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

Gentoo Group Limited (202218195)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218195

Gentoo Group Limited

14 August 2023

 

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. Leaks in the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
  2. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the reported leaks and the damage caused to the property were reported to have led to adverse effects on the resident’s mental health. However, it is outside the remit and authority of this service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, and any subsequent detriment to the resident’s health. If the resident considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s handling of the leaks, she may wish to seek independent legal advice on pursuing this as a legal case or insurance claim.
  3. This investigation, therefore, will focus on whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of leaks, and in accordance with its statutory and policy obligations.
  4. As part of the resolution sought by the resident, she wanted the removal of her information from the landlord’s systems. This is not a resolution that is within the Ombudsman’s authority to order. Furthermore, concerns regarding the use and retention of residents’ information are more appropriately addressed by the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk). The resident may wish to bring her concerns to its attention if she wishes to pursue this matter.

Background

  1. The resident was the tenant of the landlord at the time of the complaint. The property was a top floor flat.
  2. The resident reported experiencing a leak into her property on 5 October 2021. After initially responding to her report as an emergency, the landlord attended on 3 further occasions to carry out work to the roof, which required a cherry picker to access. Work to restore lighting to the property was initially not carried out as the landlord could not gain access on its first attempt and was later declined by the resident as she said water was still leaking; this was completed on 24 November 2021.
  3. The resident raised her complaint with the landlord about its handling of the leak repair on 24 November 2021 as she:
    1. Disputed that the roof repair was complete.
    2. Believed that the roof insulation required replacement.
    3. Experienced signs of a leak in her boiler room.
  4. The resident reported a further leak on 29 November 2021 and the landlord attended on 6 December 2021. It relayed to her afterwards that no issues were found, which she disputed and questioned the thoroughness of the worker’s inspection. The landlord subsequently carried out an inspection of the roof and boiler room on 14 December 2021. It raised works to plaster the boiler room, treat the external wall and redistribute, and replace if necessary, insulation in the loft.
  5. The resident reported another leak from her boiler room on 31 December 2021, which the landlord did not gain access to inspect on 4 January. On 17 February 2022, it inspected and found no leak.
  6. On 16 May 2022, the resident requested that the landlord close the complaint as she was not confident that it would resolve the repair issues. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 June 2022 which did not uphold the complaint.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 13 June 2022 and, after the Ombudsman’s intervention on 10 January 2023, the landlord provided its final response on 24 January 2023. It did not uphold the complaint as it considered that it had responded appropriately to the resident’s reports. The landlord apologised for not escalating her complaint sooner, attributing this to an administrative error, and offered £50 compensation to her for this.
  8. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 21 February 2023 that she remained dissatisfied as she was unhappy with the time taken by the landlord to remedy the leaks and its communication. She considered that it had contributed to her a decline in her mental health and to resolve her complaint she sought compensation, reimbursement of her medical and subsequent moving costs, and the waiver of her rent arrears.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of leaks in the resident’s property

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property. This would include the roof, ceilings and walls of the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy provides for 4 repair priorities:
    1. Emergency repairs which present an immediate risk to the resident or the property should be attended within 24 hours and made safe, with further works to follow.
    2. Urgent repairs, which should be carried out within 7 calendar days to prevent serious inconvenience to the resident or damage to the property.
    3. Routine repairs are to be carried out within 28 calendar days when there is no immediate risk to the resident or the property.
    4. Planned maintenance repairs, which may take 180 calendar days. These are when a repair is complicated and may require a number of different trades.
  3. The Ombudsman recognises that when repairs are particularly complex or require specialist equipment, it may be reasonable for a landlord to exceed its normal repairs timeframes. However, it would still be expected to prioritise these repairs appropriately and avoid excessive delay.
  4. When a landlord receives a report of a defect, it should firstly satisfy itself of the nature of the repair and what work was required. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors for this. Where an issue is recurrent, or the landlord’s assessment of the situation is disputed by the resident, it would be reasonable for a different staff member to inspect the repair, to clarify the situation.
  5. The resident first reported a leak into her property from the roof on 5 October 2021. The landlord attended within 24 hours and found that it required a cherry picker to access the roof. It then completed repairs on 20 October 2021. Considering that specialist equipment was required and the resident said, on 12 October 2021, that the leak was not continuous, the landlord responded within a reasonable period.
  6. In response to the resident’s further report on, 26 October 2021, that she believed the roof was not repaired, the landlord responded promptly on 29 October 2021 to inspect the roof. It then returned on 15 November 2021 to carry out repairs; this was again carried out within a reasonable period in the circumstances.
  7. When the resident raised her continued concerns about the roof to the landlord after this repair, it relayed to her that its staff considered that no further work was needed. As mentioned above, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff in this decision.
  8. In response to the resident’s report of a further leak on 29 November 2021, the landlord responded promptly by attending on 7 December 2021, which found no work was required. When she disputed this, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection for the following week with two staff present who had not attended the property previously.
  9. The resident said that she had been inconvenienced by being unable to use her ceiling lights for an extended time because of the leak. The landlord was unable to gain access on 6 October 2021 and the work was not completed on 30 October 2021 as the resident said that the water was still leaking into the light. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the lights to be reinstated once it completed roof work on 15 November 2021, which it did on 24 November 2021.
  10. After reporting a leak entering her light fitting on 29 November 2021, the resident cancelled an emergency appointment for the following day to inspect this, and on 10 January 2022 the landlord could not gain access to inspect the electrics. A resident is responsible for providing access for repairs, and the landlord cannot be held responsible for delays in these when access is not provided.
  11. Overall, there was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its handling of the reported leaks. It responded to the resident’s reports within a reasonable period on each occasion and acted reasonably based on the information provided by its appropriately qualified staff.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage 1 of this, it should provide its response to the resident within 10 working days. If the landlord cannot do this, the policy specifies that it should agree a resolution date with the resident. At the final stage of the complaints procedure, the policy sets out that the landlord should provide its response to the resident within 20 working days.
  2. The above timeframes mirror those set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which all member landlords are required to adhere to. The Code also states that there is no need for a landlord to await the completion of outstanding actions before providing a complaint response; it should provide its response to the resident once the answer to the complaint is known. Any outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned quickly and efficiently, with regular updates provided to the resident.
  3. The Code also sets out that, if a resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of a complaint at stage 1, it should escalate the complaint to the next stage, unless there is a valid reason not to. If this is the case, then the reason should be explained to the resident.
  4. The resident raised her stage 1 complaint with the landlord on 22 November 2021 and it did not provide its formal response to this until 1 June 2022. This was a period of 132 working days, or over 6 months later. There was no evidence of the landlord agreeing a resolution date with the resident. It was evident that ongoing actions were in place to address the issues she raised; however, as specified in the Code above, the landlord should have provided its formal response to set out its proposed resolution to the complaint once it had this information. The landlord, therefore, delayed excessively in the handling of the complaint at stage 1.
  5. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 13 June 2022, which it acknowledged the same day. There was no response from the landlord until intervention from this service on 10 January 2023. It then provided its final response to the resident on 24 January 2023.
  6. The landlord’s final response acknowledged that it had not handled the complaint at the final stage in accordance with its policy. It offered the resident £50 compensation for this. This offer was not proportionate to the excessive delay experienced by the resident. The landlord’s final response was issued 157 working days, or over 7 months, after the resident escalated her complaint. This was significantly in excess of the timeframe specified in its policy and the Code.
  7. The total time taken by the landlord to handle to resident’s complaint, over both stages, was over 13 months. This was an unreasonable and excessive period which led to distress and inconvenience for the resident. This delayed the resolution of the complaint and delayed external consideration of her complaint by the Ombudsman.
  8. Therefore, additional compensation of £300 should be paid to the resident to recognise the excessive delay by the landlord in the handling of the complaint, bringing the total payable for its complaint handling failures to £350. This award is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available to view online. This provides for awards of compensation of between £100 and £600 where there has been a failure by the landlord over a prolonged period which led to detriment for the resident, but which may not have been permanent.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of leaks in the resident’s property.
    2. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £350 compensation to recognise its complaint handling failures, this is inclusive of the £50 previously offered if this has not already been paid.
    2. Confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that complaints will be handled in accordance with both its policy and the Code.
    3. Confirm to this service that it has complied with the above orders.