The Guinness Partnership Limited (202302231)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302231

The Guinness Partnership Limited

10 October 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns relating to the replacement of her front door.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and the property is a semi-detached 2-bedroom house. The resident has vulnerabilities in relation to mental health.
The case notes show that the resident’s front door was replaced on 14 August 2020. The same day the resident contacted the landlord to say she was unhappy with the new door as it restricted the light into the property. The landlord advised the resident that the door would not be changed as long as it was secure.
On 25 August 2020, the resident requested to raise a formal complaint saying that the lack of natural light was affecting her mental and physical health. Furthermore, she said she was having to use the hallway light more which was affecting her financially.
Between November 2020 and May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord 5 times in relation to her concern regarding the lack of natural light from the front door. The case note show that the landlord left a voicemail message for the resident saying, “the issue was in hand.”
A new housing officer was appointed to the resident in 2023. On 27 February 2023, the landlord visited the resident where she explained that she was unhappy with the front door as it had not been installed “like for like” when it was replaced. In addition, she said that she had not received a response to a complaint she raised.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 March 2023 saying that due to the length of time since the door was installed it was unable to assist her further.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 2 March 2023 expressing her dissatisfaction regarding the lack of response to her previous complaint. She also said that she was advised planned works regarding the door would be reviewed. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 April 2023 saying that:
1. Contractors offered 2-3 options for door replacements, and this was in line with its programme of works.
2. The term “like for like” meant that the item would be replaced with the same item which provided similar if not better functionality. Furthermore, the new door was adequate for its purpose and was secure.
3. It was not essential for the hallway to have natural light as it was not living space.
4. It offered the resident £20 compensation for the delay in providing its response.
The resident escalated her complaint on 18 April 2023 saying the door was not fit for purpose as it “takes out all the light, particularly in the winter”. Also, she said she had raised the matter at the time but had several failed call backs.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023 apologising for its failings and offering the resident £100 compensation. It also outlined the learning it would take from the complaint.
The resident later contacted this Service, and we wrote to the landlord on 12 March 2024 advising it of the complaint. Following this, the landlord sent another response to the resident on 18 March 2024. It said that:
1. Its original offer of redress was not adequate and did not reflect its current compensation matrix.
2. It outlined its “mistakes” and accepted its failings.
3. It offered the resident £400 compensation.
During recent contact with this Service the resident said that the new door did not let in any light into her hallway and that this was impacting her mental health and wellbeing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the lack of natural light has had on her health and wellbeing. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident has vulnerabilities in relation to mental health and does not dispute the resident’s claims that the situation impacted her mental health. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim.
The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she feels her health has been affected by its actions or inactions. However, the Ombudsman has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
It has been evidenced that the resident made the landlord aware of her dissatisfaction with the installation of the new front door on 14 August 2020. Given this, this investigation will focus on events from the beginning of this period to the stage 2 response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns relating to the replacement of her front door

It has been evidenced that the resident raised concerns on 14 August 2020 about the new front door the same day it was installed. The call log shows the landlord contacted the resident the same day but there was no response. This was appropriate and in line with its service response time of 2 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 24 August 2020 saying she was unhappy with the new door that had been installed, as it prevented natural light entering the property. Furthermore, the lack of light affected her mentally as she had depression. The landlord explained to the resident that the door was a “like for like” and would not be changed as it was fitted and secure. The landlord’s response was in line with its repair policy that says the decision about what to replace, when to replace it and what the landlord will replace it with, will be made at its discretion.
Nevertheless, its planned programme maintenance procedure says a post inspection should be carried out to ensure the works are completed correctly. There is no evidence to suggest this was carried out. This was not appropriate as the landlord failed to adhere to its procedure. Furthermore, it was a missed opportunity to visit the resident to demonstrate it was taking her concerns seriously and to clearly explain why it would not be changing the door.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 25 August 2020 outlining her concerns that the lack of natural light was affecting her mental and physical health. The landlord responded to the resident over the phone, echoing its explanation of 24 August 2020. This was not appropriate as no formal response was provided to the resident and the landlord did not adequately address her concerns.
On 20 November 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that the front door was temperamental. There was no evidence provided to suggest that this report was responded to. This was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repairs policy that says routine repairs will be addressed within 28 days.
On 8 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to report she was unhappy with the front door. The call log shows a phone call was made on 29 January 2021 but there were no notes recorded to explain what action was taken. This was not appropriate because if there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management says record keeping is a core function of a repairs service. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
On 11 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord saying she was unhappy that she did not receive a call back following her contact request from January 2021. The landlord’s case notes show that a voicemail was left for the resident on 13 May 2021, saying the matter was “in hand”. There was also a note saying “attended,” however this Service is unclear as to what this meant. There was no evidence to suggest that any meaningful action was taken which is not appropriate.
As mentioned above, the spotlight report on knowledge and information management says a landlord should keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, which is vital to provide an audit trail. It also helps this Service to understand the landlord’s actions and confirm that an action took place. In this case the evidence has not been comprehensive to demonstrate the action the landlord took.
Following the appointment of a new housing officer, the landlord visited the resident on 27 February 2023. The resident said that she had made a complaint regarding the front door but did not receive a response. The landlord advised that it would provide her with an update, which was reasonable.
However, while it followed up promptly on 1 March 2023, the landlord said that due to the length of time since the door was installed it was unable to assist further. It was not appropriate that the landlord said it could not assist the resident especially as it was aware that the resident had tried to raise a formal complaint and did not receive a formal response.
On 2 March 2023, the resident remained dissatisfied with this and again raised a stage 1 complaint. She said that:
1. She did not receive a response to her previous formal complaint.
2. She had not chased the matter sooner due to “personal reasons.”
3. She had fallen down the stairs 3 times due to the lack of light.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 5 April 2023. It explained that the resident was given door options to choose from and the door was adequate for purpose and secure. It also said it was not essential for the hallway to have natural light as it was not living space. While this was reasonable, it did not demonstrate that the landlord was taking a sympathetic or understanding approach to the resident’s concerns, which was not appropriate.
The resident disputes that she was given door options to choose from. While the landlord’s planned programme maintenance procedure refers to consulting residents on “details of a project” it is unclear from the procedure if this is compulsory. Nevertheless, if the landlord is relying on this information in its formal response, it should demonstrate that it did so. The landlord has not evidenced that it gave the resident a choice and this was therefore not appropriate.
In addition, the resident had raised concerns regarding the lack of light being a safety issue. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) landlords have a duty to ensure the property is free from hazards such as falls on stairs. It explains that good lighting at the top and bottom of the stairs reduces the possibility of misstep or slips.
The landlord failed to investigate the safety issue reported by the resident on 2 March 2023, thus failing to meet its obligations under HHSRS. This Service has acknowledged that action regarding the lighting was taken after the internal complaints process (ICP) was exhausted.
The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 April 2023, saying the door “takes out all the light, particularly in the winter”. The landlord responded on 14 June 2023 outlining the action it took to investigate the complaint and reiterated that as the door was fit for purpose it would not be replaced.
In response to the resident’s concerns regarding the lighting it said, “The hall is not considered a living space therefore the necessity for natural light is not essential if there is adequate lighting in place to ensure the space could be passed through safely for access.” While this response was reasonable, the landlord had not carried out an inspection in order to say that there was adequate lighting in the property until 12 October 2023 and this was therefore not appropriate.
On 23 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord reporting that no one had “ever inspected the door”. There was no evidence to suggest that this was responded to and was another missed opportunity to inspect the door and lighting concerns.
After the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s ICP, the landlord took the following action between October 2023 and March 2024:
1. Carried out a post inspection of the front door.
2. Changed the light switches in the hall and landing to be 2-way switches, allowing both lights to be controlled upstairs or downstairs.
3. Provided the resident with a further apology letter, which outlined its mistakes, accepted its failings, and details the lessons learned.
While it is acknowledged that some steps were taken to investigate the resident’s concerns, it was not appropriate that these actions were delayed and did not happen until the end of the complaints process.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns relating to the replacement of her front door.
This is because the resident had reported 6 times between 14 August 2020 and 11 May 2021 that she was unhappy with the installation of the front door and raised concerns about the lack of lighting. She also said that she had fallen down the stairs 3 times. Despite this no inspection was carried out by the landlord over the 9-month period.
Once a visit did take place (27 February 2023) this was a routine visit by the housing officer with no assessment being made in relation to the resident’s concerns regarding the lack of lighting.
Furthermore, on 23 August 2023, the resident advised the landlord that no inspection had ever been made following the installation of the door. Despite this it took the landlord a further 50 days to carry out a post inspection. This was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s planned programme maintenance procedure, which says post inspections of completed works should be carried out on a weekly cycle. Furthermore, the landlord commits to investigate and respond to customer complaints as and when they arise.
Overall, the landlord was entitled to use it discretion when deciding whether to replace the front door as outlined in its policy. Nevertheless, it failed to meet its obligations under HHSRS and adhere to its planned programme maintenance procedure. The resident raised several concerns regarding the lighting and told the landlord that she had fallen down the stairs 3 times. As a result, £700 compensation has been awarded to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to her between August 2020 and June 2023. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, based on the issue having taken a long time to resolve and resulting in moderate inconvenience with a demonstrable impact on the customer or the household.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it aims to provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
It has been evidenced that the resident said she was going to make a complaint on 24 August 2020. She reiterated this on 25 August 2020 saying she wanted to log an official complaint. The landlord’s case notes show that a complaint was logged on 2 September 2020, and it chased a complaint response internally on 3 and 4 September 2020.
The landlord contacted the resident by telephone on 4 September 2020 saying it would not be changing the front door. Given the landlord logged a complaint for the resident on 2 September 2020, a formal response should have been provided as per its policy. Therefore, the telephone response was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy. During that call it the resident said she was going “to speak to Shelter externally about it.” This further demonstrated the resident’s dissatisfaction, and it is at this point that the landlord should have recognised the need for a formal written response to be provided to the resident.
On 2 March 2023, the resident sent an email to the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction at receiving “no response”. The landlord’s case notes for 6 March 2023 say that the resident wanted to make a complaint. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 5 April 2023. This was 22 working days later and significantly outside of its policy timescale of 10 working days. It apologised for the delay and offered the resident £20 compensation. While it was resolution focused to offer the resident compensation, the amount offered was not sufficient to put things right, given the resident had been trying to raise a formal complaint since August 2020 which was a delay of over 2.5 years.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 18 April 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. This was 38 working days later and outside of its policy timescale of 20 working days. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered the resident a total of £100 compensation to put things right. This was resolution focused, however not sufficient to put things right given that both responses were delayed and there was a significant delay in raising the initial complaint.
Following intervention from this Service, the landlord sent a further response on 18 March 2024. It increased its offer of compensation to £400 in recognition for the delayed responses and its poor communication with the resident. It also said it had developed a new training programme for its complaint handlers and reviewed its complaint policy.
While the landlord took the above action, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The revised financial offer of £400 was, however, reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation in this matter.
The landlord introduced a new complaint handling policy in April 2024. Therefore, we have not ordered any learning in recognition that this has already been carried out by the landlord in updating its policy and providing training for its staff.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns relating to the replacement of her front door.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £1,100, made up of:
  1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her in relation to the landlord’s response to her concerns about the replacement of her front door.
  2. £400 already offered to her for the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint.
  3. This can be reduced by any amount already paid.
Within in 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to assess its internal recording procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This should include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation KIM for landlords and relevant staff if this has not been done recently.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.