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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202101974)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101974

The Guinness Partnership Limited

18 November 2022


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:
    1. Repairs at the property, and;
    2. the associated formal complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident, who is an assured tenant, had contractors access her property on 5 July 2019 in order for them to complete the annual gas safety check. As a result, the boiler was capped and a job was also raised to replace the boiler. The landlord and its contractors made several attempts to fit the new boiler, but could not gain access to the property. The boiler was eventually fitted on 6 November 2019. In June 2020 the resident reported that the heating and hot water were constantly on. The landlord and its contractors attempted access several times but were unsuccessful.
  2. On 25 September 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint, in which she expressed concern that it had taken the landlord four months to replace her boiler. She also advised the landlord that she had not had hot water in the property for three months. The landlord logged the complaint, but did not provide a formal written response. Its record of the complaint notes that no failings were identified, and any delays were due to access issues.
  3. An appointment was made for 30 September 2020 for the contractor to visit the property in relation to the concerns about the hot water, but there was no access. Another job was raised in December 2020 relating to this. It was identified that a new hot water cylinder was required for the hot water to work. A visit in January 2021 found that, as well as a new cylinder being needed, electrical work and a new control panel was also required for the hot water to be operational. A contractor attended the property on 31 March 2021 to fit the new cylinder, but found that it was not the correct size. The correct cylinder was scheduled to be installed on 6 April 2021. The contractor also requested an electrician to be booked on the same day so that the hot water could be made operational. However, the electrics were not repaired until 13 April 2021. It is unclear whether or not the control panel was installed.
  4. On 21 April 2021 the resident asked to escalate the complaint made in September 2020. The landlord logged this request, and offered £100 as a good will gesture, but the resident wanted to proceed to the next stage of the complaint process, and said she was seeking £1000.
  5. The landlord’s final response to the formal complaint, dated 3 June 2021, advised the resident that it felt it had acted within its procedural duties to complete the repair after the resident had reported an issue with her boiler on 19 June 2020 (referring to the report that the heating and hot water were constantly on). It noted that there was a delay due to the resident’s failure to allow access. However, it agreed that there was a delay on its part in sourcing and installing the new cylinder, although still maintained that part of the delay was due to difficulties in arranging an appointment with the resident. In recognition of this delay, it offered a further £50 as a goodwill gesture, which brought the total compensation offered to £150.
  6. In her complaint to this Service the resident has explained that she is disabled and vulnerable, and was left with heating and hot water for many months, stating, ‘…the whole ordeal has caused immense stress and anxiety.’  The resident is dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord and is seeking £1000. Additionally, the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling, as she felt that it had provided incorrect dates in its final response, and that it did not fully acknowledge its own failings.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 15 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that the “tenancy and leasehold agreements requires [the resident] to allow [the landlord] (including appointed contractors) access to their home to carry out repairs at the agreed appointed time”.
  2. Section 32 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that “when offering compensation for distress and inconvenience, [the landlord] will consider the detriment that has been caused to the [resident] or the household”.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair and hot water repair has impacted her health. While sorry to hear this, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is a matter more appropriately dealt with through the courts/as a personal injury claim, where medical information can be assessed and binding judgements made. This is an accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has referenced concerns about a lack of cladding around the hot water cylinder which had caused her to burn herself, loose wires around both the cylinder and the boiler, and the landlord advising her that she could not have a new timer box whereas she believes this is a legal requirement. Before investigating an issue, the Ombudsman expects it to have first been put to the landlord and been fully considered via the landlord’s own internal complaint process. This is so a landlord has the opportunity to ‘put things right’ before the Ombudsman investigates. Therefore, as these are not matters that formed part of the complaint that completed the landlord’s complaint process, they will not be considered here. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  3. It is open to the resident to raise these issues as a formal complaint with the landlord, and then refer to the Ombudsman should she remain dissatisfied with the outcome.

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. A lack of heating/hot water would generally be regarded as an urgent matter, and as such the landlord was obliged to address the 2019 boiler replacement in a timely manner.
  2. The landlord’s and contractor’s records show that a job to replace the boiler was raised on the same day that it was reported. The landlord’s repair notes (15 July 2019) advise that the appointment was confirmed with the resident, however upon the engineer’s arrival, no access could be gained. The contractor also attempted to re-book the appointment, but the resident did not answer the telephone. The records then show that other attempts to re-book were made on 19 and 22 July 2019. On 16 August 2019, a repair note stated that it had been booked for a third time, but the resident cancelled the appointment after engineers travelled to the property. The repair was then placed on hold until the resident got in touch.
  3. This was a reasonable position for the landlord and contractors to take, having made several attempts to attend the property. It was also appropriate for the landlord to have continued attempting to book appointments until this point. In doing so, the landlord demonstrated its commitment to act within its obligations. Eventually, the installation was completed on 6 November 2019. Contractor’s notes confirmed that all was working satisfactorily when the job was complete.
  4. The landlord’s actions in its attempts to complete the installation of the new boiler were appropriate. The landlord’s records show that it was proactive in its attempts to arrange and attend appointments, and it had appropriately tried to keep the resident informed by attempting contact prior to appointments. Section 15 of the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that the “tenancy and leasehold agreements requires [the resident] to allow [the landlord] (including appointed contractors) access to their home to carry out repairs at the agreed appointed time”. As such, the resident had a responsibility to provide access for the appointments. Whilst there was a four-month delay in the boiler being replaced, the evidence provided does not demonstrate that this was due to a failing on the part of the landlord, and therefore its conclusions at stage one of the complaint procedure were reasonable.
  5. The resident has said that she was without hot water at the property from June 2020. However, there is no record of this issue being raised prior to the formal complaint made in September 20202 (the only reports regarding heating/hot water from June 2020 were that the hot water and heating were constantly on). As such, it was from September 2020 that the landlord became obliged to resolve the issue.
  6. The records show that the landlord’s contractors made an appointment and attempted to attend three working days after the resident had made the complaint, which was a reasonable timeframe. However, they were unable to gain access. There is no indication that attempts were made by either the resident or the landlord to rearrange this. There is reference to an attendance by a surveyor on 6 October 2020, but the outcome of this visit is not apparent. The records then show an emergency repair raised following a call from the resident on 10 December 2020, ‘Unvented cylinder has not worked in property since June 2020, please attend and repair or confirm if replacement is required.’ Again, this was a reasonable course of action to take, and the records indicate that it was at this point the need for a new cylinder was identified. The landlord therefore should have ensured that an order was raised for this work and any parts required obtained, and the repair completed in a reasonable timeframe. 
  7. There is no indication that this happened however, which was a failing on the part of the landlord and necessitated the resident chasing up the matter. For example, on 11 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord acknowledging that while there was an appointment for the repair in place, she was dissatisfied with the length of time taken to resolve the issue due to lack of communication between the landlord and its and contractors. The records contain reference to attendances by the landlord on 20 January 2021, and again in February 2021, although again there is a lack of detail about these and the outcome (but the indication is that there was access). The landlord should ensure that it’s repair records provide a reasonable level of detail to show actions and outcomes of jobs raised.
  8. Following this, the evidence available shows that there was confusion and a lack of progression of the repair on the part of the landlord. For example, an email on 18 February 2021 stated that all three contractors had advised that there was no outstanding work, yet the resident was still without hot water. An internal email sent on 3 March 2021 advised of a note on a raised job stating “New cylinder being fitted by contractor, completed on 11 December 2020”. There was also confusion as to which contractor was responsible for the replacement of the cylinder.
  9. It is vital for the landlord to maintain clear and detailed lines of communication with its contractors in order to minimise any potential delays and confusion in administering repairs. The failure to do so here caused unnecessary delay in identifying and managing the situation appropriately. Additionally, as noted above, it caused unnecessary involvement for the resident in having to chase responses and repairs, which led to an increase in stress and inconvenience.
  10. On 11 March 2021, the landlord advised in an internal email that it had enough information from previous visits to get a replacement cylinder. However, when the contractor attempted to install it on 31 March 2021, it was found that it was not the correct size and that a new one needed to be ordered. Again, the landlord and its contractors should have ensured that it had the correct information to order the necessary cylinder, and this failing caused further delay in the repair being completed. It is unclear whether this was a communication issue, or a failure to properly inspect the cylinder. Regardless, it is imperative for the landlord and its contractors to ensure that it has the correct information in order to make repairs.
  11. Another contribution to the delay in having the resident’s hot water restored was the failure to repair necessary electrics in an appropriate timeframe: The January 2021 visit had identified that electrics needed repairing in order for the hot water to work once the new cylinder had been installed. As such, the landlord should have ensured that this was actioned, but there is little indication that this was followed up on. Following the failed attempt to install the cylinder on 31 March 2021, the landlord’s contractor reiterated that the electrical supply to feed the cylinder was not live, and therefore, simply replacing the cylinder would not restore the hot water. It asked the landlord to arrange an electrician to attend on 6 April 2021 (the same date it was due to replace the cylinder), to reinstate the electrical system so that the resident could have functioning hot water. The landlord failed to do this. This caused further unnecessary delay in repairing the issue. On 19 April 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident, who confirmed that most of the repair had been completed and that the electrics were repaired on 13 April 2021.
  12. Overall, the evidence available shows that the long delay in resolving this was in the main due to failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter. As the landlord was made aware of the issue in late September 2020, and even taking into account the initial access issue and the need to obtain parts, there was a very significant delay in the repair being made, amounting to maladministration. This caused the resident time and trouble in pursuing the repair, and the distress and inconvenience of being without hot water in her property for a significant length of time.
  13. As such, orders for remedy are made below. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was a “failure which adversely affected the resident” but where there was “no permanent impact”, a payment of £100 to £600 would be reasonable. Given the length of time that the resident was without hot water, and how distressing and inconvenient this would have been, an amount is ordered at the upper end of this bracket.

Landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident advised this Service that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint, not only in terms of the outcome, but also because she felt that it had provided incorrect dates and that it did not highlight its own mistakes in repairing the hot water system.
  2. It is not apparent what dates the resident felt were incorrect and why. It perhaps was the landlord’s reference to the June 2020 report that related to the heating and hot water being constantly on, as it is not clear how this related to her complaint about no hot water. However, it can be seen from the final response that the landlord did not go into detail regarding its own failures. Whilst it did admit that it should not have taken as long as it did to replace the water cylinder, it suggested that a large proportion of this delay was due to difficulty in gaining access to the property. As noted in this report, the evidence does not support this position in regards to the hot water issue – in fact, the evidence that is available shows that the resident provided access for a number of visits.
  3. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate and acknowledge  its own failures, consider the impact that these had on the resident, and provide a proportionate remedy, in line with its compensation policy. The final response is an opportunity to ‘put things right’ for a resident, and had it done so in this case, it could have improved the landlord/tenant relationship by taking a degree of responsibility for failures in the issue being resolved. That it suggested that the delay in the hot water repair was caused by access issues indicates a lack of investigation into the matter. This means that the landlord has not ‘learned from outcomes’ by identifying what went wrong with its handling of the hot water repair, and what action it may need to take to avoid a recurrence.
  4. Finally, it did not address the 2019 boiler repair which was the subject of the stage one complaint, although, as above, there was no indication of a failing in its handling of this in any case, and the resident’s escalation request perhaps was not clear on this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs at the property.
    2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay a total of £700 to the resident, comprised of £600 in relation to the handling of repairs to the hot water system and £100 for the complaint handling (if the £150 previously offered by the landlord has already been paid, it can be deducted from this total).
    2. Carry out a review of the handling of the hot water repair, with a view to identifying the cause of the failings/delays, and what action has been/is needed to prevent a recurrence. This review should include consideration of record keeping and communication with contractors. Details of the outcome of the review should be provided to this Service.