The Guinness Partnership Limited (202303154)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303154

The Guinness Partnership Limited

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A missed appointment on 3 October 2022.
2. Contractors attending the property on 7 October 2022 and not completing repair works.
3. Discrimination towards himself.
4. Repairs to plastering within the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has occupied the property under a secured tenancy since 2017. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities associated with the resident.
The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a medium rise building. The resident has previously contacted this Service about other complaints they have made against the landlord. Of relevance to this investigation is a complaint the resident made in 2022 about the landlord’s handling of repairs, repairs appointments, and the resident’s views that the landlord discriminated against them.
The landlord said it mistakenly assessed a letter from this Service, dated 22 May 2023, as being a complaint from the resident. The letter from this Service related to the resident’s 2022 complaint, and asked the landlord to supply evidence so the Ombudsman could conduct an investigation.
Upon receiving the 22 May 2023 letter, which the landlord mistakenly considered to be a complaint, it produced a stage one response. The stage one response was sent to the resident on 7 June 2023, and included the following:
1. The landlord said it would not re-investigate its actions relating to repair appointments as the complaint was historic, and it had already produced stage one and stage 2 responses in relation to the resident’s original complaint in 2022.
2. The landlord said it would not re-investigate the allegation of discrimination as the complaint was historic, and it had already produced stage one and stage 2 responses in relation to the resident’s original complaint in 2022.
3. The landlord identified it had not fully completed repairs to plastering work in the resident’s home. The landlord said delays had occurred because of internal disagreements about how to complete this repair. The landlord apologised and offered the resident £100 in compensation, it also committed to completing the repair by 12 June 2023.
The landlord’s complaint records showed after it sent the stage one to the resident, it realised the nature of the letter from this Service, and that the resident had not actually filed a complaint.
On 7 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the stage one response to a stage 2 complaint. The resident did not explain why they wished for the complaint to be escalated.
On 11 June 2023 the resident contacted this Service as they were not satisfied with the landlord’s response about the complaints being historic. The resident also asked this service for assistance in understanding the context behind the landlord’s most recent stage one response.
On 13 June 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident, which included the following:
1. The landlord said it had decided to create a new complaint for the resident. It said this Ombudsman was unable to consider events which had occurred after the landlord’s previous stage 2 response, so it had opened a new complaint to conduct an investigation.
2. The landlord declined to re-investigate its own actions relating to its previous repair appointments, as it had already produced a stage 2 response in relation to the original complaint in 2022.
3. The landlord apologised about its delays in completing the plastering repairs in the resident’s home. The landlord offered to increase the compensation it had previously offered from £100 to £250.
The resident remained unsatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response, so they brought their complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 41.l. of the Scheme notes as follows:
1. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
This service has already considered the following elements of the resident’s complaints under case number 202215871:
1. A missed appointment on 3 October 2022.
2. The actions of contractors on 7 October 2022.
3. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination.
Therefore, the Ombudsman considers these elements of the resident’s complaint to be outside of its jurisdiction.

The landlord’s handling of the plastering repairs

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. When a resident reports a repair to the landlord it will categorise the repair as either:
1. An emergency repair, which the landlord will aim to make safe within 24 hours.
2. A routine repair, which the landlord will aim to rectify within 28 calendar days.
The landlord operates a compensation policy. The landlord will offer residents compensation on a case-by-case basis. It’s guidance on compensation levels notes:
1. The landlord can offer up to £250 in cases where there has been a minor impact on the resident, and where the issue has been resolved within a reasonable timeframe.
2. The landlord can offer up to £700 in cases where there has been a moderate impact on the resident, and where the issue took a long time for the landlord to resolve.
On 14 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to complain about the length of time the landlord had taken to complete plastering repairs the resident had reported on 12 October 2022. The outstanding plasterwork was linked to ongoing mould issues which the landlord had tried to address by conducting various repairs. On 18 November 2022 the landlord conducted repairs to the windows and during this appointment the landlord identified that further plastering repairs were required.
Initially the landlord refused to investigate the resident’s complaint about the plastering. It said the resident had previously complained about repairs to their windows due to mould, and it believed these repairs to be complete. This response was not appropriate. While the repairs to the plasterwork were linked to repairs relating to mould, the landlord should have identified the plasterwork as a separate matter and proceeded with the complaints process. The resident had clearly expressed they were dissatisfied with the plastering, so it was inappropriate for the landlord to decline to investigate the resident’s concerns.
There have been numerous ongoing repair issues at the property which the resident has complained about. The Ombudsman does acknowledge that the landlord’s initial refusal to investigate this complaint, might have been linked to confusion from the high number of complaints and repair requests linked to the property. Despite this, the landlord was required to act in-line with the Code, and investigate the resident’s concerns about the plastering.
In its stage one response dated 7 June 2023 the landlord identified that the repairs relating to the 14 April 2023 complaint had only been partially completed, as there was outstanding plasterwork required. The landlord apologised for this, and said delays had occurred as there had been internal disagreements within the landlord about who was best placed to complete this repair. The landlord acted appropriately in apologising for the delays in completing this repair, and in explaining the reasons behind the delay.
The landlord has supplied evidence to this Service to indicate it was conducting repairs relating to damp and mould at the time. As the mould issues were linked to the plastering, it could be determined that the landlord was progressing the plaster repairs alongside general damp and mould repairs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to been clearer with the resident about the nature of its repairs work, how it was prioritising the ongoing repairs and its timescales.
In its stage one response the landlord committed to completing the plaster work repairs by 12 June 2023. This date would have been 202 calendar days after the resident first reported the repair. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the landlord to complete a repair, as under its own policy the landlord should have aimed to complete the repair within 28 calendar days.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it completed the repairs on 25 July 2023, this was 287 calendar days after the resident initially reported the repair. This was not a reasonable timeframe for the landlord to complete the repair, when considering the landlords repairs policy. This delay, alongside other on-going repairs within the home, would likely have led to stress for the resident and a loss of faith in the landlord.
However, the landlord has supplied evidence to this Service which indicates that during the period when the repair was outstanding, it had experienced delays which were outside of its own control. Examples of this included, the resident refusing access to the property, and the resident asking contractors to cease repairs as they were unhappy with the quality of the work. Due to these factors the landlord’s responsibility for the delay to complete the repair is somewhat reduced.
The landlord apologised for the delay in actioning the plastering repairs and offered the resident compensation in its stage one and 2 responses. This was a reasonable course of action as the landlord had not completed the repair within 28 days.
In its stage 2 response the landlord offered the resident £250 in compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy says it can offer compensation of £250 or less in cases where there has been a minor impact on the resident, and where the issue has been resolved within a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman does not consider the delays experienced by the resident to be reasonable. However, the nature of the repairs would not have had a permanent, or significant impact, on the resident. As such the compensation offered by the landlord was appropriate in the circumstances.
When considering the evidence the Ombudsman has been provided with, the landlord’s offer of compensation, and its apology, appropriately addressed the failings identified in this report.
This Service finds the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress after considering:
1. The landlord identified its own failures in previously declining to investigate the plastering repairs without being prompted to do so by the resident.
2. The landlord offered the resident an apology.
3. The landlord explained to the resident why there had been delays and gave the resident a timeframe in which it aimed to complete the repair.
4. The landlord offered the resident compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a complaints policy, in this policy the landlord commits to abide by the requirements outlined in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
This service has reviewed the landlord’s stage one and stage 2 complaint responses. The landlord responded to the resident in a timely manner which was in-line with its own policies and the guidance set out within the Code.
The landlord produced a stage one response after considering a letter from this Service to be a complaint. The Ombudsman has reviewed the letter dated 22 May 2023 and is satisfied the intent and nature of the letter is clear. The letter was sent via a Housing Ombudsman official email address, contained Housing Ombudsman logos and was signed off by a Dispute Examiner employed by the Housing Ombudsman. Considering this, it is the view of this service that it was not reasonable for the landlord to assume this letter was a complaint from the resident.
The landlord’s definition of a complaint is ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord], our staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual customer or group of customers or person who is affected by [the landlord’s] services.’ The 22 May 2022 letter did not meet this definition, as such it was inappropriate of the landlord to proceed with the letter as a complaint.
The landlord’s internal records showed after a member of its staff sent the stage one response to the resident, the landlord realised it had made a mistake, and the resident had not filed a complaint. The staff member asked for advice about how to proceed, and they were advised to continue with the matter as a complaint as a stage one had already been sent to the resident.
The landlord had the opportunity to act transparently and to explain its mistake to the resident, but it did not do this. This was inappropriate as the landlord’s actions would have caused the resident confusion and the landlord could have acted to prevent this. Further, in proceeding with the matter as a complaint, without addressing its own mistake, the landlord’s actions could have negatively affected its relationship with the resident.
In its stage 2 response the landlord told the resident they had filed a complaint as this Service was unable to consider events which had occurred after its original stage 2 response. This account was not accurate considering a member of the landlord’s staff had previously admitted they had mistakenly thought the resident had made an additional complaint.
The Code says it is important for landlords to act with accountability and transparency during the complaints process, as doing so creates a positive complaint handling culture where the landlord can improve its own practices. In this instance the landlord did not act in accordance with the Code, as it failed to use its stage 2 response as an opportunity to be transparent with the resident, and to admit to its own shortcomings.
When the resident contacted this Service, they asked for help in identifying the relevance of the landlord’s stage one response. The resident also questioned why the landlord felt the complaint was historic when this Service had decided to investigate the resident’s initial complaint. The Ombudsman considers the residents confusion to be as a direct result of the landlord’s actions in not explaining its own mistakes to the resident.
This Service finds service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling, after considering:
1. The landlord did not make appropriate considerations about the nature of the letter from this service, or what the definition of a complaint is.
2. The landlord’s actions would have caused the resident considerable confusion.
The landlord did not offer the resident an apology or any compensation about its own complaints handling. The landlord’s actions would have caused the resident confusion, and it did not take steps to act with transparency to allay the resident’s confusion. Therefore, in light of the finding of service failure, The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme the resident’s concerns around a missed appointment on 3 October 2022 is outside the jurisdiction of this service.
In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme the resident’s concerns around the actions of contractors on 7 October 2022 is outside the jurisdiction of this service.
In accordance with paragraph 42.l. of the Scheme the resident’s concerns of discrimination are outside the jurisdiction of this service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in respect of the repairs to plastering within the property.

Orders

Within 5 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £100 to the resident for its ineffective complaints handling.
The landlord is to provide this service with evidence of compliance with this order by 24 January 2025.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman’s determination of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of repairs to the plastering is made on the understanding that the compensation offered of £250 is paid to resident within 5 weeks of this report, if it has not already been paid.