Gentoo Group Limited (202335115)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202335115 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
Gentoo Group Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
31 March 2026 |
Background
- The resident, who has a weakened immune system, lived in the property with his partner and children. In November 2023, the resident reported damp and condensation in his property, which he said was due to the poor condition of the windows. He asked the landlord to replace the windows. The landlord inspected the windows and said they did not require replacement and carried out repairs instead. While the resident moved to another property at the end of November 2025, he remains unhappy with the landlord’s response to his concerns.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement windows due to them causing damp and condensation.
- The landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Our decision (determination)
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement windows due to them causing damp and mould.
- There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
Summary of reasons
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement windows was reasonable. It provided the resident with the planned estimated renewal date for the windows and carried out the recommended repairs to the windows in the interim, in line with its obligations.
- The landlord’s complaint responses were sent within the timeframes set out in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code), which sets out our expectations for landlord’s complaint handling. Its complaint handling was reasonable in the circumstances.
Putting things right
Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
23 November 2023 |
The resident complained about the landlord’s response to his request for replacement windows. He said the windows were old and were causing damp and condensation in the property. He also said that, based on his own research, windows should be replaced every 20–25 years. The resident also said that the condition of the windows was affecting his health and the health of his children. |
|
7 December 2023 |
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
|
|
7 December 2023 |
The resident escalated his complaint. He said repairs and patchwork to the windows would not resolve the issues he was experiencing. He explained there were missing gaskets, mould and condensation around the windows, and draughts from the windows. He said the windows were already older than the recommended replacement age of 20-25 years. He also said that the damp he reported recently was not relevant to the complaint and explained that he had no objection to the other damp and mould works the landlord had completed so far. |
|
10 January 2024 |
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response and reiterated that the windows were due to be renewed in the mid-2030s. It added:
|
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he wanted us to look at the landlord’s response to his window replacement request and clarify if its response was correct and identify if there were any failings. |
What we found and why
The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.
|
Complaint |
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement windows due to them causing damp and condensation. |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The resident told us that his complaint was about the landlord’s response to his request for replacement windows which was causing damp and condensation. The landlord completed other works in the property to help resolve the damp and condensation. However, the resident confirmed he did not have concerns about those other damp and mould works. Therefore, this report focuses on the resident’s request for replacement windows. We have, however, noted throughout the report the damp and mould works the landlord carried out during and shortly after the complaint process for context.
- On 7 November 2023, the landlord’s repairs supervisor inspected the windows and confirmed they did not require replacement, but that some repairs were needed. The resident said the supervisor did not carry out a thorough inspection. We note the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord’s records show that shortly after the visit it instructed a contractor to remove the silicone from all windows, check the gaskets, and complete plastering patching around some of the frames. These recommended works indicate that the supervisor did complete an inspection that identified issues requiring repair.
- Shortly after, the resident complained to the landlord on 23 November 2023 as he was unhappy that the landlord had not agreed to replace the windows. He said the windows were fitted in the 1990s and were causing damp and condensation. The landlord took appropriate steps by responding to the resident’s concerns about the windows in its stage 1 complaint response. It restated that the windows did not require replacing and confirmed they were scheduled for renewal in the mid-2030s. It confirmed it would complete the repairs identified during the recent inspection, which was an appropriate step to maintain the windows.
- The resident also raised concerns to us that the condition of the windows impacted him and his family’s health. We acknowledge this has been a very difficult time for the resident and his family. However, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurance. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have not investigated this further. However, we have considered whether the landlord gave due consideration to the resident’s weakened immune system, and whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
- We recognise that the windows at the resident’s property were over 30 years old and acknowledge his concerns. However, the Decent Homes Standard which sets out the minimum standards for social housing, states windows at a property would be considered “old”, 40 years after installation. This provides a reasonable timeframe for landlords to use when planning window replacement programmes. In this case, the landlord’s estimated replacement date for the windows at the resident’s property was reasonable.
- The 40-year lifetime for windows outlined in the Decent Homes Standard is not prescriptive. A landlord must still assess and address any component failures that occur earlier. In this case, the landlord identified repairs that were needed and took steps to complete them. Its contractor attended on 20 December 2023 and repaired one of the windows. The landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that it needed to order materials to complete the remaining repairs. It informed the resident about this delay, which was an appropriate step.
- Also, during December 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould inspection at the property. The recommended works from the inspection included removing bricks from the left side of the chimney, carrying out repointing works, a mould wash, and applying anti‑condensation paint to part of the dining room. The landlord’s contractor applied the anti‑condensation paint shortly after the inspection.
- Due to the resident expressing concerns about the outcome from the initial window inspection, the landlord arranged for a different maintenance supervisor to assess the windows in January 2024. The supervisor said the windows were in generally good condition and suitable to remain in place until the planned renewal date. However, they confirmed the remaining recommended repairs would need to be completed. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its qualified repairs maintenance supervisor about whether the windows required replacement. The landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement is to repair and maintain. It would only be expected to consider replacing windows if an inspection indicated this and if they had deteriorated to the extent that repairs would be ineffective and uneconomic.
- In January 2024, the landlord’s contractor completed repointing works to the brickwork and carried out a mould wash. The landlord then completed the remaining window repairs in February 2024, which included renewing gaskets and replacing window handles. We recognise that these window repairs were completed outside the landlord’s 28‑day routine repair timescale. However, the delay occurred because the landlord was waiting for materials, which would have been outside its control. The landlord later identified further damp and mould works, including additional repointing and cavity works. It completed these in June 2024 and August 2024.
- Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for replacement windows was reasonable, and it acted appropriately by carrying out the repairs recommended following the inspections. The resident also told us he moved to a different property in November 2025, and the landlord confirmed that the tenancy ended at the start of December 2025.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
No maladministration |
- The landlord’s complaint process has 2 stages. The timeframes in the landlord’s complaints policy are the same as the timescales referenced in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states a stage 1 response must be sent within 10 working days from the complaint being logged, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days. The landlord’s responses were sent within these timeframes. Its complaint handling was reasonable in the circumstances
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord’s records were detailed enough for us to investigate its overall handling of the complaint.
Communication
- The landlord’s overall communication about the resident’s window replacement request was adequate.