Gentoo Group Limited (202453370)

Background

1. The resident complained about the number of issues she had to report since moving into the property. She was concerned about the quality of the repairs and the time it was taking for the landlord to resolve them. She said it was disruptive to her family’s lives and caused them distress.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about the condition of the property upon moving in.
   2. Reports of outstanding repairs.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property upon moving in.
4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the condition of the property upon moving in

6. The landlord showed that it inspected the property during the void period and completed most identified repairs before the resident moved in. However, it has not demonstrated that all issues were fully addressed or considered in its handling of the concerns. These omissions likely caused avoidable delay and distress.

Reports of outstanding repairs

7. The landlord did not demonstrate that it handled all the resident’s repair reports in line with its obligations. This caused unnecessary delays, distress, and inconvenience, including the need for the resident to chase updates. The landlord acknowledged some failures but did not acknowledge them all, particularly those involving risk assessment and delays to the roof and boiler concerns.

Handling of the complaint

8. The landlord took slightly longer than its policy allows to acknowledge the complaints. However, the overall time taken to respond was reasonable, and we have not identified maladministration in its complaint handling.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

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’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. The landlord’s lettable standard sets minimum standards for its properties before letting. It allows a 28 day retention period so residents can report any issues after moving in. It says its Empty Homes Team will then arrange a further inspection to assess concerns. It says issues reported after the 28 days must be reported as repairs.
10. A void inspection should identify visible repairs, but it’s not intended to be a detailed survey of a property. Some repair issues may only become apparent once a resident has moved in. For this complaint, we have considered the steps taken by the landlord while the property was void and its handling of the repairs reported within 28 days of the tenancy starting on 25 October 2024.
11. The landlord’s records show it completed the required pre‑inspections during the void period. The void inspection on 5 June 2024 identified several repairs and the landlord completed many of the associated works in the following months. A post‑inspection report would have been helpful, but the post-inspection photographs provided do suggest the landlord checked the property after completing the works.
12. A further inspection identified that a subcontractor was needed for a roofing repair, with notes stating, “tiles off roof!”. The landlord raised a repair on 7 June 2024, which the contractor attended on 21 August 2024. The notes said, “practically completed” and “further work identified once roofing work started – work to peak valley including 60 tiles and new ridge”. It is unclear from the records whether this work was fully completed before the tenancy began.
13. The resident later reported roof issues, including missing tiles, outside the 28‑day period. Contractors also identified repairs needed to both valleys. As stated, it is unclear whether the landlord fully completed the earlier roofing work and whether the later issues were related. The landlord should keep clear records to show completed actions and follow‑up work.
14. In its complaint responses, the landlord confirmed the resident reported the following issues within 28 days of moving in: overflowing guttering, loose hot water tap, radiator valves not turning fully, damaged garden wall brickwork, and an extractor fan fault. Other records also show a report of a toilet that would not flush.
15. We can see the landlord raised a guttering repair on 25 September 2024 while the property was void. It is unclear when the landlord completed the repair. The lack of information and subsequent reports makes it difficult to confirm that the issue was fully resolved before the resident moved in.
16. On 8 November 2024, the landlord raised a task for its Empty Homes team that only said “various issues to resolve”. Given its lettable standard and the volume of reports within 28 days, an inspection should have taken place, but there is no evidence this happened. Although individual repairs were raised, an inspection followed by an action plan would have provided a coordinated response, assessed the overall condition of the property, and considered the cumulative impact on the resident.
17. We recognise that the additional repairs reported by the resident affected her move to a new home, and it was positive that the landlord acknowledged this in its complaint response. However, it is unclear whether all the issues would have been visible during the void period. The landlord stated they would not have been, but records relating to the roofing and guttering suggest otherwise. The landlord should have considered this in its responses and has not shown that these repairs were properly managed at the time. As a result, it did not adequately resolve the resident’s concerns, leading to our finding of service failure.

18. The resident reported many repairs between November 2024 and February 2025. The need for repairs alone would not automatically constitute a failure on the part of the landlord. However, we would expect the landlord to handle the resident’s reports in line with its obligations and repairs policy.
19. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines 4 repair timescales for responding to reports:
    1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours
    2. Urgent repairs within 7 calendar days
    3. Routine repairs within 28 calendar days
    4. Planned maintenance repairs within 180 calendar days.

Plumbing reports

20. The landlord stated that the resident reported a loose hot water tap and an issue with the radiator valves on 8 November 2024. The landlord set a task for its empty homes team on the same day which said, “various issues to resolve” and marked the priority as normal. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have listed all the issues reported. This would have demonstrated that it had applied the appropriate timescales to the repairs and considered whether any repair required a different response.
21. The records show a plumber attended on 19 November 2024 and follow on works were required. These were completed in 4 working days. Although a further visit was required, the overall time taken was reasonable, and in line with its routine repair timescales.
22. The landlord said the resident reported a loud noise coming from her taps and that the hot water tap was loose again on 20 December 2024. We have not seen where this is recorded in the landlord’s records, however, the resident does not dispute this. She has explained to us that every time she used the taps there was a loud knocking noise which would wake up her 1 year old daughter. The landlord attended within 1 working day, which was reasonable.
23. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said a “shock arrestor” was ordered after that visit. The stage 2 response said it fitted a shock arrestor on the first visit but that did not resolve the problem. It said follow on work was then raised to access the stop tap.
24. The accounts conflict. The records do not show what actions were taken on the first visit or if follow on works were raised, making the sequence of events unclear. The landlord’s records do, however, reference a call from the resident on 9 January 2025 chasing the repairs. The landlord then contacted the engineer who said the shock arrester was yet to be fitted. The lack of oversight shown by the landlord was not appropriate and makes it difficult to determine whether its response times were reasonable.
25. The landlord attended on 28 January 2025 to repair the tap and fit the shock arrestor, which did not resolve the issues. The landlord said it discovered issues with the internal stop tap which required it to contact the water provider to locate the external tap. It said they attended on 5 March 2025 and would need to return in 2 weeks. The landlord could not continue its work until the water provider completed its part. The landlord’s records show the works were all completed on 17 June 2025, 6 months after the initial report.
26. It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise with the water provider and we accept that some delays such as waiting for the water provider were outside of its control. We also accept that some repairs can take more than 1 attempt to fix. However, in the absence of all the records related to this repair, the landlord has not demonstrated that handled the reports effectively.
27. It is also evident that the resident had to chase the landlord to understand what was happening. She said operatives would turn up to her home without knowing what work was required. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it identified there was an issue with the handheld devices used by its trades and this affected their ability to view information related to jobs they were attending. Although the records do not show how often this occurred, it likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this and outline the learning from it.

Boiler reports

28. In her formal complaint, the resident said one of the most distressing problems was a recurring issue with the boiler. She said on multiple occasions she had woken up to no heating in the property. She said every time she reported it to the landlord, it advised her to re-pressurise the boiler. She said the pressure valves on the boiler were extremely difficult to turn, making it impossible to address on her own. She said it caused her stress, especially considering situations where she might be alone, and unable to restore the heat.
29. The landlord’s records do not show any boiler reports before the formal complaint. This gap makes it difficult to assess what was reported and whether the landlord responded appropriately. The landlord has not disputed the resident’s account. Topping up pressure can be basic tenant maintenance, but repeated pressure loss may indicate a leak or failing components. It would have therefore been reasonable for the landlord to inspect the boiler. There is no evidence it did so, which is a failing.
30. Re‑pressurising the boiler appeared to resolve the issue temporarily. However, the landlord did not show it considered the resident’s difficulty operating the taps or the distress caused by repeated heat loss. The resident lived with her partner and 2 children, including a 1‑year‑old. She said her partner often worked away. There is no evidence the landlord considered any vulnerabilities in the household, which was not appropriate.
31. The landlord said the resident reported a radiator leak on 2 January 2025, which she believed caused the pressure loss. The landlord attended on 8 January 2025, which met its urgent repair timescale. We do not have the resident’s original report, so we cannot assess the severity of the leak or whether the response time was proportionate.
32. The resident told us the pressure issue stopped after the radiator repair. She felt the landlord could have identified the leak sooner if it had inspected the boiler when she first reported problems. We also consider that the landlord could have acted sooner, and its delay caused avoidable distress and inconvenience.

Brickwork repairs

33. The resident reported issues with the garden wall brickwork on 15 November 2024. The records do not detail the issue, but the landlord later said it involved pointing and perimeter work. The landlord raised a routine repair requiring attendance within 28 calendar days, which was reasonable.
34. The landlord attended on 2, 10, 11 December 2024. It said on each attendance it either required more time or materials. It confirmed further visits to complete the works took place on 17 and 22 January 2025. It renewed the top of the wall on 18 and 19 March 2025.
35. The landlord apologised for the delays and multiple attendances. It said it tried to utilise the availability of its trades as much as possible by booking gaps in the diary, leading to multiple attendances over 7 days, and 4 months since the first report.
36. The landlord’s explanation was clear, and its records support its account. Some repairs reasonably require more than one visit. However, the landlord should have updated the resident throughout the process. There is no evidence it did so, which would not have managed her expectations. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to apologise, offer compensation, and identify learning.

Roof repairs

37. The landlord raised a job to repair roof tiles on 6 February 2025. Its notes referenced 3 large holes in the roof and missing felt. It attended on 28 February 2025 intending to complete the repair but found extensive felt work was needed. It said it needed access equipment and permissions before completing the work. The landlord said it would update the resident and had raised the repair under its planned maintenance timescale of 180 days.
38. As with its other repairs, the records lacked detail and did not show how the landlord assessed risks or ensured the property was safe in the meantime. 6 days after the stage 2 response, the resident reported roof tiles hanging dangerously at the front of the property. She also reported water entering the home. The landlord attended within its emergency timescale, which was appropriate. The notes say it made the area safe and completed a temporary repair to prevent water ingress until scaffolding was available. The limited records make it difficult to assess whether its earlier actions were reasonable.
39. The resident confirmed the repairs are now complete. The landlord’s records do not clarify when. The last record raised was on 30 September 2025 which said it required a 3 man team to carry out repairs on the roof. An appointment was booked for 25 November 2025. If the repair was completed on that date, it took 270 days, exceeding the 180 day timescale given to the resident. It is unclear why the work took longer or whether the resident received adequate updates. In the absence of further information, additional compensation is appropriate for the extended delay.

Summary

40. Across all repair categories, the landlord treated each issue separately and did not recognise the combined impact on the resident. As previously stated, given the number of reports, it should have inspected the property at the outset. This was a missed opportunity to show proactive oversight.
41. Some delays were outside the landlord’s control, but others were not. This resulted in the resident experiencing prolonged inconvenience, uncertainty, and distress. It was positive the landlord acknowledged the volume of the repairs, their impact, and the overall time taken to complete the repairs. It offered £150 compensation.
42. Compensation was appropriate, but the landlord did not acknowledge all its failures and therefore the amount was not proportionate to the additional issues identified. These include the lack of risk and vulnerability considerations, delays to the roof works, delays addressing the boiler issues, and the time and trouble caused by its poor communication and record keeping. Additional compensation is therefore appropriate, in line with our compensation guidance.

43. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
44. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint within 7 working days which was slightly outside of the timescales set out in its policy. It then provided its stage 1 response 10 working days later, which was reasonable and in line with its policy.
45. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation in 10 working days, which again was outside of the timescales set out in its policy and our Code. It provided its stage 2 response 18 working days later, which was appropriate.
46. The delays in acknowledging the complaints were not excessive and would not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. We therefore found nomaladministration. The landlord should ensure it consistently follows its complaints policy and the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

47. A consistent theme in this investigation was the lack of accurate and detailed repair records. This made it difficult to establish what actions were taken, whether follow on works were raised appropriately, and whether the landlord met its repair timescales. The landlord must ensure it keeps clear records of all repairs, including reports, appointments, and the outcomes of each visit.

Communication

48. The landlord has not shown that it regularly updated the resident about the repairs or recorded all her telephone reports. This led the resident to chase the landlord and repeat the issues she was experiencing. As an outcome to her complaint, the resident wants reassurance that future repairs will be properly communicated and that her reports will be accurately recorded and acted on.