Gentoo Group Limited (202336287)

Decision
Case ID	202336287
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Gentoo Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	15 May 2026

Background

1. The resident lived in the property as a shared owner. She reported alterations her neighbour made which she said caused flooding in her garden in August 2023. She moved from the property in 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about garden flooding.
3. We have also considered the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about garden flooding.
5. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord failed to fully consider its obligations under the lease. It did not fully consider what evidence of damage it would need to pursue action against the neighbour. This resulted in it unfairly raising the resident’s expectations in its complaint responses.
7. There was a 4-month delay at stage 1 but the landlord took sufficient action to put things right.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident: £50 previously offered as part of its complaint responses. £500 previously offered in October 2024 after its final complaint response. The landlord should provide us with documentary evidence this has been paid by the due date.	No later than 19 June 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The reasonable redress finding is made on the understanding the landlord pay the resident £50 already offered for its complaint handling failures, if not done so already.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 August 2023	The resident reported her neighbour had installed decking and gravel borders which blocked the drainage in her garden. She said they emptied a swimming pool and water slide, causing flooding in her garden.
August 2023 to March 2024	The resident chased the landlord for a response. The resident contacted this Service. We asked the landlord to provide a formal complaint response.
22 March 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response said the resident was responsible for repairs to the garden. It agreed to ask the neighbour to rectify the issues within 3 months. After this, it would take steps to resolve the problem and seek costs from the neighbour. It offered £50 compensation for distress and delays.
22 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she paid a 25% shared ownership rent to the landlord and believed it had a responsibility for the garden. She said the neighbour had already said they would not fix the garden issues.
29 April 2024	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It repeated its previous points and said it would ask the neighbour to make repairs by 19 June 2024. It offered an additional £50 compensation for distress.
Post complaints process April – October 2024	The landlord wrote to the neighbour and considered legal advice. The landlord then apologised to the resident for setting an unrealistic expectation. It said it could not resolve the issues, and responsibility lay with the shared owners. It offered the resident an additional £500 compensation for its poor communication and incorrect advice.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because she was unhappy with the offer of compensation. She wanted the landlord to apologise for its misleading communication.

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.

Complaint	The resident’s concerns about garden flooding
Finding	Maladministration

8. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s reports of garden damage until we asked it to. This caused a delay of 4 months in the resident receiving a response to her service request. The landlord apologised for this failure in its complaint response and offered £50 for the distress caused. This was a reasonable approach to putting things right.
9. The shared ownership agreement stated the resident and neighbour were responsible for repairs to their gardens. It also stated the neighbour should not make alterations or additions to the exterior of the garden without written consent of the landlord. The neighbour should not do anything which causes damage to neighbouring properties.
10. In its complaint responses, the landlord correctly identified the resident was responsible to repairs to her garden. It agreed to request that the neighbour repaired the resident’s garden within a 3-month timeframe and said if this was not complete it would repair the garden directly and re-charge the neighbour. The landlord chose to make this offer, which it was not obliged to do so.
11. Evidence from this time and a post complaint review provided by the landlord shows it did not fully consider the limits of its obligations under the lease. It did not fully assess what evidence of damage there was to the garden or the cause of any damage when it responded to the complaint.
12. As agreed, the landlord wrote to the neighbour asking them to rectify the damage. This was reasonable. The neighbour disputed they were responsible for any damage. The landlord took legal advice which suggested it could not pursue further action to instruct the neighbour to make repairs to the resident’s garden.
13. We have found maladministration because the landlord did not recognise its failures as part of its 2 stage complaints process. However, 5 months after the stage 2 response, the landlord identified it did not have sufficient evidence to take legal action against the neighbour.
14. It apologised to the resident for this and offered an additional £500 compensation for poor communication and misleading information provided at stage 2. The landlord took responsibility for its communication failures at this point and offered appropriate compensation for the adverse effect of its failings on the resident. We have therefore not awarded any additional amount.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

15. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Codes in this case are the 2023 and 2024 editions. Our findings are that the landlord:
    1. Had a published complaints policy in line with the Code.
    2. Did not acknowledge and respond to the initial complaint until we asked it to. This delayed a response by 4 months. This caused the resident time and trouble as she had to chase the landlord.
    3. Acknowledge the stage 2 complaint within its policy timeframe.
    4. Responded to the stage 2 complaint 2 days outside of its policy timeframe.
    5. Apologised for the delays at both complaint stages. It is unclear how the landlord split compensation between the substantive issue and the complaint. We have therefore split this equally. It offered a total of £50 for complaint delays. This was in line with our compensation guidance for a complaint handling failure that caused time and trouble but didn’t affect the overall outcome.

Learning

16. The landlord reviewed this case and identified its failings after the complaints process. It took steps to resolve the impact of its misleading communications.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord kept good records in this case.

Communication

18. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s communications before she made a formal complaint through the Housing Ombudsman. This was a failing that may have contributed to it unrealistically raising the resident’s expectations in its complaint responses.