The Guinness Partnership Limited (202125772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125772

The Guinness Partnership Limited

12 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of multiple longstanding and recent repairs required to the property.
2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the secure tenant of a 1-bedroom second floor flat, owned by the landlord. The landlord was unaware of any health concerns or vulnerabilities but stated that he had advised of deteriorating health during the complaint.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord, via this Service, on 22 February 2023. He complained about its complaint handling and stated that his property was in disrepair. He listed his concerns as follows:
1. There were leaks from the ceilings.
2. He had no heating or hot water.
3. There was possible asbestos in the property.
4. There was damp and mould in his home.
5. He had pest infestations.
6. There were outstanding repairs to his kitchen and bathroom.
In its stage 1 response on 23 March 2023, the landlord stated that it had received a pre-action letter of claim on 29 March 2021, and the matter had been ongoing since. It had arranged for temporary accommodation from 6 December 2022 whilst work was undertaken. It expected to complete repairs by 31 March 2023, and would advise him when his home was ready to return to. As part of the disrepair process its solicitor was reviewing the information in order to make an offer of compensation. It set out its learning from the complaint, apologised for its complaint handling, and offered £50 compensation.
The resident had submitted pre-action protocol letters of claim to the landlord in 2020 and 2021, both of which he abandoned. On 5 April 2023, the landlord made a “gesture of good will”, via its solicitor, in the amount of £2,000. This was referred to as full and final settlement of his disrepair claim.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 14 April 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and level of compensation offered.
In its stage 2 response on 24 June 2023, the landlord apologised for its poor complaint handling and communication. It stated that despite actively reporting the issues, and filing a legal disrepair claim, it had failed to rectify the repairs in a timely manner. It apologised that his home and health had deteriorated. It had agreed to purchase replacement furniture as a gesture of good will. The repairs had taken longer than expected due to the extent of the work. It apologised for the physical, emotional, and mental impact of the delays and offered £500 compensation. This comprised £300 for delays in completing the repairs, £100 for poor communication, and £100 for complaint handling.
The landlord issued a further response on 21 March 2024. It stated that it had identified further failings in its complaint responses. It said that the compensation offered failed to acknowledge the personal impact on the resident and increased its compensation offer to £1,300. This comprised £1,000 for the delays in completing repairs, £200 for poor complaint handling, and £100 for poor communication. It set out further learning from the complaint and measures it had put in place to improve its service.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought his complaint to this Service. He was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and wanted an increased payment of £10,000. He also advised that some of his belongings had not been returned from storage.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence, he advised that the damp and mould was affecting him physically and mentally. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, he can consider this via the courts.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that no legal proceedings were issued in relation to the disrepair claim and that it was discontinued by the resident. This Service has, therefore, considered the reasonableness of the landlord’s responses and redress made in the circumstances.
The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint through its internal complaints process. This is to ensure that it takes reasonable steps to resolve complaints in its 2-stage process. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the events leading up to its final response on 24 June 2023. Any events following its stage 2 response, including further offers of compensation, are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of multiple longstanding and recent repairs required to the property.

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours. It aims to fix routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s disrepair policy states that its aim is to resolve disrepair issues as soon as possible. In order to achieve a timely resolution, it will consider using alternative dispute resolution methods, where appropriate. This is in line with the Disrepair Protocol which states that litigation should be the last resort. It will, where appropriate, instruct either an expert or a single joint expert to inspect the property for evidence of disrepair. It will, where required, undertake an agreed schedule of works to remedy disrepair within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when it receives a report, an operative will attend to determine the cause and seek to resolve the immediate issue. It will carry out repairs in accordance with its responsive repairs policy.
The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore it is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs. It acknowledged the letter of claim of March 2021 in its stage 1 response and that the matters had been ongoing since. In its stage 2 response it said that some repairs dated back 7 years and despite him actively reporting concerns, and his disrepair claim, it had failed to carry out repairs in a timely manner.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s repairs records and call logs, provided as evidence, show the following:
1. On 15 February 2019 there was a report of a roof leak into the properties below.
2. On 16 December 2019 the resident complained of the entire property requiring repairs. He had to use a bucket of water to flush the WC and there was a roof leak which had been ongoing for years. He had rodents in the property, and damp and mould.
3. On 19 December 2019 the landlord contacted him and explained that he had not reported repairs, he needed to do this, and it was unable to look into his repairs as they were from years ago. The record said, “not upheld” and “no investigation”.
4. On 18 May 2020 the resident had reported multiple repairs being outstanding. He reported that the toilet was not flushing, and the ceiling was falling through. It explained it was only able to raise emergency repairs due to Covid-19 restrictions.
5. A letter of claim was sent in June 2020 and on 23 December 2020 records referred to a notice of disrepair and needing to arrange an inspection in the new year. The disrepair claim of 2020 was later abandoned by the resident.
It is evident from the evidence provided, that the landlord was aware of ongoing repairs concerns since 2019. The evidence did not reflect that any inspections had been completed in 2019, following the letter of claim in June 2020, or in early 2021.
While Covid-19 restrictions limited landlords in their ability to carry out repairs, the reports of a non-flushing toilet, and ceiling falling through, should have constituted an emergency under its repairs policy. It is concerning that the resident was informed that it could not investigate his reports of outstanding repairs. It missed a number of opportunities to inspect his home and resolve the repairs at an earlier stage.
In March 2021 the resident appointed a new solicitor and submitted a letter of claim. Records of May 2021 suggest that the landlord made attempts to visit the property. However, his solicitor would not accept the completion of an inspection by the landlord. An expert report was produced in June 2021 which highlighted the following:
1. There was disrepair evident at the property with penetrating dampness.
2. It made reference to pest infestations, a small amount of mould growth, electrical issues, and there being no cold-water supply to the sanitary fittings in the bathroom.
3. It was concerned about the precarious condition of the cracked ceiling to the landing, which could fall away, and presented a hazard.
4. Although not strictly disrepair, the bathroom, WC, and kitchen would benefit from modernisation, along with the floor coverings which presented a trip hazard.
The landlord accepted the report on the basis that the resident gave unrestricted access to inspect the works, be responsible for decorations, and storage of belongings. Communication continued between the parties throughout August and December 2021. There was no evidence provided to suggest that an inspection or any repairs had taken place at this point. However, in its response to this Service, it explained that the resident had been reluctant to allow access to his home.
In April and July 2022, the resident’s solicitor reported that he continued to suffer ongoing water penetration into his flat. This was causing damage to his personal belongings and making it dangerous to touch or turn on the bedroom light which was an electrical hazard. It stated that the landlord had failed to investigate and repair the source of the penetration. There was poor workmanship in relation to boiler and WC repairs which required further attention.
The resident’s local councillor wrote to the landlord on 29 September 2022, to raise a formal complaint on his behalf. The councillor stated that, having visited his home, it was “perturbed” by the conditions. It said that it was unsafe for human habitation and hazardous. There was evidence of water damage and leaks in every room. The disrepair issues were “appalling” and having an adverse impact on his mental health and wellbeing. The councillor recommended an assessment be conducted immediately, that he be given a schedule of repairs with clear time frames and be placed in temporary accommodation. There was no evidence provided to show that the landlord responded to the councillor or raised a complaint via its complaints process.
The landlord’s records of 5 December 2022 referred to the ceilings in all rooms being in poor condition. The smell of damp was “overwhelming” although there was no sign of black mould. There were additional problems with electrics, plumbing, and pest infestations. The work would last for 6 weeks and commence in the new year. The resident moved to temporary accommodation from 6 December 2022. It had cleared the property of belongings in January 2023.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on pre-action protocol for housing conditions encourages landlords to take appropriate steps to ensure there is effective communication between its own teams and the resident, throughout the repairs and complaints process. A matter does not become legal until proceedings have been issued. It is important that landlords do not disengage from any open complaint or the repair issue itself. A comment about legal action or commencing the protocol does not constitute legal proceedings.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that no legal proceedings were issued. From the letter of claim in March 2021 to the inspection in December 2022 the resident had continued to reside in the property. This was over 20 months since it had received the letter of claim. While we appreciate that there had been barriers to gaining access to inspect the property, it is concerning that it did not consider any alternative actions to gain access. It could have considered enforcing the tenancy conditions or an injunction. It was aware of the hazards reported by the resident, his solicitor, the expert report, and councillor, and therefore failed to consider any detriment to the resident.
The landlord’s records of January and March 2023 referred to the resident being vulnerable, distressed and angry. He had reported not eating or sleeping. It also mentioned him referring to self-harm or harm to others. In its explanation to this Service, it stated that although it did not have a policy which stated it would complete risk assessments during these works, it understood that it was an essential tool it could utilise to understand the needs of its residents.
There was no evidence provided to suggest that the landlord had considered its safeguarding obligations. It did not demonstrate that it had made any referrals to external agencies following the resident expressing his distress. It is noted that the resident was warned of his tone and behaviour toward the landlord on a number of occasions. While this would have been challenging for the landlord, it further supported the need to consider any vulnerabilities and any impact the situation may have been causing.
The landlord’s records of March 2023 referred to the disrepair claim and that it suspected that it had “fallen away”. It had been open since 2021 with no settlement on record. It was aware that the resident no longer had legal representation and was seeking remuneration. However, he was seeking new representation which it “wanted to avoid”. Many items had been damaged due to the damp, which had been disposed of, and it had agreed to replace furniture. It considered that £2,000 would achieve this.
In its stage 1 response of March 2023, the landlord referred to the letter of claim submitted in March 2021. It stated that its solicitor was considering any failures and the information, in order to make a compensation offer. It had reviewed how it handled reports of damp and mould and had agreed a new process to help identify the root cause of damp and mould growth.
While the landlord acknowledged the letter of claim, and that the matter had been ongoing, it failed to demonstrate that it had appropriately investigated the resident’s reports. It was evident from its records that the matter had been ongoing prior to the letter of claim. It apologised and demonstrated some learning, however, failed to offer any recompense for the detriment caused. It was also evident that the claim had been abandoned at this point for a second time.
Although the pre-action claim had been abandoned, the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident on 5 April 2023. It did not accept liability for the matter and would dispute any disrepair claim. However, it was mindful of the parties’ obligations to attempt to reach a settlement. It made an offer of goodwill of £2,000 in full and final settlement of the whole of the claim relating to disrepair. There was no offer of costs, its offer was open for 21 days, after which time it would be revoked with no further offers being made.
The landlord’s offer appears to have been the £2,000, mentioned in its internal correspondence, relating to replacement furniture. No due regard was given to its responsibilities, or how the condition of the property had become uninhabitable over a period of years, or that he had continued to reside in a hazardous home in excess of 2 years. The amount offered fell considerably short of redress due to the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord outlined the complaint and apologised for the resident’s experience. It said that:
1. Some of his repairs reports dated back 7 years. This highlighted the extent of the issues he had experienced with the leaks in his home and problems they had subsequently caused. This included damage to belongings and furnishings. It had attended and completed several repairs between March 2021 and November 2022, but it did not rectify the root cause which was the roof leak.
2. It had required access to a neighbouring property to erect scaffold, however, the neighbour had not allowed access. It apologised that this meant his living conditions quickly deteriorated as did his health.
3. He had been temporarily decanted on 6 December 2022 as his home had become uninhabitable. Its contractor advised that they could not commence the repairs inside his home until the roof leak was resolved. As access had not been granted, this caused significant delays.
4. It eventually liaised with its tenancy enforcement team and gained access to the roof. Its contractor inspected the roof, identified the cause of the leak, and quickly repaired it to allow the repairs inside his home to commence.
5. Prior to the repairs commencing, it advised that it needed to clear his home of belongings. It was agreed that some of the items he wanted to keep would be placed in storage, and damaged items would be removed. Its disrepair team confirmed that he had signed a waiver prior to the removal of the furniture. It had agreed to purchase some furniture as a gesture of goodwill. This included a new wardrobe, 4 new dining chairs, a two-seater sofa, 2 armchairs, a display cabinet with shelves, drawers, a washing machine, kitchen ware, a kitchen table, a coffee table, and a television unit.
6. It initially gave a completion date of 31 March 2023, but the repairs took longer due to the extent of some of the damage.
7. It appreciated the disruption the delays caused and confirmed that all repairs had since been completed. Its service manager made contact on 15 June 2023 to confirm that he was satisfied with the repairs. He explained that he had moved back into his home and had noticed some snags which needed to be rectified. It attended on 19 June 2023 to discuss the snags, and these would be completed in the coming weeks. It was sorry for the physical, emotional and mental impact the delays had on him.
8. There had been some barriers that were outside its control, such as access to the roof, and the delays encountered were not acceptable. It apologised for the overall experience and the distress this caused. It offered £300 for the delays to complete repairs and £100 for its poor communication.
9. It had provided feedback to its disrepair team and stated that while it appreciated there was a legal process it had to adhere to, the communication between its teams internally could have been better.
The landlord’s response was appropriate in apologising for the experience and recognising that the delays were not acceptable. It demonstrated some learning from the complaint by feeding back to its disrepair team. However, while it acknowledged the detriment caused, its offer of compensation did not reflect this. Its offer was not proportionate to the delays experienced by the resident, of over 2 years, considering the period from the letter of claim to when the resident returned home on 5 June 2023.
On 21 March 2024 the landlord sent a further response to the resident. It stated that while preparing information for this Service, it had identified further failings in how it handled his complaint. It again offered its apologies for the service he received. It said that the compensation offered failed to consider the personal impact on him. It increased its compensation offer to £1,000 for the delays in completing the repairs and £100 for its communication. It also set out further learning from the complaint as follows:
1. It had improved its process for recording repairs on its system and residents could now report repairs via its portal.
2. It had set up a complaints core working group consisting of senior leaders which would identify barriers and promote continuous learning.
3. Its repairs teams now had dashboards to monitor actions.
4. The findings of his complaint had been shared with managers.
The landlord’s offer and actions following its final response of June 2023 could be said to be a remedy to put things right for the resident. However, it failed to adequately assess the appropriate level of redress required within its 2-stage process. Its further offer of compensation was also not proportionate to the delays the resident experienced or the detriment caused. We would have made a finding of reasonable redress but for the fact that the landlord’s final offer was inadequate in the circumstances of this case. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple longstanding and recent repairs required to the property.

Associated formal complaint.

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days of receipt. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
Following contact from this Service, on 22 February 2023, the landlord raised a formal complaint the same day. It responded at stage 1 on 23 March 2023, 21 working days later, and 11 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 14 April 2023. The landlord responded on 24 June 2023, 48 working days later, and 28 working days later than its complaint policy timescale. While the delays were not significant, they would have added to the resident’s frustration.
The landlord apologised in both responses for its complaint handling, offering £50 and £100 respectively. It said that its complaint handling had been “unreasonable and unacceptable” and that its handling of the complaint was “simply not good enough”. A further offer was made in March 2024 of £200.
In the landlord’s response to this Service, it stated that during the time of its complaint investigation, it had seen an increase in demand for its service. This had impacted its ability to respond within agreed timescales. It was now compliant with timeframes set out in its policy and this Service’s complaint handling code. Where it needed an extension, it communicated this with the resident prior to the complaint expiry date. It had increased its resource to ensure that it was compliant, more resolution focussed, and efficient.
There was a further failure in the landlord’s complaint handling as set out in paragraph 28. There was no evidence to suggest that a complaint was raised following the request made, in September 2022, by the councillor.
That said, the landlord’s compensation offers, apology, and demonstrated learning from the complaint were appropriate and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Its compensation offer was in line with its compensation policy of up to £250, and this Service’s remedies guidance of £50 to £100 for service failure. Its further compensation offer of £200 exceeded this. It demonstrated learning from the complaint an put measures in place to improve its complaint handling. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation, which appropriately resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple longstanding and recent repairs required to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in this Service’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears, the sum of £5,200 broken down as follows:
1. £3,000 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience in relation to the delays in completing repairs to the property (this includes £300 offered in its stage 2 response, and £1,000 in its further correspondence of March 2024. This can be deducted if already paid).
2. £2,000 offered via its solicitor in relation to the resident’s furnishings (This can be deducted if already paid).
3. £200 for poor communication (This includes its stage 2 offer of £100 and its further offer of £100 of March 2024. This can be deducted if already paid).
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £350 compensation in relation to its complaint handling if not already paid. (This includes £50 offered in its stage 1 response, £100 offered in its stage 2 response, and £200 offered in its further correspondence of March 2024).
The landlord should contact the resident to clarify its position in relation to any stored belongings.