The Guinness Partnership Limited (202302085)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302085

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A leak into the property and the associated repairs.
2. Damp and mould in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 17 December 2020. The property is described as a medium rise first floor flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Landlord obligations

Landlords have a duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of its properties, including drains, gutters, and external pipes. The landlord agrees to do so under the tenancy agreement. It agrees to keep in repair and working order the installations it provides for heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas, and electricity within the property.
The tenancy agreement outlines the resident’s and the landlord’s responsibilities. It states that the resident is responsible for:
1. Insuring the contents of the property and their own belongings.
2. Decorating the internal part of the property as often as necessary to keep them in reasonable decorative order.
3. Allowing access at any reasonable time to inspect or look at its condition or to carry out repairs to the home. It will give at least 24 hours notice except in an emergency.
The tenancy further states that the landlord will give at least 24 hours notice of a visit except in an emergency.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that:
1. Residents are expected to clear mould spots as soon as they appear. If it persists it will arrange an inspection and assess the underlying cause.
2. It will pay compensation in line with its compensation policy where it identifies a failure to deliver services it has committed to. This includes where furniture or belongings have been damaged and or distress and inconvenience has been caused. Each case will be considered on its own merits taking into account the individual circumstances of the resident and their household.
The landlord’s repairs policy defines emergency repairs as an immediate health and safety risk. An example is a flood or leak that cannot be contained or causes a risk of electric shock. The landlord will either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 24 hours of the repair being reported. The policy further states that:
1. The landlord will return within a reasonable timeframe to complete a repair if it carries out a temporary repair to make the situation safe. It will aim to attend routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
2. Residents are responsible for promptly reporting any repair or breakdown which the landlord is responsible to remedy.
3. Changes to agreed arrangements will be communicated clearly to the resident in advance where possible.
4. The landlord will not normally undertake repairs which, under the tenancy or lease agreement, are the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord has 2-stage complaints handling process. It will aim to resolve stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial payments of redress when it has failed to deliver a service. It will offer compensation:
1. For quantifiable loss or damage and aim to restore the resident to the position they were in before any loss or damage occurred. It may also offer payment in recognition for distress and inconvenience. The landlord will not offer compensation where the damage or loss was caused by circumstances beyond its control (such as through storm damage or flooding).
2. Based on the detriment caused to the individual or the household by its failure.

Summary of events

The landlord instructed its contractors to carry out various repairs between 19 August 2022 and 15 December 2022 in the property. This included repairs to a leaking toilet, damp and mould treatment and minor glazing repairs.
The landlord’s internal emails dated 2 November 2022 noted that the resident had agreed to the use of a dehumidifier to assist with drying the property, but he was concerned about the additional cost of running it. It arranged for an operative to inspect the windows, hinges, and bubble gasket as well as the front door to check if it was rotten. It said the resident would express concerns about the damaged flooring, but it was unsure on how to proceed as it is their responsibility. It also considered if any support could be offered to the resident for the cost of running the dehumidifier.
On 7 November 2022 the landlord raised works for a new front door, overhaul windows in the property and change bubble gasket to all windows, clean mould from window reveals and stain block, fit new bath panel and replace boxing in behind the toilet. It further noted in an internal email that a photograph of the hour meter on the dehumidifier should be taken when dropped off and picked up.
The landlord noted on 7 November 2022 that the resident reported that:
1. He had been reporting damp and mould for some time, but the landlord had made various unnecessary visits. This included sending the wrong operatives, missed appointments, and assessments which he felt had been a waste of time.
2. He had previously requested works to the window seals and a new door, but he was refused.
3. He had made several calls to the landlord to check up on the progress of works and the delay had caused damage to items including his flooring in his home.
4. The landlord agreed to replace the flooring with an exact match but had since advised that it would only install a standard one. He was unhappy with the landlord’s overall handling of the repairs and its response as the flooring had cost him a lot of money. He would like to be reimbursed for the losses incurred.
The landlord noted actions taken in its internal discussions. It said:
1. It attended and contained the toilet leak on 13 September 2022 and raised further works. It returned on 5 October 2022 to carry our plumbing works, but it left the bath panel off to dry. There were no notes to suggest the property was assessed for damp and mould even though the resident stated that the flooring was rotted, and mouldy and lino flooring was damaged.
2. A Works order raised for damp and mould on 28 September 2022 was cancelled on 30 September 2022 as it was included on the visit for 5 October 2022. However, notes do not confirm the works were completed.
3. It attended emergency works around 12 or 13 October 2022 regarding reports regarding a separate repair. It also noted the shower was leaking.
4. Works order raised on 12 October 2022 for a new shower and damp and mould treatment. Operative stated that they attended on 14 October 2022 and treated mould throughout.
5. It attended on 2 November 2022 to treat damp in living room and bedroom and dropped off a dehumidifier on 9 November 2022. The resident reported that the damp had become worse especially around windows and doors and thought this was due to the damaged seals.
6. Its staff attended on 7 November 2022 and raised repairs that were required to the windows and doors and other works. They confirmed that the cause of the damp was possibly the leak as the plumber felt that it had been ongoing for a while undetected. They further thought this was the case due to the amount of water saturated into the concrete under the bath causing the mould to spread.
7. Repairs to the windows and doors would be completed as they could be a contributing factor. Once the dehumidifier had been collected it could assess again to ensure this had resolved the issue.
8. There were records of multiple calls from the resident, but these were requests for new repairs or notes to existing repairs. There had been no chasing of repairs and no failed call backs or failings in communication.
9. It planned to collect the dehumidifier on 7 December 2022 and carry out further assessments of the damp and mould within the property.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 November 2022. It noted that:
1. The resident said the dehumidifier had been delivered but the property was still wet.
2. The resident was pleased with the works agreed to the windows, doors, vents, and seals but he wanted the works completed promptly and to be compensated for the time taken and the poor management to this stage.
3. He advised that the damp and mould issues with the doors and windows had been ongoing since September 2022 and caused damage to clothing and other personal items. He said he had also experienced stress and incurred additional expenses for heating the property and running the dehumidifier.
The landlord communicated in various emails between 16 November 2022 and 21 November 2022. The complaints team queried its repairs team for details of works carried on visits as these were not clear from the records. It asked what the operatives found on their visits and what plans were being put in place concerning the damp and mould. The repairs team responded that:
1. It had found no records of missed appointments.
2. The property was very cold upon its inspection, and it observed that the boiler was not on.
3. The leak in the bathroom would have made the property damp because it was not detected earlier.
4. It could not see any underlying cause for the condensation apart from the leak in the bathroom and lack of heating and ventilation.
5. It made it clear during its visit that it would not replace the vinyl flooring so the resident would have to claim on his content insurance for this. If the non-slip vinyl underneath was damaged it would replace this with its standard flooring, but the resident refused this.
6. It would arrange a further visit to discuss heating and ventilation again with the resident if the issues persisted after the repairs had been completed. It would also refer him for some energy advice if he needed assistance with his energy bills.
The landlord’s complaints team further queried, in an email dated 21 November 2022, that it took 1 month to attend the leak initially reported on 19 August 2022. It sought to understand if the leak in the bathroom caused mould around the property as noted from the pictures provided by the resident. It further said if the leak was potentially the sole cause of this damp and mould it may have to consider compensation because it took a month to resolve.
A manager in the repairs team responded that they believed the bath leak would have been resolved on the first visit. They said follow on works would have been carried out such as new taps and bath reseal. It reiterated that the leak from the bath could have soaked up in the concrete slab and travelled to other rooms. It said the main cause of the condensation was the lack of heating and ventilation in the property.
The landlord discussed the outcome of the stage 1 complaint investigation with the resident on 22 November 2022. It noted that:
1. The resident wanted the complaint escalated to the next stage as he was due to have an appointment, but it was cancelled. He was not specific about the appointment as he advised that there were various works outstanding, so he was unsure what the appointment was for.
2. It discussed the outcome with the resident over the phone, but he was not happy with the information provided. He said the repair was not completed on the first appointment and that it took multiple appointments and 3 months to complete. The landlord noted that the information on the system did not corroborate this.
3. The resident was not happy with the time it was taking to get the repairs resolved because his partner has asthma. He wanted to be reimbursed for the damage to his clothing as he had been reporting damp and mould since August 2022.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 23 November 2022. It said:
1. Having reviewed the case, it attended to the repairs within the expected time.
2. It had not found evidence of service failure as it had attended each appointment within its agreed timescales and had been attempting to resolve the issue. As the previous actions taken had not resolved the issue, it now had a plan in place to resolve the problem.
3. The resident would not be compensated for damage to his personal items, and he would have to claim compensation through his content insurance.
4. It was unable to find evidence to suggest that he was advised that his bathroom flooring would be replaced with an exact match of the damaged one. It said if the non-slip flooring needed replacing it would replace it with standard flooring.
5. It had found no evidence of any failings in its communication. It would escalate the complaint to the next stage as requested and aim to respond within 20 working days.
The landlord noted on 1 December 2022 that it contacted the resident as he was refusing access for works relating to damp and mould (works to replace all trickle vents to windows, all seals on opening sashes, bath panel, boxing in behind toilet, treat any mould in property and overhaul opening windows). It noted that:
1. The resident was not happy as he had lost income by taking time off work for appointments that were cancelled without communication.
2. The resident said a mould wash was completed recently but he was confident the mould would return as the property was damp from the previous leak.
3. He had approached a disrepair solicitor and they had advised him not to allow access to carry out repairs.
4. It had scheduled another appointment for 22 December 2022 and confirmed with the resident.
The landlord collected the dehumidifier on 7 December 2022. It said the machine should have run for approximately 648 hours, but the actual number was 110.2 hours so (4 and a half days). It said the dehumidifier was dropped off to dry the property out after a severe leak in the bathroom. It said the advice previously offered had not been followed as it observed that all the windows were shut and it was cold inside the property, which confirmed that the heating was not being used.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 20 December 2022. It said:
1. Following an independent review of the case it agreed with the findings in the stage 1 complaint.
2. The resident did not provide access for works agreed to resolve damp and mould in the property, but it had rescheduled the works for 22 December 2022.
3. It would like to reimburse £18 towards the cost of running the dehumidifier.
4. Regarding the bathroom flooring, it would be willing to replace with an ash grey poly safe flooring. The resident should contact his content insurance provider if he remained unhappy with the offer.
5. It had found no evidence of any failings in its overall handling of the repairs and its communication with the resident.

Actions following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The resident’s solicitor submitted a letter of claim to the landlord on 9 January 2022. It said this concerned the damp and mould affecting various areas of the property including a bath or shower leak. The landlord was advised not to make any attempts to carry out the repairs since housing disrepair protocol had started.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 February 2023 to arrange a mould wash, but he advised that he would have to check with his solicitors first.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord’s solicitors advised it against carrying out any works in relation to damp and mould until independent expert evidence had been obtained by both parties.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 February 2023 for assistance regarding the damp and mould in the property.
Between 1 March 2022 and 22 March 2022, the landlord attended the property and noted that it had cleaned all the mould. It said the resident advised that his legal case was not accepted by the solicitors due to the value of damage he was claiming. It also sought advice from its legal services team and noted that appointments had been booked in for the repairs and confirmed with the resident.
The landlord informed this Service on 24 June 2024 that it had since completed all the repairs in the property. It reviewed the handling of the resident’s complaint and wrote to him with its findings. It identified that it’s stage 1 response was delayed by 1 day and that it failed to address concerns raised during a telephone call in the response. It offered an additional £75 to the resident in compensation.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident’s reports of a leak in the property, his claim about damaged goods and the associated repairs.

The importance of clear record keeping, and management cannot be over emphasised, given the impact it has on landlords’ effective overall service provision. This Service’s knowledge and information spotlight report (KIM) explains how landlord’s services can be held back by weaknesses in data and information which can turn an ordinary service request into an extraordinarily protracted complaint. It further notes that if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.
It is evident from our review of this case that the landlord did not handle communication from and with the resident effectively. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it agrees to communicate effectively with residents, at all times, in relation to the delivery of its responsive repairs service and enable them to communicate effectively with it. In the first instance, when the resident reported a leak on 19 August 2022, it only noted in its repairs log that he had a toilet leak. It is not clear from the records if it probed further to determine the severity of the leak and if any areas in the property were affected. This is unreasonable as it classed the leak as a non-priority repair to be attended within 28 days.
According to its repairs policy a leak that cannot be contained is classed as an emergency repair, however, communications remain unclear around the actual events that occurred when the resident initially reported the toilet leak. This Service has also not seen evidence of any advice offered to the resident following his repair request on 19 August 2022 on the steps he could take to manage the leak whilst he was waiting for the repairs to be carried out. Also, the repairs log provided did not contain records of appointments booked or confirmed with the resident, dates operatives attended and works completed. For this reason, there has been no clarity or transparency around the resident’s complaint about cancelled appointments. This was also noted in the complaints investigation that some appointments appeared to have been cancelled but it remains unclear if any changes were communicated with the resident.
The resident asserted that it took 3 months to resolve the toilet leak and repairs, but the landlord responded that it resolved the repair within the timescales set out within in its policy. What we have seen from the evidence is that the resident was left with a leaking toilet for approximately 1 month, before the landlord attended to assess the leak on 13 September 2022. The landlord said its operatives resolved the leak on the aforementioned date, but they attended on 5 October 2022 to complete follow-on works. The repairs were however completed far outside the 28 days stated for non-priority repairs in its repairs policy. The landlord should have communicated any expected delays to the resident. Failure to do so led to the resident’s expectations not being met. This would have caused him some distress and frustration.
With regards to the damaged bathroom flooring, communication concerning the damage is unclear. The information in its repairs log does not clearly set out the condition of the property when the landlord visited on 13 September 2022. Considering that the resident initially reported the leak on 19 August 2022, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have recorded its findings following a thorough assessment of the leak and any damage that may have occurred. It is also unclear from the evidence the actual date the resident first reported the damage to the bathroom flooring.
The resident’s communications appear not to have been captured correctly between 19 August 2022 and 1 November 2022. He complained that there were delays in carrying out the repairs and that he telephoned various times to follow the progress of the repairs. The landlord said in its internal communications that although it received numerous phone calls from the resident, these were just requests for repairs. While this may have been the case, it has not evidenced that the issues or repairs requested by the resident were clearly noted in its records for future reference. As a result, there is no clear representation of the reports, or any concerns reported by the resident due to the lack of evidence.
There is evidence of some learning as the landlord agreed to change the flooring to a standard one, but its communications around this remain unclear. It said it would only change the non-slip vinyl with a standard one. Also, it offered the resident a dehumidifier to dry out the property, however the discussions leading up to this period, or concerns raised by the resident have not been seen by this Service. The landlord said the dehumidifier was dropped at the property to dry it out following a severe leak. It is unclear whether this was the toilet leak or the leak to the shower which records indicate the resident raised around October 2022.
The landlord took 25 days to attend a leak to the resident’s toilet and another 22 days to complete any follow-on works. This means it took approximately 47 days to complete a repair which its repairs policy states it would aim to complete within 28 days. It failed to ascertain the status of the leak or that it asked pertinent questions about how the leak was affecting the property. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations within this time such as a clear explanation for any delays and why it was unable to complete all the repairs within the times agreed in its repairs policy. This is not appropriate and would have caused the resident some frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord’s policy is quite clear in that it would not offer compensation for damaged goods if it was not at fault. Considering the poor communication and delays in attending the repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider compensation for any quantifiable loss or damage to restore the resident to the position he was in before any loss or damage occurred. Not because the incident occurred but due to its delay in attending the repair and its poor communication about the works. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord offered £18 to cover the additional costs incurred for the use of the dehumidifier but this did not put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s apology and additional offer of compensation to the resident on 24 June 2024. However, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress because they took place a considerable length of time after the complaints process had been exhausted. In light of the above, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about a leak and the associated repairs.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will:
1. Treat residents reporting damp and mould with empathy and respect and will not prejudge the reason for any issue.
2. Take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way where they result from issues that require repair.
3. Communicate with residents clearly and regularly regarding any actions it plans to take and any actions its residents are advised to take.
As noted earlier in the report, communications around the resident’s requests for repairs are unclear. This has also made it difficult to ascertain when the resident initially raised concerns about damp and mould in the property. Its internal communications or summary of actions indicate that this may have been around September or October 2022. We have noted that the landlord raised several work orders to its contractors to resolve the damp and mould around October 2022 and that it attended on 14 October 2022. The repair log does not however provide detailed information of the actual repairs carried out, just a description of works required and the date of completion.
Although the landlord’s complaints team speculated that its delay in attending to the earlier leak to the toilet could have partly contributed to the damp and mould, but it concluded that it was likely due to the lack of heating and ventilation. It is concerning that it failed to accept any responsibility or consider that the delay in assessing the toilet leak for approximately 25 days could have partly contributed to the damp and mould in other areas of the property. Its actions are not in adherence with its policy and lacks transparency.
This Service’s spotlight report on damp and mould published in October 2021, outlines that it should be treated as a high priority. Landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach, be proactive in identifying potential problems, extend investigations to other properties in a block, and clearly communicate to residents about actions. Whilst the evidence shows that some treatments were carried out, the landlord’s diagnosis of the cause of the damp or mould is not detailed as we have not been provided with reports of surveys other than a short summary which stated that the property was cold and likely not being heated. It is unclear from the evidence to what extent the property was affected by mould.
There is evidence of some learning as of 2 November 2022. We have seen that the landlord arranged an inspection of some areas of the property such as the windows to determine their condition. However, the repair log does not provide insight into the origin of the request for these works. Nevertheless, it raised works to renew the front door, windows, and vents. It also provided the resident a dehumidifier to put things right. In its internal communications it said it would reassess the property once the windows and doors had been replaced as they could be a contributing factor.
It is noted that the resident expressed some satisfaction with the steps taken by the landlord in their telephone conversation on 16 November 2022. However, he stated that the repairs had been poorly managed in the earlier stages, and he wanted to be compensated for the inconvenience. From the evidence seen the landlord first attempted to treat the mould on 14 October 2022. While this was a reasonable timeframe from when the report was initially raised (September or October 2022), it has not provided evidence that it clearly communicated with the resident.
This meant that the resident’s expectations were not managed. We have seen that the resident complained that his clothing and other personal items were damaged by mould. Communications around this also remain unclear as the landlord did not record a detailed summary of the issues raised by the resident in the repairs log. It only stated that the property needed to be treated for damp and mould and thereby failed to ascertain the extent of the damp and mould, if it had spread, and if advice was offered to him to control it. This is not appropriate.
Overall, there is some evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The lack of coordination, poor communication, poor record keeping is evident throughout the life of the case and would have caused the resident some inconvenience. The landlord sought to put things right and made arrangements for works to be done in the property in an attempt to resolve the damp and mould. It was unable to commence the works as it was denied access by the resident on 1 December 2022. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered the resident’s request for compensation for the damaged personal items in light of its failings. An order has been made to address this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the property and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.

Reasons

The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident in its handling of the leak in the property. It classed the leak as a non-priority repair without evidence of an assessment of the leak or issues raised on the initial call by the resident. It took approximately 25 days to attend the leak and it failed manage the resident’s expectations during this period. It failed to consider the impact of the delays on the resident and refused to offer compensation. According to its records, the repair was initially reported on 19 August 2022, but the repairs were not fully completed until around October 2022.
The landlord attended the property within a reasonable period of time to carry out some damp and mould treatment. However, it did not conduct a thorough investigation or diagnosis of the damp and mould from the evidence seen. This is not in line with its policy. It took steps to put things right for the resident by arranging works to renew the windows, front door, and vents in the property.

Orders

The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. A copy should be provided to this Service.
2. Pay the resident the amount of £600 broken down as:
  1. £425 for the distress, frustration, and inconvenience due to its handling of the residents reports of a leak and the associated repairs.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience to the resident for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  3. £18 previously offered to the resident for the cost of running the dehumidifier if it has not already been paid.
  4. £75 offered to the resident on 24 June 2024.
3. Ensure that any compensation offered is paid directly to the resident.
This Service has recently ordered the landlord to review its record keeping practices in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information. We will follow up with the landlord to ensure that it provides evidence of compliance with the order.

Recommendation

The landlord should re-consider the resident’s request for compensation for personal items damaged because of the leak or the damp and mould.