The Guinness Partnership Limited (202317444)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317444

The Guinness Partnership Limited

21 November 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:
1. responsive repairs.
2. subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 27 June 2022. The property is a 1-bedroom new build flat which was still under defect warranty when the resident moved in. The resident has said that she suffers from mental health issues which the landlord was aware of. The resident has informed this service that she has a medical condition of an underactive thyroid, a symptom of which is sensitivity to cold temperatures.
On 4 October 2022 the resident reported a loud whistling noise coming from under a cupboard in her property. She said that the noise started when she turned her heating on and stopped when she turned it off.
On 16 November 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. she had logged the issue with her boiler and heating on 4 October 2022 but the landlord did not contact her until 18 October 2022
2. the landlord had told her that a contractor would attend on 17 October 2022 and 9 November 2022 but no one had attended
3. her energy bills had increased which she said was linked to the fault with her heating system
4. she was suffering with a headache and suspected it may be due to a gas leak
5. the landlord had sent a contractor on 16 November 2022 who found there was no gas leak, but it had capped the gas and issued the resident with a safety warning letter
6. she had to ring the landlord for information about her repair, the information the landlord gave her was incorrect, resulting in her having to call back on 2 occasions
7. she had to wait in a queue for 45 minutes each time she telephoned the landlord, which she found frustrating
8. she asked the landlord to compensate her for the cost of the additional heating she was using because of the fault with her heating system
9. she asked the landlord to provide her with an instruction manual for the heating system because the landlord had not provided it when she moved into the property
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 7 December 2022 and sent its stage 1 response on 14 December 2022 in which it said:
1. the resident had first reported the repair to her boiler on 4 October 2022 but the landlord did not forward this to its development team until 18 October 2022, at which point the repair was raised
2. it had been unable to find any evidence that it had made an appointment to attend to the repair
3. following further contact from the resident on 16 November 2022 the landlord raised an emergency appointment, it also contacted the emergency services due to the potential of a gas leak, who attended and capped off the resident’s gas
4. it’s contractor had attended on 17 November 2022 when it found an electrical link had caused the resident’s central heating to stay on continuously, which it removed
5. the contractor serviced and tested the boiler and there were no signs of a gas leak, it left the system in working order and the gas uncapped
6. it’s contractor attended again due to reports of a noise from the boiler, the contractor found this to be coming from a bypass valve which it reset
7. it’s contractor attended again on 5 December 2022 but was unable to gain access, the landlord noted that the engineer had attended outside the agreed timescale due to other repairs taking longer than expected, it accepted it should have contacted the resident to advise her it was running late
8. it had arranged a follow-on appointment for 8 December 2022 which it later cancelled as it had raised it incorrectly due to the boiler still being within the defect period
9. it had passed the works to its development team to arrange for the installer of the boiler to attend to the repair, it had asked for urgent attendance and said it would update the resident as soon as it received a date
10. it accepted it had delayed in resolving the issues with her boiler which it said had been caused by miss communication between its teams
11. it accepted there had been delays in its handling of the resident’s complaint for which it offered a sincere apology
12. it made an offer of £75 compensation to the resident, which the landlord broke down as follows:
  1. £30 for the delays in completing the repair
  2. £25 as an apology for poor communication and failed promises
  3. £20 to apologise for the delay in providing its complaint response
13. it asked the resident to provide evidence in relation to her increased heating costs, which it said it would review
14. it had provided feedback to its repair team to ensure repairs were raised to the correct team in the future and that the landlord attended repairs within its agreed timeframe
15. it had stressed to its repair team the importance of keeping resident’s updated during repairs, especially if its operatives were running late for appointments
On 31 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint because she was not happy with the amount of compensation the landlord had offered, specifically in relation to her increased heating costs, which she believed was linked to the fault with her heating system.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 March 2023 in which it said:
1. it repeated all points set out in its stage 1 response relating to the resident’s initial report of a repair to her heating system
2. it confirmed it had referred the matter to its development team because the boiler and heating system were still within the defect liability period
3. the developer’s contractor had attended in December 2022 and made some adjustments to the thermostat and left the heating in working order
4. it had visited the resident on 21 December 2022 to provide some further guidance about the thermostat and heating controls
5. it had noted the resident had the temperature set at 25 degrees and the radiator in the lounge was set to maximum
6. the landlord said it was reasonable to assume that the higher-than-normal energy bills the resident had received were due to the high temperature settings rather than a fault with the boiler
7. it apologised again and offered an additional £40 compensation for the poor communication and delays the resident had experienced at stage 2 of her complaint
The landlord completed the repair which caused the heating system to stay on during the first week of January 2023. The resident continued to report that the thermostat in her bedroom was not working. The landlord attended on 22 June 2023 to reset the heating system which the resident said rectified the problem with the thermostat.
The resident has informed this service that, as an outcome, she would like the landlord to reconsider its offer of compensation. Specifically, the amount offered towards the high energy bills she had received during the time the repair remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said the issues in her property had a significant impact on her physical and mental well-being. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been worsened, the courts often have the benefit of independent medical evidence. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court as personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the condition of the property.
The resident said that there was an incident on 20 December 2022 when an employee of the landlord swore at her during a telephone conversation. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s responsive repairs

As set out within section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, heating and hot water. These obligations are also reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repair policy says it will log a responsive repair as either an emergency or a routine repair. The policy sets out the following timescales:
1. emergency repairs – the landlord will aim to make safe or complete the emergency repair within 24 hours
2. routine repairs – the landlord will aim to complete the repair within 28 calendar days
It is unclear from the records on what date the developer handed over the property to the landlord. However, the landlord’s development procedure states that the defects liability period for new build properties is between 6 and 24 months (but most often 12 months) following completion. All defects are reported to the landlord in the normal way as a conventional repair. The landlord will pass this to its new build defects team who will use their guidance to decide whether the issue is a defect or a responsive repair. If it is a defect, the landlord will report this to the developer. If the reported item is not a defect, the landlord will deal with it as a responsive repair.
In relation to emergency and out of hours defects, the procedure states that, where the developer’s contractor can not attend, the landlord will deal with these as a repair and the landlord’s contractor will attend.
The Ombudsman understands that there are 2 heating circuits in the resident’s property and 2 thermostats. One thermostat is situated in the hall which controls all the radiators in the property except for the bedroom. A second thermostat is situated in the bedroom, which controls the bedroom radiator only.
On 4 October 2022 the resident reported a loud whistling noise when she turned her heating on. She said she had to turn her heating off because the noise was so loud that it was keeping her awake at night. The landlord has a record of the resident’s contact on this date but it did not pass this to its new build defects team to assess whether it was a defect or a repair until 18 October 2022. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 October 2022. She said she had been told a contractor would attend the repair that day. She had asked the contractor to call her 30 minutes before the visit so that she could get home from work to allow access. She said she had received a call earlier that day from a contractor who was at her property but it said it could not wait for her and left. The landlord said that it had no record of this appointment.
On 25 October 2022 the developer confirmed to the landlord that it had raised a works order for its contractor to attend. It said it would contact the resident directly. On 8 November 2022 the resident said she had received a call from a contractor who informed her it would try to get to her property that evening and, if not, it would attend the following day. The resident waited in for the contractor but no one arrived. It is not clear from the available evidence whether this visit took place or not.
The developer and its contractors are not agents of the landlord and not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to assess whether its management of the resident’s repair were reasonable or not. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to monitor the actions of the developer when conducting repairs to defects to ensure that it carried out the work within a reasonable time. If there are delays, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to communicate these to the resident and to consider what action it could take to mitigate the impact on the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this in this case, which was not reasonable in the circumstances.
On 16 November 2022 the resident reported that the noise was still occurring when her heating was on. She also told the landlord that she was experiencing headaches and she was worried there may be a gas leak. The landlord raised an emergency repair and contacted the emergency services. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident said that the utility company attended. No gas leak was found but the utility company made the decision to cap the gas as a safety precaution and advised the resident to contact the landlord.
The resident complained to the landlord that her gas had been capped. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was unhappy with the utility company’s decision to cap the gas and that this caused her inconvenience. However, per paragraph 41.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (2022), the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member landlord. As such, we cannot investigate the way the utility company handled matters.
On 17 November 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended to service the boiler, check for gas leaks and uncap the gas. The contractor said that it found a fault with an electrical link which caused the central heating to stay on. The contractor removed the link and said that it left the central heating in working order. This attendance was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident reported the noise from her heating system again on 18 November 2022. The landlord’s contractor attended on 24 November 2022 and found the noise to be coming from a bypass valve, which it reset. This attendance was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord said that it received another report from the resident on 28 November 2022 that her heating would not turn off unless she turned her boiler off. The landlord said that it made an appointment to attend on the morning of 5 December 2022, but there was no access. The landlord later said that this was incorrect and the reason the appointment had not gone ahead was because its contractor had not attended during its agreed timeframe. The landlord’s policy says that if it needs to change an agreed appointment it will contact the customer as far in advance as possible to advise them. The landlord did not contact the resident on this occasion. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord rearranged the appointment for 8 December 2022. It later cancelled this appointment because it identified the issue to be a defect and not a responsive repair. The landlord said that the developer’s contractor would need to attend, as the boiler and central heating system were still under warranty.
The landlord informed the resident that it would arrange for the developer’s contractor to contact her to arrange an appointment. The resident informed the landlord that she had found the situation to be very frustrating and felt that the landlord was passing her from pillar to post. While it was appropriate that the landlord refered the repair to the developer, the landlord ought to have realised this sooner which would have mitigated the impact on the resident.
The developer’s contractor attended on or around 13 December 2022. It said it was unable to replicate the fault but changed the thermostat in the bedroom as a precaution.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 December 2022 to inform it that she was still having problems with her central heating. She reported that the thermostat in the bedroom was showing as ‘low heat’, and the temperature had only gone up by a few degrees over the 10 hours the heating had been on. She also reported that when the thermostat in the hallway was off, the radiators in the hallway and living room stayed on. The landlord asked the resident to raise a new repair, which she did. The landlord logged the repair and referred it to the developer. It asked the developer to arrange for a contractor to attend as soon as possible. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord said that it would attend the resident’s property on 20 December 2022 to try and identify the source of the problem. Later that day, the resident telephoned the landlord because no one had attended. Whilst she was on the telephone to the landlord she missed a call. She listened to the voicemail, which was the landlord’s operative who said that it could not find her property. The resident called the operative back and whilst they were discussing the issue the resident said that the operative became abusive towards her and swore at her. The resident reported this to the landlord on the same date. The landlord said it would investigate the resident’s report.
The landlord has confirmed that it dealt with this matter as a separate complaint and provided a formal response to the resident on 16 January 2023, which included an apology and a payment of £20 as a gesture of goodwill. The landlord informed the resident that it had investigated the incident and spoken to the employee concerned about the incident. It informed the resident that it could not share the full details of its investigation with her due to it concerning employment matters. The resident informed the landlord that she was happy with the apology and the goodwill payment. The Ombudsman would consider the landlord’s actions to be reasonable in the circumstances.
On 21 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that she still couldn’t turn her heating off which was causing her to feel unwell. She also said she was worried about the high energy bills she had received and she was at breaking point. The landlord informed the resident that the developer’s contractor would attend on either 4 or 5 January 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances because the resident had access to heating and hot water which meant that the repair did not require an emergency attendance.
The landlord conducted a home visit on 21 December 2022 to check the resident’s thermostats. The landlord noted that the temperature on the hall thermostat was set to 25 degrees and that the lounge radiator was set at maximum. The landlord advised the resident to reduce both settings. The landlord later confirmed its visit in an email to the resident. The landlord also sent links to the manufacturer’s instruction videos for the resident’s heating system. This was reasonable and showed that the landlord was trying to find a remedy to help the resident.
On 9 January 2023 the developer confirmed to the landlord that its contractor had attended in the first week of January 2023 and the job was complete.
The landlord’s development procedure states that all details about the nature of any reported fault and the work needed should be copied to the landlord. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with a copy of the contractor’s report for its attendance on 4 January 2023 and therefore we are unable to show what work the contractor completed and whether it was reasonable or not. The landlord is reminded to keep more detailed case notes to show what action it has taken.
On 23 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and confirmed that the issue with the heating staying on was resolved. However, she reported the issue with the thermostat in the bedroom was still occurring. She said that her heating had been on for 10 hours and the room temperature had only gone up by 2 degrees.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 25 January 2023. The resident explained to the landlord her heating bills continued to be high, which she accredited to the fault with her heating. The landlord offered the resident £60 towards her heating bills, which she declined.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 1 March 2023. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 March 2023 to tell it that she did not agree with the landlord’s complaint response. She said the landlord had insinuated that there was no fault with the heating system and that the increased heating bills were because the resident had her thermostat set at high temperatures. The resident asked the landlord to speak to the operatives who had attended her property on 4 January 2023. The landlord said it would make enquiries and get back to the resident.
On 26 April 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it had completed its enquiries and it was confident there was no fault with the thermostat. The resident informed the landlord that the contractors who attended on 4 January 2023 had found that the reason the heating was staying on was not the thermostat but a faulty switch linked to the boiler which was situated in a cupboard. The resident sent the landlord photographs of the switch so that it could see what she was referring to. She said the issue with the thermostat in the bedroom was outstanding. The resident said she felt the landlord had not fully investigated her complaint and was not listening to her.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord informed the resident that after reviewing the resident’s photographs it had asked it’s contractor to inspect the boiler and heating system and carry out any identified repairs. This was because the developers had left site and it would have taken longer for the developer’s contractor to attend. The resident said the contractor attended on 22 June 2023. The contractor checked everything over and reset the heating system, which the resident said appeared to have rectified the problem with the thermostat.
The resident has informed this service that communication with the landlord was a problem throughout her complaint. She said she had to repeatedly chase the landlord, both by email and telephone, for updates and responses to her concerns about the heating and her complaint. The Ombudsman has seen evidence which supports this. The resident said that the lack of communication made her feel frustrated and that her concerns were not being listened to. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.
The resident provided the landlord with copies of her gas bills for the period the repair remained outstanding. This provided the landlord with evidence that her heating bills had increased significantly between October 2022 and January 2023. The landlord initially did not accept this, saying that the reason for the increased heating was because the resident was not using the system effectively. However, in January 2023, upon further consideration of the resident’s bills, the landlord offered the resident £60 as a good will gesture towards her heating bills, which it increased to £225 in August 2023. The resident declined the offers. She said she had been worried about how she would pay her increased bills during this time, which had caused her anxiety and affected her mental health.
As outlined in this report there is evidence which shows there was a heating system failure which took the landlord an unreasonable amount of time to identify and resolve. This was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, likely to have impacted upon the amount of energy used during the period the repair was outstanding. Although the Ombudsman is unable to provide an exact measure of the costs the resident incurred, we have considered the evidence provided by the resident to assess the compensation due. This has included considering the resident’s energy costs for the period she was affected against the energy costs for the same period the following year. This provided a calculation of £350 which we have ordered the landlord to pay to the resident.
In summary, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s responsive repairs in that it:
1. delayed in raising a works order for the resident’s original report in October 2022
2. delayed in identifying the reported issue was a defect and not a responsive repair
3. failed to attend a pre-arranged appointment in December 2022
4. delayed in identifying and resolving the repair to the resident’s heating system
5. failed to manage communications with the resident about the progress and timescales associated with the repairs which resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord for updates
The landlord offered £55 compensation for delays in completing the repair and poor communication in its handling of the resident’s repair. This does not, in the Ombudsman’s view, recognise the impact to the resident. As set out, the resident said that the situation had been stressful and the issue with her heating system remained unresolved from at least October 2022 to at least June 2023. Based on the period the repair remained outstanding and the impact, and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a fairer level of compensation would be £700 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord would acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days of being made and provide its response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. At stage 2, the landlord would provide its response within 20 working days from the date of the resident’s request to escalate.
This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
2. respond to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days
The resident raised her initial complaint on 16 November 2022. The landlord did not recognise that this was a complaint and it was only following further contact from the resident on 24 November 2022 that it logged the complaint. Paragraph 1.4 of the Code states that a landlord should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. A complaint should be raised when a resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to a service request. The landlord’s actions were not appropriate because it was not consistent with the Code.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 14 December 2022, which was 21 days after the resident’s initial complaint. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 26 January 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 3 March 2023, which was 27 days later. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Code.
On 7 August 2023 the landlord contacted the resident regarding her complaint. It said it had reviewed the energy bills she had provided and decided to increase its offer of compensation at stage 2 to £225, to include the increase in energy bills and time and trouble. The resident declined the offer and informed the landlord she would be referring her complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 17 June 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that it had carried out a review of her complaint file and would like to increase its offer of compensation to £1205.22, which it broke down as follows:
1. £200 for poor communication
2. £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience
3. £405.22 contribution towards the increase in the resident’s heating bills
The landlord offered the resident a total of £115 compensation within its complaint procedure. The landlord sent a follow up response approximately 18 months after it was on notice about the repair, and 15 months after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure on the issue. While this service welcomes the fact it sought to revisit the issue to try and put things right, the compensation offer was made well over a year after the resident exhausted its complaints procedure. This means that this service does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint.
In summary, there was service failure by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in that it:
1. failed to recognise the resident’s complaint at stage 1
2. delayed unreasonably in providing a response at both stages of the resident’s complaint
3. failed to manage communications with the resident regarding her complaint which resulted in her having to chase the landlord for updates
The landlord offered £60 compensation for the delays and poor communication in its handling of the resident’s complaint. This does not, in the Ombudsman’s view, recognise the impact to the resident. In this case, the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. The resident said this made her feel frustrated and that she was not being taken seriously. The delays prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, a fairer level of compensation would be £150 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the responsive repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident compensation of £1200 which is comprised of:
  1. £700 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the responsive repairs
  2. £350 to compensate the resident for the increased heating costs for the time the repair remained outstanding
  3. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.