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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202200407)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200407

The Guinness Partnership Limited

21 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 response to the resident’s reports about her blocked kitchen sink.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, residing in a flat.
  2. This Service contacted the landlord on 6 April 2022, following advice from the resident that the landlord had not provided her with a first stage response to her formal complaint about its response to her reports of her blocked kitchen sink. The resident had informed this Service that since 2019, she had reported blockages in her kitchen sink to the landlord a number of occasions, and yet the underlying cause was still unknown and had not been resolved.
  3. The landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint on 20 June 2022. Its overall response was that although the resident had reported instances of her kitchen sink being blocked in 2019, she had not reported any further issues, between then and her report in 2022. It had attended her property on multiple occasions since, to try and resolve the matter. It’s drainage contractor had also tried to contact the resident to book a CCTV appointment, to seek to identify the underlying cause of the blockage, but the resident had refused access to her property, as she wished to be rehoused before any major works took place.
  4. The landlord did not find any failings in its response to her reports about her blocked kitchen sink, as it said it had taken all the steps that it reasonably could have, without further compliance from the resident. However, it did encourage her to allow further inspections to hopefully resolve the underlying cause.
  5. Subsequently, the landlord placed the resident on its proxy list for a transfer due to her high medical needs, and advised her that it would contact her if a suitable property became available.
  6. The resident then contacted this Service, as she believed that the landlord had not done enough to resolve the frequent sink blockages, as the issue was still ongoing. The outcome that she sought, was to be transferred to a new property, due to the effects of the unresolved problem on her health.
  7. Evidence has been seen by this service of the landlord emailing the resident in July 2022 advising that its drainage subcontractors were still waiting for her to allow them access to carry out further survey and asking that the resident contact the landlord to let if know if she is ready for them to come and inspect the drain.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Although the resident has requested a transfer to a new property, as her desired outcome, this is outside the scope of this investigation. This is because the resident is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide, and would also fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. However, what this investigation will look at is whether the landlord considered the resident’s request, and whether its response was appropriate.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about her blocked kitchen sink

  1. Section 2 of the tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligations, and under section 2.1.2, it states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep the sink within the resident’s property, in repair and in working order, and this was not disputed by the landlord.
  2. Although the resident had advised this Service that her formal complaint in relation to her blocked kitchen sink had not been responded to by the landlord, the landlord advised both her and this Service, that it had no record of any issues being raised after 2019. The landlord also advised the resident that since her previous report in 2019, it had subsequently ended its relationship with its previous contractor that had attended her property in 2019, to remove a blockage in her sink. It was unable therefore to determine what actions its previous contractor had taken to successfully stop the blockages from reoccurring at that time.
  3. No evidence has been provided by the resident to show that she had raised a repair issue after 28 October 2019, and the landlord’s repair logs show that the next time a repair was noted as being needed was when it was contacted by this service on 6 April 2022. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was unaware of any outstanding repairs being needed until this Service advised it of such. Therefore, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of this element of the complaint as the landlord would not be expected to respond to an issue that it was unaware of. That said, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to confirm with the resident if she has the correct information about how to report a repair, as she believed that she had reported a repair to the landlord before asking this Service to intervene.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy, categorises repairs as either an emergency repair or a routine repair. The definition of an emergency repair, given in the landlord’s responsive repair policy, is one that has an immediate health and safety risk. The blockage to the resident’s sink would then be classed as a routine repair. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that a routine repair will be carried out within 28 calendar days, or sooner if possible.
  5. This Service advised the landlord about the blockage in the resident’s sink, on 6 April 2022. The landlord’s records indicate that its drainage contractor attended on 19 April 2022, 13 calendar days later. A further visit was then book in for 27 April 2022, the resident advising this service that a plumber had attended again that day but nothing had changed. On 13 May 2022, the landlord’s records indicate that the plumber had attended again that day and reported that he had used a plunger several times to unblock the sink, he had removed the overflow waste and inspected the pipe work, which he said was in good condition. However, the resident called the landlord the same day to advise that whilst the plumber had been at her property for a few hours that day the sink was still blocked.
  6. Whilst the landlord’s attendance had been timely, following each visit the resident reported that the blockage had returned. Given that this was a recurring issue it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange for a CCTV survey to investigate the cause. The landlord raised a job on 28 May 2022 for its drainage contractor to carry out the survey.
  7. Under section 3.5.1 of the tenancy agreement, the resident must give the landlord access to her property, in order for it to inspect the property or carry out repairs. However, on 15 June 2022, the contractor notified the landlord that the resident had refused access, stating that she wanted to be rehoused before any further investigations or major works took place. This impaired the landlord’s ability to remedy the blockage and resolve the underlying cause satisfactorily.
  8. The landlord has advised this service that its Customer Liaison team have been liaising with the resident to support her with arranging appointments for the works to be completed. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to continue to work with the resident in order to ensure that the required access is provided to allow the CCTV survey to take place.
  9. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately by trying to remedy the situation by all the means available to it. Once it had been informed by this Service of another blockage in the resident’s sink, it attended her property a number of times and removed blockages. As this failed to resolve the issue it determined that the condition of the pipes would need to be checked and sought to arrange for a CCTV survey of the drains to establish the underlying cause. However, the resident refused it’s contractor access to her property to carry out the CCTV survey, thereby hindering the landlord’s attempt to resolving the underlying cause of the blockages.
  10. In relation to the resident’s wish to be rehoused as an outcome to her complaint, this is something that the landlord had considered, it placed her on its proxy list for transfer and placed her in a band that it felt was appropriate due to her “high medical needs”. It also advised her that it was being proactive by monitoring the transfer list and that it would contact her if a suitable property became available. Therefore, the landlord has acted appropriately by honouring, to the best of its ability, the resident’s wish to be rehoused. This shows the landlord’s intent to maintain a good working relationship with the resident. Additionally, the landlord has taken it upon itself to keep apprised of suitable properties on its housing transfer list, and this shows that the landlord has considered the impact on the resident and her wellbeing, had this responsibility had fallen upon her instead.

Determination

  1. Under paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about her blocked kitchen sink.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord confirm with the resident that she has the correct information about how to report a repair to the landlord.
  2. It is also recommended that the landlord continue to work with the resident in order to ensure that the required access is provided to allow the CCTV survey to take place.