Gentoo Group Limited (202500036)

Decision
Case ID	202500036
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Gentoo Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	10 April 2026

Background

The resident has been reporting antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour to the landlord for over 5 years. He has also raised issues with the size of his second bedroom multiple times since the beginning of his tenancy. The resident is partially sighted and has autism.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the size of his second bedroom.
2. Reports of ASB.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The complaint about the size of the bedroom is outside of our jurisdiction.
2. Maladministration in the handling of the ASB.
3. Service failure in the handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Bedroom size

We cannot investigate issues which have been subject to legal proceedings or where matters at court are connected so closely to the complaint, they cannot be separated. In this case, we can see that a determination was issued at court on 23 February 2023. The matters at court related to the size of the bedroom and whether the room could be classified as a bedroom. That means we have no power to investigate the complaint.
Part of the resident’s complaint also related to staff conduct at the time of the court case with regards to the surveyor who took the measurements for Court. This was addressed in a previous complaint in 2023 for which a determination was issued. For this reason, we have not investigated this either.

ASB

The landlord’s communication during its handling of the ASB could have been improved. It did not always follow its policy or respond to the resident’s reports.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not log the complaint at the earliest opportunity. However, following that it responded to the complaint in line with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 08 May 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £200 made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused in the handling of the ASB. £50 for the failures in his complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 08 May 2026
	Take specific action The resident has told us the ASB continues. Therefore, the landlord must meet with the resident to discuss the ASB. It must consider if it needs to open a new ASB and if so, it must complete a risk assessment and action plan, by the due date. If it does not find the threshold for ASB is met, it must communicate that to the resident by the due date. It must provide documentary evidence of compliance by the due date.	No later than 08 May 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
29 September 2025	We asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint about the resident’s concerns about the size of his bedroom and reported ASB.
6 October 2025	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. The key points were as follows: It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused by the ASB. It had an active case since February 2024 which was primarily in relation to the neighbour. It was unable to substantiate from its records that the issue had been ongoing for 5 or 6 years. It explained its understanding on the shed, and it would continue assess the use of sheds as part of its ongoing investigation. It had arranged to install a washing line to address the issue with the makeshift one, used by the neighbour. It had engaged with external agencies and advocates to ensure coordinated support was in place for the resident. It explained the resident could refer to the community trigger. With regards to staff conduct it had been unable to find conversations relating to the people named by the resident. It was unclear if they were previous colleagues or from an outside agency. It had found no evidence that the neighbourhood coordinator had received letters from the resident intended for the police. It confirmed its staff had attended all scheduled appointments. It accepted there had been challenges with communication.
15 October 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident request to escalate his complaint.
13 November 2025	The landlord held a face to face meeting with the resident and his representatives to discuss the complaint. It confirmed many of the incidents dated back to 2023. It confirmed the resident had been advised about the community trigger process. It confirmed it would arrange a joint visit to look at the shed and decide whose possessions belonged to who.
27 November 2025	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. The key points were as follows: It had conducted home visit and meetings, with the neighbourhood operations manager visiting the property on multiple occasions to discuss the ASB. It said it had visited on 19 May, 15 July, and 30 September. It had offered the resident the use of the noise app and the resident had provided 22 recordings between October 2024 and July 2025. It had identified occasions where the noise was excessive and had made contact with the neighbour following that. It had received no further reports of ASB since 24 July 2025. It had engaged with the neighbour on multiple occasions to encourage a change in behaviour. It accepted that at times its engagement had been sporadic, and it should have agreed a frequency of contact with the resident. It apologised for the delays in completing the shed works and advised it had booked these for 12 December 2025. It agreed to continue to monitor the ASB and asked the resident to provide reports of incidents and evidence where possible. It proposed monthly check-ins.
18 December 2025	The resident referred the complaint to us for investigation. The ASB had been ongoing for 5 years and he wanted it resolved. The resident also raised the issue of the second bedroom and concerns about the behaviour of staff members involved in that.

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	ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not look at.

The resident in his formal complaint said the ASB had been ongoing for 5 years. He also mentioned specific events which happened during that 5 year period, including, but not limited to, a fire in the property and missing letters. While we do not dispute this, we can only consider events which were brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe, usually 12 months. We have not seen evidence that the resident raised these issues as a formal complaint at the time they occurred and in any event within 12 months of when he became aware of the issue. We have not seen evidence that he was prevented from raising complaint sooner. For that reason, we have not investigated these issues. This investigation will focus on the period from when the ASB case was opened in February 2024, in line with the landlord’s complaint response.

What we have looked at.

The resident reported ASB, in the form of noise nuisance, in early February 2024. The evidence shows the landlord attempted to contact the resident multiple times to discuss the concerns raised. When it could not contact him, it wrote to him inviting him into the office to discuss the issues. This was a reasonable step to take, in line with the landlord’s ASB policy, which says it would investigate and intervene early where ASB incidents are reported.
The landlord had a face to face meeting with the resident on 20 February 2024. It completed a risk assessment and action plan with the resident, in line with its policy. It also appropriately agreed a frequency of contact with the resident.
The action plan noted that it would speak to the neighbour about the noise, however we cannot see that the landlord did this until 19 March 2024. Over a month after it said it would. Landlord’s need to take a proactive approach to reports of ASB, which it did not do in this instance.
The resident reported further noise reports on 21 May 2024. The landlord tried to contact the resident to discuss this but was unable to contact him. The evidence shows that it did, appropriately, speak to the neighbour to ask them to be mindful of the noise. The landlord also tried to visit the resident on the same date but again was unable to speak to him.
Following further noise reports from the resident on 2 July 2024, the landlord advised the resident to use the noise recording app to gather evidence. The resident said his phone did not support the app. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to have considered providing alternative options to the resident, such as the use of diary sheets, but it has not evidenced that it did so.
In September 2024, internal notes show the landlord was considering closing the ASB case due to receiving no further reports of noise nuisance. A landlord can only take action where it has evidence to do so, it was therefore reasonable of the landlord to consider this. However, it appropriately agreed to await a planned meeting with the resident prior to doing so, to ensure the noise had stopped. This was reasonable in the circumstances, especially given the resident’s known vulnerabilities.
On 3 October 2024, the resident visited the landlord’s office, reported further noise nuisance, and said he had handed recordings into the office. The landlord said it had not received any evidence. In the absence of evidence from either side to support or deny the resident’s claim that he had provided evidence, we cannot make a determination on this point.
However, at the visit the landlord discussed the importance of communication and offered to change the contact to weekly email. Given that the weekly phone call was at times not successful, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer this as an option. Though it is important to note that the landlord has not provided evidence to show that it had made weekly contact with the resident up to that point anyway. Landlords need to ensure where it has agreed a frequency of contact, it follows through with that.
The internal notes show that the landlord was unable to make a further action plan as the resident “got up to leave”. While this was unfortunate, the landlord arranged a face to face meeting with the resident for 9 October 2024, when it did complete a further action plan with the resident.
Throughout October and November 2024, the resident provided multiple recordings of noise nuisance via the noise app, however we cannot see that the landlord took any action in relation to these. We also cannot see that the landlord made the weekly contact with the resident via email, in line with the action plan.
The resident continued to provide noise recordings throughout January, February, and March 2025. A note shows he visited the office on 6 February 2025 to discuss a separate issue. The notes show the landlord tried to speak to the resident about mediation but was unable to. The landlord did not speak to the resident about mediation again until a face to face meeting on 2 October 2025. This is not in line with its policy which says it would utilise methods, such as mediation to prevent matters escalating. Its failure to offer this at the earliest opportunity may have caused the issue to continue for an unnecessary time.
The resident provided further noise recordings during April and May 2025, yet we cannot see that the landlord took any action until a home visit in July 2025. During that visit, it noted it had heard the noise recordings, and it appropriately completed a risk assessment. It also advised the resident it would speak to the neighbour.
Following that, the landlord appropriately spoke to the neighbour about the noise, and it distributed ASB questionnaires to other residents within the block. Given the residents repeated reports of excess noise, it was reasonable of the landlord to try and gather further evidence to support any future action it might be able to take.
However, during the visit in July 2025, the resident reported unauthorised use of his shed by the neighbour, but we cannot see that the landlord took any action in relation to this. This caused the resident to raise the issue again in a further home visit on 2 October 2025. It did not complete any works in relation to resolving the issue with the shed until 12 December 2025. This was not appropriate as during that time the resident was unable to have full use of his shed.
Furthermore, the landlord provided incorrect information at stage 1 about the shed which was inappropriate given the prolonged nature of the issue. However, it did apologise and commit to resolve the issue in its stage 2 response.
During the complaint, the resident raised issue with the neighbour using a makeshift washing line in the communal garden. In response, the landlord agreed to install a proper washing line. It was not obliged to do so; therefore, this response was reasonable and highlighted a commitment to improve the situation for the resident.
As part of the ASB the resident raised concerns about certain staff members and their handling of the ASB. It was unclear from the evidence when the issues raised by the resident occurred. However, in this case the landlord evidenced that it undertook an investigation into the issues. It identified that some persons named did not work for the landlord and it spoke to the staff members who did. This was reasonable in the circumstances, and the landlord was entitled to conclude that its staff members had not done anything wrong.
The landlord took some action to address the ASB, including face‑to‑face visits with both the resident and the neighbour, providing information about the noise app, and completing risk assessments and action plans in line with its policy. However, when the resident said he could not use the noise app, the landlord did not offer alternative ways to record issues. Its communication also did not always follow the agreed pattern, and although it sometimes struggled to make contact with the resident, it did not demonstrate that it explored other communication methods. As a result, the resident was, at times, left reporting issues without response or support. Additionally, the landlord did not show that it clearly explained what actions it could or could not take regarding the neighbour and the noise reports, which would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
While the landlord accepted in its complaint response that its communication had been sporadic, the apology was not enough to avoid an adverse finding in this case.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

During a meeting on 4 September 2024 and 9 October 2024 with the landlord, the resident raised issues that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have raised a formal complaint from. However, it did not. This was not in line with the Code, which sets out that a complaint only has to be an expression of dissatisfaction. This failure has led to an adverse finding in this instance.
In contacting us for help in September 2025, we asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint. Following which the landlord responded at both stages of the complaint process, in line with its policy and the Code. That included asking the resident for a short extension at stage 2 to allow for a face to face meeting to discuss the complaint.

Learning

While the landlord completed action plans with the resident, it did not stick to the agreed communication frequency and at times appeared to ignore the resident’s reports of ongoing issues. The landlord needs to ensure it has a robust system in place to ensure it follows through with its promised actions in cases of ASB.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord showed good record keeping in this case.

Communication

While the landlord did not have regular and effective communication with the resident in its handling of the ASB. It did demonstrate good communication with him throughout the complaint process, including holding face to face meetings to ensure it understood the complaint clearly.