The Guinness Partnership Limited (202318212)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318212

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 February 2025

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 repairs to the communal front door of the resident’s building.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a 2 bedroom flat.
On 6 March 2023 the resident reported repairs to the communal front door. He said the handle was loose, the entry fobs were not working, and the door was slamming at night which was disturbing his sleep.
On 10 March 2023 the resident made a further report of the communal door slamming through the night.
On 13 March 2023 the resident reported that a window near the communal front door had been smashed. In response, the landlord logged a repair to board up the affected area.
On 16 March 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and said it had visited the block and the door was no longer slamming, the entry system was repaired, and it was awaiting replacement glass for the boarded window.
On 15 May 2023 the resident raised a complaint at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints procedure. He said that issues with the communal door continued. He also raised concerns about the quality of work completed and queried when the window glass was going to be replaced.
On 17 May 2023 a contractor completed a further repair to the door closure and said the door was shutting quietly.
On 5 July 2023 the landlord called the resident and acknowledged his stage 1 complaint. He said the door continued to slam and he had spent approximately 4-5 months away from the property to ensure he could sleep.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure. In summary, it said:
1. The window glass would be replaced on 1 August 2023.
2. It had completed a further repair to the door closing mechanism on 26 July 2023.
3. It apologised for his dissatisfaction.
4. It offered him £150 of compensation, comprised of:
  1. £100 for the delay in acknowledging and responding to his complaint.
  2. £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused due to the delays in completing the repairs.
On 4 August 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
On 21 August 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response: it said:
1. It was sorry for his continued dissatisfaction about the situation.
2. It had always responded to reports of slamming doors but when it has attended it had not found that the door was slamming.
3. The window glass was replaced on 1 August 2023.
4. It completed a further check of the communal doors on 18 August 2023.
5. The landlord increased its total compensation to £175. This was an additional £25 of compensation for the delays in responding to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints procedure.

Events after the complaints process

On 13 December 2023 the resident emailed this service dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. He wants the door closure to be replaced and an increase in compensation due to the impact the situation had on him.
On 9 July 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident and said it had failed to fully recognise the impact of the situation on him through its complaints procedure. It offered him a further £350 of compensation in addition to what it had already offered. The further compensation was comprised of:
1. An additional £100 for the delays in its complaint handling.
2. An additional £250 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience cause to him.
Therefore, the total compensation offered by the landlord both during and outside its complaints procedure was £525.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. It separates repairs into various categories, these are:
1. Emergency repairs will be completed within 24 hours, where there is an immediate health and safety risk.
2. Routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days.
3. The policy also states that repairs in communal areas follow the same categories.
The landlord aims to complete repairs at the first visit but will communicate with residents if more visits are needed.

The landlord’s handling of the communal door repairs

When the resident first reported issues with the communal front door, the landlord logged a routine repair and completed this within the timescales in its repairs policy. This was an appropriate response.
When the resident made further reports about the communal door, the evidence shows that the landlord continued to respond and revisit the block to assess the situation and complete repairs. This included boarding up the smashed window. This was completed in accordance with its policies and procedures and was therefore an appropriate course of action to take.
The landlord’s records show that when its contractors completed repairs, the door was shutting as normal. Although the resident was dissatisfied with the work completed by the landlord’s contractors and felt the door closing mechanism should have been replaced, the landlord was entitled to rely upon the findings and works completed by its appropriately qualified contractors. The landlord was not obliged to replace the door mechanism if it could be repaired.
However, there were delays in replacing the glass to the communal entrance. The evidence shows that although it was promptly boarded up following the initial report, it took approximately 4-5 months for the glass to be replaced. This was disproportionately long and outside of the timescales for routine repairs as specified in the landlord’s repairs policy. In addition, there is no evidence that the landlord fully communicated the reasons for the delays.
When the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, it recognised it had delayed and offered the resident £50 of compensation in view of the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused arising through the delays in completing the repairs. This amount was not fully reflective of the impact on the resident and the landlord should have offered more.

Events after the stage 2 complaint

Approximately 12 months after the landlord issued its final complaint response, it wrote to the resident and made a revised compensation offer. This was in addition to what it had already offered him through its complaints procedure, as explained above. The landlord also told him that it had published a new complaints policy and completed staff training around ensuring its offers of compensation were reflective of any impact caused to its residents.
It is positive that the landlord has implemented a new complaints policy and provided staff training. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not made any recommendations to improve the landlord’s complaints handling. It is also positive that the landlord recognised its errors and made a revised offer of compensation to the resident for the impact the situation had on him. However, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s complaints handling through its complaints process. We look at whether the landlord did enough to put right any errors through its complaints process. As the offer the landlord made during its complaints process was not enough to put things right, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the communal door repair.
The total compensation offered by the landlord after the end of its complaints process was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, available on our website, which says payments of £100-£600 may be awarded where there are identified failings by a landlord. Therefore, its later offer was reasonable. The landlord should pay the compensation it offered to the resident, unless it has already done so.
We recommend that the landlord inspects the communal door to check if any further repairs are required. This is due to the resident’s continued reports of issues with the door and the time that has passed since this complaint was accepted for investigation by this service.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the communal door.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should contact the resident to pay its revised compensation offer of £525, unless this has already been paid.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord completes an inspection of the communal door and completes any identified repairs as may be required in line with its published repair timescales.