Gentoo Group Limited (202334556)

Background

1. The resident has spinal problems, which the landlord is aware of. The property is a 3-bedroom house. In May 2023, she reported a shower leak. The landlord carried out some repairs and replaced the shower towards the end of January 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the residents reports of a shower leak.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a shower leak.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Handling of the residents reports of a shower leak

6. The landlord delayed in completing repairs to the shower. The landlord was aware of the resident’s disability but did not treat the works as priority, and in line with its policy. It completed the shower replacement following its stage 2 response and provided the resident with a decoration pack. However, it did not acknowledge failures and recognise the impact to the resident and as such put things right.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord requested an extension for its stage 1 response which was outside its policy timeframe, however it kept the resident updated and responded within the extended deadline. It responded to its stage 2 in line with its policy.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that has happened or comment on all the information we have reviewed. We have only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. The resident said the shower had leaked since 2010 and the landlord also acknowledged the ongoing shower issue in its stage 2 response. While we do not dispute this, residents should raise complaints with their landlords promptly. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. It is therefore fair and reasonable for this investigation to focus on what happened around the resident’s formal complaint and the events leading to it.
9. The landlord must complete urgent repairs within 7 calendar days and routine repairs within 28, in line with its repairs policy. The resident reported a shower leak on 2 May 2023. It inspected the leak on 9 May 2023, within the required timeframe. It noted the resident needed use of the shower due to mobility issues. It repaired the shower tray sealant on 15 May 2023, which was outside its urgent repair timeframe. This delay was not reasonable. Given the resident’s mobility it would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat the issue as a priority under its policy.
10. The resident reported in her complaint (15 August 2023) that the leak persisted despite the repairs in May 2023. The landlord maintained positive communication and provided regular updates to the resident. However, it did not inspect the leak until 11 September 2023 which was outside its urgent repairs policy timeframe.
11. It completed repairs to the shower on 2 October 2023. While these works were not delayed, the issue remained unresolved. The resident asked for the shower to be replaced in her initial complaint, but the landlord did not agree at stage 1. Despite acknowledging the reoccurring nature of the leak, it stated that the nature of each report was different. However, we have not seen evidence supporting this statement. Its repair records was not clear as to the jobs or inspections being logged and carried out.
12. The landlord agreed to replace the shower on 19 October 2023. It confirmed this in its stage 2 response and scheduled an appointment for 26 October 2023 to take measurements. While this was a positive step, it was delayed. Additionally, no completion date was agreed and there is no evidence that the October appointment was attended. This caused frustration and inconvenience as further appointments had to be arranged. Further inconvenience and delays were also caused due to the landlord’s failure to measure the right size shower door in December 2023.
13. It renewed the shower on 30 January 2024. This was a delay of 9 months since the issue was originally reported and just over 3 months since it agreed the replacement. This was an unreasonable delay which had caused considerable distress to a vulnerable resident.
14. The landlord acknowledged the inconvenience caused by repeated appointments and the affected enjoyment of the resident’s home. However, it did not acknowledge any failure or offer any compensation other than the decoration pack to reflect the impact on her. This was unreasonable. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that the resident had submitted an insurance claim and while we have not seen evidence of this the resident had not disputed it.
15. The liability insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord. And the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s decision or the claims process, aside from passing on the details to the resident of how to claim. We cannot comment on the likely outcome of any liability or insurance claim the resident may submit. Furthermore, the landlord is entitled to use insurance as a means of managing the cost of liability claims. However, the complaints process remains a route to put things right for any inconvenience and distress caused by its failures.
16. While the landlord acknowledged some extend of inconvenience and completed repairs, it did not do enough to acknowledge fully its failures or put things right by offering compensation in recognition of the impact on the resident. Given the length of the delays and the level of inconvenience, particularly that the resident relied on the shower due to mobility issues, we have made a compensation order to put things right. The landlord should also consider how to improve its services to avoid any future failures as such.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy says it must acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It should respond to stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timeframes, it will request an extension of up to 10 days, unless there is a valid reason.
18. The landlord acknowledged both stages of the complaint within its timeframes. It should have responded to stage 1 by 29 September 2023. However, it contacted the resident the following day and agreed an extension. Whilst the extension request was a day late, the delay did not have impact on the complaints process or the handling of the substantive issue. It provided its stage 1 response on 24 October 2023, which was within the 10 days extension. It sent its stage 2 response within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code. Based on this, we do not find a failure in how the landlord handled the complaint overall.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord did not provide full repair records showing when work was raised and carried out. It should look to improve how it keeps records, when jobs and appointments were logged or carried out. It should also review how it records and responds to repairs for vulnerable residents to make sure it prioritises them in line with its policy.

Communication

20. The investigation has shown the landlord kept regular communication with the resident throughout her complaint.