The Guinness Partnership Limited (202322569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322569

The Guinness Partnership Limited

4 October 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:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused to a neighbour’s garage.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s redecoration of the property’s external and communal areas.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns that an allocated visitor parking space at the block was taken by a private resident.
4. Handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty fire alarm at the block.
5. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a 2–bedroom, second–floor flat and the landlord is the freeholder. The resident’s tenancy started in December 2015. There are 6 flats in the block referred to as A to F. The resident’s being flat F. The resident pays rent and service charges to the landlord. The landlord has no known health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction to the landlord by email on 8 January 2023. She said she felt “compelled to write” due to her experience of the landlord’s “communication and inefficiency.” In particular, its failure to respond to her concerns about redecoration and service charge costs for work it completed in 2022.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email the next day, 9 January 2023. The landlord provided the resident with an update about her concerns and its planned inspections of the block of flats on or around 25 January 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied and continued to communicate with the landlord between March to June 2023. The landlord logged a formal complaint on 5 June 2023.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2023. The landlord was satisfied with its service delivery and actions. Therefore, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint. However, it apologised and offered £75 compensation for the delay in providing her with its complaint response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 July 2023. In which she expressed her continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint handling. On 17 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord again. On or around this time, she raised an additional issue regarding a sewage smell at the block. She said she had approached her local MP and us to “escalate her concerns.”
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 2 September 2023. It remained satisfied with its actions and its explanations within its stage 1 complaint response. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint on 1 point. That being its delayed response to the resident’s reports of the blocks fire alarm sounding in January 2023. It offered no additional compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to us. In October 2023 she said the landlord used expensive contractors and sent her large service charge bills which she and other residents of the block could not afford. She considered the work completed by the landlord’s contractors “appalling.” She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s failure to act on the loss of the blocks visitors parking space. She considered the landlord’s communication poor and it had taken too long to act on her concerns.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.i. of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused to a neighbour’s garage.
Paragraph 42.i of the Scheme says we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority.
We acknowledge the resident reported that the landlord’s contractor had damaged a neighbour’s garage with its cherry picker aerial platform. The landlord advised the resident it had received no reports from the neighbour. Also, that it was unable to discuss the matter with the resident as it was not her property. Without the consent of the resident’s neighbour, we are unable to investigate this matter. The resident may wish to encourage her neighbour to raise this matter directly to the landlord.

Scope of investigation

We note that the resident’s correspondence included an expression of dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s “higher than average” service charge costs. In particular, the resident’s opinion that costs were higher due to the landlord’s decision to appoint contractors from outside of the resident’s local area. Matters raised included the cost to redecorate the communal and external parts of the block and communal cleaning charges.
Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge contributions requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with this matter, we advise that this falls outside of our jurisdiction and is within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident may wish to discuss the matter further with the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) www.lease-advice.org. Any matter about service charge costs will not form part of this investigation.
We note the resident’s correspondence states her comments “represent the feelings of her neighbours.” While we do not doubt this, she has presented the evidence alone and not raised matters as a group complaint. Therefore, any reference to other parties will be to provide context. We are unable to specifically comment on other resident’s circumstances where we have no consent to do so.
After the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident raised additional concerns regarding data protection and GDPR. This matter was new and not included in the landlord’s stage 2 final response. Therefore, this will not form part of our investigation as it has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint’s procedure (ICP). The resident may wish to seek guidance on this matter from the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
During our telephone call to the resident on 2 September 2024, she did not dispute that the landlord had responded to her original complaint, which included multiple issues. However, she said she specifically remained dissatisfied with its response to its redecoration of the property’s external and communal areas, the loss of visitor parking, and the landlord’s response to a fire alarm fault in January 2023. Therefore, we have assessed these matters.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s redecoration of the property’s external and communal areas

The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for the outside walls, doors, and windows, including necessary outside painting and decorating.
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) sets out the consultation process which landlords must follow when carrying out works to a building where the contribution from any lessee exceeds £250. The resident does not dispute that the landlord completed this process prior to appointing a contractor and starting external and communal redecoration of the block. Therefore, we can see no evidence that the landlord failed to meet its obligations under LTA 1985.
The resident considered the appointed contractors to be expensive, increasing her service charge costs. She said they were not from the local area, which affected its time spent on site. She did not consider the contractor value for money and said its workmanship was poor. As such, the landlord’s service charges were expensive and in excess of £5,000. Which she said she could not afford.
Paragraph 7.4, service provision, within the resident’s lease agreement says:
1. The relevant expenditure to be included in service provision shall comprise all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance, and provision of services for the building.
It was therefore reasonable that the landlord charged the resident a share of the redecoration and maintenance costs for the block. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she considers the service charge costs unreasonable.
There is evidence the resident raised workmanship concerns to the landlord in 2022. On 22 October 2022 the landlord visited the resident’s block and said it would arrange for its contractor to return. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord taking steps to acknowledge the resident’s concerns and arranged for matters to be put right by its contractor.
However, following the resident’s complaint of 8 January 2023, there is evidence on 27 February 2023 in which the resident said she had still not received any update. She described poor sanding and preparation work, cracks to the new paintwork, patches on internal walls, staining, and examples where the contractor painted around temporary signage boards and posters. She also said the contractor painted windows and doors when closed. This made them difficult to open. Therefore, this did not demonstrate the landlord had completed the actions it had promised to the satisfaction of the resident.
On 7 March 2023 the landlord’s complaints team responded to the resident. It apologised for its delayed response. It said it was waiting for a response from its planned maintenance team. This did not demonstrate effective communication across the landlord’s teams. This delay caused the resident avoidable time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience as she continued to chase the landlord for updates. However, the landlord considered its contractor had completed the redecoration work correctly. Yet, it agreed to apply another coat to a particular wall, “without prejudice.”
It is clear from the landlord’s records that it considered the redecoration work met its required standards and expectations. Its compromise to arrange for the contractor to reattend could therefore be considered reasonable in the circumstances.
The LTA 1985 states that a landlord can only recover costs that it has reasonably incurred. Also, it says that it is only recoverable if works carried out for the charge are of a reasonable standard. The resident can challenge the reasonableness of a service charge if it does not comply with above. The resident would need to apply to the appropriate Tribunal. In England, this is the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). They have power to make a ruling whether, or how much of, a service charge is reasonable or payable.
However, while it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its specialist staff that the work met the required standards, we note the landlord’s records. In which, it says “paint wall again just to get rid, nothing actually wrong.” This internal communication was dismissive of the resident’s reports. It did not demonstrate the landlord having due regard for her concerns. Nor a genuine desire to improve the landlord and resident relationship. We encourage the landlord to remind its staff of the importance of maintaining professional communication at all times.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 21 September 2023 was satisfied with its actions and stage 1 complaint response. It considered it had responded to each of the resident’s complaint points, provided explanations, and took remedial action where necessary. The landlord says it took steps to satisfy itself that its contractor had met the standards expected.
However, the landlord has failed to demonstrate how it communicated its findings to the resident prior to her complaint. There is no evidence of an inspection or surveyor report following the work. Had it provided timely updates regarding her concerns it may have managed her expectations earlier and avoided the time and trouble caused as she sought to resolve matters by way of a complaint.
Beyond the landlord’s stage 2 final response, there is evidence it wrote to the resident on 10 July 2024. In which it noted “a number of concerns” raised by residents of the block. It said it completed the external work in September 2022 and it would have provided residents with an opportunity to provide feedback. It said it received “no callbacks” due to resident concerns with the redecoration work. It was satisfied it completed a post work inspection and it had signed of the work as completed to standard. The resident disputes that the landlord did not know of her concerns.
While it was reasonable for the landlord to address the ongoing concerns of the resident and her neighbours, it failed to recognise that she had raised a complaint in January 2023 regarding the workmanship standards. Therefore, by saying it received no callbacks is not entirely accurate. The resident raised concerns and continued to chase the landlord for updates by way of a complaint.
It is clear the resident remains dissatisfied with the service charge cost associated with this matter. However, this is outside of our jurisdiction. From the evidence provided, we are unable to determine the standard of workmanship of the reasonableness of the service charge costs associated with the work. The failing we have identified is with the landlord’s communication. It has failed to demonstrate its investigations into her concerns, provided no inspection reports, or demonstrated how it communicated its position with the resident prior to her complaint. Based on the landlord’s failure to appropriately acknowledge this, we find service failure.

Response to the resident’s concerns that an allocated visitor parking space at the block was taken by a private resident

The resident says she purchased the property as it had 1 of 7 parking spaces allocated to it. During the sale of the property the layout was explained to her as 1 parking space each for the 6 flats in the block and 1 shared space for their visitors. This description accurately matches the images on the resident’s lease.
The resident states no resident of the block is benefiting from the visitor space. She says a private resident says they own it and uses it fulltime. She says the landlord has taken no action to remedy this dispute and considers it unfair that the landlord suggested she speak to her solicitor. She felt it unreasonable that she should have to pay for legal advice for a parking space she believes the landlord owns and it should resolve the matter itself.
It is clear the resident’s experience of the parking facilities has fallen below what she had expected. While we acknowledge and are sympathetic towards her situation, the ownership of the visitor parking space is a legal matter. Any dispute regarding the sales process or terms of the lease agreement requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. The ownership matter is outside of our jurisdiction and will not form part of this investigation. The resident may wish to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE).
However, we can consider the landlord’s communication and how it responded to the resident’s concerns.
There is evidence that residents have raised concerns to the landlord regarding the visitor parking space since 2015. The resident herself informed the landlord that a member of its staff had approached the private resident following her own reports and concerns. While the precise date of the resident’s report was unclear, it predates her complaint of 8 January 2023. The resident says although the private neighbour claimed to own it, one of the landlord’s officers informed them that it was the landlord’s property. She says after the member of staff left the landlord’s employment, it failed to follow this up.
The landlord’s evidence included an internal email from 2017. Its project delivery manager wrote there being 6 parking spaces at the block and no visitor parking. Given the evidence presented to us in the resident’s lease, it is unclear how this information is accurate. This did not demonstrate the landlord completed a thorough investigation at the time and indicates a record keeping failure.
There is evidence the landlord said internally that it was going to “send a letter to all customers in the block.” In which it said it would say “the visitor parking is only for visitors, not for anyone to use long term.” Although the date of this action was unclear to us, it demonstrated the landlord considered it necessary to act. It is therefore reasonable that by sending a letter, it considered the parking space its property. It is therefore unclear why it has presented no evidence of the action it has taken to secure its parking space from the private resident and return it to the shared use of its residents.
There is evidence within the landlord’s records on or around 11 August 2023 where it made notes against the resident’s complaint points. In reference to the resident’s parking issue, the landlord’s notes say “no visitor parking at all. Never has been. Just park where available. No designated or owned spaces. Rental or landlord homes only.”
Given the evidence presented on the resident’s lease, and its confirmation of allocated parking spaces, it is unclear why the landlord said this. It contradicts other evidence presented to us. This did not demonstrate the landlord had completed a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns. Furthermore, it raised questions regarding the accuracy of the landlord’s record keeping about this block of flats.
There is further evidence on 23 April 2024 where the landlord discussed the parking matter internally. It acknowledged that the resident was allocated a space. It also said “any spaces for visitors will most likely be on a first come first served basis” as there was no clause in the lease. The landlord states its customer liaison manager (CLO) managed the parking.
However, within the landlord’s evidence file to us, it states “we do not manage the parking.” This continues to demonstrate contradictory information. The landlord’s inconsistent responses throughout the case file indicates poor record keeping.
Without good knowledge and information management (KIM), a landlord is unable to deliver its services efficiently and effectively. It is imperative that records are accurate and maintained to keep both the property and the resident safe now and in the future. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it is on top of the record keeping required for this matter.
We also note the landlord’s stage 2 final response to the resident’s parking issue. In which the landlord said, “at this time we would reiterate our position that the spaces are shared.” This further demonstrated the landlord’s failure to thoroughly investigate the resident’s concerns. She did not dispute that the visitor space was a shared space. She understood that she did not have exclusive possession of the space, nor did it form part of her demised premises. She believed the space should be available to all 6 flats of the block. Her complaint said she never benefited from the space as a private resident, neighbouring the block, claimed to own it.
In this case, we have seen limited evidence from the landlord which demonstrated a thorough investigation, including legal advice. Nor did it provide the resident with a satisfactory response. Given the resident’s lease includes an image of the visitor parking space, it is unclear why the landlord has not taken steps to secure its own asset. Or provide the resident with conclusive evidence that it did not own the space for her visitors to use.
While the legal ownership of the parking space is outside of our jurisdiction, the landlord’s contradictory responses have caused the resident time and trouble raising the matter with it. She chased the landlord for progress between 2022 to 2024 yet received inconsistent information. Based on our findings, the landlord’s response and level of communication over almost 2 years amounts to a finding of maladministration. The remedies guidance available to us sets out that the landlord should offer compensation in the range of £100 to £600. While the detriment of this matter is low, the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident causing her time and trouble. We order it to pay compensation of £100.

Handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty fire alarm at the block

The landlord does not dispute that it received a report that the blocks fire alarm sounded on 2 January 2023. Unable to contact the landlord or contractor, the resident said she and another resident recalled the reset code and silenced the alarm themselves. When finally spoken to that evening, the landlord said it would send someone to reset the fire alarm panel as the alarm would be inactive. However, it does not dispute that it did not attend.
The landlord categorises repairs as either ‘emergency’ or ‘routine’ repairs. Its repairs policy says it will complete or make safe an emergency repair within 24 hours. However, there is evidence in such situations it aims to attend a property to resolve fire alarm faults within 4 hours.
The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 says the responsibility for fire safety in the shared parts of a residential building falls to whoever has ‘control of the premises.’ In this case the landlord was responsible as the freeholder of the block. The landlord should take reasonable steps to reduce the risk of fire and make sure people can safely escape if there is a fire. The Order also requires that the landlord appropriately maintained facilities and equipment impacting fire risk. It should ensure they are in working order, and good repair.
The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged it failed to raise a repair or visit the block following the reported fault. Given that it had said the alarm was inactive, its failure to attend in line with its response expectations was not appropriate. This failure may have presented a health and safety risk.
The landlord’s stage 2 response partially upheld this part of the resident’s complaint. It did not dispute that it did not attend until “the following week.” While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the failure, its response contains no explanation of what steps it would take to ensure a similar failing did not happen again. Therefore, it demonstrated no learning. Also, having acknowledged its service failure, it made no offer of redress to the resident to put things right.
Based on our findings we find service failure. While the landlord completed the repair the following week, its acknowledgement of service failure alone was not proportionate redress. It did not complete the repair in line with its responsive repair times and failed to consider the resident’s time and trouble while she experienced difficulties reporting the fault.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint procedure. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. At stage 1 it will provide a response within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond within 10 working days of the date of the resident’s complaint, “unless there is a good reason,” it may take longer than this. In such cases, the landlord’s policy says it will explain this to the resident and not exceed a further 10 working days unless it first agrees an additional extension with the resident. This is appropriate and demonstrates the landlord’s complaints policy was in line with the Code, 1 April 2022.
However, paragraph 1.2 of the Code states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction however made. It is clear from the resident’s email on 8 January 2023 that she was unhappy with the service provided by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord should have treated the resident’s email as a complaint and responded accordingly. Not doing so was not appropriate. The landlord did not act in line with the expectations of the Code.
Furthermore, while the landlord’s complaint’s policy acknowledges the need to agree any complaint response extension with a resident, the landlord has been unable to evidence that it did this. This was not appropriate and demonstrates the landlord’s failure to comply with its own complaints policy or meet the expectations of the Code.
It is unclear why the landlord waited until 5 June 2023 to log a formal stage 1 complaint. While there is evidence of correspondence between both parties between January to June 2023, it is clear the resident repeatedly asked for the landlord to respond to her concerns. That it did not, demonstrates a failure with the landlord’s complaint handling process and indicates a training need.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 15 August 2023. Given the resident had expressed dissatisfaction in her original email on 8 January 2023, it was reasonable for her to have expected a stage 1 response within 10 working days, 20 January 2023. Its response date of 15 August 2023 was not appropriate and 143 working days beyond the expectations of the landlord’s complaint policy and the Code. This caused time and trouble to the resident as she continued to chase the landlord for its response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 August 2023. In which there is evidence she referred to escalating her concerns to her MP and us. It is reasonable therefore to consider this her request to ask the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its ICP. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s continued dissatisfaction. This was in line with its complaint’s policy.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final response on 21 September 2023. This was not appropriate as this was 5 working days beyond the landlord’s 20 working day timescale. While this specific delay was minimal and the detriment to the resident low, there were an accumulation of delays and poor communication. This resulted in her waiting approximately 9 months to reach the end of the landlord’s ICP.
Throughout the evidence supplied by the landlord it is clear that its complaints team encountered delays obtaining information from its planned maintenance team. Had the landlord demonstrated more robust internal communication procedures, it may have prevented it failing to provide timely responses in line with its complaints policy.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It was fair for the landlord’s stage 1 response to acknowledge its complaint handling delay. However, it only logged the resident’s complaint on 5 June 2023, rather than recognising her original complaint date of 8 January 2023. Therefore, while the landlord acknowledged its failings, its offer was not proportionate to accurately recognise the extent of its delay. While the delay of its stage 2 response was minimal, it offered no apology. This repeat failing did not demonstrate the landlord had learned from previous outcomes.
Based on our findings, we find maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord acknowledged failings but it did not offer redress proportionate to the detriment to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.i. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters raised by a complainant on behalf of another without their authority.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s redecoration of the property’s external and communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that an allocated visitor parking space at the block was taken by a private resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty fire alarm at the block.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Pay the resident a compensation totalling £350. This comprises:
  1. £75 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s redecoration of the property’s external and communal areas.
  2. £100 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that an allocated visitor parking space at the block was taken by a private resident.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty fire alarm at the block.
  4. £125 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord can deduct the £75 offered at stage 1 of its ICP if already paid.
2. The landlord is ordered to demonstrate that it has provided staff involved with this case with complaint handling refresher training, within the last 6 months. If it is unable to do so, it is ordered to provide training to ensure complaints are managed in accordance with its complaints procedure. The landlord may benefit from the free resources available via the Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning. This is available on our website.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to consult with its legal team about the ownership and use of the visitor parking space at the resident’s block. Following clarification from its legal team, it should provide the resident with an explanation of any action it will take, with timescales, to secure the parking space for its residents. Or provide the resident with an explanation of its full and final position on the matter, advising why it is unable to do so. Its should update its records to reflect its findings. The landlord must provide a copy of its findings to us within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider issuing a customer satisfaction survey to the residents of the block. This will provide an opportunity to assess the services it provides and whether further service improvements are necessary.
The landlord should consider reminding all staff of the importance of maintaining professional notes and communication at all times.