Gentoo Group Limited (202112841)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112841

Gentoo Group Limited

31 March 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 about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. report that a leak under her kitchen had resulted in damage to her property and an unpleasant smell throughout her property;
2. request to be transferred to a more suitable property.

Background and summary of events

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident had been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 15 November 2010. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The landlord operates a complaints policy. At stage one, the landlord will work with the resident to find a resolution to their complaint, before providing a written response. The landlord will aim to provide a stage two response within 20 working days.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes the landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs to pipes, drains, and electrical wiring. The policy notes that the landlord will consider reports of unsafe electrical wiring to be an emergency repair, which it will attend to within 24 hours. Routine repairs where there is no imminent risk will be completed within 28 calendar days. Larger, more complicated routine repairs will be completed within 180 calendar days.
The landlord operates an allocations policy. The policy uses a banding scheme for allocations, with band one denoting an urgent housing need, and band three denoting a general need. The policy notes that where a resident has a disability, the landlord will carry out an assessment of their current home to determine its suitability. For band one to be awarded on the basis of a medical need, the policy notes that evidence from medical professionals and an occupational therapist’s (OT) report is required.

Summary of events

It is not disputed that the resident reported on 3 February 2021 that she was experiencing issues with her electrical wiring. The landlord has provided this service with copies of its repair logs for the property. The logs note the landlord’s electrician attended the property on the same date to assess the wiring. The landlord has provided excerpts of its electrician’s notes which do not identify any urgent risks. The landlord has also advised that its electrician identified further works, which were completed on 2 March 2021, with additional works carried out on 14 April 2021.
On 14 April 2021, the resident made a formal complaint. She noted that the previous year there had been a flood under her house and that she believed the current issues with the electrical wiring to have resulted from a similar flood. She noted that drainage inspections were underway, but that she hadn’t had any updates from her housing officer. She also reported an unpleasant smell throughout her property which she believed to be a result of the standing water under her kitchen left over from the most recent flood. She advised that given her daughter suffered from medical issues, she wished to move to a more suitable property.
The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 15 April 2021 and attended the property on 19 April 2021. At this time, the resident advised she wished to leave the property while the drainage issue was investigated due to the ongoing unpleasant smell. The landlord offered temporary alternative accommodation in a travel lodge, however, the resident declined this offer, and advised she would stay at her mother’s house.
On 23 April 2021, the landlord advised that it would arrange for the water to be removed from under the kitchen and for the property to be professionally deodorised. It also offered to returf the resident’s garden, which had been damaged by the flooding. As a gesture of goodwill, it also offered the resident a refund of two weeks’ rent and would also pay £130 towards her sofa and carpet being professionally cleaned to remove the smell. It also offered £30 for new carpet tiles at the resident’s rear door, and £20 towards redecorating the walls following the repairs to the electrical wiring. The total offer was £452.16.
The resident advised that she also considered the issues to have caused her stress and anxiety, for which she wished to be offered additional compensation. The landlord advised that should she wish to make a claim on its insurance in relation to this, it would provide her with the necessary forms, but that such a claim would be in place of its goodwill offer detailed above.
Throughout May 2021 the landlord and the local water supplier carried out works and inspections to the drains at the property and neighbouring properties. The landlord has advised that following the works, it carried out dye tests which determined no further leaks.
On 13 May 2021, the landlord advised that it had concluded that the leaks were not related to the previous flooding that had occurred at the property but was instead due to neighbours flushing wipes which had caused a blockage. It advised it would contact neighbours to remind them not to do this in future.
On 18 May 2021, the resident advised the unpleasant smell was returning to the property. The landlord attended on 25 May 2021 and advised it had checked under the kitchen floor but could not detect any further standing water or smell. It advised it had detected some smell coming from the kitchen units, and that it considered this to be a smell related to the rear of the cabinets becoming damp. It subsequently advised that it would arrange for the rear of the cabinets to be replaces and also for the kitchen to be deep cleaned.
During its visit, the resident advised the landlord that her daughter had been diagnosed with an illness relating to E.coli. The landlord has advised this service that it subsequently reported this to Public Health England, who informed it that they would contact the resident directly to arrange any necessary further steps. This service has not been provided with copies of these communications. The landlord also notified the resident that it had taken these steps and that it would adhere to any recommendations made by Public Health England.
On 8 June 2021, the resident advised she was concerned that the flooding could reoccur and reiterated that she wanted to be relocated. She also advised she was not satisfied with the landlord’s goodwill offer and that she wanted to proceed with an insurance claim. The landlord subsequently provided her with an online link to make a claim.
Regarding her request to be relocated, the landlord advised that her she was currently band three, and that during the COVID-19 restrictions, bidding on properties using its online system was suspended. It noted her daughter’s health issues and advised that in order to be re-banded, she would need to provide medical evidence and an OT report explaining why the current property was unsuitable.
Given that the resident had rejected the landlord’s goodwill offer, it advised it had escalated her complaint to stage two, and that it would also provide a stage one closure letter.
On 14 June 2021, the resident noted a suitable house was available and requested that the landlord make an exception to its requirement for medical evidence/OT report, which would take time to obtain. The landlord replied that it was unable to do so as it could only offer properties in accordance with its allocations policy. It also noted that Public Health England were yet to have made contact with the resident, and so it had also reported the E.coli concerns to the local authority’s environmental health team.
On the same date, the landlord provided its stage one response. It set out the timeline of events and the steps it had taken such as offering to temporarily relocate the resident and that it had completed the drain works itself despite some of them being the responsibility of the local water supplier. It noted that it had made a good will offer but that the resident had chosen to pursue an insurance claim, and that it had also agreed to works to replace the back of the kitchen units and carry out a deep clean of the kitchen, which was to occur on 17 June 2021. It advised that it did not consider itself responsible for the issues as they had been the result of the neighbours blocking the drain. It acknowledged that the resident wished to be relocated and that the complaint had now been escalated to stage two.
On 23 June 2021, the local authority’s environmental health officer provided their findings to the landlord following an inspection. They advised that they had not found any “category one or two hazards” that would prevent habitation, but that they had noted an unpleasant smell. They noted that a similar issue relating to standing ground water had affected a neighbouring property and that works had been carried out to address this. They subsequently suggested that similar works be considered for the resident’s property.
On 29 June 2021, the resident advised she was still arranging for the OT inspection and noted that the deadline for the landlord’s stage two response was approaching. The landlord advised that it wished to extend the period for its stage two response until after the OT inspection. On 1 July 2021, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction at this request and advised that she wanted to be urgently re-banded as she continued not to live at the property due to the smell and her concerns that it may impact her daughter’s health. She noted that she had already provided a letter from her daughter’s GP and requested that she be re-banded on this evidence. The landlord replied that while the letter provided context for a re-banding decision, the letter did not explain why the current property was not sufficient and so was not sufficient on its own.
An OT inspection was carried out on 15 July 2021, and following the receipt of the OT report, the landlord carried out its own inspection of the property on 9 August 2021. The landlord discussed with the resident making adaptions to the existing property, however, the resident advised she instead wished to be relocated. The landlord also noted that the local authority’s environmental health officer had recommended additional works to prevent further standing water issues, and that it was putting in place a plan for future repairs.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 12 August 2021. It advised that the local authority’s environmental health officer had found that while there was an unpleasant smell at the property, it was nevertheless found to be habitable. It also advised, however, that following the OT assessment, it had awarded the resident with priority one banding and advised she could now bid on suitable properties using its online bidding system.
Following the landlord’s stage two response, the parties liaised about bidding on appropriate properties. The landlord also provided further assistance with the resident’s insurance claim. As of 11 November 2021, the landlord has advised this service that the resident was successful with a public liability claim on the insurance and that she was awarded £452.16, which was the same amount as its earlier goodwill offer.
The landlord has also advised that the resident has now terminated her tenancy at her property. The landlord advised that as a further goodwill gesture, it waived the costs to rectify damage at the property and that it has allowed the resident to continue using its online bidding service, which would not usually be available to non-tenants.

Assessment and findings

Leak

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy notes that it is responsible for repairs to electrical wiring, pipes, and drains. It also notes it will attend to reports of unsafe electrical wiring within 24 hours.
Following the resident’s report of issues with her electrical wiring on 3 February 2021, based on the landlord’s repair logs, it attended the property to address the issue the same day, as per its repair policy timeframes. The electrician’s notes stated that further repairs were required but did not state they were urgent. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will aim to carry out non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days, and so it was reasonable that the further works were subsequently completed on 2 March 2021, and that the additional works identified were carried out on 14 April 2021.
In her formal complaint, the resident advised she suspected the leak under her kitchen to have been a repeat of an earlier flood. She has reiterated this concern in her correspondence with the landlord. The landlord has advised that it disagrees that this was the case, and that this leak was due to a neighbour flushing wipes which had caused a blockage. While this service has not been provided with any reports that specifically state this, the Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the landlord’s findings. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have advised it was not responsible for causing the leaks.
Given that the landlord had also carried out dye tests which indicated there were no further leaks, it was also reasonable for the landlord to have advised it did not consider the issue was likely to reoccur.
The landlord took reasonable steps to rectify the issue, having carried out repair works to the drains throughout May 2021. It was also proactive in assisting the resident, having offered to temporarily relocate her, and also carrying out professional deodorising treatment at her property. Given that there is no evidence showing the landlord was responsible for the leak, it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident she could make a claim on its insurance regarding any damages. It was also commendable that it made a goodwill offer to assist with the costs of the resident’s temporary relocation, cleaning to the resident’s carpet and sofa, and redecorating, which it was not required to do.
Following the resident’s rejection of this offer, the landlord has appropriately assisted the resident with an insurance claim, which the Ombudsman understands was successful and resulted in a pay out that matched the landlord’s goodwill offer.
Following the resident’s reports that the smell was returning, the landlord also carried out a reasonable further investigation, and agreed upon suitable action given its findings that the smell related to the kitchen units. The Ombudsman notes there were issues with the resident’s availability in arranging these works and so is satisfied that these works were undertaken within a reasonable timeframe.
It was also appropriate that having heard that the resident’s daughter was suffering from an illness related to E.coli that it reported this to Public Health England. Additionally, having discovered that Public Health England hadn’t taken any further action, it was also appropriate that the landlord reported this to the local authority’s environmental health team. Given that the local authority’s environmental health officer determined that the property was habitable, it was reasonable that the landlord advised this in its stage two response. It was also appropriate that the landlord advised that it would carry out the additional improvement works recommended by the local authority’s environmental health officer. While it would have been helpful to have given an indicative timeframe for these works, given that these works were improvements, this was not constitute service failure.
The landlord’s approach to its stage one response was unusual, in that it did not provide its position and offer in a formal response, instead making the offer and discussing further action directly with the resident over various pieces of correspondence. It used its formal stage one response to document the outcome of these offers and to note the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage two. This approach has not caused any detriment to the resident and given that the parties were in continuous communication, this approach was reasonable.
In conclusion, the landlord addressed the residents reports of issues with her electrical wiring, and subsequently the reports of an unpleasant smell in accordance with its repairs policy. Its goodwill offer was an appropriate attempt to provide a resolution to the resident’s concerns, and its subsequent assistance with an insurance claim was also reasonable.

Property transfer

The landlord operates an allocation’s policy. The policy notes that band one can be awarded on the basis of a medical need. In order to assess this need, the landlord requires medical evidence, including an OT report.
As part of the resident’s initial complaint, she advised she wished to be relocated. Given that this desire was connected with the ongoing issues at her property, it was reasonable for the landlord at that stage to have attempted to resolve these issues prior to exploring the options for the resident to be relocated.
Given that the resident continued to express her desire to be relocated on the basis of her daughter’s health issues, the landlord gave appropriate advice that due to the resident’s current banding and its suspension of bidding on new properties during COVID-19 restrictions, she would be unable to do so. It also provided appropriate advice on what would be required for the resident’s banding to be changed to band one.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to apply its policies fairly, and so it was reasonable that the landlord refused the resident’s request to relocate her earlier prior to an OT assessment. Additionally, it was reasonable for the landlord to have required an OT report in addition to the GP letter, and that it explained that the letter did not address the housing needs of the resident’s daughter, meaning it was not sufficient.
Following receipt of the OT report, the landlord carried out its own property inspection within a reasonable timeframe, and it was reasonable that it initially discussed options for adapting the resident’s existing property.
Given that the resident continued to express her desire to be relocated, the landlord appropriately awarded her band one in accordance with its policy and provided assistance to the resident with her bidding.
While it is evident that the resident was subsequently unsuccessful in finding a suitable property, the complaint is not about the success of her bidding, but the landlord’s application of its policy on her banding. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s advice to the resident throughout the period of the complaint was reasonable, its application of its policy was fair in the circumstances, and that following it being provided with the necessary evidence, it appropriately awarded the resident with priority banding within a reasonable timeframe.
The Ombudsman further notes that the landlord has continued to assist the resident by allowing her to continuing bidding despite her no longer being a resident of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s:
1. report that a leak under her kitchen had resulted in damage to her property and an unpleasant smell throughout her property;
2. request to be transferred to a more suitable property.

Reasons

Leak

As noted above, the landlord addressed the residents reports of issues with her electrical wiring, and subsequently the reports of an unpleasant smell in accordance with its repairs policy. Its goodwill offer was an appropriate attempt to provide a resolution to the resident’s concerns, and its subsequent assistance with an insurance claim was also reasonable.
Additionally, the landlord acted appropriately in informing Public Health England and the local authority’s environmental health team about E.coli concerns, and it also appropriately committed to implementing the recommendations of the local authority’s environmental health officer.

Property transfer

As noted above, the landlord’s advice to the resident regarding relocation was reasonable, its application of its policy was fair in the circumstances, and that following it being provided with the necessary evidence, it appropriately awarded the resident with priority banding within a reasonable timeframe.