The Guinness Partnership Limited (202300328)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300328

The Guinness Partnership Limited

26 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom.

Background

The resident occupies a 1–bedroom ground-floor flat under an assured tenancy agreement.
The resident complained to the landlord, through the Ombudsman, on 11 April 2023. He said he had complained to the landlord in January 2023 about the bathroom flooring, and issues with the taps, but the landlord had not completed the repairs.
The landlord told the Ombudsman on 17 April 2023 that it had no record of receiving a complaint from the resident in January 2023 and it would set up a new complaint to respond to this. It issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 2 May 2023, in this it:
1. accepted that the resident had raised a repair request for his bathroom flooring on 31 January 2023 but it did not arrange to repair this at the time.
2. said that it had attended the property on 3 April 2023 for a separate issue regarding tiling to the bathroom. It identified on that visit it would also need to carry out repairs to fit new taps and bathroom flooring. The landlord said, due to the scope of the work, it scheduled to complete these repairs on 8 May 2023. It would monitor the completion of these.
3. said that it did not see there was a delay in it responding to the resident’s complaint. It noted the resident had submitted a formal complaint to it in January 2023 but this was about a different issue with the heating and hot water at the property.
4. offered the resident £50 for the stress and inconvenience from its delays in completing the repairs.
The resident escalated his complaint on 17 May 2023. He told the landlord he was dissatisfied with the compensation offered and the repairs to the bathroom flooring had not been completed.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 June 2023. In this it:
1. said that it completed the repairs to the bathroom tiling and the fitting of the new taps on 11 May 2023.
2. explained its contractor had attempted to attend the property on 16 May 2023 and 5 June 2023 to carry out repairs to the flooring but the resident did not grant them access. It acknowledged that the resident disputed this but said it could not establish what had happened.
3. said it would attend the property to replace the bathroom flooring on 15 June 2023 and it would monitor the repair to make sure it was completed.
4. increased its offer of compensation to £200 to reflect the additional delays and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 June 2023 as he remained dissatisfied with its response. He confirmed that the landlord completed the repairs to the bathroom flooring following the stage 2 response. However, he considered the compensation it offered was not enough to put things right.

Assessment and findings

Scope

As part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord and us he said that he experienced a fall in his bathroom on 30 May 2023 due to the lack of flooring. He said he experienced an injury as a result.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent medical reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on his health further, he should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman will still consider distress and inconvenience caused from the landlord’s actions.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom

The tenancy agreement between the resident and landlord says that:
1. under clause 2.1.1 the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the property which includes internal walls, floors and ceilings.
2. under clause 2.1.2 the landlord is responsible for repairing any installations for water and sanitation.
3. under clause 3.5.1 the resident has a responsibility to allow the landlord’s staff and contractors into the property at reasonable times to carry out repairs. The tenancy agreement says the landlord will give the resident at least 24 hours notice except in an emergency.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that:
1. for emergency repairs, those which present an immediate health and safety risk, it will attend within 24 hours to complete the repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe. Where it carries out a temporary repair it will return within a reasonable timeframe to complete the repair.
2. for routine repairs which are not emergencies it will aim to complete the repair within 28 calendar days.
The landlord phoned the resident on 31 January 2023 to discuss a previous repair relating to damp and mould. The resident told the landlord there was no longer an issue with damp and mould at the property. However, he also said:
1. he was concerned that the damp and mould might reoccur if the bathroom was not re-tiled. The landlord confirmed that its operative had recommended the bathroom be re-tiled and advised the resident to wait for further details about the follow-up work.
2. the bathroom’s lino flooring had become damaged and had lifted. As a result, there was no flooring for the bathroom. The landlord said it would raise a repair request to address this.
From the available records there is no evidence that the landlord took further action to arrange repairs to the bathroom tiling or flooring until 20 March 2023. There is also no evidence that it communicated with the resident during this time. This was inappropriate. In line with its responsive repair policy it should have completed the repairs it had agreed within 28 calendar days. if it was not possible it should have updated the resident to let him know when it was likely to complete this.
On 20 March 2023 the landlord created a repair request to replace broken and loose bathroom tiles. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not clear whether this repair request was created from a new report by the resident or following the landlord’s previous attendance on 31 January 2023.This was a failing by the landlord.
The landlord attended the property on 3 April 2023. The landlord recorded that, in addition to the re-tiling, repairs were also needed to replace the bathroom flooring and the taps in the bathroom. The landlord scheduled the repairs to be carried out over 7 and 8 May 2023. The landlord later changed this to 11 and 12 May 2023. Due to a lack of adequate records it is not clear why this delay happened or if the resident was informed of the reasons for this. This was a failing by the landlord.
The resident said the landlord was supposed to replace the bathroom flooring on 11 May 2023 but its contractor only took photographs to measure up the area. The resident phoned the landlord on the same day to complain about this.
From the landlord’s complaint file, it specified it intended to complete all the repairs across the 2 days scheduled. Its repair log recorded that the repair request to replace the bathroom flooring was completed on 11 May 2023, though no record was given of the work carried out. This was inappropriate. The landlord later told the resident its contractor said he had refused the works. The resident disputed this and the landlord agreed to arrange another repair. Though we cannot know exactly what was said between the resident and contractor, if the landlord believed the resident was refusing the planned repair it should have clearly recorded this when closing the repair request.
The landlord’s repair logs recorded that it completed the repairs to the bathroom tiling and taps on 12 May 2023. In relation to these repairs:
1. the landlord took 39 calendar days to replace the taps after this was first raised on 3 April 2023. This somewhat exceeded the landlord’s target for routine repairs. However, our view is that the landlord’s actions were reasonable overall, considering that the scope of the planned repairs to the bathroom were extensive.
2. the landlord took 53 calendar days to complete the re-tiling of the bathroom after the repair request it created on 20 March 2023. However, the resident requested the landlord re-tile the bathroom on 31 January 2023. The landlord confirmed on the same day that it planned to carry out further work to address this. As such it took the landlord a total of 101 calendar days to complete this repair. This was inappropriate as it greatly exceeded the landlord’s target for routine repairs and there is no evidence it gave any explanation to the resident about the reasons for the delays.
The resident told us the landlord’s contractor arranged to attend on the morning of 16 May 2023 to replace the bathroom flooring. The resident phoned the landlord to complain shortly before 12pm that day that nobody had attended, the landlord said it would call the contractor and advised the resident to wait for it to contact him. From the available records the contractor visited the property at 1pm but the resident was not present to grant access, it contacted him to arrange another appointment. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions here were reasonable.
On 30 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to request an update on when the bathroom flooring would be replaced. He also said that he had fallen in the bathroom and “nearly broken [his] leg”. As set out previously the Ombudsman cannot take a view on whether the resident’s injury was caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs. Notwithstanding this, in line with its responsive repair policy it would have been appropriate for the landlord to assess if the lack of flooring was a possible health and safety risk to the resident and if it should have been reprioritised as an emergency repair. The landlord did not do this, which was inappropriate.
The landlord said that its contractor visited the property again on 5 June 2023, but the resident was not present to grant access. Due to a lack of adequate records we have not seen any evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to give him notice of the planned attendance. This was inappropriate as it was not in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord arranged a further appointment for the replacement of the bathroom flooring for 15 June 2023. It informed the resident of this in its stage 2 response of 7 June 2023 and said it would monitor the completion of this work. The contractor, retrospectively, told the landlord that the resident had been “very aggressive” during the attendance and had refused to give the contractor the time it needed to complete the work as he said he needed to leave at 12pm. The contractor closed the planned repair as there had been 2 instances of the resident not granting access and refusing works.
Due to a lack of evidence, we cannot know exactly what was said during the attendance on 15 June 2023 or whether the resident refused the works as the contractor claimed. Notwithstanding this, there is no evidence that the resident had been informed that the repair had been cancelled and he contacted the landlord on 16 June 2023 to complain that the repair had not been completed. The landlord also appeared unaware its contractor had cancelled the repair and asked it to confirm on 24 June 2023 when it would attend to replace the bathroom flooring. This was inappropriate as the landlord did not effectively monitor the completion of the repair as it said it would.
On 30 June 2023 the landlord told the resident its contractor said he was refusing access to the property. The landlord said it would arrange for a member of its staff to attend with the contractor to make sure it completed the work, the resident accepted this offer on 19 July 2023. This was a reasonable response by the landlord to resolve the outstanding repair.
The landlord contacted its contractor on several occasions in July and August 2023 to arrange a joint visit. From the available records the contractor did not respond until 31 August 2023, delaying the repair for a further 6 weeks. Though landlords are ultimately responsible for the actions of their contractors we recognise the landlord was taking appropriate action to follow-up the repair. As such, though there was an unreasonable delay in following this up, we recognise the landlord was attempting to mitigate the impact on the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident on 8 September 2023 to offer an appointment to replace the flooring on 18 and 19 September 2023. The resident declined this as he was on holiday until the end of September 2023. We do not consider that this delay was due to a failing by the landlord or that the lack of repairs during this time adversely affected the resident as he was not present at the property.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 6 October 2023 and arranged for the replacement of the flooring to take place on 25 and 26 October 2023. The landlord recorded it completed the repair on 26 October 2023 and the resident confirmed to us that the flooring was replaced around that time. In total the landlord took 268 calendar days to complete the replacement of the bathroom floor following the resident’s repair request. This was inappropriate. Though there were mitigating factors in the total time taken the landlord still greatly exceeded the timescales of its responsive repair policy.
In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the bathroom in that:
1. it did not take initially action to arrange repairs to the bathroom tiling or flooring when the resident first raised this on 31 January 2023, and did not create a repair order until 48 calendar days after this.
2. it greatly exceeded the timescales of its responsive repair policy for the repairs to the bathroom tiling, taking 101 calendar days to complete this.
3. it did not effectively monitor the repairs to the bathroom flooring after the resident complained this had not been completed on 11 – 12 May 2023 along with the other repairs.
4. it did not assess whether there was a potential health and safety risk from the lack of flooring in the bathroom, that may have required an emergency or temporary repair, after the resident reported injuring himself on this.
5. it did not give the resident notice of the planned attendance on 5 June 2023 to replace the bathroom flooring.
6. it greatly exceeded the timescales of its responsive repair policy for the repairs to replace the bathroom flooring, taking 268 calendar days to complete this.
In terms of the impact on the resident our view is that the significant delays in completing the repairs to the tiling and flooring of the bathroom would have reasonably caused the resident distress and a loss of enjoyment of his home. That said, there is no evidence that the delays in completing the repairs prevented the resident from using the bathroom during this time. We consider that a financial remedy from within the range of maladministration (between £100 and £600) would be proportionate to put things right. Considering the extended length of this maladministration though the financial remedy should have been towards the higher end of this range.
The landlord originally offered the resident £200 in its stage 2 response as compensation for its handling of the repairs. As part of the landlord’s response to the Ombudsman’s request for evidence it wrote to the resident on 13 May 2024. It stated that having reviewed the case it agreed there were unacceptable delays in the replacement of the bathroom flooring. It apologised to the resident for this and increased its offer of compensation to £500.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the Ombudsman expects landlords to try to resolve complaints through their complaint handling procedures. In this case, we acknowledge that a number of the failings identified occurred following the landlord’s stage 2 response and it did make this offer shortly after the Ombudsman contacted it to begin the investigation. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this offer of compensation would have been made if the resident had not contacted the Ombudsman. From this our view is that this compensation offer occurred outside of a satisfactory timeframe for it to be considered a genuine attempt to put things right with the resident.
The Ombudsman considers that had the landlord offered £500 in its stage 2 response, or shortly following the completion of the repair, it would have been an appropriate financial remedy to put things right. However, as the landlord unreasonably delayed offering this remedy until our investigation began the Ombudsman’s view is that this was a service failure. In recognition of this service failure, we have ordered the landlord to increase the level of financial redress and to apologise for this failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the bathroom.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report, including its delay in offering a suitable financial remedy, and the impact these had on the resident.
2. pay the resident £550 in compensation (inclusive of the £500 it previously offered) consisting of:
  1. £500 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of his home caused by its handling of the repairs to the bathroom.
  2. £50 in recognition of the unreasonable delay in offering the resident a suitable remedy for his complaint and the time and trouble of escalating the complaint to the Ombudsman.
3. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies he may owe the landlord.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This should include consideration of how the delays in responding to the repair requests occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.