there was a two month delay in the work being carried out. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. There is no indication that the delay had any impact on the property (for example, it was not causing a leak), however, the resident did have to chase up the landlord to have the matter progressed, and the delay was frustrating. Further, the landlord did not identify the delay in action being taken after the initial attendance in its response to the complaint. In light of the above, orders for remedy are made below.
  5. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident also stated that he thought the roof was beyond repair and he wanted to take legal action against the landlord due to the number of repairs that had been completed. In its stage two response the landlord explained how its repairs service operated, in that it would seek to complete repairs, rather than replacement, if the item is still within its lifespan. It explained that this was to manage costs and ensure that rent payers got value for money. Ultimately, the landlord is permitted to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors, and as it was determined that the roof was not in need of replacement, it was reasonable that it took steps to complete the required repairs.
  6. Following the completion of the repairs, the resident reported loose tiles in April 2022. The landlord subsequently raised a work order on 4 April 2022 to inspect the roof tiles. There is no evidence to suggest that any concerns were raised earlier, so the landlord had not had the opportunity to address the issue at an earlier date. As a result, the landlord had acted reasonably by arranging follow-on works.
  7. It may be beneficial for the landlord to complete a post-inspection to assess the quality of the work, if the resident still has outstanding concerns, and a recommendation is made in this regard.

Patio door

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to external doors. As such, when the resident reported that the patio doors were causing a draught in the property, the landlord was responsible for completing any required repairs.
  2. The landlord notes that the first report about the doors was on 7 June 2021, and it attended on 14 July 2021 to reseal. The landlord was next made aware of concerns about the doors at the 21 October 2021 visit, and a contractor then attended on 29 October 2021 to assess these. The resident then chased the repair on 22 November 2021, as he said the contractor had attended and taken pictures, but no further action had been taken. The landlord attended and assessed the patio doors again on 25 November 2021, seemingly as no action had been taken after the first visit. The resident  chased up again on 1 December 2021 as he had heard nothing further, and following this an order was raised on 10 December 2021 for the patio doors to be replaced.
  3. While the landlord’s first attendance to assess the doors was carried out speedily, as with the roof there was then was no follow up action from this, with the resident having to chase the matter to have it progressed. It also meant another attendance was required, and further chasing up by the resident. This was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter, which led to an avoidable one month delay. Overall, it took seven weeks from the date that the landlord was made aware of the problem, to it raising the order for replacement doors. This represents a delay in progressing the matter on the part of the landlord.
  4. The repair records show that the target date given to this repair was one year from the date of the order being raised for replacement (9 December 2022). This does not accord with any of the time frames given in the repairs policy, which gives the longest time frame as 180 days for ‘planned repairs’, described as, ‘Larger or more complicated repairs that may require a number of different trades that will be batched together by area and carried out in a planned programmed way.’ The replacement of the patio doors does not seem to fit this description exactly, but it would be reasonable to expect this type of work to take longer than a ‘routine repair’. If we take this as the correct classification for the work, then this should have been carried out within six months of the landlord being made aware of the issue (so by 21 April 2022).
  5. The records show that the resident chased the matter up with the landlord, and on 7 December 2021 was informed that an order to replace the doors had been raised. In response to the resident’s request for a timeframe for this work to be completed, the landlord said it was unsure but would get back with a rough estimate. Records then show the landlord determining this would be between three and four months, however there is no record of the resident being advised of this. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, which should have ensured that the resident’s expectations were managed.
  6. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that the repairs to the patio doors were due to be completed on 28 February 2022, with a delay caused in the supply of the doors due to the impact of Covid-19 on the availability of materials. While the Ombudsman accepts that Covid-19 had an impact on landlords’ repairs services, in this case there is no evidence available to support this explanation.
  7. It is not entirely clear, but the records available suggest that this work was not completed until May 2022, with little indication that the resident’s expectations were managed or that he was kept updated on the delays. Overall, it took the landlord around seven months to replace the doors from the date it was made aware of the issue. Taking all of the circumstances of the case into account, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter, both in the avoidable one month delay, and in its lack of communication with the resident.
  8. This has caused inconvenience, and time and trouble to the resident, and he has also explained there has been a financial impact of increased energy costs due to the repair issues with the patio doors. To remedy these impacts, orders are made below, which includes compensation: In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, compensation of £50 and above is appropriate in cases where the landlord has failed to meet service standards. It is also noted that the landlord’s own compensation policy allows for payments to be made where a resident has incurred specific financial loss as a result of action or inaction by the landlord.

Windows

  1. The evidence available shows that the resident reported draughty windows in the living room in June 2021, and the landlord attended the next month to reseal. The resident next reported concerns about the windows to the landlord during a telephone call on 23 November 2021, stating that they all needed to be replaced. The landlord attended the property to assess the windows two days later, and found that gaskets needed to be repaired to prevent draughts.  A work order was subsequently raised on 26 November 2021 to renew the gaskets. As with the roof and patio doors, the landlord carried out its initial attendance swiftly. The due date for the repairs was 24 December 2021, in line with the 28 days for routine repairs.
  2. The first attendance to carry out the repairs was 13 December 2021, but works were not done as contractors determined that they required more time than had been allocated. After the resident chased this up with the landlord the following day another appointment was made for 6 January 2022. However, the work was not completed on this date, with the resident stating in their complaint escalation on 19 January 2022 that the contractor had failed to replace two of the gaskets. A further appointment for the work was scheduled for 24 February 2022.
  3. As with the roof and patio doors the resident had to chase up with the landlord to have this progressed. Also, it took three attendances to complete the works, which was inconvenient for the resident. Overall it took three months to complete the repairs, with the resident experiencing frustration, time and trouble. The landlord did not address or provide any reasons for the delays in the repairs to the windows in its complaint response. As with the patio doors, the resident has said that his energy bills had increased as a result of the issues with the windows. To remedy these adverse affects, orders are made below.

Request for compensation for redecoration following the fire removal.

  1. A work order was raised on 22 June 2021 to remove the gas fire in the property as it had been capped, which would lead to damage to the carpet and decorations in the living room. The landlord offered the resident either £250 towards flooring or £50 for decoration – but not both. Given the resident’s concerns that the level of compensation was not enough to complete the work required following the removal of the fireplace, it was reasonable that the landlord considered alternative options: In its stage two response, it said that it was possible to leave the hearth in place to avoid the need for the flooring to be replaced.
  2. When the resident declined this option, the landlord explained that the compensation it had offered was the standard amount in line with its policy, and therefore it was unable to increase the level of compensation. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy, which does allows for compensation to be paid for damage to decorations, but not set out specific amounts, and so it is unclear where the £250/£50 figures came from.
  3. The landlord acted reasonably in offering either a sum of compensation or an option to avoid damage to the carpet, and while the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident was unhappy with the amount, it was reasonable in these circumstances. Having said this, it is less reasonable to offer either £250 for flooring, or £50 for decorations, but not both. If there is damage to both, then it would be more fair to offer the compensation amounts for both. A recommendation is made in this regard.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that stage one complaints will be responded to within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The policy states that if the response timeframe cannot be met, it will agree on a new response date with the resident. The resident raised his complaint on 6 October 2021 and the landlord issued its stage one response on 21 December 2021, which exceeded the landlord’s ten working day response timeframe.
  2. The landlord had contacted the resident on 21 October 2021 and the resident had agreed a four-week extension on the complaint resolution. The resident then chased up the response on 23 November 2021, noting that the extended deadline had passed. The landlord discussed the case with him that same day and the resident said he would wait a further ten days then take the matter further if no response was forthcoming. The resident then called the landlord again on 1 December 2021 chasing up the issues that he had raised. It was not until 21 December 2021 that stage one response was provided. While it was reasonable that the landlord extended the deadline for its response after discussion with the resident, it then missed this new deadline by over a month, causing the resident additional time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  3. The resident then escalated his complaint on 19 January 2022 and the landlord responded on 14 February 2022. The landlord therefore responded within 18 working days and adhered to its response timeframe.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues to the roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it handled the resident’s report of the patio doors.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way it handled the report of the window repairs.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for compensation following fire place removal.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £300 in compensation, comprised of:
      1. £50 for the roof repair
      2. £100 for the patio door repair
      3. £100 for the window repair
      4. £50 for the complaint handling
    2. Review its processes for contractors reporting back following on from inspections, and works identified being progressed, to determine what action has/needs to be taken to prevent a recurrence of the failings in this case. The landlord should share the outcome of this review with the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

  1. It may be beneficial for the landlord to complete a post-inspection to assess the quality of the works to the roof, if the resident still has outstanding concerns about this.
  2. The landlord should consider offering both the £250 and £50 if damage is caused to both flooring and decorations by the fire removal.
  3. If the resident is able to submit supporting evidence (such as energy bills) to confirm whether there was an increase in his energy use from October 2021 to the completion of the window and door repairs, the landlord should consider an offer of compensation towards any additional costs.