The Guinness Partnership Limited (202233778)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233778

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 February 2025

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. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a second floor flat.
On 3 January 2023, the resident reported a leak through his ceiling. The landlord attended and carried out temporary repairs to stop the leak on 4 January 2023.
On 20 January 2023, contractors told the landlord that the leak was coming from the chimney. It said that the landlord needed to erect scaffolding so it could do the repairs. The resident chased the landlord for updates about repair timescales twice in February. However, it failed to respond to him.
A councillor contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 10 March 2023. He provided the landlord with a video that showed a further leak through the resident’s ceiling. The landlord said it was arranging to inspect the roof as soon as possible.
The resident raised a complaint on 24 April 2023. He said the landlord had failed to progress the roof repairs in a reasonable time. The landlord recorded and acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 3 May 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 July 2023. It said:
1. It had failed to respond to the resident in February 2023 when he had chased for an update.
2. It had failed to formally acknowledge the resident’s complaint in a timely manner and did not call him back when he asked for an update.
3. It had inspected the block on 22 June 2023. It found a crack in the chimney flashing.
4. It was due to erect scaffolding on 13 July 2023. Repairs would commence on 15 July 2023.
The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed repairing the roof. It also acknowledged that it had failed to register the resident’s complaint within a reasonable timescale. It offered £425 compensation, comprised of:
1. £25 for its failure to raise a complaint when requested by the resident.
2. £100 to apologise for its delayed complaint response.
3. £50 to apologise for its poor communication.
4. £250 to apologise for its delay in repairing the roof.
On 27 July 2023, the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord had erected scaffolding, but it had not completed the repairs. The resident said that its compensation offer was not enough. He also requested a face to face meeting with senior landlord management.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 August 2023 and said it would issue a stage 2 response by 11 September 2023. It explained that the delay was due to staff shortages.
On 1 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said:
1. It had failed to explain why it had not completed the repairs as scheduled on 15 July 2023. The delay was due to miscommunication between the landlord and its contractors. However, it completed the repairs on 31 July 2023.
2. The resident had not reported any further leaks. However, he did not want his ceiling redecorated for at least 6 months. This was to ensure that the leak had stopped completely.
3. It would increase its compensation offer for its further delay in completing the roof repair.
4. It had requested a meeting with management. However, it could not guarantee that management would agree to meet.
The landlord confirmed that it had upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that it had taken 7 months to complete an appointable repair and handled the resident’s complaint poorly. It addition to the £425 compensation already offered, it offered an extra £25 in recognition of the further 2 week delay in completing the roof repair.

Post Internal Complaints Process

Following this Service contacting the landlord, it conducted a review of the resident’s complaint. In May 2024, it increased its compensation to £800, comprised of:
1. £450 for its delay in completing the roof repairs.
2. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
3. £100 for its poor communication.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He said he expects to receive a minimum of £3000 compensation, and a meeting with senior landlord management. He said that further water damage appeared on his ceiling in September 2023, so he does not believe that the repair was successful. Since January 2024, the damp on the ceiling had worsened. The resident has had that he believes the leaks have been caused by the design of the building. To resolve his complaint, the resident wants the landlord to undertake a full building survey and repair the roof to a “satisfactory standard”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told this Service about further complaints related to a moth infestation and concerns about staff conduct. While the resident’s concerns are noted, we have not considered these issues as part of this complaint. In the interest of fairness, the landlord should have the opportunity to respond to these concerns first via its complaints procedure. As such, the resident should raise any further matters as a new formal complaint. If he remains unhappy with the landlord’s response, he can refer a new complaint to use accordingly.
Similarly, the resident has continued to report leaks in his property following the landlord’s final response to his complaint. Any further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of matters after its stage 2 response will need to be raised directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint.

Response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.

Although it is suggested the design of the roof contributed to the problem, this is not something we can consider. This is because the landlord was not responsible for the design of the building. Our role is to determine whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of a leak and if it took adequate steps to ensure it completed any necessary repairs it was responsible for. This report will consider whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures, and good practice.
As set out in the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs in relation to leaks. Section 11 of the Act also implies that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property.
On receiving a report of a leaking roof, the landlord should have conducted an inspection in good time, established the root cause and an appropriate course of action, be it repair or replace, and undertaken the necessary works to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s responsive repair’s policy distinguishes between emergency and routine repairs, the former being an ‘immediate health and safety risk”. Under this policy, it should complete routine repairs within 28 days. The Ombudsman understands that, where specialist assessment and works are required, this timeframe is not always possible. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to act proactively, not cause unreasonable delays, keep the resident informed of any delays and manage their expectations.
The resident reported a leak on 3 January 2023. While the repair records are not explicitly clear, it appears that the landlord attended on the same day and contained the leak. This was reasonable and in accordance with its policy timescales for emergency repairs.
The landlord was aware from 20 January 2023 that it required scaffolding to complete the repairs. There is no evidence that it acted on this. This was unreasonable. There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date, nor is there evidence of the landlord explaining the delays and managing the resident’s expectations about when it would repair the roof. This was inappropriate and caused the resident significant frustration, distress, and inconvenience.
The landlord said in March 2023 that it was arranging an inspection of the roof. There is no evidence of this inspection taking place, nor has the landlord shared its findings from any inspection. This is inappropriate. The evidence suggests that the landlord only progressed the repairs when the resident raised a complaint. This was unreasonable. This Service does not expect that it should be necessary for residents to complain to compel a landlord to act.
The landlord erected scaffolding on 13 July 2023 and completed the repair on 31 July 2023. This was over 7 months after the resident had reported the leak, and despite him reporting further leaks in the meantime. This was a significant departure from its repairs policy and caused the resident considerable distress and discomfort in his home. The landlord will be aware that a leak through a resident’s ceiling can cause serious structural damage if left unaddressed.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. Appropriately communicate with the resident about delays in repairing his roof.
2. Repair the roof in a reasonable time, as per its repairs policy.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings during the complaints process and offered compensation. The overall offer regarding the delayed repair and poor communication was £325. Considering the significant delays endured by the resident, and the considerable distress, inconvenience, and frustration experienced, this was not proportionate redress.
However, the landlord increased its compensation offer for this aspect of the complaint in May 2024 to £550. It offered £450 for the repair delays and £100 for its poor communication.
Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers 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.
The resident received the latest compensation offer a considerable time after the stage two response. The financial remedy provides, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate level of redress in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance. However, the length of time taken to address the issues and offer appropriate compensation was entirely unreasonable and was not in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It is unclear why the landlord did not offer this level of compensation during the course of the complaints procedure.
While we are satisfied that a proportionate sum of compensation has been offered, we have concluded that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property. This is because the landlord failed to take appropriate action to put things right prior to the complaint being referred to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The landlord should provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
The resident raised his initial complaint on 24 April 2024. The landlord failed to start its complaint process and logged the complaint on 3 May 2024. This was inappropriate and caused the resident distress and inconvenience due to the avoidable delay.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 July 2023; 56 working days after the complaint was raised. This is significantly beyond the 10 working day timescale expected and was therefore inappropriate. The landlord offered the resident £125 compensation for the delayed response and failure to log his complaint promptly. This was proportionate redress given the delay the resident experienced, which caused him frustration and inconvenience.
The resident escalated his complaint on 27 July 2023. In accordance with its complaint policy and the Code, the landlord should have provided a stage 2 response by 24 August 2023. However, the landlord’s complaint policy outlines that on occasion, it may require more time to provide a resident with a complaint response. Its policy states that it may extend its response period by 10 working days. This is in accordance with the Code.
The landlord informed the resident that its response would be delayed due to staff shortages. This explanation was reasonable and appropriately managed the resident’s expectations. It issued a stage 2 response on 1 September 2023; 27 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. This was appropriate in the circumstances, and in accordance with the extended timeframes within its policy and the Code.
The landlord acknowledged its failings in the handling of the resident’s complaint. Its initial compensation offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for service failure where the landlord’s failings caused the resident inconvenience, frustration, and disappointment. As such, this Service has determined that while the landlord did fail to act in accordance with its complaints policy and the Code, it recognised this and made an offer of redress which proportionately resolved this issue.
Positively, the landlord increased its compensation offer for complaint handling to £250 in May 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £550 compensation it offered for distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed repairs and its poor communication.
2. Inspect the resident’s property and the roof due to his reports of leaks. If repairs are outstanding, the landlord should confirm what the repairs are and when it anticipates to complete them. The outcome of the inspection must be shared with this Service.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation offered for its poor complaint handling.