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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202300585)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300585

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 December 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of water ingress in the bedroom.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the deed of assignment dated October 2015. The property is a 3–bedroom house. The landlord advised this Service that the resident has asthma for which she uses an inhaler and previously had treatment for an illness.
  2. The resident first reported a damp patch in the bedroom on 25 August 2020. The landlord attended on 2 September 2020. The case notes say the contractor was unable to access the area outside for an inspection as the house was on a slope. Furthermore, the roof gully was blocked, and the rainwater pipe was overflowing.
  3. In October and November 2020, 2 further visits were made. The case notes say that contractors were unable to gain access, with the resident saying she was unavailable to provide access internally. The repair logs show works were completed on 15 March 2021. These works included refixing any loose tiles and clearing out the gutters and downpipe.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2021, questioning why access was required inside “when the problem was outside”. The landlord’s case notes for 12 April 2021 said that it would liaise internally regarding scaffolding being erected for the work to be carried out. On 16 April 2021, the case notes said that the resident confirmed the works were carried out, however she “didn’t see anyone there”. She further enquired as to what works were carried out. The case notes show that the landlord left a telephone message for the resident explaining what works were carried out, and to make contact should she have any further issues.
  5. On 21 March 2023, a stock condition survey was carried out which identified damp in the property. The landlord discussed the damp with the resident and carried out a damp and mould assessment on 23 March 2023. The case notes said that there was no mould but the resident was waiting for scaffolding due to water ingress.
  6. The resident contacted this Service on 5 April 2023 saying that there was damp in the bedroom, and she wanted the landlord to correctly remedy the water ingress. The following day the resident contacted the landlord requesting an update in relation to “follow on works”.
  7. On 27 June 2023, this Service contacted the landlord on behalf of the resident requesting it raise a stage 1 complaint. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 12 July 2023. It outlined the action it had taken previously, in relation to the damp reported in 2020. It went on to say that it had instructed a specialist contractor to attend to the recent report as a matter of urgency, with an “estimated overall completion” date of 20 working days. It offered the resident a total of £135 compensation. This was made up of £100 for the time and trouble she experienced due to the delay to complete the repair, £25 for the delayed complaint response, and £10 for its poor communication.
  8. In July 2023, the resident and landlord liaised. The resident had said that she did not receive the stage 1 response, so the landlord sent it by post. The resident also asked when the scaffolding would be erected. Case notes for 31 July 2023 said that there was a works order open however no date had been booked in. The scaffolding was authorised for installation on 3 August 2023 and was arranged to be erected on 29 August 2023.
  9. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 30 August 2023. She said that she had “wasted a whole day” waiting for the contractor to attend to erect the scaffolding and repair the roof. She said that she was advised the contractor’s vehicle had broken down and therefore it would not be attending on 29 August 2023 as arranged.
  10. On 15 September 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said that the delay in carrying out the works was “largely due to a change in contractor”. It went on to apologise to the resident for its failings, identified learning, and increased the compensation offered to £210. This included the £135 offered at stage 1, £65 for the additional delays in carrying out the repair, and £10 for the missed appointment in relation to the scaffolding. The case notes confirmed the repair was completed on the same day (15 September 2023).
  11. In June 2024, the landlord reviewed the complaint and increased its offer of compensation to the resident. During recent contact with the resident, she advised that there was damp in another part of the bedroom, but she had not reported this to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress in the bedroom

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy provides response times of 24 hours for emergency repairs, and 28 days for routine repairs.
  2. The landlord introduced a specific damp and mould policy in May 2022. It says that:
    1. It takes responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way where they result from issues that require repair.
    2. It will ensure its staff are trained to enable them to spot potential causes of damp, mould, and condensation so they can advise residents, diagnose problems, and provide solutions.
    3. When a particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issue is identified it will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment. This might result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances, for example providing and funding dehumidifiers.
    4. Any repairs that are required to be carried out will be dealt with in accordance with its repairs policy.
  3. The landlord provided this Service with a copy of its damp and mould self-assessment based upon the spotlight report on the mould. It says:
    1. For all reported cases of damp and mould, staff complete a thorough inspection and conduct repairs.
    2. Any resident who has not made contact or received contact from the landlord for more than 1 year is contacted to ensure they have the support they need and to confirm there are no issues in their home.
    3. Data analysis is used to highlight repeat damp and mould cases. This is to ensure root cause identification is carried out and necessary action taken to remediate the problem.
  4. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as leaks as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset, and in some cases different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. Nevertheless, the spotlight report on damp and mould says “landlords should identify opportunities for extending the scope of their diagnosis within buildings, for example by examining neighbouring properties, to ensure the response early on is as effective as possible.”
  5. It has been evidenced that the resident first reported a damp patch in the bedroom on 25 August 2020. A contractor visited on 2 September 2020 and was unable to access the necessary area using a ladder as the house was on a slope. Although the repair was not successfully completed, the landlord attended within 6 working days, which was prompt and in line with its routine repair policy timescale of 28 days.
  6. The landlord visited a further 2 times on 19 October and 4 December 2020, with the resident also chasing the roof repair on 12 December 2020. The landlord said that it was unable to gain access inside to “check further”. The resident has a responsibility to provide the landlord with reasonable access to the property. This is in line with the tenancy agreement conditions. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord took any proactive steps to gain access, which was not appropriate. It also was not in line with its repairs policy, which says if it is unable to gain access it will take appropriate action to gain access to complete a repair. This is despite acknowledging in an internal email on 4 January 2023 that “if access was an issue a letter could be sent to the resident”.
  7. While deciding not to enforce access may have been an appropriate use of discretion in the circumstances, the landlord could have explored other ways of facilitating access in a way the resident felt able to accept. For example, it could have been flexible regarding days and times of appointments, talked through what would happen during the appointment, and addressed any specific concerns.
  8. The repair log shows works were completed on 15 March 2023. These works included refixing any loose tiles and clearing out the gutters and downpipe. This was 202 days after the repair was reported and significantly outside of its policy timescale, which was not appropriate.
  9. On 5 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord questioning why internal access was required. The landlord responded saying it would escalate the matter to its maintenance manager. This was appropriate and resolution focused, although it is not clear from the records if this action was taken.
  10. On 16 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord saying that extensive works were required to remedy the damp in the bedroom. However, in order for the landlord to fully assess the issue it would have needed internal access to the property, which was the responsibility of the resident to provide.
  11. A stock condition survey was carried out on 21 March 2023. It identified there was damp in the bedroom. The same day, the resident advised the landlord that scaffolding would be needed to carry out any repairs. A damp and mould assessment was carried out on 4 April 2023 with the case notes saying there was no mould present, and again noting that scaffolding would be needed to carry out the necessary repair. This assessment was carried out within 6 working days, which was prompt and in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
  12. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 April 2023 requesting a call back to discuss the necessary works. No evidence was provided to suggest the landlord responded to the resident or provided any meaningful information. This was not appropriate and was evidently frustrating for the resident.
  13. A stage 1 complaint was raised on 27 June 2023 following intervention from this Service. The landlord responded on 12 July 2023 outlining the action it took to address the initial repair. It also said that it would instruct a specialist contractor “as a matter of urgency” to address the recent repair. It gave the resident an overall timescale of 20 working days to complete the repair. However, the repair log shows that the landlord took 7 working days to raise the repair. This was unreasonable given it advised the resident it would act as a matter of urgency. The delay in raising the repair contributed to a delayed resolution for the resident, which was unfair.
  14. The landlord’s stage 1 response outlined steps it took to put things right, which was appropriate. This included identifying learning from its failings and offering the resident £100 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience she experienced due to the delays in completing the repair and £10 for failing to return her call of 6 April 2023. While it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation, this amount was not in line with its compensation policy because the “issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience” to the resident.
  15. The resident chased the landlord on 28 July 2023 questioning when the scaffolding was going to be erected and the works started. The landlord replied on 31 July 2023 saying that a job had been opened but a date had not been booked in. The appointment was then arranged for 16 August 2023. It was not appropriate that the landlord again failed to promptly arrange the necessary appointments with the resident, despite explaining in its stage 1 response that it would do so urgently.
  16. The resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 30 August 2023 following a missed appointment by the landlord’s contractors on 29 August 2023. She said that she had “wasted a whole day”, and only when the repair was completed should the landlord assess the level of distress and inconvenience caused to her. The repair was evidenced as completed on 15 September 2023, which was 164 days after the damp and mould assessment and significantly outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 28 days.
  17. The same day the landlord sent its stage 2 response, upholding the resident’s complaint. It said that the delays “were largely down to a change in contractor”, however it acknowledged that the length of time to carry out the repair was “not acceptable”. It apologised for the distress its failing had caused the resident and offered her an additional £65 for the delay in completing the repair and £10 for the missed appointment on 29 August 2023.
  18. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain the reasons for the delay in carrying out the work and accepting its failings. However, in responding to the resident’s complaint, it attributed the delay to a changeover in contractors. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have conducted a stress test on its systems in advance of the change in repair provider. This could have assisted it in being confident that any associated system change allowed continued monitoring of unresolved repairs.
  19. After the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP), the landlord wrote to the resident on 20 June 2024. It outlined the events of the complaint and where it had failed in its service to her. It also highlighted improvements it had made and offered her further compensation. While this response was resolution focused and considered the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes), it was not appropriate that these actions were not taken until 9 months after the end of the complaints process. Where an offer of redress is awarded late in a protracted process, it is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles or the Complaint Handling Code for a landlord to make an (often substantial or disproportionate) offer of redress at the end of a long process with the intended effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further.
  20. In summary, the landlord accepted its failings and that the length of time it took to resolve the repair was not acceptable. The evidence clearly shows that it was not proactive in addressing the damp in the bedroom, despite being aware of the resident’s health conditions. It took 5 months to address the repair reported in August 2020 and 6 months to complete the repair reported in April 2023. The resident had advised the landlord of the need for scaffolding to complete the repair on more than 1 occasion and its own contractor identified the need during the first inspection, and so this avoidably further delayed the repair. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water ingress in the bedroom.
  21. Given the above, the Ombudsman has awarded compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. Our order includes a rent related element based on a refund of approximately 10% for the delay period. The rent figures have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.
  22. As a result, a total of £677.83 has been awarded to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the property. This equates to 10% of the weekly rent (£129.92) for 28 weeks covering the period between 25 August 2020 and 15 March 2021 and 10% of the weekly rent (£137.28) for 23 weeks covering the period between 4 April 2023 and 15 September 2023. Also, an additional £150 has been ordered in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delay in dealing with the damp.
  23. This Service acknowledges the steps the landlord had outlined in its letter of 20 June 2024 to implement learning and changes for service improvements. Therefore, we have not made any learning orders in recognition of the work the landlord has already done.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident’s stage 1 complaint was raised on 27 June 2023 and the landlord responded on 12 July 2023. This was 11 working days later. Although this was 1 day outside of its policy timescale of 10 working days, the length of the delay was minimal and would not have caused the resident any significant detriment. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint and offered the resident £25 compensation, which was reasonable.
  3. The resident requested to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 30 August 2023. The landlord responded on 15 September 2023, which was 12 working days later and within its policy timescale.
  4. In summary, the delay at stage 1 was minimal, and the landlord apologised and offered the resident £25 compensation which was appropriate. There was no further complaint handling failure at stage 2. Therefore, the landlord’s offer is considered reasonable redress.


Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress in the bedroom.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination (adjusted to allow for the Christmas period), the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report in relation to its response to her reports of damp, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £827.83, made up of:
      1. £677.83 to reflect her loss of enjoyment of the property in relation to its response to her reports of water ingress in the bedroom.
      2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its response to the reports.
  2. Within 10 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to carry out a damp survey and produce a repairs action plan for the property, to be completed in line with its damp and mould self-assessment. This is to be shared with the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £25 it already offered to her in its stage 1 response for complaint handling.