The Guinness Partnership Limited (202228727)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228727

The Guinness Partnership Limited

26 April 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 response to the resident’s request for insulation.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a 2-bedroom detached bungalow. The complaint was brought through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and to this Service by the leaseholder’s husband who resides in the property. For clarity, he will be referred to as ‘the resident’ in this report. The landlord is the freeholder of the property.
4. The resident enquired about insulating the property on 8 February 2023 and again on 10 February 2023. The resident felt that the lack of insulation was causing damp and mould in the property. On 21 February 2023, the resident told the landlord that it had previously informed him that the wall cavity was too narrow to install insulation. The landlord surveyed the property on 27 February 2023 and confirmed that there was enough room in the cavity to insulate the wall.
5. The landlord advised the resident that it was the responsibility of the leaseholder to insulate the property. On 23 March 2023 and 28 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord’s complaints team, saying that it had insulated his neighbour’s properties approximately 10 years ago but did not insulate his because a survey showed that his wall cavity was too narrow. He advised that a repair operative for the landlord stated that the landlord would be responsible for the outer walls as it owns 75% of the property. 
6. On 30 March 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and on 17 April 2023, it provided its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It advised that it did not hold records of surveys to the neighbouring properties from 10 years ago. It stated that other leasehold properties may have been insulated as a gift or as part of a government initiative but confirmed that it had no responsibility to insulate the property under the terms of the lease. It acknowledged that its communication to the resident had been poor and offered £25 compensation for this service failure.
7. On 18 April 2023 and 21 April 2023, the resident escalated the complaint. He advised that damp and mould is an issue that landlords should address. He said that he was left in the cold and carrying out weekly mould washes. He felt discriminated against because the landlord had insulated neighbouring properties but not his. He also stated that due to building regulations, insulation should have been installed by the builder, and advised that the landlord’s building service manager stated that it should insulate the house.
8. On 4 July 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It did not uphold the complaint. It explained that it did not hold any records of a survey to his property 10 years previously. It pointed to clause 3.3 of the lease which stated that the leaseholder has full repair responsibility for the interior and exterior of the property. It acknowledged the delays in its complaint handling and offered £100 compensation for this failure.
9. When the resident brought the complaint to this Service, he remained unhappy because the lack of insulation to the property was causing it to be cold, expensive to heat, and affected by damp and mould. As a resolution to the complaint, he wanted the landlord to insulate his property as it had done with neighbouring properties.

Assessment and findings

10. After the resident reported the lack of insulation the landlord surveyed the property and confirmed that the property could benefit from insulation, however, it confirmed it held no legal obligation to provide it. The starting point for this investigation was to consider whether the landlord had any legal obligation to insulate the resident’s property. Even if it was not responsible, this Service would expect the landlord to consider the resident’s request, together with his circumstances, before reaching a decision. It should then offer an explanation as to the reasons why a request had been agreed or not.
11. Both parties’ relevant obligations were set out in the resident’s lease. As a shared owner leaseholder, the resident was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the interior and exterior of the property. As such, this Service is satisfied that it was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident that it held no obligation to insulate the property. 
12. The resident reported that a previous survey 10 years prior found that there was not enough space in the cavity wall. Even though the landlord held no responsibility to provide insulation, it was reasonable for it to survey the walls and establish that there was space in the cavity wall for the resident to do so at his own cost.
13. The resident advised that the landlord’s surveyor said that it was responsible for insulating the walls. This Service cannot establish what was said to the resident, however, the landlord did accept that its communication was poor and offered £25 for this service failure. This was a reasonable offer when it became aware that it had not clearly outlined its position to the resident on who was responsible for insulating the property.  
14. The resident felt that the landlord’s failure to insulate the property was in breach of building regulations. Building regulations apply when the property is built or if an extension or alteration is carried out. This Service does not have any information on when the property was built or if any extensions or alterations were made. When purchasing the property, the resident had a responsibility to seek a surveyor’s report to identify any issues.
15. The resident felt that the landlord discriminated against him because it insulated neighbouring properties 10 years previously, however, it failed to insulate his. The landlord’s internal emails indicate that it did not hold any record of a previous survey of the resident’s property or the neighbouring properties. It contacted its thermal contractor who identified that 2 properties in the same estate had been insulated in 2011, however, it held no records of who instructed or paid for the works. It re-iterated its position that it had no responsibility to insulate the property in its stage 2 complaint response. This was a reasonable investigation by the landlord and response to the resident by the landlord after it received an allegation of discrimination. 
16. When a landlord receives a report of damp and mould, this Service would expect it to complete an investigation to identify its responsibilities. The resident reported that the property was cold due to a lack of insulation which caused damp and mould. The landlord surveyed the cavity wall and agreed that the property would benefit from insulation, however, it had no obligation to provide it. While the cold and damp and mould would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and potentially could be a health risk, there was no evidence of service failure on the part of the landlord. It had no obligation to meet the resident’s request for insulation in these circumstances and provided a reasonable explanation for not doing so.
17. This Service finds that there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for insulation. This is because it carried out a reasonable investigation and appropriately advised the resident on its responsibilities as the freeholder. It acknowledged its poor communication at the beginning and offered redress, which in this Service’s opinion put things right.

Complaint handling. 

18. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also states that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same timescales as the Code.
19. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response 16 working days after it received the complaint, and its stage 2 complaint response 52 working days after it received the complaint escalation. The landlord acknowledged these delays in its complaint response and offered the resident £100 compensation. 
20. The evidence shows that the landlord was investigating the complaint appropriately by liaising with different departments to obtain all relevant information before issuing its complaint responses. However, it failed to keep the resident updated with the progress of his complaint. It acknowledged this failure also in its complaint response and apologised to the resident.
21. This Service finds that there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling failures. This is because it identified its service failures, apologised, and made an offer of compensation which in this Service’s opinion put things right.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for insulation. 
23. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Recommendation

24. It is recommended that the landlord re-instate the offer of £125 compensation it made in its stage 2 complaint response. The finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of this offer.