The Guinness Partnership Limited (202308174)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308174

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 September 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs to his doors and fence.
2. This report has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant and has lived in the property since March 2012. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow. The landlord has stated it is aware the resident has a mobility impairment. 
4. The resident reported an issue with his doors which could not be locked and were falling apart to the landlord on 11 July 2022. The landlord’s contractor inspected the rear doors on 12 July 2022 and identified some repair works, having secured them on its visit. However, the follow up works were not completed.  The resident then contacted the landlord in November 2022 to report an issue with his fence following high winds. The landlord’s contractor attended to the property and made the fence safe. It raised follow up works with the landlord, which again were not completed by it.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 13 February 2023 and said he had “finally lost patience” with the landlord over the repairs. He explained water had been seeping under the thresholds of the doors and had damaged his flooring. He also stated that due to gaps in the fence, pests had entered his garden, and he had to get pest control out to resolve the issue.
6. In its stage 2 response of 26 July 2023 the landlord apologised for the delays in completing the repairs which it explained was due to a breakdown in its relationship with its contractor. It explained it had now taken the repairs in-house and had replacement doors on order and it would be in contact with the resident once these had been manufactured. It offered the resident £800 for unreasonable delays to complete the repairs, £25 for the poor communication and failure to keep to its promises, £175 for the delays in providing the resident with a written response to the complaint and £156 to cover the pest control costs the resident had incurred. This made a total of £1,156 compensation.
7. The landlord informed the resident in its stage 2 response that, in relation to water ingress which had damaged the resident’s flooring which he had since replaced, it would look into compensating him for this and asked him to send it “any receipts, photographs evidencing the damage, when and where the flooring was purchased”.
8. The resident emailed the landlord and copied it to this Service on 26 July 2023 to confirm he would not accept its offer. He explained:
   1. The landlord had failed to note all visits made by previous contractors.
   2. Photographic evidence as well as the original receipt for the flooring was provided by him to the landlord. The landlord was now saying it had not received anything.
   3. The claim had been not just for one door but for all doors. The resident added that the landlord had been negligent and had failed in its legal obligations for health, safety and disability.
   4. The matter had caused both the resident and his wife a degree of increased anxiety.
   5. He had had to pay someone to guard the house when they had been away for more than a day.
   6. The doors still continued to leak, would not lock and in one case would not open which presented a high fire hazard risk.
9. The landlord’s internal emails on 25 August 2023 noted that the patio doors were due to be delivered around 30 August 2023. It stated once they had arrived, the works needed to be booked in. The landlord confirmed in an internal email on 28 September 2023 that the works had been completed including the painting of the areas around the doors.
10. In referring the matter to this Service, the resident explained the property doors had not locked since he had initially raised the matter, and the property had been left unprotected. He added he wanted an increased offer of compensation to rectify the matter. The resident has also confirmed that he had spent £6,900 replacing the flooring so far.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the outstanding repairs.

11. According to the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the outside and structure of the home in good repair. This includes all outside doors, internal doors and door frames, floors and ceilings and boundary walls and fences. The landlord’s repair policy states that emergency repairs are those which address an immediate health and safety risk, and the landlord would attend within 24 hours to make the situation safe. If a temporary repair was carried out it would return within a reasonable timeframe to complete the repair. Routine repairs are general responsive repairs that are not emergencies. The landlord will attend and fix these repairs within 28 days.
12. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that it will normally repair rather than replace individual elements. However, where either the repair would be poorer value for money, or ineffective, then it will replace the element. The decision about what to replace and when will be at the landlord’s discretion.
13. Whilst the resident has stated in some of his communication to the landlord that he had initially contacted it about the repair to the doors in June 2022, the evidence from the landlord together with the contemporaneous documentation from the resident shows the initial contact with the landlord to be on 11 July 2022, via social media. The landlord’s contractor attended to the property on 12 July 2022 in relation to the doors. This was in keeping with an emergency repair timeframe, which was appropriate as the resident had informed the landlord the doors could not be locked.  The contractor had sent the landlord an email on this date explaining that the doors could be locked but that they were in a poor state as they were swollen. It added that the patio doors needed replacing as they were made from wood and over time water had seeped into them causing them to swell up. The contractor informed the landlord that although the resident was unable to use the patio doors, he was able to use the main door to get in and out of the property.
14. The landlord’s repair records show that the contractor reattended to the property several days after the first call out as the resident’s doors had not been working. This contact did not explain which set of doors had not been working. The contractor sent a further email to the landlord on 18 July 2022 to inform it that the “threshold requires replacing and frame needs scarfing”. Under the tenancy agreement and as stated above, the landlord was obligated to keep the external doors in a good standard of repair. This would extend to both the main front door and the patio doors at the rear of the property. Therefore, according to the repair policy the landlord would be expected to attend within 28 days, completing the works in that timeframe if possible.
15. However, almost seven months later in February 2023, the resident complained that the works had not been undertaken to resolve the issue with the doors, and water had continued to seep into the thresholds causing damage to his flooring. This was not appropriate.
16. The landlord’s repair records show that it had attended the resident’s property on several occasions to attend to the fence between 28 November 2022, when it had first been alerted to the matter following high winds, and 28 March 2023 when the initial works for the fence had been completed. The landlord’s contractor has initially made the fence safe by placing a rope around it including the sections which needed repairing. This in itself was not a temporary repair by the landlord. The contractor had informed the landlord on 20 December 2022 of the works which were needed to restore the fence. The landlord’s response to photos it was provided of the fence was to state that the repairs could wait until “we have someone in situ”.
17. The landlord was again made aware that there was an issue with the resident’s doors and fence when he contacted it via social media on 9 February 2023 and followed this up as a formal complaint on 13 February 2023. At this point it would have been expected to attend within the timescales for a responsive repair and endeavour to undertake lasting repairs or a renewal to the doors and the fence. However, whilst it had attended to inspect both issues, the fence on 16 February 2023 and the doors on 20 February 2023, the repairs were not completed at that time.
18. On attendance in February 2023, the landlord’s contractor again concluded that the doors should be replaced, and that part of the fence needed replacing. This was confirmed to the resident on 23 February 2023, after he had informed the landlord of it a couple of days earlier. At this time the landlord explained it was still investigating his complaint and would be in touch once it had an update.
19. A delay is not always considered a failing, if there is a legitimate reason for the time taken, such as a lack of materials or staff availability to complete the work. However, in line with general customer service standards, the landlord would have been expected to continue to communicate with the resident and manage his expectations. It would also be expected to manage the repair effectively, and to provide accurate and consistent information.
20. The landlord in its formal responses to the resident stated that the reason for the delay had been down to a breakdown in its relationship with its contractor and it had terminated the contract with it in January 2023. As the contractor had been acting on behalf of the landlord in the dealings with the resident, any failure on the part of the contractor was in reality a shortcoming on the part of the landlord. The landlord’s repair records in relation to the resident’s doors do not show that the landlord had responded to the contractor following receipt of the original emails which had been sent to it in July 2022. Ultimately the contractor would not have been in a position to carry out any work until it had been authorised to by the landlord, who was the party making the decision on whether a repair or replacement was needed.
21. The landlord’s internal communications show that the resident had contacted it on numerous occasions with regards to the doors, asking for an update on what was happening. This continued after he had made his complaint. Despite this, the replacement doors were not ordered until July 2023 when the landlord had once again changed the party dealing with it on its behalf and instead taken the matter in–house. They were not fitted until September 2023, some 14 months after the issue had initially been raised by the resident. This was not acceptable and was a serious failing by the landlord. It had been made aware of the failings and delays caused by it when the resident had initially raised his complaint in February 2023. However, despite this there had continued to be further failings by it after this. In other words, the landlord had not learnt from its failings and instead it continued to miss the opportunities to rebuild its relationship with the resident.
22. In this case, the landlord has not provided a suitable explanation as to why it was so delayed in returning to undertake works to the resident’s doors. Additionally, the landlord failed to continue to manage the repair, with no evidence provided to show that it was considering the repair throughout this time. The landlord also did not communicate appropriately with the resident throughout this complaint, leaving him to chase for updates on numerous occasions. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair was not appropriate and was a failing.
23. The landlord in its final complaint response on 26 July 2023 acknowledged that it had been delayed in undertaking the repairs and apologised to the resident. It also identified that its stage one response had not addressed the resident’s concerns about his ruined flooring which he stated he had paid to replace. The resident had informed the landlord throughout his contact with it that he had damaged flooring, and he had mentioned different figures to it in terms of the total cost of the damaged flooring. In his email to it on 13 February 2023 he had valued the damaged flooring at £1,400. In a later email to the landlord on 22 June 2023 he had stated the ruined flooring had a value of £2,700. The resident has told the Ombudsman in his most recent communication that the replacement flooring had cost him a total of £6,700 which included fitting charges.  In the stage 2 response the landlord stated that in order to consider compensation for the flooring it required the resident to send it “any receipts, photographs evidencing the damage, when and where the flooring was purchased”.
24. The resident has explained to this Service that he had initially provided the original receipts for the flooring to the landlord’s contractor. He added that the contractor had taken photographs of the flooring at the time. In terms of the flooring, the resident’s comments to this Service suggest that the flooring has been changed on two occasions. It is unclear exactly when these changes had taken place and, at the present time, the resident is in the process of obtaining and checking his bank statements as well as trying to locate the invoices from the retailers where he purchased the flooring. The resident has confirmed that one of the retailers has unfortunately gone into administration and this has not helped him to find further evidence.
25. The Ombudsman has approached the landlord in respect of the resident’s comments concerning the receipts which he explained had been given to its contractor. It has stated it had never been provided with any evidence of the flooring damage or receipts for the replacement by either the contractor or the resident. It added that the contractual relationship with the contractor had been terminated and it could not now approach the contractor to see if they have any evidence of the flooring and/or receipts for the replacement. In the absence of the receipts the landlord has stated it will consider any other evidence including bank statements showing payments for the flooring in order to consider contributing to it. This is a fair and reasonable approach and in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy in the event of a claim for damaged items.
26. The landlord as part of its final response made an award of £800 compensation for the unreasonable delays to complete the repairs as well as £25 for the poor communication. Whilst the amount of compensation for the unreasonable delays was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy for an issue which took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience having significant impact to the resident, the amount was not sufficient to recognise the impact on the resident taking into account his circumstances. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the lengthy delays it did not explicitly address the vulnerabilities it had noted for the resident. It was aware that the resident had a mobility impairment and therefore if the doors to his property could not be secured or there was difficulty in opening them due to the swelling, this would have caused the resident more of an impact than someone who did not have any vulnerabilities.
27. The Ombudsman considers that an award of £1,000 is appropriate given the circumstances for the landlord’s delays in completing the repairs. This award is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where there has been maladministration which has caused significant impact on the resident but there was not a severe long-term impact on them.
28. In addition to this above payment the Ombudsman does not consider that the landlord’s offer of £25 is adequate for the poor communication and failure to keep to its promises. The landlord’s correspondence shows that the resident had to enquire a number of times with it for any update. This had continued after he had made his complaint. The Ombudsman considers an award of £150 is more appropriate given the repeated failings of the landlord.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

29. The landlord’s complaint policy states that after receiving a complaint, the landlord will respond at stage one of its procedure within 10 working days. Any delays may not exceed a further 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord will escalate their complaint to stage two. The landlord will then respond within 20 working days. Again, any delays may not exceed a further 10 working days. The policy states that the landlord will ensure that it keeps residents regularly updated with the progress of the complaint, even if there is no new information to provide. This policy is appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
30. The resident complained on 13 February 2023. The landlord acknowledged his complaint on 14 February 2023 but did not send its stage one response until 30 June 2023, over four months later. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer at stage 1 and the complaint was escalated to stage 2 by the landlord on 30 June 2023.  It provided its stage 2 response on 26 July 2023 which was in keeping with the timescales contained in its complaints policy.
31. Again, not all delays are considered a failing. However, as stated in the above policy, the landlord is expected to communicate proactively with the resident throughout the complaint process. In this case, the landlord failed to update the resident at stage 1, leaving him to chase for a response repeatedly. The landlord has not offered an explanation for the delay at stage 1. That was not reasonable, as it caused the process to become needlessly protracted, and stalled attempts at resolution of the resident’s repair issues. The delays indicate a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling processes. The Ombudsman has however seen that the landlord did offer £175 at both stage 1 and stage 2 in relation to the delays in providing the resident a written response to the complaint. This was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress in relation to the service failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord with regards to its handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the doors and fence.
33. In accordance with paragraph 53 b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was an offer of reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its complaints handling.

Orders

34. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total amount of compensation of £1,481. If the landlord has already paid the resident any compensation in keeping with its stage 2 response it can deduct the amount payable from the total amount due. This amount comprises:
       1. £1,000 compensation, in recognition of the extensive delays in undertaking repairs to the resident’s doors and fence.
       2. £150 for the landlord’s failures in communications with the resident.
       3. £156 for the pest control costs incurred by the resident.
       4. £175 for the landlord’s failures in its complaints handling.
    3. Contact the resident to request any evidence to support the costs which he has paid to replace the flooring.
35. Within eight weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should subject to the resident providing said evidence decide what it will pay to the resident towards these costs. The landlord should clearly set out in writing to both the resident and to this Service how it has arrived at the figure.