The Guinness Partnership Limited (202301313)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301313

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of a draught coming through his windows.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 5 October 2020. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 1 bedroom flat. The resident is autistic and partially deaf.
In September 2022, the landlord undertook an improvement project on the resident’s block which involved refurbishing the resident’s windows. During the refurbishment, the resident contacted the landlord to discuss concerns with the insulation of the new windows and asked it to install draught seals.
On 20 September 2022, 14 October 2022, 17 October 2022, and 2 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the windows were very draughty since the contractor completed the works and asked for the landlord to escalate the issue.
The landlord responded to the resident on 17 November 2022 and said it was exploring alternative solutions and would call him back once they had a response.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 November 2022 in which he said the new windows were “shocking” as they had no insulation. He said his property was now draughty and cold. The landlord did not formally log this complaint.
The resident continued to raise the issue, including on 23 January 2023 when he spoke to the landlord and advised he had been chasing the landlord for a solution since September, yet no one had attended the property to inspect.
During a home visit, conducted on 23 February 2023, the landlord confirmed it would fit draught excluders. This appointment took place on 15 March 2023.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 20 March 2023 during which it confirmed both windows had draught strips fitted and they could not do much more to improve the insulation. The surveyor said he would check with the contractor to confirm.
Following the landlord’s confirmation that it could not do anything else to improve the insultation, the resident raised a formal complaint on 24 March 2023. The key point of the complaint was the draught that he now experienced. The resident said it was worse for him due to his autism. He requested either secondary glazing or for the windows to be retuned to their original state.
The internal emails from 13 April 2024, show the landlord discussing if there were any other options available but that its contractor could offer no further assistance.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 April 2023. The resident responded the same date to say he was autistic and found the draught very “distressing.”
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 May 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It confirmed the resident had reported a draught through his windows since the refurbishment in September 2022.
2. It had completed the window refurbishment as per the grade listed specifications and that the windows had previously had a type of draught excluder on that could not be replaced.
3. It had discussed the issue with its maintenance team including the resident’s request for secondary glazing but confirmed this was not an option.
4. It confirmed its view that the contractor had refurbished the windows as expected and that it had made reasonable attempts to resolve the specific issue. However, its delivery manager would complete a further assessment of the windows on 10 May 2023.
5. It apologised for the distress and recognised that its communication had been poor and there had been numerous failed promises. It offered the resident compensation of £110 to reflect this and its delayed complaint response.
Following the home visit on 10 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the delivery manager had promised to address the window issues. However, later that afternoon, a contractor visited and said that they would install draught excluders, which were already in place.
The landlord responded on 12 May 2023 to say that its contractor had attended to double up the draught excluders. It confirmed that there were no further options available.
The resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on 19 May 2023. He said that the windows may be of an acceptable standard for a non-autistic person, but to him he found it “staggering” that the landlord had not mentioned the distress the draught caused him as an autistic person.
The landlord provided it stage 2 response on 28 May 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. Following the visit on the 10 May 2023, the landlord had found no issue with the bedroom window but found that the installation of an added excluder in the lounge could help rectify the issue.
2. Its contractor attended that same date, but the resident had refused access. It would arrange a further visit within 20 working days.
3. It reiterated its findings at stage 1 that its communication had been poor and the learning it had found. It reoffered the compensation previously offered.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on the contractor visit in June, July, August, and September 2023.
The landlord responded on 22 September 2023 to confirm it would ask the relevant team for an update.
The landlord arranged a further visit to the resident’s property which took place on 5 December 2023. The landlord confirmed on 10 January 2024 that it had been unable to find any draughts during the visit and therefore it considered the matter resolved.
The landlord undertook a review of the complaint, on 1 May 2024, following an evidence request by this Service. It confirmed its handling of the concerns was poor, it had delayed in fitting the draught excluders which then did not resolve the issue. It confirmed it had instructed a contractor to install secondary glazing in the property. It also acknowledged its poor complaint handling.
It offered compensation to the resident of £1,500, made up of the following:
1. £250 for its complaint handling.
2. £250 for poor communication.
3. £1,000 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures and legal obligations

The landlords responsive repair policy sets out that it will respond to routine repairs within 28 working days. It sets out that it will look to offer the resident a reasonable choice in making a repairs appointment and will always communicate clearly with a resident. It is responsible for maintaining the outside and structure of the home including the windows.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustment policy set out it will comply with its legal and regulatory responsibilities as set out in the Equality Act 2010. It will let residents know when it can provide reasonable adjustments. It will record and monitor the reasonable adjustments to help it review the effectiveness of its provision.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. At both stages where the landlord may take longer to respond, it will explain the delay to the resident, and it will not exceed a further 10 working days.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard requires registered providers to “treat all tenants with fairness and respect” and “demonstrate that they understand the different needs of tenants, including in relation to the equality strands and tenants with additional support needs”, with a specific expectation that providers will “demonstrate how they respond to those needs in the way they provide services and communicate with tenants”.

The landlords handling of the resident’s concerns of draughts in his property.

During the installation of the windows, the resident raised concerns about the lack of insulation on the windows. The landlord appropriately responded and informed the resident, while on site, that the works were not yet complete and would be monitored until completion. Given that it had not completed the works yet, this was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident reported the issue again on 20 September 2022, to which the landlord provided no response. This caused the resident to call the landlord on 14 October 2022. While it is not appropriate that the landlord had not at that point responded to the resident’s concerns, it said it would attend the property to inspect the windows. This highlighted a commitment to resolve the issue for the resident.
However, just under a month later after chasing the landlord on 17 October 2022 and 2 November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident on 10 November 2022 to say it was exploring other options and would call the resident back. Given that by this point it was almost 2 months since the resident had first raised the issue and in that time the landlord had promised a home visit, its lack of action was unsatisfactory.
Furthermore, the landlord has provided no evidence to show that it took any action to explore other options with its contractor or to arrange a home visit with the resident. When a landlord raises expectations that it will take action, it needs to have effective systems in place to ensure it follows through. Failing to do so caused the resident to spend time chasing the landlord for updates.
The resident continued to contact the landlord throughout December 2022 and into January 2023 but received no response. This lack of effective communication indicates that the landlord did not have an effective system in place to track and monitor resident contact, ensuring timely responses to queries. As a result, the resident experienced delays in having the windows inspected to determine if it could take any action. This is inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of empathy towards the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord, via telephone, on 23 January 2023, again to ask for an update and asked it to escalate the matter. Following this, the landlord appropriately arranged for a home visit to the property to inspect the windows in person on 23 February 2023. While this was 5 months after the resident had first raised the issue, the landlord’s actions showed a renewed commitment to resolve the issue.
On 28 February 2023, the resident requested the landlord to install secondary glazing. The landlord responded at that point and said it would not consider secondary glazing at this point. Given that its contractor had confirmed it would install draught excluders, it was reasonable at this point for the landlord to decline the secondary glazing and to wait and see if the draught excluders resolved the situation satisfactorily.
Following the contractor visit, the resident continued to report to the landlord that the windows were causing a draught and were much worse than prior to the refurbishment. This led him to raising a formal complaint. Internal emails show that the landlord understood its contractor could take no further action to resolve the issue. While the Ombudsman understands that the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors, given that the resident was insistent on his stance that the windows were worse, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered getting a second opinion from a different contractor or to have considered if the secondary glazing was a suitable option at that stage. Instead, it kept the stance that it could do nothing further. This was unreasonable and would have frustrated the resident who had been dealing with the issue for an extended period.
Having had no contact from the landlord since his formal complaint, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates throughout April 2023. The landlord responded each time to say it was awaiting a further update from its regional senior manager. Given the extended period the issue had been going in for, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have recognised that and expediate its response.
The landlord conducted a home visit on 10 May 2023 and arranged for its contractor to attend the same date to install further draught excluders. The resident was unhappy with this and so declined that solution. The landlord appropriately set out, on 12 May 2023, why its contractor had wanted to install the draught excluders and confirmed again to the resident that it could offer no other solution. While the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its contractors, given the resident’s persistent complaint that the flat was much draughtier than before, this would have been a further opportunity to have explored the possibility of a second opinion or to have considered the secondary glazing.
The landlord advised the resident, in its stage 2 response, on 28 May 2023 that the contractor would visit again within 20 working days to install the further draught excluders. Despite the resident chasing the landlord from May through to October 2023, the contractor never attended the appointment. This is not appropriate and is well outside of the landlord’s promise that it would attend within 20 working days. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord ever chased the contractor following each of the resident’s communications with the landlord. This further highlighted a complete disregard to the situation the resident found himself in and is an indication of a lack of an effective system to track and monitor outstanding repairs.
The landlord then responded on 13 October 2023 to ask if it could complete a home visit to inspect the windows further. When questioned why it needed to complete a further inspection, the landlord explained that it wished to attend with someone who had the technical knowledge to assess the windows and agree a course of action. While this is appropriate, it is unclear why it had taken numerous visits and over a year of constant chasing from the resident for the landlord to arrange for a person with the technical knowledge to attend. This is unreasonable. Landlords need to ensure that when they attend properties to inspect issues, they attend with staff who possess the correct expertise at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with evidence of the home visit; however, the available evidence suggests it took place on 5 December 2023, and the resident was informed that work on his windows would begin following the visit. On 10 January 2024, the landlord told the resident that no further action would be taken on the windows and considered the issue resolved. While it is unsatisfactory that the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations about undertaking further work, it is entitled to rely on its qualified staff to determine if additional work is necessary. Furthermore, the landlord clearly explained why it could not proceed with further work.
In its response, it explained that it could not find any evidence of draughts and cited this as one of the reasons for not proceeding with further work. In cases of such disagreements, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to clearly communicate its decision to the resident and provide a well-reasoned explanation. Although the landlord had raised the resident’s expectations about completing the work, it was reasonable and appropriate for it to explain its reasoning under the circumstances.
The Ombudsman understands that following the evidence request made from this Service, the landlord undertook a further review of this case. In that review the landlord advised that it was going to install secondary glazing in the resident’s property. While this outcome would significantly improve the resident’s living situation, it is completely inappropriate that it took 18 months of the resident constantly raising the concern with the landlord for the landlord to agree to this option.
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, including installing the secondary glazing. 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 made the decision to install secondary glazing during the complaints process, it likely would have been satisfactory in putting things right.
Throughout the complaint process, the resident repeatedly informed the landlord that the draught had a significant impact on him due to his autism diagnosis. Given the resident’s known vulnerability, the landlord is expected, under both the Equality Act 2010 and the Social Housing Regulator’s Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard, to demonstrate that it understood the resident’s needs and respond to them appropriately in its services and communications. However, the landlord has provided no evidence that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or the specific impact the draught had on him. Landlords need to ensure they consider the specific impact that such issues have on resident’s and consider if any additional works would be necessary the circumstances.
Furthermore, despite the resident raising it on numerous occasions, the landlord never acknowledged the resident’s autism and the specific impact the draught had on him in any of its communication with him. The landlord’s lack of response to the resident’s specific concern was unreasonable and inadequate and shows a significant lack of understanding of both its legal obligations and its own reasonable adjustment policy.
In the complaint, the resident also mentioned that the landlord claimed he had missed several appointments. The resident explained that this was because he is deaf and often unable to hear a knock at the door. While the extent of the resident’s disability is unknown, he made it clear on many occasions that he often could not hear his phone ringing and that visitors to the property would need to knock loudly and possibly several times for him to hear the door. Despite being aware of his disability, the landlord blamed the resident for the missed appointments and never acknowledged that it was due to its oversight in communicating the need to knock louder to its contractors. This response to the resident’s disability was unreasonable and inadequate, highlighting a significant lack of understanding of its legal obligations.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of this issue fell well below the standard expected by the Ombudsman. There was a significant delay between the time the resident first reported the issue and when the landlord took any action. When the landlord tried to rectify the issue and it did not work, it claimed there was nothing further it could do and failed to explore other options. It did not acknowledge the impact of the situation on the resident, particularly given his autism diagnosis, and did not consider the specific effects on him. Additionally, the landlord blamed the resident for missing appointments, despite not telling its contractors to knock loudly or adjust their usual communication methods.
This Service is content that the landlord has since sought to put things right by agreement to the secondary glazing, offering compensation commensurate with its failing and the significant learning it has identified following the complaint.
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.
A compensation order has therefore been made for £1,500, made up of the following:
1. £1,000 for the time, trouble and inconvenience spent in pursuing the matter.
2. £250 for poor communication.
3. £250 for failing to consider the resident’s autism and deafness.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident first raised his complaint on 17 November 2022, which the landlord did not acknowledge. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it would acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. Its lack of acknowledgement of the complaint was not in line with its policy and caused the resident to experience a significant delay in receiving a resolution of his issue.
The resident raised a further formal complaint on 24 March 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge this until 14 April 2023. This was 12 working days after it should have done as per its policy and unreasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 May 2023. This was 5 working days after the response was due. While this delay was minimal, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) sets out that where the landlord delays in providing a response, it must communicate that delay to a resident to manage expectations. The landlord failed to do that in this case and caused the resident to chase the landlord for updates.
Following the stage 1 response, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome. The landlord responded and said the resident could either escalate the complaint to stage 2 or it could ask the contractor to return. This is not appropriate; landlords must not have an either, or approach to complaint handling. It would have been appropriate for it have agreed to escalate the complaint and arrange for the contractor to visit the property.
The resident confirmed he wished to escalate his complaint on 19 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint, in line with its policy, on 22 May 2023.
It provided its stage 2 response, in line with its policy, on 28 May 2023.
Following referral to this Service, the landlord undertook a further review of the complaint and accepted that its complaint handling had fallen below the expected standard. While it is reasonable that the landlord reviewed and accepted its failings in its complaint handling, it should have done that at the earliest opportunity and not following a referral to this Service.
The landlord offered compensation to the resident of £250 for the failings in its complaint handling and set out that its staff had undertaken training on complaint handling. While the Ombudsman is content that the landlord has sought to put things right by undertaking training and offering compensation to the resident, given the delay to reach the outcome, it is not enough to avoid an adverse finding in this case.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a draught in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the compensation to the resident of £1,750. This is to be paid less any compensation previously paid in this case and is made up of the following:
1. £1,500 for the failings in its handling of the draught.
2. £250 previously offered for its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination a senior member of staff must write to the resident to apologise for the failings found in this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must arrange for its staff to undertake comprehensive training to enhance its understanding of neurodiversity within its policies and practises and understand the implications for residents.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide confirmation on whether it has fitted the secondary glazing. If not, it must provide the resident and this Service with a timebound action plan setting out when it will complete the installation.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In January 2023, we published our spotlight on Attitude, respect, and rights; A relationship of equals and in May 2023 we published our spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight reports. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight reports unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.