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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202301691)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301691

The Guinness Partnership Limited

9 April 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 the resident’s reports of a rat infestation and related repairs.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association, and the property is a 1 bedroom flat. The tenancy commenced in August 2022. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, although she has explained that she suffers from anxiety and takes heart medication.

Summary of Events

  1. The resident reported rats in the building and her kitchen to the landlord on 26 September 2022. In a visit on 28 September 2022 the landlord raised a repair for holes behind the kitchen sink, and booked this for 7 October 2022. The repair contractor did not attend on that date and it was raised again on 17 October 2022 for 19 October 2022. The landlord’s repair contractor attended and said it could not do the repair until the pest contractor had been.
  2. No action was taken until the resident chased the landlord on 20 October 2022 and the pest contractor was booked in for 25 October 2022, but did not attend on that date. The resident reported the missed appointments to the landlord and it said it would chase this, but the jobs were closed on 31 October 2022 without resolution.
  3. In November 2022 the resident chased the landlord again and the landlord arranged for the repair and pest contractors to attend together, to remove the kitchen unit, assess whether there were rats, and fill the holes to prevent pest access into the kitchen. The appointment was booked for 25 November 2022 but neither contractor attended.
  4. On 29 November 2022 the resident’s mother chased the repairs and explained that the resident was in tears with the situation. Another appointment was booked for 30 November 2022; records show that the contractors attended and the landlord called the resident the day before, and on the day of the appointment, to confirm. It confirmed to the resident that the pest contractors laid down bait in the kitchen cupboards and would follow up in 2 weeks, and the holes were also filled.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 2 December 2022 and sought compensation for not living in the property for almost 3 months due to her concerns about health and safety risks from the rats. She was paying rent to her parents while staying there temporarily. She sought rent credit for 2 months to recognise the time she was not living in the property, as she was in rent arrears, and she said the rats had also damaged her furniture and carpet. This was logged as a stage 1 complaint the same day.
  6. On 13 December 2022 the repairs and pest contractors attended again, removed part of the kitchen unit, identified a further entry point, and booked a follow up appointment to fill it on 4 January 2023. The resident called the landlord on 14 December 2022, saying she could not wait that long as she was staying away from the property. The appointment was then brought forward to 22 December 2022.
  7. In its stage 1 response of 16 December 2022 the landlord:
    1. Upheld the complaint due to the delays in its service and offered £125 compensation (£100 for stress and inconvenience and £25 for poor communication).
    2. Found that appointments had not gone ahead when the issues were reported and fed back to its teams to ensure they respond to reports of pests within a reasonable timescale and contractors attend all scheduled appointments unless there was a justified reason not to.
    3. Did not agree to offer rent credit as it spoke to the resident’s mother who advised that the resident sometimes stayed there, but not all the time.
    4. Advised that damages to personal belongings should be claimed on the resident’s content insurance, as per its Complaint Policy.
    5. Outlined the outstanding repairs to fill in the further holes scheduled for 22 December 2022.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint the same day, reiterating her request for compensation in the form of a rent reimbursement/credit for 2 months, totalling £800. 
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 21 December 2022, it:
    1. Identified 3 occasions when the pest contractor failed to attend (although the contractor disputed one of these) and reiterated the findings of the stage 1 response.
    2. Identified a further failure, in the resident having to chase the works as a result of the missed appointments and delays. It should have managed its contractor’s performance better and said it would feedback to contractors to complete actions they have committed to and improve their communication in future.
    3. Offered an additional £150 (£100 for delays to complete the repairs and the stress and inconvenience caused, and £50 for the poor communication and time and trouble the resident experienced in getting a resolution).
    4. Provided details on what to provide for it to assess compensation for damaged items.
    5. Did not find the property uninhabitable at the time of its visits and explained that it would have remained the resident’s principle home had she been decanted, so it declined to provide rent credits.
  10. The resident has explained that the landlord subsequently provided a repayment plan, and evidence suggests the rent arrears were reduced by the level of compensation the resident was awarded. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. After the end of the complaints process, in July 2023, the resident reported mice to the landlord and was dissatisfied with its response, which involved a missed appointment. However, there is no evidence of her raising a formal complaint about the issues. As this matter has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, it is not specifically considered as part of this assessment (reflected at paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme). However, the recommendations made in response to the original complaint (regarding the management of the pest contractor), should be considered in light of more recent events also.

Handling of rat infestation and related repairs

  1. The landlord has not disputed its responsibilities under the tenancy agreement, the Responsive Repairs Policy, or the Pest Policy. The Pest Policy guides the landlord’s assessment and actions following evidence of pests entering the home via a defect/disrepair, and pests in communal areas. It will raise a work order to a pest contractor within 2 working days, so that the problem can be identified and treated as soon as possible and ideally within 5 working days of the infestation being reported. The landlord must repair and maintain the outside and structure of the home, internal walls, floors, and ceilings as per the tenancy agreement; this should be in 24 hours for emergency repairs or as soon as possible and no later than 28 days for routine repairs.
  2. The resident reported rats in the kitchen getting in through a hole on 26 September 2022. The landlord’s visit on 28 September 2022 to assess the work was within the Pest Policy timescale of 2 working days, and was initially reasonable. However it then failed to carry out the work in an appropriate timeframe. The landlord’s subsequent repair and pest services were provided on 30 November 2022, 17 working days outside of the Responsive Repair Policy timescale of 28 working days.
  3. The resident had to chase works multiple times following the landlord’s initial visit, work was cancelled without being rebooked or communicated to the resident, and the contractor failed to attend altogether for rebooked appointments, resulting in a protracted service. The landlord did not complete repairs in the first visit or communicate its action plan as per its Responsive Repair Policy. The resident took reasonable steps to notify the landlord of the repairs, and experienced time and trouble and inconvenience due to the repeat failures by the contractors to co–ordinate and follow through with arranged appointments.
  4. The landlord identified failures which align with those found by the Ombudsman. It did not dispute that it had delivered an unreasonable service and explained how it assessed the detriment to the resident in calculating its discretionary compensation of £275, which ultimately aligned with its Compensation Policy. This states that it will make discretionary offers of between £250 to £700 for issues which took a long time to resolve and caused moderate inconvenience and impact on the resident or household, and it will normally offset compensation against existing rent arrears. Its approach was, therefore, appropriate.
  5. The landlord took reasonable steps to put things right by compensating for the missed appointment in October 2022 and the delay in completing the works until November 2022. Further, additional work to new holes was brought forward from January 2023 to December 2022. It was resolution focused to offer to assess the resident’s loss of personal belongings, and fair in offering an apology. It also explained how it was improving its services, which demonstrated its learning from the outcome of the complaint (in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles).
  6. The resident’s request for compensation on the ground that she moved out of the property temporarily was considered by the landlord, but it found that it did not have a policy obligation and used its discretion. The landlord’s position was reasonable, as it considered that the property was not uninhabitable and remained her principle home, even if she had been decanted. The Decant Policy states that customers who are temporarily rehoused retain the tenancy of, and continue to pay rent for, their main home. The obligation to pay rent is also upheld in the signed tenancy agreement. Therefore the level of redress was reasonable, despite the resident’s request that this included the rent amount of £800 for 2 to 3 months.
  7. The discrepancies between the resident and contractor’s account of the availability for access in 2022 were noted in the landlord’s response. While it acknowledged failure in the management of the contractors and shared the learning from the complaint, the evidence shows it happened again in 2023 (as referenced above). Therefore, a recommendation is made to improve the landlord’s service and reinforce the learning from this complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident which resolves the complaint about its handling of the rat infestation and related repairs satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged service failures in the delays to its repairs and pest works following the resident’s initial reports. It recognised the impact of its delays and poor communication in the form of distress and inconvenience, and offered reasonable redress in line with its Compensation Policy.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to review this case and carry out the following action, within 4 weeks:
    1. Ask contractors to provide the landlord with written evidence of attempted attendance at the time of an appointment, if there are reports showing repeat issues or where there are repeat cancellations on a repair log.
    2. Confirm with its contractors that:
      1. Appointments are not cancelled without reasonable cause
      2. Appointments are not cancelled repeatedly and investigated if they are
      3. Changes to appointments must be communicated with the resident and landlord
      4. Any cancelled appointment is immediately rebooked by the contractor or landlord.