Gentoo Group Limited (202515300)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom house with her young child. She reported ongoing issues with damp and mould and repairs to the windows of the property to the landlord. The landlord undertook several inspections and repairs to resolve the damp and mould, but decided the windows were not due for replacement.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. Reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

5. The landlord delayed inspecting the property for damp and mould in December 2023. It also delayed the repairs raised following its damp and mould inspection in January 2025 which included its inspection of the roof for possible water ingress and a mould wash. It failed to provide sufficient evidence it completed the pointing work it had recommended as a result of this inspection.
6. It failed to appropriately record the inspection completed by the window glazier in November 2024. This led to a delay in resolving the resident’s concerns about the condition of the window as it had to re-attend 6 months later to carry out the same inspection. However, it was entitled to rely on the expertise of its contractors and its own inspection when deciding whether the windows needed replacing.
7. The landlord acknowledged its delay in inspecting the resident’s reports of damp and mould in December 2023 and apologised to the resident. However, our investigation has found further failings that the landlord did not address. Therefore, its apology was not proportionate to the overall impact to the resident.

Handling of complaint

8. The landlord delayed contacting the resident to agree an extension of the stage 1 complaint response. However, this delay was minor, and it acknowledged this error and apologised to the resident which was sufficient to put things right. It then issued the resident with its stage 1 response within its published timescales for extended complaints.

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.

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.

Damp and mould

9. The landlord inspected the property for damp and mould on 28 December 2023, 16 working days after the resident’s reports on 4 December 2023. This was not in keeping with its timescales set out in its damp and mould procedure of 10 working days to complete an inspection.
10. The landlord’s records of this inspection are limited. It did not record the possible cause of damp and mould or specify how it had inspected the issue or in which locations. This was a failure by the landlord in its record keeping. However, it did note that additional works were required which included a mould wash in the front bedroom and a repair to the gutter.
11. Its records of these additional works are unclear. They indicate the landlord attended promptly to the appointment to carry out a mould wash which was done within 6 working days on 9 January 2024. However, the pictures taken by the repair operative were of the bathroom window rather than the front bedroom as instructed. Furthermore, the landlord said it had completed a repair to the gutter on 3 January 2024. However, it has not provided any repair records to confirm the appointment went ahead on this date or the repairs that were completed at the time.
12. The resident next reported damp and mould to the landlord on 6 December 2024. The landlord scheduled an inspection for 15 December 2024 which was in keeping with its published timescales. Due to the resident being unavailable, the inspection was rescheduled and completed on a mutually agreed date of 17 January 2025. This was within a reasonable time.
13. The inspection report was detailed and recorded internal temperature checks and relative humidity. It also included an assessment of multiple locations and areas of the property. This was good record keeping by the landlord and allowed it to refer back to its visit when investigating the resident’s complaint about its handling of the matter. As well as giving the resident advice on ventilation, the landlord raised a number of repairs following this inspection. These included checking for broken roof tiles, re-pointing an area of the gable end of the property, and applying anti-fungal wash to affected areas in the bedroom and bathroom.
14. The landlord said it completed the roofing appointment on 10 June 2025 and found no repairs. However, the landlord has provided insufficient records of the appointment, and it is unclear what checks it made to the roof to determine this position. It is also unclear what priority the landlord gave the appointment which has made it difficult for us to assess whether it attended within its published timescales. However, considering its inspector recommended this work to investigate possible water ingress to the front bedroom, we would consider this to have fallen into its routine repairs category. It was therefore delayed in attending this appointment as it did so in 144 calendar days rather than the 28 calendar days as stated in its repairs policy for routine repairs.
15. Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence it completed the pointing work instructed by its mould and damp inspector, and it did not comment on this repair within its complaint responses. This was a failure by the landlord as it should have acted on the recommendations of its damp and mould inspector. It should be able to provide detailed evidence and information regarding the work it completed or reasons why the work was not required.
16. The landlord scheduled the anti-fungal wash for 1 April 2025 on a routine priority. It was therefore delayed in completing this appointment as it did so in 74 calendar days rather than 28. It also failed to provide sufficient evidence of the details of this appointment.
17. During this time, the landlord also failed to demonstrate it had followed its damp and mould procedure as it did not:
    1. Categorise the resident’s reports of damp and mould in line with its damp and mould procedure. This states it will record each case as either slight, moderate, or severe.
    2. Contact the resident following completion of additional repairs to decide if any further action was required or to close the case.
    3. Contact the resident within 35 working days to find out if the issue was resolved.

Windows

18. The landlord responded within its published timescales of 7 calendar days for urgent repairs following the resident’s report of the living room and bedroom window being draughty on 4 December 2023. However, it is unclear what repairs were completed on this appointment as its records lack detail. It also appears further work was required but the landlord did not raise any additional repairs at this time.
19. The landlord responded to the resident’s report of insecure windows on 18 December 2023 within its published timescale of 24 hours for emergency repairs. The repair operative adjusted the windows and raised additional work to have the window seals renewed. This work was raised promptly and completed by the landlord within its published timescales of 28 days for routine repairs.
20. The resident reported ongoing issues with the condition of the windows on 14 October 2024. She told the landlord they were extremely draughty and causing the entire property to be cold. The landlord responded promptly and raised a repair appointment on an urgent priority. It attended within its published timescales for urgent appointments, but this was rescheduled at the resident’s request. The landlord attended on 25 October 2024 and completed repairs including installing safety catches to 2 windows and raising follow-on work for a glazier to assess the glazing units. This was appropriate action by the landlord.
21. The glazing appointment was completed within timescales for routine repairs on 29 November 2024. However, the landlord did not record the findings of the assessment. This was a failure in its record keeping which delayed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the window as it had to re-attend 6 months later on 15 April 2025. This also caused inconvenience to the resident having to accommodate another visit.
22. The landlord said that there were no issues identified with the glazing which would make it necessary for it to be repaired or replaced. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its contractor who had assessed the glazing.
23. Given the resident’s continued concern that the windows were not fit for purpose and contributing to damp and mould issues, it was positive that the landlord completed a visual and thermal imaging assessment of the windows on 11 July 2025. It was entitled to rely on the findings of this assessment which found no outstanding repair issues and no areas of excessive heat loss through the windows or any holes though which cold air could be entering the property. It was therefore reasonable that it did not replace the windows of the property.
24. It was reasonable for the landlord not to replace the seals of the windows. This was due to the seals being black in colour rather than black due to the build-up of mould. It was appropriate that it gave advice to the resident on how to ventilate the property to reduce condensation and the build-up of condensation-related mould on the seals.
25. It was positive that the landlord explained to the resident that it carried out 5-year rolling stock condition surveys. This provided reassurance to the resident that if the windows did deteriorate before their planned replacement in 2040, it would look to repair or replace at a sooner date to ensure they remained fit for purpose.

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. It says where an extension is required, this will be for no longer that 10 working days for stage 1 complaint and will seek to agree an extension with the resident. This is in keeping with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
27. The landlord delayed contacting the resident to agree an extension to the stage 1 complaint which it did so 16 working days after the resident made her formal complaint to it and after the resident chased it for an update. This delay was minor and as such, its apology to the resident was suitable redress for an error of this nature.
28. The landlord issued the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its published timescales as it did so 25 working days after the resident requested an escalation to her complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord’s record keeping in relation to its damp and mould inspections and repairs was inconsistent. Had it maintained robust records of repairs with clear and accurate information, this would have enhanced the landlord’s ability to respond to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and repairs to the windows.

Communication

30. The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence that it communicated with the resident appropriately throughout the time she reported damp and mould to it. Had it done so, it might have been able to take more pro-active approach to the issue.