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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202228193)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228193

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 October 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of an ongoing leak.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has been a shared owner leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association, since 2009. The landlord is a leaseholder of the freeholder of the building. The freeholder has appointed a managing agent (the agent), which is not a member of the Scheme and whose actions have not been assessed herein. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions in responding to the resident’s repair reports. There are no vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
  2. In June 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about a suspected roof leak due to water ingress, through a loft hatch in the communal areas, when it rained. The landlord raised make safe works at that time. In August 2021 the resident chased the landlord, explaining that he had to mop up or use buckets to manage the leak and there was a health and safety hazard due to the unresolved repair. The landlord chased the agent (which is responsible for communal repairs) about the outstanding works.
  3. The resident submitted formal complaint forms on 16 and 31 August 2021 about the repairs he had reported since June 2021. The landlord did not provide a formal response. However, it acknowledged the delay in works being carried out but advised it was not responsible for the repairs.
  4. From August 2021 onwards the landlord and agent discussed the roof repair, with the agent advising that it had inspected the roof and its contractor was preparing a quote for the repairs.
  5. The landlord did not chase the agent between October 2021 and March 2022, when the resident again reported his dissatisfaction via a web complaint. He asked for the ceiling to be repaired and explained that, despite assurances from the landlord, recent leaks following rainfall had shown that the issues were unresolved. The landlord responded the same day stating that it had an open roof repair and this was sent to its contractors. There was a repair between 9 and 13 March 2022 but the records indicate that the subcontractor thought there may now be an issue with a separate section of the roof.
  6. In August, September and October 2022 the resident chased the landlord multiple times and reported further leaks when it rained. The landlord agreed to update him on upcoming works in September and October 2022 but did not. It re-opened a work order with its repair team that had been closed in error, and a repair was scheduled. However, the resident reported that leaks continued afterwards, in October 2022. The landlord chased the agent on 17 October 2022 and they advised they were in the process of serving a Section 20 notice for the works.
  7. The resident submitted a further complaint on 3 November 2022 and the landlord responded on 17 November 2022. It advised that the agent had been made aware of its responsibility to repair the roof in October 2021 and was now following the section 20 process to do so. The resident’s update requests had been directed to the landlord’s repairs team incorrectly, and there were multiple failures to return calls within agreed timescales as a result. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and offered £75 for the poor communication and £25 for the stress and inconvenience the resident had experienced.
  8. The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint on 5 December 2022, when he reiterated the chronology of the complaint and explained that the disrepair was worsening and now affecting individual properties, including his own. He detailed the impact of the issues and stated that the landlord had failed to provide any explanations or updates on progress. He said the landlord had failed to act on recommendations to carry out repairs and had not responded to his complaints for over a year.
  9. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 3 January 2023 it:
    1. Acknowledged the delay in repairs and said it would support and monitor them, though it was not responsible for them or the performance of the head landlord (via the agent).
    2. Explained that the agent had received quotes for works and would be engaging in the Section 20 consultation process which was likely to end mid-January 2023, and would then be informed by the outcome of the consultation to raise a service charge payment to the landlord and then instruct its contractors to commence the works.
    3. Re-offered the original redress and clarified that this was a gesture of goodwill rather than compensation.
    4. Explained that, once it was established that the agent was responsible for repairs its own repair team (who had been given the resident’s communications) were not involved. Despite this, it should have kept promised call backs and apologised for the poor communications.
  10. From January to April 2023 the landlord and agent corresponded about the repairs, which were completed in April 2023, according to the landlord’s statements to the Ombudsman. Based on the findings of another Ombudsman determination, the landlord revisited this complaint and increased its offer of redress to £250. 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak

  1. The resident and landlord’s lease states that the landlord must maintain, redecorate and renew all external parts and common parts of the building, and references the headlease for defined terms of the property and common parts. The landlord told the resident its responsibilities under their lease must be read in conjunction with those set out in the head lease between the landlord and the freeholder. The head lease states that the freeholder shall repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the roof and other common parts.
  2. Although the landlord has disputed its responsibility for repairs to the roof, it remains that it should take reasonable steps to engage in repair reports by offering an effective service in clearly and accurately communicating responsibilities and repairs to the agent. It would be reasonable for the landlord to do so in a timely manner, and for it to also provide clear and timely communication to the resident regarding the repairs, particularly in the circumstances of this case where the severity of reports increased. 
  3. In this case, the landlord communicated with the agent around August 2021 after taking some measures through its own contractor (for make safe works) earlier in the year. The landlord did not dispute that the repairs were needed and appropriately identified the unreasonable delay in them being carried out.
  4. The evidence shows that the landlord chased the agent sporadically and often following the resident’s own chasers to the landlord in 2021. It then increased the frequency of its communication with the agent at the end of 2022, after the resident complained, and in March to April 2023, although there was a period when the landlord failed to communicate with the agent between the end of 2021 and March 2022.
  5. The landlord took reasonable steps to highlight the ongoing concerns to the agent, but did not offer a proactive or timely service as soon as it could have done to address the resident’s repeat and continued reports of leaks. It explained that the resident’s reports were incorrectly directed to the wrong team, and instead should have been given to the agent. It was reasonable for the landlord to review its services and establish any errors in its repair services by way of its communication. It was also reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge a service failure in its delayed and missing communication, such as the lack of promised updates to the resident.
  6. Having established the landlord’s acknowledged service failures, the Ombudsman has considered whether the redress it offered put things right to resolve the complaint satisfactorily, in line with its Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  7. The landlord’s initial offer was revised in light of another investigation by this Service, and its final offer was £250. It was resolution focused for the landlord to review the circumstances of this case, following the closely connected investigation and findings of a related case. However, the landlord’s offer of redress was not proportionate to the overall detriment caused by the delays in its communication to the agent and the lack of satisfactory oversight into the agent’s reports about the completion of the repairs.
  8. Taking into account the landlord’s acknowledged service failures, evidence of its learning, and the acknowledged limits of the landlord’s role in managing the actual repairs (including time taken up by the agent’s consultation and tendering processes), a finding of service failure is made overall. In line with the Remedies Guidance, an order is made for the landlord to pay a further £100 to that which it has already offered (total £350). This reflects that the landlord made an offer of compensation though this did not quite reflect the overall detriment experienced by the resident in the circumstances of this case.

Complaint handling

  1. Evidence shows that the resident’s communications in August 2021 and March 2022 were not formally responded to as complaints at the time, and instead responded to as regular correspondence about the repairs. The landlord’s Complaint Policy at the time adopted the following definition of a complaint ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by (the landlord)’. Evidence shows that the resident repeatedly raised the same concerns to the landlord but it did not progress a formal complaint until November 2022, though its Complaint Policy would have advised it to do so earlier when the resident expressed his concerns about its actions. This was not appropriate.
  2. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have logged the resident’s complaints at the point he made them and when it failed to provide a resolution, resulting in repeat and persistent communication about the same issues. Although the landlord communicated with the resident at the time about the repairs intermittently, which it acknowledged as part of its broader communication failures, it missed the opportunity to log the complaint and progress the resident’s concerns via the complaint process. This caused unnecessary detriment in time and trouble for the resident.
  3. The resident’s formal complaint of 3 November 2022 was responded to at stage 1 on 17 November 2022. This was within 10 working days in line with the timescales prescribed by the landlord’s Complaint Policy at the time, and was therefore responded to within a reasonable period.
  4. The resident’s escalation was made on 5 December 2022 and the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 January 2023 which was within the 20 working day timescale prescribed by the landlord’s Complaint Policy, and was therefore responded to within a reasonable period.
  5. Overall, the landlord failed to log the resident’s concerns appropriately when he first raised his complaints, but it then provided timely complaint responses once it did log his complaint from November 2022. However, it failed to acknowledge the delays in logging the complaint earlier and did not offer reasonable redress for the detriment caused by this, which would have been appropriate.
  6. Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling, and an order is made for it to offer £50 compensation to reflect the time and trouble incurred by the resident. This is in line with the Remedies Guidance for service failure where there have been delays in getting the matter resolved which have not been appropriately acknowledged or put right by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of an ongoing leak.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400 compensation comprised of:
    1. £350 for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience associated with its response to the resident’s report of ongoing leaks. This is to be reduced by any redress that has already been paid to the resident in respect of this complaint.
    2. £50 for the time and trouble in respect of the complaint handling.
  2. The landlord is recommended to review the Ombudsman’s report titled Spotlight on: Landlord engagement with private freeholders and agent, particularly recommendation 3. This encourages landlords to ensure they have clear and accurate communication mechanisms with managing agents and/or freeholders.