The Guinness Partnership Limited (202317224)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317224

The Guinness Partnership Limited

27 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak in the communal area and request for compensation.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat in a block. The lease commenced in August 2018. The landlord is a housing association.
3. On 27 May 2023 the resident returned home to find the heat interface unit (HIU) and air unit cupboard flooded with water due to a leak coming from a pipe within the ceiling cavity.
4. On 30 May 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord regarding its handling of the leak. She explained that on finding the leak she:
   1. Called the landlord’s emergency out of hours (OOH) number and was on hold for 45 minutes, then the line cut off. She then called her own emergency plumber.
   2. She called its OOH number again and was initially told by the landlord that as a leaseholder, she was responsible for fixing the leak.
   3. Her plumber arrived but he could not find or fix the leak, so she called the fire brigade on advice from the landlord.
   4. The fire brigade arrived within 7 minutes but could not stop leak although disconnected the electricity supply to the flats.
   5. The fire brigade told the landlord that they believed the leak was coming from the district heating system.
   6. The landlord then raised a job with its heating contractor who attended at 2am on 28 May 2023 but could not fix the leak.
   7. The heating contractor returned to fix the leak and restored her electricity.
   8. The stressful situation she had faced was made worse by the “complete incompetency” of its OOH team. The landlord seemed not to believe her about the seriousness of the situation. 
   9. The heating contractor told her the issue was a pipe to the heating system that had multiple pin leaks and that this was “shoddy workmanship”.
   10. She requested the landlord reimburse her £264 paid for the emergency plumber.
   11. The landlord had not provided clear advice regarding how to claim compensation for damage caused by the leak including to her hallway carpet and possessions.
5. On 12 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. This stated its investigation had found:
   1. On 27 May 2023, the resident reported that her cupboard was flooded, and water was coming from a pipe within her ceiling cavity. Its customer service advisor (CSA) correctly told her that as the leak was coming from inside her home and she was a leaseholder, this was her responsibility to fix.
   2. She contacted it again and advised the issue was coming from a communal pipe and affected the electrics. As this was a communal area, this was then its responsibility to repair.
   3. It told her to call the emergency services that could contain the leak due to the potential electrical fire risk.
   4. Its plumber spoke to the fire brigade. They determined its heating contractor would be responsible to repair this issue.
   5. At 2am on Sunday 28 May 2023, its heating contractor attended her home and turned off the source of the water.
   6. The contractor then attended later that day to repair the issue with the pipe. Therefore, it acted within its 24-hour timescale.
   7. As a leaseholder, she was responsible for any repairs within her home. It referred to its compensation policy and said it did not compensate for any loss of items it was not directly responsible for.
   8. It agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost incurred for a private plumber as a gesture of goodwill.
6. On 13 June 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. This was because she said that:
   1. She made it clear from the outset that the leak was coming from the communal area above.
   2. The leak could have been worse had it not been for her perseverance on the night of the incident. Its response was ‘cold’ in nature, and it took the landlord 6 hours to come to her house for an emergency.
   3. She was unhappy that she has been left to pay the insurance excess fee as she believed building insurance covered all things that were in the flat at the time of handover.
   4. She requested that the landlord pay the £350 excess fee and for the cost of a replacement carpet.
7. On 28 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. This referred to findings in its stage 1 response and said at stage 2 it found:
   1. When she reported the leak during the call at 9.21pm, the resident had advised that she believed the leak was coming from the communal area as it was within the cavity.
   2. During this call it agreed to arrange an emergency visit and confirmed it would be passed to its contractor. 
   3. It could have shown more empathy to her situation as this was distressing.
   4. It had not advised her of its 24-hour response time during this call or her next 2 calls at 10.14pm and 11.00pm on 27 May 2023.
   5. When she next called at 11.28pm on 27 May 2023 to chase an update, it advised that the emergency response time was 24 hours however that it would contact the heating engineer and ask them to call her with an estimated time of arrival.
   6. During her next call at 12:16am on 28 May 2023, it told the resident an electrician had been notified and would be attending her home within the 24-hour emergency timescale.
   7. She contacted it again at 8am on 28 May 2023 to confirm its heating contactor had attended earlier at around 2am and isolated the communal water.
   8. It agreed to chase its contractor and called her back, which it did at 9:02am on 28 May 2023.
   9. Therefore, it had attended and completed the required repairs within the timescales set out in its responsive repair policy.
   10. However, its communication with the resident was poor and due to this she had to contact it several times for an update.
   11. Its offer to compensate her £264 for the cost of her plumber was reasonable.
8. On 28 June 2023 the resident replied to the landlord advising she was unhappy with its response. The next day, the landlord agreed to pay the resident the £350 insurance excess fee. In its communications with the resident over the next few weeks the landlord stated that it was not liable for her compensation claim in respect of damage caused because of the leak.
9. On 10 August 2023 the resident escalated her complaint to us as she was unhappy about the landlord not taking responsibility for damage caused to her home and possessions because of the leak from its pipework.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. In her complaint, the resident stated that the landlord was responsible for damage caused to her property and possessions because of the leak. She said the landlord was at fault for the leak due to its “shoddy” installation and lack of maintenance and referenced its compensation policy. In its responses the landlord said it was not responsible for causing the leak or for the resident’s related compensation claim.
11. It is not our role to consider if the leak was due to any failing by the landlord or if it was liable to pay the resident’s compensation claim as this is a matter for the parties’ insurers. However, we will consider below if the landlord provided appropriate information to the resident in regards to making an insurance claim during the complaints process.

Landlord’s response the resident’s report of leak in the communal area and request for compensation

12. In her formal complaint the resident raised concerns regarding the service provided by the landlord’s OOH team at the time of the leak. She said its poor service made the already stressful situation, worse.
13. It is evident that the resident first reported the uncontainable leak to the landlord during her call at 9.21pm on 27 May 2023. As the leak was coming from a pipe from the communal district heating system, the landlord was responsible for addressing this in line with its obligation under the lease. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy (repairs policy) requires that uncontainable leaks are treated as emergency repairs. It states that the landlord must either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 24 hours of the repair being reported.
14. It is evident that the landlord’s heating contractor attended the resident’s home at around 2am on 28 May 2023 to isolate the communal water which stopped the leak. The fire brigade had attended in the interim and switched off the electricity supply. The heating contractor then returned later in the day on 28 May 2023 to complete the repair to the pipe. This involved replacing a section of pipework which had been found to have “pinholes”. They also restored the water and electricity supplies.
15. Therefore, as the leak was ‘made safe’ within approximately 6 hours and the repair to the pipe completed within the 24-hours, the landlord acted in line with the timescale stated in its repair policy. Nonetheless, this Service is mindful that communal leaks in blocks of flats, as in this case, have the potential to cause damage to multiple residencies. Therefore, isolating the leak is time critical to minimise damage. In the circumstances, it is reasonable to include a recommendation below for the landlord to consider including a shorter response timescale in its repairs policy when responding to reports of communal leaks.
16. In regard to the service provided by the landlord at the time of the resident’s reports, in its final response the landlord acknowledged that its communication with the resident was not to the expected standard. It said the resident had to contact it several times for an update after reporting the leak. Also during the first 3 calls it had not explained to her its emergency response timeframe of 24 hours. The landlord also acknowledged that it had not shown empathy towards the resident for the situation she was in while handling her calls on the night. These instances of poor communication are indicative of failings by the landlord while handling her reports.
17. In addition, it is noted that prior to her 9.21pm call, the resident waited 45 minutes on the landlord’s OOH line before the call was disconnected. Following this the resident engaged her own emergency plumber due to concern about not being able to contact the landlord.
18. Although the resident’s plumber arrived promptly, they were unable to identify the source of the leak or isolate the communal water. This only happened once the landlord’s heating contractor attended after the fire brigade told it they believed the leak to be from the district heating system.
19. The resident also explained in her complaint that during the 9.21pm call, the landlord initially told her that it was her responsibility to fix the leak. She said that this was despite her being clear about the leak coming through the HIU cupboard ceiling. The landlord’s records indicate it raised an emergency repair during this call. This was appropriate, nonetheless, on balance the inaccurate information it provided indicates the landlord had not properly understood the nature of the leak in the first instance.
20. There were significant admitted errors and miscommunication by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports. These issues are likely to have caused some delay in its response. It also caused the resident to believe the landlord was not taking her reports sufficiently seriously. Therefore, the landlord’s response was unreasonable in this regard and would have caused confusion and additional distress.
21. In response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused by the leak, the landlord told her that as a leaseholder she was responsible for repairs in her home. It explained that residents were expected to have contents insurance.
22. The information provided by the landlord was in line with its compensation policy which makes clear that residents are expected to take out contents insurance to cover belongings and decorations against events including a “flood”. The landlord also provided the resident with details of the buildings insurance policy and told her that she could submit an insurance claim but that she would need to pay the excess payment. This information was also appropriate in the circumstances. Therefore, its response was reasonable.
23. In summary, the landlord made safe and repaired the communal leak in line with the timescale stated in its repair policy for emergency repairs. However, its communication with the resident while handling her reports was unsatisfactory. Because of this, the resident had to contact the landlord on multiple occasions in order to satisfy herself it was treating the leak with sufficient urgency. This issue and a lack of empathy shown during calls, as acknowledged by the landlord, caused additional distress to the resident. This is indicative of service failure by the landlord.
24. However, in its responses, the landlord agreed to compensate the resident £264 for the cost incurred in arranging her own plumber. Within a day of issuing its final response, the landlord also agreed to pay the resident’s £350 insurance excess fee. AS the landlord reimbursed the costs incurred by the resident, this was reasonable and proportionate to the failings identified during our investigation. This amount is in line with the level recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance whereby the landlord’s failings have adversely affected the resident.
25. The landlord also apologised to the resident for failing to communicate with her effectively and stated specific feedback had been provided in relation to its communication and errors identified. Overall, we are satisfied the landlord has demonstrated that it attempted to put right its failings and that it has learned lessons to avoid the same situation reoccurring. This is in accordance with our own dispute resolution principles, which are:
    1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes.
26. Therefore, we consider that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint regarding its response to her reports of a communal leak and request for compensation.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress in its response to the resident’s report of a leak in the communal area and request for compensation.

Recommendations

28. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
    1. Considers including a shorter response timescale in its repairs policy when responding to reports of communal leaks.
    2. If not already done so, pay the resident compensation offered during the complaints process (£614).