Gentoo Group Limited (202311499)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311499

Gentoo Group Limited

28 October 2024


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s personal information in relation to information it provided to its contractors, sub-contractors and consultants.
    2. The resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments, under the Equality Act 2010, during district heating replacement works.
    3. Follow-up work and damage caused to the resident’s property following completion of roof repairs and ceiling repairs in 2022.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 20 July 2015. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette. The resident has a spinal condition.
  2. The landlord informed the resident that it planned to replace the communal district heating system with individual combi–boilers at some point prior to the anticipated start date of October 2021. This meant that the resident would require his own gas meter and individual gas supply to his property. The landlord employed a contractor to carry out the works and a consultant to work in partnership with an energy provider to install the meters.
  3. The resident also reported leaks from the roof into his bedrooms between July 2020 and July 2022. The work to repair the roof and the replacement of the bedroom ceilings was completed in July 2022.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2023. He told the landlord that he would need it to make reasonable adjustments, under the Equality Act 2010, in relation to the planned heating system upgrade works. The resident said that he had already made the landlord aware of his requirements in previous communications. He also told the landlord that he was still waiting for a decorator to attend his property following the roof works in 2022 and for an insurance claim to be submitted. The landlord responded on 5 April 2023 and asked the resident if it could visit him to discuss his concerns.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 14 April 2023. He said the landlord had informed him in 2021 that it intended to remove the district heating system from his home. He said he told the landlord that, due to his disability, he would need reasonable adjustments to be made to the landlord’s processes before work could commence. He said the landlord had ignored his attempts to resolve the issues informally. The resident also said that the landlord had not sealed and painted his ceilings following the completion of repairs to the roof in July 2022, or submitted a public liability claim for the damage caused to his belongings.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 27 April 2023. It said all residents were contacted in advance of the work to ensure any concerns about the programme could be addressed. It had attempted to arrange an induction visit so that the team could discuss any required reasonable adjustments and any other concerns raised. It said it had been unable to agree a suitable appointment for the induction visit. Therefore, it had not had the opportunity to discuss reasonable adjustments or any of the matters raised in the resident’s complaint. In relation to the outstanding follow up repairs the landlord said, before it could agree the most appropriate solution, it would like to undertake an inspection of the resident’s home.
  7. Following the resident’s escalation of his complaint to stage 2 on 19 May 2023, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response on 19 June 2023. It said the district heating replacement work started in November 2021. It had regularly communicated with residents for a long period of time and had undertaken many consultations. As the replacement was likely to cause disruption it wanted to visit the resident to complete the induction visit to discuss the works and complete some additional checks. In relation to the repairs following the roof leak it said the internal plastering had been marked as complete, and it was not aware of any outstanding repairs to his home. However, if there were any outstanding repairs, it asked the resident to report them on the repairs line.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 29 June 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. After carefully considering all the evidence, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s personal information in relation to information it provided to its contractors, sub-contractors and consultants sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord was entitled to pass information about the resident to third parties, as that would be a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). If the resident believes that the landlord passed information to third parties, and was not entitled to do so, he can refer his concerns to the ICO, as the ICO has the power to investigate whether there has been a data breach.

Scope of investigation

  1. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Although this Service cannot find that a landlord has breached the Equality Act, we can decide whether a landlord has had due regard to its duties under the Equality Act.

The resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments, under the Equality Act 2010, during district heating replacement works

  1. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident has been liaising with the landlord, about the installation of the new heating system, from at least December 2021 onwards. However, the landlord has not provided this Service with copies of letters or emails sent between both parties, until it made attempts in April 2023 to arrange an induction visit with the resident. Therefore, it is unclear as to the extent of the correspondence prior to April 2023.
  2. The landlord contacted the resident by email on 4 April 2023. It said its contractors had been trying to contact him about the new heating system. It asked the resident when he would be available for the induction visit.
  3. The resident responded on the same day. He said he had notified the landlord that he was disabled and that it would need it to make reasonable adjustments, under the Equality Act 2010, so that it could undertake the planned works. He said he had been told that he would need to move all his furniture and floor coverings, and then refit them after the works had been completed. However, he was unable to do this due to his disability. He also said that he did not want to incur any related costs. He said he had already told the landlord that his bedroom carpets could be rolled back and replaced after the works had been carried out. However, his stairs and landing carpet had been professionally fitted, so would need to be refitted following the works. He also said he was unable to redecorate after the completion of the works due to his disability.
  4. The landlord responded on 5 April 2023. It asked the resident if it could arrange a visit to go through his concerns. The resident contacted the landlord again by email on 12 April 2023. He asked it whether it could respond to the concerns he had raised in relation to his request for reasonable adjustments. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s email.
  5. Under the Equality Act 2010 the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. As the resident is disabled due to his spinal condition, the landlord should have recognised the need to make reasonable adjustments to its usual processes. There is no evidence to suggest that it had at least acknowledged the resident’s request and confirmed that reasonable adjustments would be made in line with its obligations under the Act. Therefore, it has not demonstrated that it had due regard to its duties under the Act, and its failure to respond to the resident’s request was inappropriate in the circumstances. This failure also contributed to a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and the landlord, which meant that the issue continued unresolved for some time.
  6. The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 April 2023. He said the landlord had informed him in 2021 that it intended to replace the district heating system. He said he had made the landlord aware of his disability and his requirement for reasonable adjustments. He said the landlord had told him that its contractors would “make arrangements”. However, the contractors had not contacted him. Although, in his opinion, the landlord should be agreeing the necessary adjustments, not its contractors. He said he had broken down his concerns and explained what adjustments he required from the landlord. But he had not received a response.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 27 April 2023. It confirmed that all residents had been contacted in advance of the work to ensure that any concerns about the programme could be addressed. It said any reasonable adjustments, such as removing flooring and furniture, or other concerns, would be discussed at the induction meeting. It said its project team had been unable to agree a suitable induction appointment, so they had not had the opportunity to discuss the reasonable adjustments requested by the resident. It asked the resident to agree an appointment for the induction visit.
  8. The response shows that the landlord was willing to discuss and consider making reasonable adjustments due to the resident’s disability. However, it did not make clear that the landlord was fully aware of its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It also did not confirm what adjustments it would make in the circumstances. The resident had been very clear as to his requirements, and there was no obvious reason as to why the matter of the adjustments could only be discussed within the induction meeting.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 19 May 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response.
  10. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 June 2023. It said its contractor still needed to complete the induction visit and checks prior to the installation of the new boiler. It offered the resident an evening or weekend appointment and asked him to respond.
  11. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 June 2023. It said it had regularly communicated to residents, over a long period of time, that the district heating scheme was due to be removed. It said the replacement programme began in November 2021 and was due to be completed by August 2023. It said the work to replace the pipework and radiator valves, and the installation of a new boiler, would take 5 days to complete. It said it recognised that the work would cause disruption. The induction visit would ensure that the resident was aware of the upcoming works, and what was required at each stage of the process. It said it had been trying to arrange the induction visit since 2021, in addition to the additional checks that were required prior to the start of the works. Therefore, it had offered an evening or weekend appointment so that the resident did not have to take time off work or suffer any financial loss. However, the resident had not confirmed his availability. It said it was attempting to accommodate his needs, but access to his home was required to complete the inductions, discuss the process, and any concerns or questions the resident had.
  12. The landlord did not fully address the matter of the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, in relation to his physical disability within the stage 2 response. It did not confirm what measures it could/would put in place to assist the resident with the movement of his furniture and floor coverings. It gave no sufficient reason or explanation that would justify its decision to only consider the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments within the induction meeting. It also failed to recognise or acknowledge its failures in this regard, put things right, or learn from outcomes in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Events following the stage 2 response

  1. Following the stage 2 response, the landlord continued to attempt to arrange the induction visit with the resident. On 10 August 2023 it opened a “case” due to the “resident’s refusal to allow the district heating works to take place”. The landlord noted on the case that the resident had no vulnerabilities or support needs.
  2. The landlord sent the resident a tenancy warning letter on 22 August 2023 and a “pre NOSP” (notice seeking possession) letter on 29 August 2023. The pre NOSP letter gave him 28 days to respond before it served a formal notice seeking possession of his property. However, on 28 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and asked him about his spinal condition. It also asked him what assistance he needed in relation to his disability. The resident responded on 29 September 2023 and he confirmed the nature of his disability to the landlord. He also told the landlord that he had booked leave from work week beginning 16 October 2023.
  3. The landlord carried out the induction visit to the resident’s property on 4 October 2023. It agreed to carry out the boiler replacement works between 16 October 2023 and 18 October 2023. It also agreed to lift and relay the resident’s carpets to his landing and bedrooms. It agreed to move large furniture items, such as beds and the sofa. It also offered the resident a storage service, however, he confirmed that this was not required.
  4. In summary, the landlord did not have due regard to its obligations under the Equality Act 2010. It did not address the resident’s request for reasonable adjustments, in relation to his physical disability, within a reasonable time prior to, or through the complaints process. It did not confirm what measures it could/would put in place to assist the resident with the movement of his furniture and floor coverings at the time of his initial request, or through the complaints process. Overall, it took 6 months from his request in April 2023, until the landlord agreed the adjustments it would make in October 2023, which was unreasonable. It gave no sufficient reason or explanation that would justify its decision to only consider the resident’s request within the induction meeting. It also failed to recognise or acknowledge its failure to respond through its complaints process and failed to acknowledge the detriment caused to the resident.
  5. As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s insistence that it could only discuss the adjustments within the induction meeting, and the landlord’s failure to recognise or acknowledge its failures through its complaints process, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Follow up work and damage caused to the resident’s property following completion of roof repairs and ceiling repairs in 2022

  1. The landlord has provided copies of repairs records relating to the roof repairs between 2020 and 2022. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided as to the cause of the leak and whether the leak was an ongoing issue or intermittent. It is also unclear as to the extent of the damage caused by the leak, and the extent of the repairs carried out. It is clear from the evidence provided that an inspection took place on 30 May 2022. It is also clear that the inspection was arranged because roof repairs had been undertaken by the landlord but the roof was still leaking. The resident has told the landlord that it was during this inspection visit that the repairs manager agreed to seal and paint the bedroom ceilings and submit a public liability claim in relation to damage caused to his personal belongings by the leak.
  2. The evidence shows that the resident informed the landlord on 4 April 2023 that there was outstanding follow up work required to his property following the completion of roof repairs in July 2022. He said he was still waiting for the landlord to seal and paint his bedroom ceilings and for it to submit a claim to its insurers for damage caused to his belongings. The landlord responded on 5 April 2023. It asked the resident if it could arrange a visit to go through his concerns. The resident chased the landlord for a written response on 12 April 2023, however, its reply did not include any reference to the outstanding follow up work or insurance claim.
  3. At common law, a landlord is responsible for “making good” decorations following repair works. This includes making good damage caused to decorations by the landlord’s failure to carry out repairs and making good damage caused to decorations by the repair work itself. “Making good” means restoring the decorations to the condition they were in before the damage or repair. Therefore, as the landlord had not sealed and painted the bedroom ceilings after it had replaced the plasterboard and skimmed, it had not made good the decorations in line with its obligations at common law. Its inaction was therefore inappropriate in the circumstances.
  4. It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly what damage was caused to the resident’s personal possessions or other decoration within the bedrooms following the leak and the repairs to the ceilings, or the circumstances within which it occurred. Therefore, it is not possible for this Service to make a finding in this regard. However, the landlord’s public liability insurance would cover damage to the resident’s belongings if it was found to be caused by the negligence of the landlord. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to refer the matter to its insurers so that they can investigate and respond to the resident with their findings. An order has been made in this regard.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 14 April 2023. He said, in July 2022, the landlord repaired the roof, replaced the ceilings in 2 of the bedrooms, and skimmed the plasterboard, due to damage from water ingress. He said the landlord said it would arrange for the plaster to be sealed and painted, and for a decorating voucher to be issued. However, the work was still outstanding and he had not received the decorating voucher. The resident also said the plastering works caused a lot of mess and ruined the decoration in both bedrooms. So, the repairs manager said the landlord would be in touch to complete a public liability claim for the damage caused to his personal property. However, this was still outstanding.
  6. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 27 April 2023. It said it had received photographs from the resident to support his complaint relating to the damage caused to his property following the roof and ceiling repairs. It apologised for the miscommunication relating to the follow up works to the resident’s home. It also apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it was unable to locate any incoming calls made by the resident. However, it could see from the photographs that there had been some damage to his home. It said, before it could agree the most appropriate solution, it would like to inspect the issues within the resident’s home.
  7. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to request an inspection of the resident’s home. However, in the circumstances, it should have been able to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes, with the information held on its records and knowledge of its obligations.
  8. The landlord is expected to have comprehensive repairs records detailing the outcomes of inspections and work agreed with residents. It had photographs of the condition of the bedroom ceilings, and the damage caused, from the resident (not seen by this Service). It had also confirmed in the stage 1 response that the photographs supported his complaint. It should have been aware of its obligations at common law in relation to “making good” decorations following repairs. Therefore, the landlord should have been able to form a conclusion and provide the resident with a full response at stage 1 prior to completing an inspection.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 19 May 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. This was mainly because the landlord felt an inspection was necessary before it could decide on a solution. The resident also informed the landlord that the repairs manager had attended his property on 30 May 2022, and it was on this date that he had agreed to repair the roof and ceilings, seal the new plaster, paint the ceilings, and start the claims process. The resident also provided the landlord with a copy of an email confirming the appointment on 30 May 2022.
  10. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 June 2023. It said the resident had confirmed that the repairs manager visited his home on 30 May 2022 to assess the issues he had reported due to the required roof repairs. It said the remedial repairs to the roof and internal plastering had been marked as complete, and according to its records, there were no outstanding repairs to his home. It said if there were any outstanding repairs, it would be more than willing to accommodate these through its repairs and maintenance service.
  11. The stage 2 response did not fully address the resident’s complaint. It was dismissive of his concerns and advised him to go back through the repairs process, a process that was already the subject of his complaint. The landlord’s response did not show that it recognised the resident was complaining about the lack of follow up works to seal and paint the ceiling, and not the repairs to the roof and plastering, which had already been completed. The landlord was unable to confirm from its records what had been agreed by the repairs manager. However, as it was responsible for “making good” the decorations that were damaged during the repair works, it should have made arrangements to complete the works, apologise for the delays, and provide reasonable redress to the resident. It also failed to address the issue of the public liability claim in its entirety, even though the resident had provided photographs of the damage caused as part of the complaints process.
  12. In summary, the landlord was dismissive of the resident’s complaint. It did not respond in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. It failed to adequately address the complaint raised by the resident through its complaints process, even though the resident provided evidence of emails and photographs. Given the information provided by the resident, the landlord’s own records, and its obligations in relation to making good decorations, it should have been able to form a conclusion, provide the resident with a full response, and make arrangements to complete the works. Its failure to adequately respond and put things right left the resident in the same position he was in prior to making the complaint.
  13. As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to make good the decorations to his bedroom ceilings, its failure to recognise it failings through the complaints process and consider reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint concerning the landlord’s handling of his personal information in relation to information it provided to its contractors, sub-contractors and consultants is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s requests for reasonable adjustments, under the Equality Act 2010, during district heating replacement works.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of follow-up work to the resident’s property following completion of roof repairs and ceiling repairs in 2022.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident total compensation of £800. This must be paid directly to the resident. This is made up of:
      1. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of his requests for reasonable adjustments, under the Equality Act 2010, during district heating replacement works.
      2. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of follow-up repairs to the resident’s property following completion of roof repairs and ceiling repairs in 2022.
    3. Make a suitable appointment and provide both the resident and this Service with the resulting schedule of works to:
      1. Seal and paint both bedroom ceilings affected by the leak.
      2. Assess any other damage to decorations caused by the leak, or the repairs to the leak, in line with the landlord’s obligations, and consider appropriate redress.
    4. Contact the resident and explain how he can submit a public liability claim to the landlord’s insurers to claim for the damage caused to his personal belongings.
  2. Within eight weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must carry out training to ensure that its staff understand its duties and obligations under the Equality Act 2010. This should specifically focus on the landlord’s duty to make reasonable adjustments.
  3. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.