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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202307510)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307510

The Guinness Partnership Limited

11 July 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:
    1. The condition of the property when let, and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom bungalow. The resident has fibromyalgia, several mental health conditions, has an overnight carer and considers herself to have severe vulnerabilities. Her tenancy started on 22 February 2023.
  2. The landlord uses a gas contractor. The gas contractor said it recommissioned the boiler on 24 February 2023 but needed to return on the same day as the boiler was not working. They identified a faulty 3 point valve and provided temporary heaters to the resident. The resident’s mother notified the landlord on 24 February 2023 that the resident, had medical needs, was finding the repair issues within the property stressful and was living some distance away from her.
  3. On 27 February 2023 the resident reported that the wet room drain and kitchen sink were both blocked, the patio door and window had both been damaged by the previous tenant’s dog and she had not received previously agreed support from the landlord to fill in benefit forms. The landlord contacted her the following day to assist her with her application and wrote a supporting letter to the benefits service due to the resident’s mental health conditions which it said meant she did not “cope well with phone calls etc.”.
  4. The gas contractor said it fitted the 3 port valve on 28 February 2023 but noted a power flush was needed as the boiler was noisy and radiators were cold at the bottom. It also ordered a fan for the boiler. The fan was fitted on 3 March 2023 and the gas contractor said the boiler was still noisy and that the power flush may solve that.
  5. The resident also raised a complaint on 3 March 2023, stating that she was unhappy with the condition of the property when she moved in, and that she had also had to remove a large amount of dog excrement from her back garden. She said she had requested callbacks from the landlord to discuss it but not received any and also had to chase up the previously agreed benefits support call.
  6. The landlord’s repair records say that it inspected the patio door and window on 3 March 2023 and referred the work needed to its subcontractor. An operative unblocked the wet room drain and the kitchen sink on 5 March 2023.
  7. The resident contacted the gas contractor to chase the power flush to the heating system on 8 March 2023 and they started it the next day and advised they would return at a later date once it had had time to take effect. When the gas contractor returned to complete the power flush on 28 March they noted that  the “boiler seems to be on its way out…making really loud noise and working intermittently”.
  8. On 29 March the landlord contacted the resident to apologise for the delay in responding to her complaint which it said was due to unexpected staff absence. It asked the resident to confirm if any repairs were outstanding.
  9. In its stage 1 response on 31 March 2023, the landlord said that it understood the resident’s frustration that the property was not “up to [her] standard” but said it had carried out the necessary checks and inspection prior to her moving in. It did not uphold her complaint as it said it attended repairs within targeted timescales. The resident also contacted the landlord that day to advise that the contractor had told her it was waiting for the landlord to authorise a new boiler. The landlord authorised the  boiler replacement on 3 April 2023.
  10. On 5 April 2023 the resident responded to the landlord’s email asking if any repairs were outstanding that it sent on 29 March 2023 and advised that she was he was still awaiting the boiler replacement and that the gas contractor had given her two temporary heaters but one was broken and she was worried about the cost of using the other. She said she had not received a call back promised by the landlord and requested that her complaint be taken “as far as possible”. She contacted the landlord about this again on 13 April 2023 and the landlord escalated her complaint.
  11. The gas contractor installed the new boiler on 18 April 2023 (as evidenced by the signed gas report paperwork completed at the time, as well as the resident’s call to the landlord that day to confirm this). The gas contractor acknowledged that the loft door and lino had been damaged during the replacement and paid the resident compensation of £250 for the damage as a separate matter. The resident sought an update from the landlord regarding her complaint on 18 April 2023 and informed it that she had not received a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord said it would look into the complaint.
  12. In its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023 the landlord said that it did not feel that its stage 1 response had taken into account its failure to ensure that the property was in a suitable condition to move into, that it had failed to respond to the complaint within agreed timescales and that there were also failures from its contractor in relation to the boiler replacement. It apologised for the distress caused and awarded a total of £150 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £60 to acknowledge the delay in issuing its formal response
    2. £50 for its failure to complete the repairs to your home prior to her moving in
    3. £40 as an apology for our poor communication.
  13. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she did not feel that the landlord had recognised the distress caused by moving to a home with so many repair issues and having to contact the landlord about this multiple times. She also felt that the stress had exacerbated her mental health conditions and fibromyalgia 

Events after the internal complaints process ended.

  1. The resident contacted the landlord in January 2024 as she had not received the £150 compensation from the stage 2 response. The landlord then processed the payment.
  2. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 25 March April 2024, to inform it that we would be investigating this complaint. Following this contact the landlord reviewed the complaint and sent a follow-on letter to the resident on 16 April 2024, in which it apologised and awarded additional compensation totalling £575. Comprised of:
    1. £25 for its failure to return her call back requests
    2. £200 for its complaint handling, including the delay in providing its responses, its poor communication, and the delay in issuing the compensation
    3. £250 for the failure to resolve all necessary repairs during the void process
    4. £100 for its failure to address all of her complaint.
  3. The resident responded to the letter the same day to say that her mental and physical health had been impacted by having no heating or hot water for 2 months whilst the boiler was not working. The landlord responded on 19 April 2023 and apologised and awarded another £200 compensation for that aspect of the complaint.
  4. In July 2024 the resident advised us that although the majority of repairs had been completed, and the glass in the patio door had been replaced, the damage to the patio door frame had not been addressed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. In her communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident has also referenced how the situation has impacted her health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. It is more appropriate for this to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The condition of the property when let, and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.

  1. Our investigation into this aspect of the complaint was impacted by the landlord’s record keeping. Landlords are expected to keep robust records to provide an audit trail, and to enable the Ombudsman to determine whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures. Clear record keeping is also a core function of a repairs service. This allows a landlord to monitor outstanding works, contractor performance, and provide effective services to its residents. This Service asked the landlord to provide any survey or inspection reports, or feedback from other employees or contractors. However although there were mentions of the landlord’s surveyor inspecting the property, the landlord failed to provide any surveyor reports.
  2. The landlord’s repairs records were also lacking detailed, accurate information when contractors or sub-contractors were involved. Its repair record for the patio door and window states that replacement double glazing units were completed by its sub-contractor on 21 March 2023. However, this was incorrect and the glass was not replaced until 10 May 2023. Its repair records for the boiler repairs were also very limited with a note for the boiler replacement saying “I assume completed. No data”. Where a landlord has used a contractor to carry out work, if its own repair records are limited, it is reasonable to expect it to be able to provide full records from its contractor. However when we requested repair records for the boiler the landlord provided an email from the gas contractor summarising the dates of their actions rather than providing the records themselves. The summary contained inaccurate dates, including the boiler replacement date being recorded as March 2023 rather than April 2023.
  3. The impact of these failings was that the landlord did not have an accurate record of what repairs had been carried out at the resident’s property, which led to her having to contact the landlord to chase up repairs. The poor record keeping also affected the Ombudsman’s ability to assess the landlord’s handling of repairs. Ordinarily we would order the landlord to review its record keeping practices. However, since this complaint was made,  the Ombudsman has already ordered the landlord to review its recordkeeping and its access to its gas contractor’s records in relation to complaints 202306967 and 202304209. Therefore no new order will be made.
  4. The landlord’s website says “We want to make moving into your new home a great experience. So we’ll make sure your home is clean and safe and everything works”. Its Empty Home Repair Standard states that the landlord would ensure that the facilities within an empty home are in good repair and fit for purpose. It says that sinks and showers must be free from blockages and function effectively, and, at the point of re-letting the central heating/hot water systems will be functioning correctly.
  5. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will aim to repair all routine repairs within 28 days. With urgent repairs (which include loss of heating and hot water in winter)  it aims to complete a repair within 24 hours or to carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 24 hours and to then return within a reasonable timeframe to complete the repair.
  6. It is not disputed that when the resident moved into the property the sink and shower drain were blocked, the patio door was damaged and the boiler was not working properly and the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. Therefore the condition of the property was not in line with the landlord’s standard and was therefore unacceptable. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have removed all the dog excrement from the garden before the resident moved in and, as it acknowledged, it failed to do so.
  7. Once the landlord was made aware of the repair issues on 27 February 2023, it acted within a reasonable timescale to complete repairs to the sink and shower and these issues were resolved on 5 March 2023. However, although the landlord’s repairs records state that the damaged patio door and window were referred to a sub-contractor and competed on 21 March 2023, it was established during the stage 2 complaints process that the patio door and window repair had not been completed. The landlord arranged for it to be completed on 10 May 2023, which was outside the 28 day timeframe for routine repairs and as such unreasonable. Furthermore the resident has confirmed that that although the glass was replaced, the damaged patio door frame was not. Therefore we will be ordering that the landlord inspect the doorframe and to provide the resident with an action plan for any repair identified.
  8. As previously mentioned the landlord’s poor record keeping has impacted on our ability to assess whether repairs to the boiler were correctly categorised or completed within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s own repair records for the boiler repairs are very limited. The landlord has provided us with the gas contractor’s summary of the dates of the boiler repairs and some brief notes. Although it shows that some of the contractor’s actions were reasonable such as offering temporary heaters, it does not include the dates that the resident contacted the landlord or contractor on every occasion which means it is not possible to see if they responded within a reasonable time on every occasion. In addition to that at least two of the dates in the summary are incorrect as they say that  boiler was replaced on 18 March 2023, and that the pre-inspection took place on 11 March 2023. However the signed pre-inspection and commission forms provided to us show that the correct dates were 11 and 18 April 2023. The records of the resident’s contact with the landlord on 5 April 2023 and 18 April 2023 also confirm the April dates as being correct.
  9. The landlord’s gas contractor has recorded that even when repairs were carried out, the boiler was only working intermittently and the landlord has accepted that the resident was potentially without heating for up to 2 months until the boiler was replaced. During that time period it would have been good practice for the landlord or its contractor to keep the resident updated on the repairs. However the landlord’s records show that there were some communication failings which resulted in the resident having to contact both the contractor and the landlord herself for updates on the boiler which was not reasonable. The landlord should also have responded to her concerns that one of the portable heaters provided, did not work, and that she was worried about the cost of using them. However, it failed to do so. The resident also had to chase up the landlord’s support services for the previously agreed help to complete benefits forms.
  10. Due to the above failings, the resident had to clean up the dog excrement herself, move into a property with outstanding repairs and no heating, and also had to spend time and trouble contacting both the landlord and its gas contractor to report and request updates on the repairs. This would have been an inconvenience to any resident. However, the landlord was aware that the resident had several mental health conditions, including social anxiety and had difficulty making phone calls. Both the resident and her mother also informed the landlord that she was finding the situation stressful. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken the residents vulnerability into account and considered offering additional support or tailoring its approach during this period because of the resident’s vulnerabilities. However, there is no evidence that it did so.
  11. Of the £150 compensation it awarded in its stage 2 response, £50 was for its failure to complete the repairs before the resident moved in and £40 was for its poor communication during this time. This amount did not fully compensate for failings we have identified, or the impact the failings had on the resident. It is noted that the landlord made two additional offers of compensation totalling £775 after the internal complaints process. Of that, £200 was awarded for its failure to complete repairs during the void process, £200 was awarded for the impact of the loss of heating and hot water had on the resident’s and £25 was awarded for its failure to return callbacks during this period.
  12. This means that the total amount of compensation awarded for the failings in respect of the condition of the property when let, the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs, and its poor communication about both was £515. Although the Ombudsman considers this amount to be appropriate for the failings that the landlord identified. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s individual circumstances as a result of her vulnerability, when assessing the impact of its failings during the void process and beyond and it failed to do so.
  13. Therefore, in line with our remedies guidance for cases of maladministration where there is a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial, we will be ordering the landlord to pay a further £300 compensation for this aspect of the complaint. We will also be recommending that the landlord contact the resident to ensure it has an accurate, up to date record of her vulnerabilities and to discuss whether it needs to make any reasonable adjustments or signpost the resident to any support services.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord aims to response within 10 working days, and at stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, it is expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a new response date, which should not exceed a further 10 working days.
  2. It is not disputed that the landlord failed to respond in line with its policy at both stages of the complaints process. Its stage 1 response was issued 21 working days after the complaint was raised and its stage 2 response was 44 working days after the complaint was escalated. There was also confusion surrounding the escalation of the complaint with the resident left unsure of who was dealing with her complaint and what stage of the process it was at.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not acknowledge any failings. As the stage 1 complaint records show that the landlord had access to the same information confirming the failings that it used to make its decision in its stage 2 response, it is unclear why it did not acknowledge these failings in its stage 1 response. The records also included a note referring to a good will gesture of £20 however this was not mentioned in the stage 1 response. Instead the stage 1 response referred to understanding  the resident’s “frustration of the property not being up to [her] standard”. This comment lacked empathy and gave the impression that the resident’s expectations relating to the condition of the property when she moved in were unrealistic or unreasonable..
  4. In her communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that she does not believe she received the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. She made the landlord aware that she did not believe she had received this on 19 April 2023. The Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had re-sent its response once it was aware she had not received this, but there is a lack of evidence to confirm it did so.
  5. In its stage 2 response the landlord took appropriate steps to apologise for failing to address the damaged patio door and window, dog excrement, blocked sink and shower before the resident moved in and for the inconvenience caused as well as its late stage 2 response. However the £60 compensation that the landlord offered in its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023 is not considered proportionate in view of the complaint handling failings identified and the level of inconvenience caused to the resident.
  6. The landlord subsequently increased its offer for this aspect of the complaint by a further £200 in its follow on letter on 16 April 2024 (which  took into account its delay in paying the £150 compensation awarded in its stage 2 response). It also took appropriate steps to explain the learning and improvements it had made as a response to the resident’s complaint, which included:
    1. Developing a new training programme for all complaint handlers.
    2. Reviewing its complaints policy and procedure with  changes implemented based on feedback from residents and the Housing Ombudsman.
    3. Reviewing its approach to resident vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments which included new policies, system changes and training for all colleagues, with the learnings from the resident’s case being used as case study as part of the project.
  7. The landlord took reasonable steps to identify points of learning from the complaint within its follow on response. However it is not clear why it did not take this approach and issue such a response during its internal complaints process. This was a missed opportunity and as its follow-on letter may have been prompted by the Ombudsman’s investigation, it remains unclear as to whether this would have been offered had it not been for the Ombudsman’s further intervention. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord had the opportunity to offer suitable redress within its complaints process and its failure to do so amounts to a complaint handling failing. Therefore, though we acknowledge the positive content of the follow-on letter, we have made a finding of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. We will be ordering the landlord to pay an additional £150 compensation in recognition of the additional distress and inconvenience that was caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to offer reasonable redress during its internal complaints process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the condition of the property when let, and the landlord’s handling of the subsequent repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident the £925 compensation it previously offered, if it has not already done so.
    2. Pay the resident additional compensation totalling £450, comprised of:
      1. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by failings in respect of the condition of the property when let and subsequent handling of repairs.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling failings.
    3. Inspect the rear patio doorframe and to provide resident with an action plan for any repair identified.

Recommendations.

  1. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to ensure that it has an up to date accurate record of her vulnerabilities and support needs.