The Guinness Partnership Limited (202117121)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117121

The Guinness Partnership Limited

27 April 2023

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 landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to windows in the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

2.     The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a two-bedroom flat in a block. The landlord is a housing association, and the resident became a tenant through a mutual exchange. The tenancy commenced on 28 August 2017. There are no recorded disabilities by the landlord.  

3.     The landlord’s complaints policy states it is a two-stage process with the stage one response to be issued within ten working days and the stage two response within 20 working days. At both stages the policy states that with good reason these timescales can be extended by no more than ten working days, and the resident will be informed of the expected response date. 

4.     Section 2.1.1 of the resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord must maintain the outside and structure of the home including windows.

5.     Section 9 of the landlord’s repair policy states it will categorise repair requirements as either emergency or routine. Emergency repairs address an immediate health and safety risk. The landlord will either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 24 hours of the repair being reported. It will return within a reasonable timeframe to complete the repair. Routine repairs are those which are not emergencies, and it aims for these repairs to be fixed within 28 calendar days.

6.     Section 14 of the landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord will aim to complete repairs at the first visit. Where that is not possible it will communicate clearly with the resident and explain why the repair cannot be completed, what it intends to do and what would happen next.

Scope of the Investigation

7.     During the course of this investigation the resident has contacted this service about multiple complaints he has made to the landlord which are at or have been resolved at different stages of the landlord’s complaint process. Some of these complaints are related to window repairs. This service can only investigate complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. This investigation will focus on the complaint made in August 2021 regarding a window repair requested in July 2021 as this is the complaint which has completed the landlord’s complaints process and has been brought to this service for investigation.

Summary of Events

8.     The resident contacted the landlord on 8 July 2021 to report that an upstairs window had dropped down and he was unable to close the window. The landlord arranged for an operative to attend the property the same day and the window was made safe. As part of the assessment the operative stated the window needed new sash springs which could not be completed on the day and a further appointment would be made for the repairs to take place. 

9.     The resident contacted the landlord on 9 July 2021 to make a complaint about the repairs not having been completed and that he had logged a number of repair requests to have his windows repaired since 2017. 

10. On 13 July 2021, the landlord raised a repair order to replace the sash springs with a target completion date of 10 August 2021.

11. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 27 July 2021 to complete the repairs. After inspecting the windows, it assessed it was unable to carry out the repairs and the repairs would have to be passed to a specialist subcontractor.  The landlord’s records show this was requested to be raised to the specialist subcontractor on 29 July 2021.

12. On 12 August 2021, the resident called the landlord to request an update to his complaint regarding the window repair made on 9 July 2021. The landlord stated the complaint had not been logged as a formal complaint but had been logged as a service failure and it did not progress to the stage one process. The landlord logged the complaint on 12 August 2021.

13. The landlord emailed the resident on 17 August 2021 to inform him there may be a delay in the time it would take to provide a complaint response due to the impacts of Covid 19.

14. The landlord contacted the resident on 26 August 2021 to inform him the complaint was being investigated, and it would be in contact once all the required internal information was received. 

15. On 9 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise for not getting in touch sooner regarding the window repair and to inform him it was trying to get a date from its contractors for the repair to be carried out, but it would be chasing them for an update.

16. The landlord chased its subcontractor on 26 September 2021 and was told by the subcontractor that it had not received the repair order from the landlord sent on 29 July 2021. Following internal checks by the landlord it concluded it had raised the order, but it had not been sent to the subcontractor. The request was resent, and the subcontractor confirmed it received the request on 28 September 2021.

17. On 29 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform him it was still waiting for an update regarding the repair to the window and that it had been escalated to the Regional Head of Service.

18. The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 October 2021 to offer an appointment on 8 October 2021. The resident requested contact details of the landlord’s subcontractor which was provided by the landlord. 

19. The resident called the landlord on 5 October 2021 and stated that the landlord’s subcontractor advised that they would repair one window and investigate the other windows when they attend. The resident understood that five windows needed repair. The resident agreed for the appointment on 8 October 2021 and the resident asked the landlord to confirm in writing via email exactly what repairs would be completed.

20. The landlord responded on 7 October 2021 stating it had asked for urgent clarity about how many windows would be included in the repairs carried out on the visit. There is no evidence provided to this service that a further reply was issued to the resident.

21. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 October 2021 while the landlord’s subcontractor was at his property stating he had been told by the subcontractor that the visit was to assess the windows and produce a repairs report but was not to complete the repairs on the day. The evidence provided to this service shows the visit was booked in to “report on springs required”.

22. The landlord has stated it received a quote for the window repairs from its subcontractor on 15 October 2021 which was approved by the landlord on 21 October 2021 for the repairs to be completed.

23. The landlord issued its stage one response to the resident on 27 October 2021. In the response the landlord stated:

1. It was aware the resident had logged a number of repair requests for windows in the resident’s property since 2017.
2. It understood initially one window was in need of repair but following investigations it established several windows were in need of repair.
3. It had requested it subcontractors carry out the repair work and they would be contacting the resident to arrange a date to do so if they haven’t done so already.
4. It was taking steps to make sure the repairs to the windows were prioritised, but it had since received a request from the resident for the complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the internal complaints process. 
5. It had escalated the complaint to stage two.

24. The landlords’ records show repairs were completed by its subcontractor on 23 November 2021.

25. This service wrote to the landlord on 14 December 2021 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord responded on 17 December 2021 advising the complaint was still being investigated at stage two.

26. The resident contacted this service on 18 January 2022 and stated he had not yet received a response from the landlord. This service wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2022 requesting a response be issued to the resident by 27 January 2022.

27. On 20 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response. In the response the landlord: 

1. Confirmed that following the visit in July 2021 it needed to arrange for its specialist window contractor to visit but failed to arrange the visit within an acceptable time frame and it took over two months to realise the window repair had not been allocated to the correct contractors.
2. Confirmed the repairs had now been completed but acknowledged it took too long for the repairs to be done. It apologised to the resident and offered compensation of £75 for the delays in carrying out the repairs.
3. Stated it took too long to issue the stage one and stage two responses to the resident. It offered compensation of £75 for the delay in responding to the complaint at stage one and stage two of the complaint process.

28. Following the stage two response the landlord issued a further letter to the resident on 24 January 2022 to address multiple complaints made by the resident including the complaint being investigated in this report. In the letter the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had records of four complaints being made.  Two were closed at stage one. The remaining two complaints were regarding the window repairs. The landlord confirmed one complaint was opened incorrectly as it was a duplicate of the resident’s initial complaint regarding the window repairs so it was closed and merged with the complaint responded to in the stage two response issue by the landlord on 20 January 2022. It offered compensation of £50 for poor communication regarding the status of his complaints.

Assessment and findings

The residents request for repairs to windows in the property.

29. The initial emergency repair appointment was attended in line with the landlord’s repair policy. Following the emergency repair appointment, the landlord’s contractors visited the resident on two separate occasions – 27 July 2021 and 8 October 2021, which the resident understood was to complete the repairs. However, on 27 July 2021 the contractors were not specialist enough to complete the repairs and, on the 8 October 2021, visit the contractor came to assess and not repair the windows.

30. The evidence shows the landlord failed to keep the resident adequately updated and the landlord did not communicate clearly to the resident about what to expect from the repair visits. When the resident directly asked this of the landlord prior to the repair booked for 8 October 2021, the landlord was unable to provide a response before the visit took place. 

31. The evidence provided does not show the landlord was suitably monitoring the repair process and had not realised its request to its subcontractors had not been sent for two months.

32. The landlord would have been expected to successfully complete the repairs required within a reasonable timescale or explain the reasons why the timescales could not be met. The landlord did not compete the repairs in a reasonable timescale as it took 139 days for the repairs to be completed. This is significantly outside the landlord’s repair policy of 28 calendar days.

33. Section 35 of the landlord’s compensation policy states an offer of compensation up to £250 will be made where “The issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household”. In this case the landlord offered £75 for the delays to the repair

34. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

1. Be fair – treat people fairly
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes

35. When the landlord responded to the complaint it did try to identify its shortcomings and put things right.  In the stage one response the landlord stated it had established that further works were required to more windows than initially thought and had contacted its specialist contractor to complete the repairs. However, it gave no further explanation or timescales to the resident.

36. In the landlord’s stage two response it acknowledged its subcontractor was unable to complete the required repair on 20 July 2021 and that it failed to arrange for its specialist subcontractor to complete the repair in a timely manner.

37. The landlord offered £75 in compensation. However given the length of time the resident was waiting for the repairs to take place, the inconvenience of subcontractors visiting the property that did not result in the repair being completed and the poor communication during this time, the landlord did not go far enough to put right its shortcomings in its complaint response. Therefore, the amount of compensation offered to the resident is not proportionate to the delays incurred.

38. The landlord apologised, but it did not explain to the resident why it took over two months to identify that the window repair request had not been sent to its contractor.  In the stage two complaint response it failed to explain what measures it would put in place to prevent this from occurring again to show sufficiently that it had learned from this.

The landlords handling of the associated complaint

39. When the resident first contacted the landlord to make the complaint, the landlord’s record of its contact with the resident states “customer requested to raise formal complaint”. The landlord registered the complaint as a service failure under section 8 of its complaints policy but did not record it as a complaint. This led to delays in the response to the resident. Section 1.3 of The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord should recognise the difference between a complaint and a service request. In this case the resident has expressed dissatisfaction about the repairs to the windows being unable to be completed and the landlord’s records show it had acknowledged the resident was making a complaint. The landlord therefore should have recognised this as a complaint about its service and treated it in accordance with its complaints policy. The landlord did not do this or acknowledge this in its stage one and two responses to the resident.

40. Once the complaint was logged on 12 August 2021, the landlord issued updates to the resident on 17 August 2021 and 26 August 2021 explaining potential delays in the stage one response, however no further updates were provided to the resident until the stage one response was issued on 27 October 2021. 

41. A complaint process exists in order to ensure a resident’s concerns are addressed within a specified timeframe and this assures the resident that their complaint will be addressed without undue delay. There was a significant delay in the landlord providing both its stage one and stage two responses to the resident and it did not respond to the complaint in a timely manner. The stage one response was issued after 55 working days and the stage two response after a further 58 working days. The landlord acknowledged this and apologised in the stage one and stage two responses for the delays in providing the responses to the resident, but it did not offer any explanation at either stage for the delays.  There is no evidence following the update to the resident on 26 August 2021 that the landlord demonstrated that it kept the resident informed of the status of his complaint or agreed a new complaint timescale.

42. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states a landlords complaint procedure should facilitate and support quick resolution of complaints and promote a positive relationship between the resident and landlord, the landlord did not achieve this in this case.

43. The landlord did not respond to the complaint within its own policies timescales or what would be considered a reasonable time period.

44. The landlord did not offer any explanation to the resident for the delays or evidence any learning about how it would improve its complaint handling.  It did however acknowledge the delays and offered £75 compensation for delays at stage one and stage two. The offer of £75 was not proportionate given the length of delays at both stages of the complaints process, the lack of explanation given to the resident or evidence it had learned from this case.

45. The landlord also offered an additional £50 for poor communication regarding the resident’s previous complaints but this is not related to the delays in the response to this complaint.

 

Determination (decision)

46. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

48. The landlord did not provide sufficient updates to the resident regarding the repairs, did not adequately communicate with its contractors to ensure all parties understood what was expected during each repair visit and failed to monitor the repair process resulting in over a two-month delay in the repair timescale. This resulted in an unnecessarily prolonged repair process of 139 days. The landlord did not sufficiently address this issue during its complaint process or in its compensation offer.

49. The landlord initially failed to identify the complaint as a complaint, and it was recorded as a service request.  Once the complaint was correctly recorded there was significant delays in providing both its stage one and stage two response to the complaint without providing a suitable reason for the delays or regular updates to the resident. The offer of compensation made was not a suitable redress for the delays and inconvenience to the resident. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

50. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord pays the resident £250 for the delays for the repairs to the windows. This includes the £75 already offered by the landlord.

51. The landlord pays the resident £175 for the delays in the complaint handling. This includes the £75 already offered by the landlord in it stage two response

52. The landlord confirms to the Ombudsman its plans for ensuring staff recognises a formal complaint and how to respond to it in line with its policies and procedures.