Gentoo Group Limited (202448891)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about a flood in her home resulting from issues with her toilet. She believed the flood could have been avoided had the landlord carried out effective repairs to the toilet when she initially reported the issues.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the toilet and reports of a flood.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the toilet and reports of a flood.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Repairs to the toilet and reports of a flood

4. The landlord responded to the flood appropriately. However, it failed to evidence it had appropriately responded to concerns about the toilet.

The complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint handling was appropriate.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must keep in repair and working order the installations for sanitation. These obligations are also set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy. Its repairs policy states it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 28 days.
7. The landlord’s compensation policy states where compensation claims for liability are more that £1,000, its insurers will deal with the claim. Its complaints policy states that it will not accept complaints about damage to personal property unless it was caused by something it has done.
8. The resident reported a toilet leak on or around 23 August 2024. The landlord completed repairs on the same day and attended 6 days later to replace parts within the toilet. This was a reasonably timed response in line with its repairs policy.
9. On 6 November 2024, the resident reported water was running continuously into the toilet bowl. The landlord’s internal notes indicate it raised it as a routine repair and scheduled an appointment for 9 January 2025, but its repair log does not reflect the scheduled appointment. It attended the property to bleed the radiators and repair a bathroom tap on 21 November 2024. During this visit, the plumber adjusted the water level in the cistern. There is no evidence to suggest it recommended any follow on work, which indicates the issue was considered completed.
10. On 6 December 2024 the resident reported the same issue again with the water continuously running into the toilet and the flush was also not working. This indicated the repair was not a lasting one or effective from the previous visit. The resident told us the landlord attended on either 6 or 7 December 2024. She said the plumber advised her a part needed to be replaced, but they were unable to do it as they were too busy in the lead up to the Christmas period. She said she was told if it happened again, she would need to lift the lid to re-adjust the ball as it was getting stuck when the water was raising. It is concerning this has not been recorded in the landlord’s records.
11. However, when the later leak occurred, the landlord’s notes recorded that the resident told the attending plumber the issue with the toilet occurred when the lid was fitted and she had been leaving the lid off. Call notes from 10 January 2025 also stated the resident informed the landlord about being given prior advice on how to repair the issue herself. On balance this appears to support the resident’s account that she was given advice by a plumber which has not been adequately recorded.
12. The landlord records indicate instead it allocated the toilet repair reported on 6 December 2024 as a routine priority. Its repair log does not show when it was scheduled for but the stage 1 response stated it was 9 January 2025. It is unclear how the landlord established this date.It also said it was uncertain whether it had informed the resident about this appointment. We have not seen any evidence that it appropriately communicated this to her. The lack of records surrounding the appointment and its advice, meant it is not possible to conclude it responded reasonably.
13. The resident reported a leak from the same bathroom on 22 December 2024, which caused flooding in her property. The landlord attended the property the same day, it stopped the leak and advised the toilet should not be used until the repairs were completed on 15 January 2025. It also disconnected the electrical fuse board to make the property safe. Its response was reasonable and in accordance with its policy timescales. It also decided that the fuse board needed to dry out and arranged for the resident and her family to be rehoused for the night. This was appropriate and demonstrated it had considered the nature and impact of the repairs required to resolve the issue.
14. The resident also raised concerns about the condition of her carpets following the flood. The landlord considered her request for carpet cleaning. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy. Its contractor appropriately attended the next day on 24 December 2024 to complete the clean. The landlord also raised a job on 2 January 2025 to repair water damaged internal doors. It also appropriately raised for mould washes to be completed and completed them the following day.
15. The landlord attended on 9 January 2025 and due to the build-up of limescale decided to renew the toilet and cistern. It completed this on 15 January 2025. Overall, the landlord’s response to the flood was appropriate and in line with its policy timescales.
16. In response to the resident’s concerns about the loss of her belongings, the landlord appropriately advised her to raise a claim with its insurers. This was in line with its compensation policy. We understand the resident does not accept the leak was not foreseeable. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have caused financial losses. Therefore, we cannot determine the cause of the flood.
17. The landlord failed to evidence it responded reasonably to the report on 6 December 2024, due to a gap in its records. We have not ordered further compensation for the impact of this because we have considered the £800 offered to the resident after the complaint procedure. It offered this shortly after the complaint procedure was exhausted and in response to concerns the resident raised at the time. Because this was not prompted by our investigation into the matter, we consider it was reasonable for the landlord to review its position and look to put things right before our investigation. Based on the level and nature of the failure, this was in line with our remedies guidance for what we may have ordered in the circumstances.

18. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) applicable from April 2024 was in use at the time. This sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which aligns with the Code.
19. The landlord took 8 working days to acknowledge the complaint. This was not in accordance with the prescribed 5 working day timescales in the Code or its policy. Although this was outside of its prescribed timescales, the delay was not excessive, and we have not identified any detriment to the resident.
20. We understand the resident feels the stage 1 and 2 decisions were incorrect as the landlord did not refer to the full history of the repairs. The Code states that responses must address all points raised and it must give reasons for decisions made. The Code does not stipulate that the timeline must be stated within the responses. It is understandable that on reading the stage 2 response the resident felt the landlord had not fully considered the history of the repair, because it did not refer to all events. However, it reasonably explained its stage 2 response was a review of the stage 1 response and as such it did not repeat the timeline set out at stage 1. It was a shortcoming that it did not explain this within the stage 2 complaint response, as it was an opportunity to assure the resident it had considered all relevant events despite not referring to them.
21. In terms of the content within the stage 1 and 2 responses, we have not identified any concerns which indicate it failed to comply with the Code or its complaints policy. After the complaints process ended, the landlord considered the resident’s emotional distress. Thiswas positive and demonstrated it took her concerns seriously when it offered her £800 compensation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record keeping was lacking for one appointment prior to the flood. This included uncertainty about whether the appointment was communicated and evidence indicating its operatives gave the resident specific advice. It should consider whether relevant staff are recording data with enough detail and accuracy, particularly where its staff give advice to residents.

Communication

23. The landlord’s overall communication was appropriate, and we have not identified any concerns.