Gentoo Group Limited (202008584)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008584

Gentoo Group Limited

26 April 2021

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

The complaint refers to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed to his radiators, flooring, and boiler.
2. The resident’s concerns that the landlord has labelled him as ‘dangerous’.
3. The resident’s concerns related to the landlord’s use of his data and an alleged data protection breach.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (“The Scheme”). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

The resident’s concerns related to the landlord’s use of his data and an alleged data protection breach.

Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body”.

The resident has raised concerns that details of personal conversations between himself and the landlord had been shared with his ex-partner. If the resident has concerns about the use or misuse of his personal data, he can approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO is able to investigate complaints about possible breaches of the Data Protection Act. It is not part of this Service’s role to determine whether the landlord had adhered to this act. It is therefore advised that the resident contacts the Information Commissioner’s Office (“ICO”) for further information if he wishes to take this element of the complaint further.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
The resident called the landlord on 8 August 2019 to report issues with his boiler pressure, a leaking radiator, and a radiator which had fallen off the wall. The repair job was originally raised as an urgent seven-day repair which the resident was not happy with. This was then changed to a 24hr emergency repair as the resident advised that the radiator was at risk of falling again.
An appointment took place on 8 August 2019 to repair the radiator in the resident’s living room. A follow-up appointment took place on 9 August 2019 to rehang the radiator.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 August 2019 and advised the following:
1. He explained that a plumber had attended his property as there was a leak from his radiator due to an untightened valve. He noted that this had been leaking for some time and resulted in the floor needing to be replaced, which was under a year old. He explained that when the flooring was removed there were mould mites which indicated that the water leak had been ongoing for some time.
2. He explained that a radiator at the top of his stairs had fallen off the wall on 7 August 2019 and almost injured his infant child. He advised that he had called about this radiator the previous year but was informed that the radiator was stable. He spoke to a member of the landlord’s staff who advised that this repair would not be considered an emergency. The resident asked to speak to a manager who then arranged for an emergency repair to take place. A plumber attended the same day and advised that the radiator was stable, which he felt was untrue.
3. The resident asked for all communication to be in writing moving forward so that there was a trail of evidence if needed.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 August 2019 to acknowledge the complaint. It confirmed that all communication could be in writing moving forward, although it would need to discuss the issues raised. A resolution date could be agreed. It asked the resident when would be convenient to proceed.
The landlord visited the property on 21 August 2019 to discuss the repairs. It noted that gas and plumbing repairs were completed the same day the resident had reported them, and that the radiator was secured the next day. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that issues with his boiler had not been picked up during the gas service at the property in May 2019. The landlord’s records show that the resident became agitated during this visit and claimed that the landlord wanted to evict him. The landlord’s records show that some concerns were raised by members of staff as the resident had reportedly threatened physical action against the property.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 22 August 2019 and advised the following:
1. The landlord advised that it had no record of any repair request related to a leaking radiator in the resident’s home the previous year before Christmas. It maintained that the first record of a repair request was 8 August 2019.
2. The landlord noted that the resident was shown how to top-up the pressure in the radiator should he have further issues in the future. The landlord advised that if there had been evidence of a pressure drop during the gas service appointment on 9 May 2019 this would have been investigated. It advised that there had been no evidence of a pressure drop found at the time.
3. The landlord noted that the resident had raised further concerns related to how certain aspects of his tenancy had been handled during a home visit; it advised that this had been passed to the relevant team internally, who would be in contact with the resident to discuss this further. The landlord advised that it had sent the resident a claim form should he wish to claim for any damage to his flooring.
The resident submitted a claim for the costs associated with replacing his flooring on 24 August 2019. The resident included an invoice from his flooring supplier dated 9 August 2019 for £559. He advised that the radiator valve had not been tightened correctly when the radiators had been rebalanced in December 2017, which had caused the leak.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 October 2019 in order to escalate his complaint. He advised the following:
1. He had spoken to the complaint handler and advised that the information which had been provided was incorrect. He said that when the plumber attended the property, they confirmed that the radiator was safe despite this falling off the wall the previous evening.
2. He expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had no record of his previous repair requests despite these being provided to the resident when he had requested a copy of all repairs since moving into the property. He noted the repair numbers 2915700 and 2849032 which related to his radiators.
3. He advised that he had called the landlord on 1 October 2019 and the member of staff explained that two workers had said that the resident said he would ‘burn the house down’. The resident denied saying this and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had previously contacted the local authority’s social services team for his mental health, and that the landlord had labelled him as a ‘dangerous man’.
4. The resident advised that staff members had attended his property with “body suits” and “body cameras”, and he felt that the landlord was trying to evict him. He added that the landlord had informed his ex-partner of its actions at this time which was a breach of his confidentiality.
5. The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had advised his living room radiator had fallen off the wall when it had not. He confirmed that he had photographic evidence of the damage made by the leak and the wall plugs out of the wall where the radiator fell. He noted that a bedroom radiator had fallen off the wall in 2016-17 and the landlord had said this was safe at the time.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 October 2019 as it had attempted to contact him to discuss his escalation request but had not received a response. It asked the resident to make contact to discuss the complaint further. The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord on 4 November 2019 to discuss the matter.
A visit took place at the property on 13 November 2019 to discuss the damaged laminate flooring.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response to the resident on 20 November 2019 and advised the following:
1. The landlord advised that the resident had reported that five radiators were coming loose from the walls and one of the radiators leaked which had caused damage to the flooring, this subsequently required replacement. The landlord acknowledged that in its initial investigation there was a misunderstanding, and it understood the leaking radiator to be one that had been loose from the wall. It advised that due to the passage of time it was not possible to determine whether the leak was a result of rebalancing works to the heating system carried out in December 2017 or as a result of general wear and tear. The landlord confirmed that this should have been identified fully at the time of the repair.
2. The landlord advised that it was not trying evict the resident. It advised the resident to provide further evidence to support this claim in the future if necessary. It confirmed that there were no records on its system to suggest that the tenant was a risk to its staff or that staff should only visit the property in pairs. It confirmed that all staff members wear lone working devices to ensure they are protected and that it was not unusual for staff to visit in pairs. It confirmed that it did not possess or use ‘body armour’ when visiting properties; however, as above, staff are provided with lone working devices in which they are required to use in accordance with its lone working policy.
3. The resident had raised concerns that conversations between himself and members of the landlord’s staff had been shared with his partner at the time she was his ex-partner. The landlord confirmed that it had not been able to conclude the investigation into this allegation, but it took the resident’s privacy seriously and would continue to investigate this matter.
4. The landlord apologised for any distress these matters had caused the resident and his family. It explained that although it was not able to establish the cause of the leak, it would offer the resident a goodwill gesture of £559, which was equivalent to the cost of the replacement laminate flooring for which he had provided a receipt. It confirmed that it could arrange for an inspection of any other repair issues at the property to see if any other matters needed attention.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed to his radiators, flooring, and boiler.

The landlord’s repair policy confirms that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days and should be raised where there is no immediate risk to the resident and no immediate risk to the fabric of the property. Urgent repairs should be completed within seven calendar days and includes work that needs to be done to prevent damage to the property or where there is a possible health and safety risk. Emergency repairs should be made safe within 24 hours and a follow-up appointment may be needed. Emergency repairs include issues where there is an immediate risk to a resident’s safety or the property.
Following the resident’s reports of low boiler pressure, a leaking radiator, and a detached radiator on 8 August 2019, the landlord responded in line with its repair policy timescales. It was reasonable for the landlord to initially treat this as an urgent repair as the issues may have caused a health and safety risk, but the landlord did not identify an immediate risk to the resident or his family. Once it was established that the radiator was in a dangerous position, this repair was then considered an emergency and carried out in a timely manner in accordance with the landlord’s timescales for emergency repairs.
There has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the repairs needed in the resident’s property. The landlord arranged for the repair issues to be addressed on the same day they were reported which was appropriate in line with its emergency repair timescales. A follow-up appointment was necessary to rehang the radiator on the wall; this was carried out the following day which again was within a reasonable timescale. The landlord has confirmed that the issues with the boiler pressure were not identified at the time of the gas service in May 2019 and therefore could not have been rectified sooner. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors concerning the condition of the boiler in May 2019 and accordingly the decision to not carry out any work earlier was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident has expressed concern that the landlord had no record of his historical repair requests from the previous year (2018) despite specific job numbers for these repairs being sent to him previously. The landlord has confirmed with this Service that these job numbers were for works to the radiators which had come away from the walls in 2016. It advised that these works were completed at the time and it had not received any further reports of problems ‘before Christmas’ in 2018. It may have been helpful for the landlord, in its complaint responses, to explain that there were historical repairs prior to 2018 but no record of any recent reports of issues with the radiators. This may have prevented any uncertainty for the resident. If the landlord had not received any reports in 2018, it would not have been aware of the issues regarding the radiators prior to the repair request in August 2019. Therefore, it could not be expected to have addressed this matter any sooner.
The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s testimony that he reported repair issues to the landlord in 2018. However, where there are conflicting accounts of what happened, with no supporting evidence either way, it is impossible for the Ombudsman, as an independent and impartial arbiter to say which account is correct. In this case, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that any issues with the radiators were reported in 2018.
The landlord has advised that it was not possible to determine the cause of the leak due to the amount of time which had passed but acknowledged that this should have been identified fully at the time of the repair. There is not enough evidence to confirm that the landlord was liable for the cost of the damaged flooring as a result of any failings. Although the landlord offered to reimburse the resident for the cost of the replacement flooring needed as a goodwill gesture. As the fitting of floor coverings is the tenant’s responsibility in line with the tenant’s handbook, the landlord was not strictly obliged to offer this, but it was reasonable for it to do so in view of the inconvenience the resident had experienced as a result of the repair issues affecting his property.
It is part of the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. In short, the measures taken by the landlord to reimburse the resident for the cost of the replacement flooring as a gesture of goodwill was proportionate to the impact on the resident of.

The resident’s concerns that the landlord has labelled him as ‘dangerous’.

The landlord’s employee code of conduct states that staff must comply with its policies and procedures related to lone working. The landlord has confirmed that when working alone, its staff should wear lone–working devices to ensure their safety. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction as he believes that the landlord has labelled him as a ‘dangerous man’ and has instructed its staff to carry out any visits in pairs for their safety.
The landlord’s records show an incident on 21 August 2019 whereby the resident had reportedly threatened physical action against the property. The resident denies threatening to “burn the house down”. As above, the Ombudsman cannot establish what happened where there are conflicting accounts with no supporting evidence. Also, the Ombudsman would not seek to establish whether the resident did or did not make such a threat as it is our role to investigate the landlord’s handling of this issue, rather than the resident’s actions. In view of this, we will consider whether the landlord provided a satisfactory response to the resident’s concerns.
It would be reasonable for the landlord’s staff to report any concerns they had about their safety or damage to the landlord’s properties and the landlord would be expected to keep records of any such reports and respond appropriately. In this case, it is clear that the landlord has not taken any further action in relation to the alleged threat and has explained that it did not consider the tenant to be a risk to its staff or feel that it should only visit the property in pairs. No further evidence has been provided to this Service to support the resident’s claim or suggest that the landlord believes the resident to be dangerous. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that the landlord told its staff to only visit the resident’s property in pairs.
The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why its staff may attend a property in pairs in some situations or may wear lone–working devices when attending alone for their safety in line with its lone working policy. The landlord is within its right to send as many staff as necessary to ensure the efficient completion of the job and to ensure staff work safely. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord has acted unreasonably in explaining its position to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of repairs needed to his radiators, flooring, and boiler prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns that he had been labelled as dangerous.

Reasons

The landlord was not strictly obliged to reimburse the resident for the cost of replacing the flooring at the property following the leak as floor coverings are usually the responsibility of the resident and there was no evidence to suggest the leak was the direct result of a failing by the landlord or its contractors. The landlord has, however, acknowledged that the cause of the leak should have been identified at the time of the repair and therefore agreed to compensate the resident as result of this. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to pay for the flooring on this basis and it does not need to do anything further regarding the complaint about repairs.
The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation to the resident in that it did not feel he was a risk to its staff or that it should only visit the property in pairs. The landlord explained that its staff needed to follow its lone-working policy and wear lone-working devices accordingly as standard when visiting its properties. The landlord was obliged to keep a record of its staff’s concerns regarding the resident’s alleged threat to damage the property, however there is no evidence that it took any further action regarding this allegation.

Orders and recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident £559 as previously agreed, if it has not already done so.