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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202226227)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226227

The Guinness Partnership Limited

13 June 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof shed
    2. The Ombudsman will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord since 2016. The accommodation is for adults aged 55 years of age and over. The property is a maisonette in a small block. The resident has use of a shed provided by the landlord. The shed is in a block of 8 sheds in the communal garden. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. In March 2021, the resident informed the landlord the shed roof needed repair. The landlord did not carry out the repair. In June 2022, the resident made a stage 1 complaint. On 13 July 2022 the landlord apologised for its delay, lack of communication and late complaint response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £100 compensation for its poor communication and £20 for its late complaint response. It informed her that work would be completed on 15 July 2022.
  3. The landlord did not complete the repair and the resident contacted this Service to complain. On 27 January 2023, this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. It provided its response on 15 March 2023. In its response it explained it had since decided to renew all the roofs on the shed block and its procurement and other internal processes to identify a contractor and carry out asbestos surveys had taken longer than expected. It upheld the complaint and offered £50 compensation for the delayed repair and £20 for its poor communication. It said work would be completed no later than 12 May 2023. The landlord did not complete the works until October 2023. The resident remained dissatisfied with the time taken to complete the repairs and escalated the matter to this service for consideration.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the shed roof.

  1. 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 the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s final offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. This Service finds the landlord’s response at stage 1 and offer to pay £100 compensation up the anticipated completion date of 15 July 2022 was fair. The amount offered was proportionate to the impact on the resident up to 15 July 2022. However, it did not put things right by this date. For a further 6 months the resident had to continue chasing the landlord seeking updates and communication about when the repair would be completed. This was unreasonable. In January 2023, the resident contacted this Service stating that the repair had not been completed. This was 7 months after the date the landlord committed to in its stage 1 response. This Service contacted the landlord and asked it to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process.
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord again upheld the complaint and apologised for its poor communication. It acknowledged it had ‘let the issue fall of its radar several times.’ This was unfair and unreasonable especially given the matter was subject to a formal complaint. It offered £50 for its ongoing delay to the shed repair and £20 for its poor communication. It said it would complete the repair by 12 May 2023.
  4. This Service has considered the amounts offered at stage 2 and does not think the amounts were appropriate in the circumstances. The evidence shows the resident had to spend time and effort during the 7 months contacting the landlord seeking updates and asking for communication. The evidence provided shows the resident would call the landlord’s customers service centre but at times would not receive the promised call back. This caused inconvenience and distress to the resident and undermined her confidence in the landlord. This Service’s view is that the landlord’s compensation offer did not properly reflect the resident’s time and trouble during the 7 months, or the resident’s disappointment in not having the repair completed by the date the landlord had given. An order for additional compensation is made.
  5. After it issued its stage 2 response in March 2023, the landlord continued to have difficulty organising itself internally and again did not complete the repair by the date given in its stage 2 response. It also did not communicate sufficiently with the resident. An example of this is when the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her it would be on site on a particular day and time. The resident made arrangements to be at home to speak with the landlord face to face. The resident informed this Service she took this course of action because of the landlord’s insufficient communication. The landlord did not attend and offered no explanation or apology. This was unreasonable and lacked customer focus. Similarly, on 26 May 2023 the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update, but she did not receive a call back. The situation caused the resident frustration and inconvenience.
  6. The records show the landlord has an asset management department and a responsive repairs department. At times, it was not clear which department was leading on the shed repair which led to mixed messages being given to the resident even after its stage 2 response. The complaints correspondence shows the landlord provided a specific point contact for the resident. This was good practice, however, the point of contact’s efforts to provide clear timescales and information to the resident were hampered by a lack of communication from internal departments. This meant the specific point of contact could not clearly define its next steps for the resident. The situation caused further frustration and distress for the resident and left the resident with the impression the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  7. The landlord completed the repair in October 2023. This was 5 months after the date it committed to in its stage 2 response. This timescale was unreasonable. The landlord has not provided any evidence of any mitigating factors or good reason for its delay. Section 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code applicable at the time, states that ‘…outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.’ The landlord did not do this because the repair remained outstanding until October 2023. It also did not communicate effectively with the resident during this time.
  8. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair which caused frustration, inconvenience, and distress to the resident. And also finds its final offer of redress in May 2023 was not fair or reasonable given its continued delay in carrying out the repair. The Ombudsman considers additional compensation would be appropriate for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident up to October 2023 when it completed the repair. The Ombudsman makes an order for additional compensation in the amount of £250 to be paid to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was provided 3 days late. In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged its service failure and apologised. It offered £20 compensation. This was reasonable, given the short delay and that there was no lasting detriment to the resident.
  3. This Service requested the landlord escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 27 January 2023. This meant the landlord should have provided its stage 2 response no later than 24 February 2023. The landlord provided it on 15 March 2023. This was 10 days past the due date. In its response it apologised for the frustration its late response had caused but did not provide any explanation and does not appear to have considered providing a financial remedy for its service failure. Given that it awarded £20 pounds for its late stage 1 response it should have adopted a consistent approach and considered awarding compensation for its late stage 2 response.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will pay up to £250 where there is a service failure on its part. Having regard to the landlord’s policy and The Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance, The Ombudsman considers an amount of £50 would be appropriate redress for the frustration caused to the resident.
  5. The Ombudsman finds there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling which caused frustration, inconvenience, and distress to the resident, and makes an order for compensation below.
  6. The Ombudsman can see the landlord has sincerely apologised in its complaint responses for its handling of the issues. Therefore, no further apology is ordered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the shed roof.
  2. In accordance with the paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay an additional £300 in compensation to the resident. This is broken down as:
    1. An additional £250 for the resident’s time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused when it did not meet the repair timescales set out in its complaint responses.
    2. £50 for the frustration caused by its complaint handling.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders.