Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202214155)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214155

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 January 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. Responsive repairs.
    2. Reports that the property was cold.
    3. Complaints, communication, and record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident had a number of health conditions, some of which are made worse by the cold. In 2019 the boiler in her house was replaced and relocated from a downstairs cupboard to the upstairs of the property.
  2. The resident reported draughts in the property throughout early 2022, which required repairs. These primarily related to the back door and cupboard which had previously housed the boiler. The landlord attended on a number of occasions from 31 January 2022 to 27 June 2022. On 24 August 2022 the resident complained. She was unhappy that the repairs carried out by the landlord had not sufficiently stopped the draughts, and with how cold the property was, even when the heating was in use. The resident “wanted the issues sorting before winter”. On 2 September 2022, the landlord attended again but was “unable to find the cause of the draughts”.
  3. The resident chased her complaint throughout September 2022. On 3 October 2022, she approached the Ombudsman for help progressing her complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, with the ‘coldness’ of the property, as well as the landlord’s complaint handling and communication. The Ombudsman forwarded the complaint to the landlord on 8 November 2022. The outcome sought was for the house to be warmer and the repairs to be attended to “in a timely manner”.
  4. On 24 November 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It stated that:
    1. It had carried out a number of repairs to the back door throughout 2022, but had been unable to affect a solution; further investigation was required. It apologised for delays in these repairs, offering £200 compensation.
    2. A senior staff member was supposed to visit, but this had not yet happened. It was now arranged to take place on 25 November 2022.
    3. The ‘heating and hot water’ team would make an action plan and that it would attend to carry out a ‘heat loss survey’.
  5. On 25 November 2022 the landlord visited the resident in order to inspect the property, as promised. The resident was dissatisfied with the inspection. On 29 November 2022, the resident escalated her complaint, because:
    1. She was receiving high bills for using the heating, which was having little to no effect on the temperature of the property.
    2. The house remained very cold, exacerbating her health conditions.
    3. The timescales suggested to fix the issue were too long.
  6. On 6 December 2022, the landlord attended and completed a ‘heat loss survey’. Throughout December 2022, the resident and Ombudsman chased the landlord for an update. On 22 December 2022, it wrote to the resident, explaining that it was “waiting for updates” regarding the heat loss survey and the visit from the senior staff member. The resident chased again on 28 December 2022, stressing that the house was “so cold”. On 3 January 2022, it replied to the resident, stating that the “findings [of the heat loss survey] confirmed that the radiators in your home were sufficient to heat up your home.”
  7. On 6 January 2023, it provided its stage 2 response. It stated that:
    1. There were no failings in its handling of the heat loss survey.
    2. Referrals had been made to appropriate organisations to advise the resident on challenges meeting energy costs.
    3. The senior staff member had attempted to revisit the resident on 5 December 2022, but the resident had not been at home. This visit had taken place on 5 January 2022 and no draughts identified, but that a specialist contractor would be employed to continue investigations.
    4. It had failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request and identified communication failings.
    5. It would offer a further £150 compensation, made up of £25 for delays arranging a contractor to investigate doors and windows and £125 for communication and complaint handling failures.
  8. On 13 January 2023, the resident responded to the stage 2 response, stating that:
    1. She was unhappy with the heat loss survey, as although the radiators had been measured, the heating system itself had not been checked.
    2. Despite the landlord’s recent efforts, she remained “vulnerable and living in a cold house”. She repeated that the downstairs cupboard needed “to be looked at” as the hallway was still “freezing cold”.
    3. She was unhappy with the missed appointments. She disputed the senior staff member’s account of 5 December 2022.
    4. She wanted a mould inspection carrying out on the bathroom window.
    5. She was unhappy with how her complaints had been handled and the time and effort she had gone to in order to receive a response.
  9. The resident and landlord continued to correspond over the months which followed and the landlord attended to complete a further number of small repairs. The resident continued to chase the landlord for solutions to the cold house. The resident ended her tenancy on 28 May 2022; she emailed the Ombudsman on 1 June 2023 stating that she had been left with no choice but “to leave this horrible cold house”.

Assessment and findings

Handling of responsive repairs

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy states that ‘routine repairs’ should be attended within 28 days of being reported. The resident suspected that the draughts at the property were most likely caused by the cupboard which had previously housed the boiler, as it housed vents and pipes which were open and exposed to the outside of the property. Repairs were attended on 31 January 2022, but the resident advised the repairs had been ineffective on 1 April 2022. The landlord attended on 21 April 2022, where it carried out appropriate repairs, and again on 12 May 2022. The resident reported the issue again 22 June 2022, in response to which repair logs state “the kitchen cupboard was removed and [vents/pipes/cavities] sealed on 27 June 2022”. When the resident complained on 24 August 2022 that a draught was still present, the landlord attended on 2 September 2022 and advised that further investigations would be required and that a senior staff member would be in touch. The resident chased throughout September and October 2022. The landlord did not respond until it apologised that this visit had not happened as of the stage 1 response. The senior staff member did attend on 25 November 2022, but there is no evidence that any issues were found. There is no evidence that any further investigations into the cupboard took place after this date and the cause of the draught the resident was reporting remains unknown. Although the repair was not effective, the Ombudsman is satisfied that reasonable and appropriate efforts were being made to address the issues with the cupboard. It appears that the landlord may have suspected that other factors were to blame, therefore widening the scope of the investigation. In light of what is fair in all circumstances of the case, this was reasonable in the landlord’s efforts to seek a solution. There is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue.
  2. The resident also reported issues with cold air and rainwater entering the property through the backdoor. A repair was completed on 31 January 2022, but problems recurred on 14 March 2022. The landlord did not attend until 10 May 2022. It is unclear why there was a delay, though it is noted that the resident raised a number of repairs at the same time, which may have contributed to the delays. There is also reference in internal emails of a visit regarding this repair on 11 April 2022, perhaps to survey the repair which was needed. Nonetheless, although these serve as mitigating factors, the resident nonetheless was left waiting for an unreasonable period of time with water entering the property.
  3. Later in 2022, the resident reported feeling like she was “going round in circles” with repairs. This may explain why she did not report to the landlord that the repair had been ineffective until November 2022, as part of her complaint. No repair appears to have been raised at this time as the resident was advised to wait “until the outcome of the heat loss survey”. The landlord later apologised as this delay was unnecessary. The door was later assessed and no issue was found. It was replaced anyway in order to be thorough, which was appropriate. In conclusion, while there were some failings in the landlord’s handling of this matter, the £200 offered at stage 1 constitutes reasonable redress in respect of the failings identified.

Handling of reports of cold at the property

  1. Following the repairs the landlord had done to address reports of draughts throughout 2022, the resident continued to report issues and concerns about general cold in the property on 24 August and 2 September 2022. Following this, the resident was obliged to chase frequently until the landlord responded in late November 2023. It then began undertaking a series of appropriate investigations. A ‘heat loss survey’ was seen as the priority by the landlord. In a call with the resident on 23 November 2022 and internal emails from the following day, the landlord also suggested that the windows should be inspected and the heating system’s circulation checked; the landlord wanted to wait until the survey had been completed, before it followed up on these tasks. The landlord completed the survey on 6 December 2022; over 3 months after the resident’s renewed reports. This delay, given the time of year and the resident’s reports of extreme cold in the property, even when the heating was in use, was unreasonable. There was also no good reason that the landlord delayed wider investigations until the heat loss survey had been completed.
  2. On 9 December 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident, explaining it was awaiting the results of the survey. Both the resident and the Ombudsman continued to chase the landlord throughout December 2022, but in an update provided by the landlord on 22 December 2022, no further useful information appeared to be available. The landlord told the Ombudsman at this time that the delay was “not good enough”. Further investigations had been delayed as a result, though there was no reason they should have been. The landlord was right therefore when it later apologised that it had “delayed arranging a specialist contractor [which] should have been done following our visit on 25 November 2022, as this is a completely separate assessment to the heat loss survey.” It offered £25 compensation. No issue with the windows was identified. However, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been a failing which causes “distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved”, compensation of a minimum of £50 is due. The landlord’s own compensation policy advises such an instance would warrant compensation “up to £250” Orders are therefore made below to ‘put things right’.
  3. The landlord stated that it had found “no failings” in the way it had handled the heat loss survey. The Ombudsman does not share this view, as the evidence suggests that it would have been appropriate to consider undertaking a heat loss survey as early as 24 August 2022, when the resident reported that the repairs carried out to address the draughts had been ineffective. As a result, the landlord had taken 4 months to adequately investigate the issues, in which time it had not been able to provide the results of the heat loss survey. The evidence shows that the resident was reporting significant distress as a result of the cold in her home during this time.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that where heating is not working (between 31 October – 1 May), it should attend within 1 working day. Because the resident had reported that the heating appeared to be ineffective when switched on, but did not report that it was non-functioning, the Ombudsman does not necessarily consider that the landlord should have adhered to this timeframe. However, prompt inspections should have taken place to rule out issues. The landlord appears to have acknowledged this, as on 23 November 2022, it sent an internal email asking for an engineer to “check the circulation” of the radiators. The heat loss survey of 6 December 2022 had an opportunity to do this. Although the heat loss survey involved “measurement of all radiators”, there is no evidence that the functionality of the system was tested. The landlord however stated on 3 January that “no repairs to the heating system were necessary”. It is unclear what evidence it had based this statement on. On 13 January 2023, the resident told this service that during the visit, the system “hadn’t been turned on at all”. There is no evidence that the heating system was inspected during the remainder of the resident’s tenancy, although she continued to report issues. This was a failing.
  5. During this investigation, the Ombudsman set out to establish if this failing had formed part of the cause of the cold the resident had been reporting. In May 2023, the resident moved out of the property, citing that the property was too cold and that the landlord had not done enough to rectify this. Internal emails from June 2023 suggested that an engineer should attend to check the heating system for issues, such as a build-up of sludge, in preparation for a new tenant to move into the property. This further suggests that this had not been done during the resident’s tenancy. A gas safety inspection on 20 July 2023 confirmed that the heating system was in working order. This service asked the landlord for records of the works done prior to the inspection, including whether the system was checked for sludge as suggested. However, the landlord explained that it had switched contractors and therefore had no access to records of any jobs done. The Ombudsman has therefore been unable to identify if any issues with the heating system were present during the resident’s tenancy and subsequently fixed at the end of her tenancy.
  6. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of cold at the property; the length of time it took for the landlord to adequately investigate the issues reported by the resident was unreasonable. It also failed to check the functionality of the heating system. It is unclear if this would have had any impact on the issues the resident was experiencing. However, the landlord has been unable satisfy this investigation that it did all it could to resolve the issues for the resident. During this time, the resident reported feeling highly distressed by the delays and frustrated with what she felt was a lack of thoroughness in the investigations carried out. The resident eventually moved house because of her lack of faith in the landlord’s ability to address the cold issues. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this was the resident’s choice, however, it reflects the high levels of distress and inconvenience the resident suffered. Orders are made below to ‘put things right’.
  7. Some mitigating factors are considered, such as the landlord’s referral of the resident to appropriate organisations to help with energy costs, and the supply of electric heaters. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where there has been maladministration where the landlord has failed to acknowledge all of its failings and put things right, compensation of up to £600 is due.

Handling of complaints, communication, and record keeping

  1. In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated that “you emailed us on five occasions, between 24 November 2022 and 9 December 2022 and we failed to respond to you. You requested to escalate your complaint on 29 November 2022, and we didn’t contact you and arrange this until 9 December 2022. This isn’t good enough and we must do better”. It offered £25 for the delay in escalating the complaint, which was appropriate. It also offered £100 for “failed promises and poor communication”. The landlord however failed to account for the time and trouble the resident went to.
  2. This investigation has seen evidence of multiple instances where the resident requested a callback from the landlord, which was not forthcoming. The “failed promises” the landlord refers to, likely relates to communication and visits which were promised by a senior staff member, which were initially missed or delayed without explanation. The senior staff member explained that call backs did happen, but were missed, resulting in a voicemail being left. The landlord has provided no evidence of these calls. The resident disputes that she ever received them, or the voicemails. As a result, the resident felt obliged to contact several agencies for help evoking a response from the landlord, including her MP, the local authority, her local Councillor and the Ombudsman. The £100 compensation did not account for these efforts, or the lack of faith the resident had in the landlord as a result of her experience.
  3. There was also evidence of missed appointments, such as the heat loss survey on 1 December 2022. The resident reported receiving no contact until the following day, adding to the frustration she experienced. The resident also reported “waiting in all day” on 5 December 2022 for a senior staff member to visit. In internal emails, the staff member later reported knocking on the door, but the resident not being in, which the resident disputes. This investigation has been unable to determine which account was accurate. However, the landlord did not reattend until a month later, on 5 January 2023. This was an unreasonable delay, regardless of why the appointment was missed.
  4. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), by which the landlord is bound, states that a complaint is defined as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. There are several instances however where the resident’s dissatisfaction was not raised formally, such as concerns about mould in the bathroom. Internal notes from 24 August 2022 state that the “customer would like to complain”, however no formal complaint was raised, despite the resident’s frequent chasing in the months that followed. This led to actions being delayed, which were not considered in later compensation offers.
  5. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s repair and contact records, although extensive, were vague and lacked important detail. This is mitigated somewhat by the landlord’s ability to provide further clarity in a timely manner when asked, during this investigation.
  6. However, the landlord changed contractors at some point in 2023, resulting in it retaining no records of what works were done at the property following the resident’s end of tenancy. The landlord has a duty to maintain and upkeep accurate records. Systems should be in place so that contractors share information directly with the landlord, records are backed up and following the termination of a relationship with a contractor, all records are requisitioned. Because this did not happen, the Ombudsman was unable to rule out that the landlord’s failure to inspect the heating system was the cause of the resident’s issues with cold at the property. The landlord also has no record of what works were done to the property going forward, increasing the likelihood of future complications, should past repair records need to be consulted.
  7. In conclusion, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of complaints, communication and record keeping. The £125 offered was not reflective of all the failings and the adverse effect identified. In particular, the time and trouble the resident went to and the damage the poor communication had on the landlord’s relationship with the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where maladministration has occurred and the landlord has failed to acknowledge or put right all of its failings, compensation of up to £600 is due. Orders are made below to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of responsive repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of cold at the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of complaints, communication and record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £825 made up of:
    1. £75 for the delay in arranging a specialist contractor to visit. The £25 already offered may be deducted from this amount, if already paid.
    2. £300 for the landlord’s handling of reports of cold, including its failure to inspect the heating system and delays in obtaining a heat loss survey.
    3. £250 for the time and trouble the resident went to.
    4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling, communication and record keeping failures identified. The £125 already offered in this regard may be deducted from this amount, if paid already.