Gentoo Group Limited (202307173)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307173

Gentoo Group Limited

15 August 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reported concerns about his new kitchen flooring.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom house and the resident’s tenancy began on 15 February 2016.
3. The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system.
4. In January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that his property was part of an internal improvements programme. It needed a new kitchen and a complete electrical rewire.
5. After initially refusing the improvements, the resident agreed for the works to go ahead. They were completed from March to April 2023.
6. On 5 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He was unhappy with the join (weld) on the new kitchen flooring that joined 2 sheets of flooring together. He was unhappy with both the positioning of the weld and the workmanship of the weld. The resident requested that the flooring was re-laid so the weld was in a place the resident considered had less high traffic use.
7. After looking at photographs and visiting the property the landlord told the resident it was satisfied with the positioning of the weld and the workmanship, and no further works would be carried out. This outcome was detailed in the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 formal complaint responses of 27 April and 26 May 2023, respectively.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Post internal complaints procedure

9. Upon notification that the Ombudsman had accepted the complaint for investigation, the landlord arranged a visit in March 2024 to check the flooring again. Its decision remained the same, that no further works were required to the weld, and it offered to re-stick some of the kitchen flooring elsewhere that had lifted. The Ombudsman does not know if the resident accepted the offer.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s reported concerns about his new kitchen flooring

10. It is not within the role or expertise of the Ombudsman to carry out independent technical assessments of disputed asset improvement quality issues. In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s handling of the issues and whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.
11. The landlord has an asset management strategy for 2021 to 2025. One if its 4 strategic aims is to provide homes that meet the needs of its residents. One of the ways that it intends to do this is by robustly managing and monitoring the performance of its contractors to ensure residents receive exemplary products and services from the landlord’s investment and maintenance activities.
12. On 5 April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the weld of the new kitchen floor, where 2 sheets of flooring had been joined together. The landlord responded the next day and acknowledged the complaint. At the time of the complaint the landlord’s complaint policy tells us that complaints must be acknowledged within 1 working day. The landlord acted appropriately. By keeping to its published timescales, the resident knew quickly that the complaint had been read and the landlord was dealing with it.
13. On 11 April 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to organise a visit to assess the kitchen flooring and inspect all the improvement works. After several emails and phone calls between 11 April and 18 April 2023 an appointment was booked for 25 April 2023. The landlord acted reasonably by organising a visit quickly to look at the resident’s concerns. It showed it listened to the resident and took his concerns about quality seriously.
14.  Prior to the visit, the resident had asked the landlord the following questions:
    1. To explain the purpose of the visit.
    2. Could the inspection just be the kitchen, and could a further visit be carried out for the rest of the inspection later.
    3. Using the photos he provided of the kitchen flooring, could he have an outcome before the visit.

The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with evidence as part of this investigation that showed the landlord communicated with its contractor about the resident’s questions. The landlord then responded to the resident in a timely manner with answers and explanations. The landlord acted reasonably. It was customer focused and its answers were fair and backed up with evidence and sound reasoning.

15. On 26 April 2023, the day after the visit, the landlord completed comprehensive notes of the visit on its system. This resulted in a detailed stage 1 complaint response that explained why no further works were required to the kitchen flooring. It also meant that the landlord’s complaint team knew the resident had verbally requested an escalation to stage 2 of the complaint process and were able to advise the resident in its response what he needed to do. Without the visit notes on the system there could have been incidents of miscommunication with the resident. The importance of good record keeping must not be understated and the landlord has shown it in this case. The landlord acted reasonably, and the resident knew the outcome of his request and why, quickly.
16. The landlord completed the following in response to the resident’s concerns:
    1. Carried out a joint visit with its contractor so it could inspect the workmanship. Discussed the issue with the resident at the visit.
    2. Communicated with the contractor to understand why the weld was placed where it was and explained this to the resident. The explanation was reasonable in that they placed it in the location where it was mostly covered by units and a washing machine.
    3. Inspected the weld and decided it was a clean weld and that the contractors had met the specification set.
    4. Provided the resident with the outcome of the visit verbally and in writing.
17. The landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. It listened to the resident and took reasonable actions. The concerns were investigated by both the landlord’s project surveyor and the landlord’s project manager who oversaw the improvements programme. They knew the specification of the works and what was required. The contractor’s work was inspected by the landlord who was ultimately responsible for the contractor’s quality and finish. The landlord worked in line with its asset management strategy and checked the contractor’s work in this situation.
18. On 26 May 2023 the landlord completed its stage 2 complaint response. The evidence provided showed that the investigating officer approached the relevant people to understand the decisions they had come to and whether it was necessary to revisit the decision. The landlord did not change its decision and the response explained this. The landlord acted reasonably in checking the evidence and reasoning before completing its final response.
19. On receipt of the Ombudsman’s notification of this investigation the landlord asked the resident if it could inspect the flooring again. On 6 March 2024 a visit with the contractor, landlord and resident was carried out. The landlord took an inquisitorial approach, and it was determined that while another positioning of the weld may have been possible, it had been placed in the most suitable position. The contractor also explained the reason for the width of the weld to the resident. At the visit the landlord or contractor noticed some flooring was lifted near the back door and the contractor offered to return to stick it down. The landlord acted reasonably. It wanted to check it had made the right decision previously and treated the resident fairly in all the circumstances. It was customer focused and open to changing its decision if deemed necessary.
20. In summary, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reported concerns about his new kitchen flooring. It carried out a timely investigation, that was fair and transparent. It told the resident the outcome at each stage clearly, verbally and in writing. The landlord kept detailed notes on its system that helped ensure its communications with the resident were accurate.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reported concerns about his new kitchen flooring.