The Guinness Partnership Limited (202229032)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229032

The Guinness Partnership Limited

16 January 2025

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 request for a video doorbell.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from 1 February 2021 until 30 April 2023. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a house. The resident was a high risk victim of domestic abuse.
4. On 2 August 2022, following a discussion around how to support and safeguard the resident due to being a victim of domestic violence, the landlord raised a request for a video doorbell for the resident’s property.
5. On 17 August 2022, an engineer visited the resident’s property to install the doorbell. However, the engineer thought the landlord had sent the doorbell to the resident’s property prior to his arrival. The operative said he would return next week to fit the doorbell.
6. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 August 2022 to chase up the doorbell installation. The engineer completed the installation on 22 September 2022.
7. During a visit to install solar lighting on 26 October 2022, the resident’s partner returned the doorbell saying that it no longer worked. The landlord raised a request to replace the doorbell on 7 December 2022.
8. The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 January 2023 as the doorbell had not been reinstalled. She said she was at high risk of domestic violence and the job to replace the doorbell was meant to be urgent.
9. The landlord contacted the resident on 1 February 2023 during which the landlord confirmed it had no open repair job for the doorbell.
10. The landlord arranged an emergency appointment on 7 February 2023 following which an operative attended the property and then ordered a new doorbell. It handed this to the resident on 13 February 2023 as her partner was due to install it.
11. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023. It gave a history of the repair. It acknowledged that it had failed to attend the emergency appointment after the resident reported the fault with the doorbell which caused delays. It offered compensation to the resident of £110 which included compensation for its complaint handling.
12. The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 15 March 2023.
13. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 30 March 2023. It corrected some inaccuracies in the dates given in its first response. It reiterated the history of the complaint and acknowledged that it did not replace the doorbell within the advised time. It offered a further £10 compensation.
14. In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident said she was unhappy with the resolution and wished for further compensation.
15. Following referral to this Service, the landlord undertook a review of this case. It again acknowledged the failings it had identified and set out the learning and improvements made to its service following the complaint. It offered compensation to the resident of £475, made up of the following:
    1. £75 for complaint handling failures.
    2. £100 for poor communication.
    3. £300 to acknowledge the delays and personal impact.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

16. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out emergency repairs are those which would address an immediate safety risk. In making a judgement about this, it will consider the needs and circumstances of the customer. It will attend within 24 hours. Routine repairs will be carried out within 28 days.
17. The landlords safeguarding policy sets out that it will keep customers at the heart of everything it does and be responsive to the changing needs and vulnerabilities of its residents.
18. It has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge all complaints within 2 working days, respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. Its response will not exceed a further 10 working days unless the resident agrees an extension.

The landlords handling of the resident’s request for a video doorbell.

19. The landlord agreed to install the video doorbell at the resident’s property on 2 August 2022 and attended on 17 August 2022 to complete the installation. At that stage, the request had not been marked as urgent and therefore, this timeframe to attend was reasonable.
20. However, the operative incorrectly assumed the resident was in possession of the doorbell. This highlights a lack of effective communication between the landlord and its repair operatives. However, the operative arranged to order a doorbell and informed the resident the landlord would attend the following week. Although this caused a delay, the operatives promise of swift action to resolve the issue was reasonable.
21. The resident then chased the landlord on 31 August 2022 as the operative had not attended. Given the resident’s circumstances and the important reasons why she needed the doorbell, this was not appropriate. The landlord needs to ensure it has effective and robust systems in place to track and monitor such requests to ensure they are carried out in a timely manner.
22. The doorbell was installed on 22 September 2022. While there was a slight delay in installing the doorbell at this stage, there was no significant detriment to the resident during that time and therefore this was reasonable.
23. On 26 October 2022, the resident’s partner informed the landlord that the doorbell was faulty. The landlord has not provided any evidence to confirm what occurred during this visit. Given the doorbell’s condition, it would have been reasonable to log a repair at that time. However, the evidence suggests that the resident was awaiting repairs to her front door, which delayed the doorbell’s installation. Therefore, while it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider requesting a new doorbell at this stage, there was no detriment to the resident during that period since it could not have been installed anyway.
24. The resident confirmed on 13 December 2022 that the landlord could install the doorbell. However, while the landlord raised an emergency appointment for this, the landlord did not attend the property to complete the installation. This is a further indication of a lack of effective system to track and monitor repairs. Given the resident’s risk, this was not appropriate at all and showed a complete disregard to the situation the resident found herself in.
25. On 21 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again, raising a formal complaint to follow up on the doorbell installation. The landlord has not provided any evidence showing it responded to the resident. This contact would have been another opportunity to raise the doorbell repair. Failing to do so caused further delays in resolving the issue for the resident.
26. Internal communications from 30 January 2023, reveal a discrepancy in the landlord’s system. One system marked the job as complete, while another showed it as planned and pending with the contractor. This indicates a lack of an effective system to track and monitor repairs. Additionally, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to verify the status of the outstanding job or followed up with the contractor to complete the work. This was not only a missed opportunity to address the repair but also showed a lack of empathy towards the resident, who had repeatedly emphasised the importance of having the doorbell due to her personal circumstances.
27. The landlord raised an order for the doorbell on 7 February 2023, and it was handed to the resident on 13 February 2023. While it was satisfactory that the landlord provided the doorbell, it was inappropriate that an emergency appointment took over three months to complete. This delay was especially concerning given the resident’s high risk of domestic violence. The landlord’s lack of timely action indicates a lack of understanding about the importance of safeguarding and its obligations towards residents in high-risk situations.
28. Following referral to this Service, the landlord undertook a review of the case. In that review the landlord accepted that it had delayed in arranging for a replacement doorbell in October 2022. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and this was reflected in a further compensation offer to the resident. Furthermore, it set out the improvements it had made since the resident’s complaint.
29. This Service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all the circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified the failings at an earlier time and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this Service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord provided the offer it did at the earliest opportunity, it likely would have been satisfactory in putting things right.
30. Throughout this investigation, it was clear that the landlord had not kept sufficient records of the resident’s repair history. It is crucial for landlords to maintain clear, accurate, and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. When we investigate a complaint, we will request the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its policies and procedures. However, as the landlord, in its review, has evidenced improvements made to its repairs service, no further order has been made in relation to this. The landlord should consider though if it can identify any further learning following this investigation.
31. This Service is content that the landlord has since sought to put things right by offering compensation commensurate with its failing and the significant learning it has identified following the complaint.
32. However, as the landlord did not make these findings during the complaint process, this Service has determined that there was maladministration in this case. The adverse finding in this case should encourage future learning for the landlord.
33. Given the above, a compensation order has been made for £400, to be paid less any amount previously offered. This is reflective of the compensation offered by the landlord in its review and is made up of the following:
    1. £100 for poor communication.
    2. £300 for the overall distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s complaint handling

34. The resident made a formal complaint on 21 January 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge it until 2 February 2023. This is outside of its published timescales. Its delay caused the resident to chase the landlord for an update and was therefore not appropriate in the circumstances.
35. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 8 March 2023; 14 days after the response was due. However, the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code), sets out that where a landlord cannot provide a response within the timeframe, this must be communicated to the resident setting out when it can be expected to respond by. The landlord kept in regular contact with the resident during that time and, in line with its policy, when the time to respond went beyond a further 10 working days, it wrote to the resident to request a further extension. While landlords should endeavour to provide a response within the set timescales, it appropriately managed the resident’s expectations throughout the period of the delay.
36. The landlord offered compensation to the resident of £70 to reflect its failing in its complaint handling. Following a review of the complaint, after referral to this Service, it changed its compensation offer to £75. While the landlord sought to put things right, it only offered this amount after the complaint had been brought to this Service. However, as the further amount offered is only £5 more, this Service is satisfied that the landlord has made an offer which amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a video doorbell.
38. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay compensation to the resident of £400 for the failings in its handling of the video doorbell. This is to be paid less any amount previously paid.
40. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above order.

Recommendations

41. As a finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of compensation for its complaint handling, the landlord should pay the £75 compensation offered if it has not already done so.