Gentoo Group Limited (202101116)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101116

Gentoo Group Limited

21 February 2022

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 is regarding the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s repairs reports.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns over the price of her energy bills.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord (a Housing Association). She has resided at the property, a two-bedroom bungalow, since August 2020.

Summary of Events

Landlord repair logs note that, on 4 and 5 January 2021, entries were made regarding ‘some tiles of roof look loose…water ingress in sitting room may be linked’ and ‘heavy water coming through sitting room wall…assess pointing’. On 11 January 2021, a further record noted that the resident was ‘still having same problems of heavy water into (sitting) room’ after a bricklayer had attended on 5 January 2021. Subsequently, on 15 January 2021, a further log noted that ‘water ingress into sitting room (the resident) has already had roofer out to attend on 4th Jan and still having the same problem’. It was noted that ‘4 x rolls loft insulation needed above living room’ and an order was raised for the landlord’s Insulation Team to attend and ‘add insulation and reorganize rest of loft insulation’. It is noted that, based on the evidence from the landlord’s repair logs, there is no evidence that the landlord had been made aware of a repair issue regarding water ingress prior to these reports.
On 25 January 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. Within her complaint, the resident raised the following concerns:
1. She had moved into the property in August 2020 but since then a number of ‘issues’ had arisen, which the landlord had been made aware of, and which the resident stated ultimately came to light on 31 December 2020.
2. When she moved into the property, she stated that there had been little or no insulation in the roof and a ‘normal roof’ repair had become more complicated.
3. Her gas bills since moving into the property had become ‘ridiculous’ and she stated that she held the landlord responsible for pushing her into debt as a result and that ‘all costs incurred (with her utility provider) …should be covered’ by the landlord.
4. Since 31 December 2020 there had been instances of ‘water running down the ceiling wall and gable end’ and there was a ‘gaping hole in the chimney breast’. She reiterated her concerns about her heating costs, advised that she had had to buy an electric fire to heat her sitting room and that an electric fire that the landlord had installed ‘does not properly function’.
5. On 21 January 2021, the landlord refused to send an operative (to an unspecified repair) and the resident and her partner had been left to mop up water from the floor (of an unspecified room). She stated that she had needed a ‘brickie or a plumber’ to ‘fix the situation’, although the specific repair issue this related to was again not noted. The resident also referred to ‘issues under the sink’ (it was not noted if this was in the kitchen or a bathroom) and stated that she was due to have an inspection the following day, although ‘nothing was getting done about it’ (again, it was not specified which issue was being referred to here).
6. The resident outlined that she had spent £119 on a new electric fire; £20 on a ‘wooden unit’ under the sink; and ‘up to £1100’ on her gas and electric bills.
7. She finally advised that she had contacted her contents insurer but had been signposted back to the landlord to speak to a manager as the property had been let in a ‘substandard condition’.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day, writing to her and advising it would respond within 10 working days. It noted the resident was concerned about ‘the standard of (her) property’ and ‘the issues (she was) experiencing with repairs’ and asked she contact it to discuss the issues further.
The landlord issued its Stage One complaint response on 22 February 2021. It noted that it understood the complaint to be about the resident’s concerns over ‘the amount your gas bill has increased since you moved into your new home and issues you are experiencing with repairs’. It made the following findings:
1. It stated that the resident had advised she felt her gas bill had now reduced since the landlord had laid four rolls of loft insulation on 22 January 2021. However, it noted that, having inspected the resident’s latest bill (for period ending 6 February 2021), her gas usage actually appeared to have risen slightly. The landlord advised that, therefore, it considered that the loft insulation had made little impact on her gas usage. It further noted that the resident’s electricity use had ‘increased significantly’ since her first bill, which it stated was therefore ‘impacting your bill rather than the gas (usage)’.
2. It advised that it had analysed the three utility bills the resident had supplied and noted that her final bill predicted her annual gas costs to be £753.04 (or £14.48 per week) and her annual electricity costs to be £271.96 (or £10.53 per week). It acknowledged that ‘the bills are causing (the resident) distress’ but advised that, having analysed the predicted annual spend, it was ‘deemed to be average usage by (the energy provider)’.
3. The landlord noted that one of the resolutions the resident had sought in her complaint was for it to contribute towards her energy bills, but it advised that it would not be able to do so.
4. Regarding the repair issues (which the landlord referred to as ‘the issues you were experiencing with water ingress in your living room and a leak under the kitchen sink’), it noted that it had carried out an inspection at the resident’s property on 9 February 2021. Following its visit, the landlord clarified that it had returned to complete the clearing of guttering, repaired a guttering joint and inspected a cavity. It also listed the repair appointments that had been arranged and it would be attending over the coming weeks:
  1. Remove wall insulation from cavity, 18 March 2021.
  2. Repair leak under kitchen sink, 15 March 2021.
  3. A roofer would ‘check for water ingress under cavity’, 31 March 2021.
  4. Repair to render to the rear of the property, 31 March 2021.
  5. Ease and adjust window, 15 March 2021.
  6. Check heating thermostat ‘and give advice on how to use’, 9 March 2021.
5. The landlord offered an apology for ‘the distress this situation has caused’ but advised the resident of her right to escalate the complaint to Stage Two of its complaint procedure if she remained unhappy.
Although this Service has not seen a record of the request, it is evident that the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. The landlord wrote to acknowledge that it received her ‘appeal’ on 23 February 2021 and that it would respond within 20 working days.
Records show that, on 25 February 2021, the landlord carried out a further visit to the resident’s property after which it noted that some of the appointments listed in Paragraph 6 had been brought forward and further repair orders were raised:
1. It would attend on 2 March 2021 to install some double sockets in the property, an electrician would give the resident advice on using the heating and replace the existing thermostat, which the landlord noted was ‘not the easiest to use’. It would instead install ‘a new Neomitis (thermostat)’ which it stated was ‘much more user friendly’.
2. A roofer would attend on 3 March 2021 to check for ‘possible water ingress into the cavity’ and the landlord had also requested that the operative ‘check the valley to the rear and…the guttering…to ensure they’re clear and have adequate flow.’
3. On the same day, a joiner and plumber would attend to replace the sink base unit and ease and adjust a window.
4. A plasterer would attend to render at the rear of the property on 23 March 2021.
5. It arranged for a contractor to carry out a ‘cavity clean’ of a 2m square area in the resident’s living room.
The landlord also noted that it had since ‘agreed to give (the resident) 2 weeks free rent by way of apology and compensation which she was ‘agreeable with’.
On 23 March 2021, the landlord issued its Stage Two response. In its reply, the landlord noted that:
1. It had arranged for an inspection to take place on 25 February 2021 and, following this, it had replaced the resident’s thermostat and fitted converter boxes ‘to increase the amount of sockets you had within the property’. It stated that it had also ‘rearranged the appointments…to ensure the outstanding repairs were completed more swiftly’.
2. It again apologised ‘for any distress this situation has caused’ and confirmed that ‘as a gesture of goodwill, for the inconvenience caused’, it would refund the resident two weeks rent. It noted that it understood the resident to be happy with the complaint resolution and how the issues had been addressed and would therefore be closing her complaint. However, the landlord also signposted the resident to this Service in case she was not satisfied with its response.
The resident contacted this Service on 14 April 2021 to confirm that she wished to escalate her complaint. She advised that she contested the landlord’s conclusion that the complaint had been resolved to her satisfaction as, at the time of its response, some repairs were still outstanding.
Following the conclusion of the complaint process, the resident reported a further fault with her guttering on 18 May 2021. The landlord raised a routine job the following day to repair a pipe clip and booked an appointment for 10 June 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair reports

In her complaint, the resident outlined that she had had ‘a number’ of repair issues since she moved into the property and that the landlord had been made aware of these. While this Service acknowledges the resident’s apparent frustration that certain repairs were taking time to resolve, this investigation has not seen evidence that the landlord had been made aware of any repair issues relating to water ingress in the property prior to 31 December 2020, over four months after the start of the resident’s tenancy. While the resident stated in her correspondence with the landlord, and this Service, that she had discussed some repair issues with her Housing Officer, it is also noted that in her original complaint she acknowledged that some of the issues referred to in her complaint had only ‘come to light’ at the end of December 2020.
From the information available, there is no evidence that the landlord was aware of repair issues regarding water ingress and problems with the resident’s roof prior to this. Landlord repair logs show that an inspection order was raised on 31 December 2020 (‘roofer required’ and ‘assess pointing to gable end wall’). Following this, a further note on 4 January 2021 remarked that ‘some tiles of (the) roof look loose, customer having problems with water ingress in sitting room (and this) may be linked’. However, due to a lack of detail within the landlord’s repair logs, it is not clear if this was a comment made by an operative following an inspection or a further report or additional information provided by the resident.
Landlord repair logs mark the orders it raised regarding a possible roof leak, insulation issues and assessing the property’s gable end as being completed, and subsequently raised repairs note that a roofer attended on 4 January 2021 and a bricklayer on 5 January 2021 but that in each case, the issue of water ingress appears to have been unresolved, leading to those follow up orders being raised. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s repair logs should be more detailed, showing clearly when works were carried out, what work was done and when they were completed. It is not appropriate that the landlord’s records do not make clear how and when it had progressed each repair, including details of any inspections carried out and any associated findings. Within a set of comprehensive repair logs, the Ombudsman would expect to see a proper audit trail, so the landlord is able to demonstrate to its residents, and to this Service, the actions it has taken. However, while the landlord’s record keeping could be improved overall, the evidence appears to show that, once the landlord had received the resident’s repair reports, it took reasonable steps to investigate and reasonable attempts to resolve the issues.
It is noted that in her complaint the resident noted that she had made a further repair report on 21 January 2021 when she had needed to ‘mop up water from the floor’ and the landlord refused to send anyone to assist. However the complaint did not provide further details regarding what had caused the pooled water, or which room it was affecting, and the landlord’s repair records do not contain any entry from that date. It is also noted that, in correspondence with this Service, the resident has confirmed that the landlord did send an operative at the time but that a manager refused to attend to oversee the work being carried out. However, regardless of this clarification from the resident, it is noted that the landlord did not respond to this point in its complaint response or provide any explanation for its position. This was not appropriate, and it would have been helpful, and fairer to the resident, if the landlord had clarified its position or at least provided its own version of events in response.
Following a further report of a roof leak, which repair logs indicate the landlord received on 11 February 2021, it is not clear when the landlord attended to either carry out a further inspection or carry out any further repair work. Again, this is not appropriate, and if the landlord maintained more comprehensive repair records, it would be easier for it to evidence the steps it had taken to respond to the issues the resident raised and show if it had acted reasonably and in line with its stated repair timescales.
However, the landlord’s records do indicate that it attended the property to carry out an inspection on 9 February 2021, seemingly prior to the report received on 11 February 2021, after which point it returned to carry out repairs (including clearing and repairing guttering and inspecting a cavity) although again, it is not entirely clear from its repair logs when these actions took place. Nevertheless, the landlord referred to the repairs listed as having been completed when it issued its Stage One complaint response on 22 February 2021, which indicates that it carried out the repairs within a reasonable timescale and acted appropriately to carry out repairs identified following an inspection that was carried out relatively promptly. Following the inspection, it also arranged for further repairs and provided the resident with appointment dates for these in its complaint response. This was appropriate and indicated that the landlord was aiming to carry out the identified repairs in a timely fashion. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, providing the resident with a clear plan of action regarding the outstanding repairs was also a positive step that was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
It was a further positive step from the landlord to carry out a further inspection of the resident’s property on 25 February 2021, after which it raised further works and proactively arranged for the works identified following its previous inspection to be brought forward. This was an example of the landlord seeking to treat the resident fairly and minimise any further disruption to her, having already acknowledged in its complaint response that the repair situation would have caused her a certain amount of distress. From the information available to this Service, following the first inspection the landlord carried out on 8 February 2021, the landlord responded appropriately to the repair reports and fulfilled its repair responsibilities within a reasonable length of time.
The Ombudsman does note that, in correspondence with this Service, the resident has asserted that some repairs were not completed until much later. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that shows this to be the case, or any evidence of further repair reports being raised after the conclusion of the complaint that relate to the same issues. There is therefore no evidence of fault by the landlord in how it responded to the original repair reports.
It was also reasonable that the landlord acknowledged the upset the repair issues would have caused the resident, especially soon after moving into a new property. It was therefore a positive step that it made a goodwill gesture of a two-week rent refund to reflect any distress caused. Although the landlord could have been more specific regarding the exact issues that led it to make the award, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it constituted an offer of reasonable redress by the landlord given the circumstances.
It is acknowledged that the resident was unhappy that her complaint was closed before the repair works had been completed. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was not unreasonable that it was closed. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding repair issues in its Stage One complaint response and it was reasonable that it did not seek to keep the complaint open longer than necessary, having outlined the actions it would take, and clarified which repairs had already been completed within its Stage Two response. While the landlord noted in its Stage Two response that the resident was happy with the resolution it offered (the completion of the outstanding repairs and two weeks’ rent rebate), this Service acknowledges the resident has since stated she was not satisfied with the final complaint outcome. However, this Service has not seen evidence that this was communicated to the landlord and therefore there is no evidence that the landlord acted unreasonably when closing the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over the price of her energy bills

This Service empathises with the resident and the concerns she raised over an apparent increase in her energy bills after she moved into her property in August 2020. Although this case relates to over a year ago, it is relevant to note that the continuing rise in the cost of energy may cause stress and financial concerns to many households.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord initially acted reasonably when it agreed to review the resident’s electricity and gas bills and assess whether there was any obvious rise in her overall utility costs. Having noted that the resident’s gas usage had slightly increased following the installation of additional insulation, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to conclude that the apparent lack of insulation in the property when it was let to the resident had not necessarily caused the resident to use more gas than she otherwise would have. It noted that the main rise in her bills was caused by an increase in her electricity usage. It also advised that the resident’s utility provider had advised that her usage was ‘deemed to be average’. It advised that it did not accept it was liable to pay any contribution towards her energy bills. Overall, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s position to be unreasonable.
However, it is noted that the landlord only considered bills covering a short, three-month period, when the new insulation had only been in place for around two weeks. It would have been preferable, and fairer to the resident, if the landlord had looked at bills covering a longer period to potentially identify any trends, for example any difference between the resident’s bills during Winter 2020 and Winter 2021. A recommendation has therefore been made regarding this at the end of this report.
However, the landlord could have given more consideration to the resident’s point that she had had to purchase a new electric fire as the one in her property was not working properly. As the landlord had acknowledged the resident’s electricity usage had apparently increased, so as to treat her fairly it could have further looked into whether there were any further issues with the central heating or insulation within her property. As the resident advised the landlord she had needed to buy an additional heater, which would then likely caused an increase in her electricity use, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have given more consideration to this point and addressed it within its response. However, in correspondence with this Service on 4 February 2022, the resident confirmed that the old electric fire in her property was not actually faulty, or ‘not functioning’ as she described in her original complaint, but had in fact been decommissioned when the property was converted to gas central heating while void. There was therefore no fault by the landlord in relation to how it responded to concerns raised by the resident over the existing heater in the property.
The landlord could also, so as to provide greater transparency and perhaps offer some assurance to the resident, have provided more information regarding what an ‘average’ bill should be and what enquiries it had undertaken to establish this. While this Service notes that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s report on Quarterly Energy Prices between October and December 2020 (available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/973042/QEP_Q4_2020.pdf) indicates that the resident’s bills did fall within the UK average at the time (the average combined bill was £1264) and the landlord’s advice was therefore reasonable, it could have provided a more detailed response to the resident’s concerns.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord was reasonable in identifying a potential problem with the resident’s thermostat and agreeing to install a more ‘user friendly’ version along with providing advice on how to use it, having apparently determined that the newly installed insulation did not have much impact on the resident’s bills, this should have prompted it to consider investigating whether there were any further steps it could take to improve the property’s insulation.
The landlord should also have considered asking the resident if she required any further support with managing her bills. Within her complaint, the resident advised that the bills had pushed her into debt and landlord records indicate that it was already aware that the resident had ‘a number of vulnerabilities’ but there is no evidence within its responses that it considered either providing her with, or referring her for, further advice on how to potentially reduce her energy bills or for help with managing debt. The landlord operates its own Money Matters Service which its website states can offer services including signposting or advice on fuel debt or fuel grant applications, energy saving advice and help with fuel switching. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not at least signpost the resident to this service, and this meant that the landlord missed an opportunity for early intervention on the issue, while it also did not consider the potential support needs of a resident it knew to be vulnerable.
Additionally, in correspondence with this Service, the resident has maintained that her energy bills remain higher than average and, particularly, higher than they were in her previous, larger, property. She advised she has raised this with the landlord, but it had not addressed the matter further. Although this Service has not seen evidence of this, as the discussions referred to post-date the complaint, nevertheless a recommendation has been made regarding this at the end of this report.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s repair reports.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s concerns over the price of her energy bills.

Reasons

While the landlord’s repair records do not enable it to clearly evidence a chronology of how it responded to the resident’s repair reports, it is apparent that it did respond reasonably promptly following the first report it received on or around 31 December 2020/1 January 2021. While it is noted that the resident maintains that she had experienced repair issues since moving into the property in August 2020, this Service has not seen evidence that repair issues were raised with the landlord at this time.
The landlord acted reasonably by carrying out two inspections at the resident’s property and providing her with an action plan within its complaint response regarding the repairs it identified. It then was proactive in bringing forward most of these repair appointments to try and bring them to a resolution more promptly.
While there are concerns regarding the lack of detail in the landlord’s repair logs, in general it appears to have responded to the repair reports reasonably and its offer of a goodwill gesture having recognised the distress the issues had caused the resident was positive and amounted to reasonable redress.
The landlord was not unreasonable in declining to contribute towards the resident’s energy bills and it was reasonable in how it concluded that there was no evidence any lack of insulation had caused an increase in her gas bill although it would have been preferable had it examined a longer period of her energy usage to allow to it draw clearer conclusions.
However, the landlord also did not appear to have given any consideration to the resident’s comment that she was now in debt to her utility provider and there is no evidence that it considered if there was any further support or advice that it could offer to a vulnerable resident.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Re-offer the resident the two-week rent refund if this has not been paid already.
2. Pay the resident an additional £100 for failing to properly consider her concerns regarding high energy bills.
3. Write to the resident to outline any support it can offer her regarding the reported debts she has built up with her energy supplied and investigate whether it can identify any further energy efficiency measures within her property. It should provide this Service with a copy of its letter.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its record keeping regarding repairs to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of works raised and completed and of resident contact.