The Guinness Partnership Limited (202329063)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329063

The Guinness Partnership Limited

19 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. Reports of multiple outstanding repairs to the property including damp and mould.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom mid-terraced house, owned by the landlord, where she lives with her 5 children. The landlord had multiple vulnerabilities recorded for the resident and her household.
The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 14 December 2022, in relation to her home being in disrepair. She referred to damp and mould, caused by a flood 2 years prior. She said that she had a burst sewage pipe the previous week in the kitchen, the cupboards required replacing, and she was having to wash her dishes in the bathroom. She stated that the windows needed replacing and it had failed to address mice infestations.
In its stage 1 complaint response on 13 January 2023, the landlord said that it had found several areas where it had let the resident down. It had undertaken an inspection on 23 December 2022 and identified multiple repairs. It found that she had reported the issues on 11 November 2022, and it had failed to resolve them within a reasonable timescale. It outlined its proposal to complete the repairs. It apologised and offered £100 compensation which comprised £80 for distress and inconvenience for the delay in completing repairs, and £20 for the delay in its complaint response.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint the same day. She remained dissatisfied with its response as it was unable to provide specific dates for the proposed repairs.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 10 March 2023, the landlord repeated that it had identified several service failures, which contributed to the delays. Its response included as follows:
1. Its service manager visited in December 2023 and identified an extensive list of repairs including damp and mould throughout her home. It had completed some repairs in January 2023. However, its service manager had left, and its new manager was unaware of what repairs remained outstanding due to poor record keeping. It set out its proposal to complete the repairs.
2. It apologised and said that the delays had been unreasonable. It set out its learning from the complaint, apologised for its late stage 2 response, and for the repair delays. It offered an additional £140 compensation which comprised £100 for the repair delays and £40 for its late stage 2 response. This, along with its stage 1 compensation offer, totalled £240.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She said that she wanted it to complete the outstanding repairs and pay compensation for compromising her and her family’s health.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

The resident said that the damp and mould, and delays in completing her repairs, were affecting her and her family’s health and finances. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress that was likely caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, she could consider this via the courts.
In her correspondence, the resident said that her repairs had remained outstanding since 2016. While we do not dispute this, given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe and then progress these issues to the Ombudsman in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are not satisfied with how a landlord responds to their complaint. This has limited the extent to which this Service can investigate.
Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, In the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is to ensure that it takes reasonable steps to resolve complaints in its 2-stage process. Therefore, this investigation has focused on the events from March 2022, leading up to its final response on 10 March 2023. Any historic events or events following its stage 2 response, including further offers of compensation, are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Multiple outstanding repairs

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good order. This includes the walls, windows and doors, drains and gutters, staircase, heating, electrical and gas supplies, and water and sanitation.
The landlord’s disrepair policy states that its aim is to resolve disrepair issues as soon as possible. In order to achieve a timely resolution, it will consider using alternative dispute resolution methods, where appropriate. This is in line with the disrepair protocol which states that litigation should be the last resort. It will, where appropriate, instruct either an expert or a single joint expert to inspect the property for evidence of disrepair. It will, when required, undertake an agreed schedule of works to remedy disrepair within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that when it receives a report, an operative will attend to determine the cause and seek to resolve the immediate issue. It will carry out repairs in accordance with its responsive repairs policy. Its responsive repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord has a responsibility under the housing health and safety rating system (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports. In its stage 1 response it apologised for the repair delays, the distress caused and offered £80 compensation. In its stage 2 response it said that the handling of her initial repair requests, together with the failed promises and delays experienced at Stage 1 and 2 of its complaints process, was simply not good enough. It apologised for the overall experience, time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience the situation had caused. It offered an additional compensation payment of £100.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident had chased the landlord in March 2022 about incomplete repairs. It said that it was aware of the need to point the outside wall to prevent water leaking in via the door, kitchen drainage issues, uneven garden slabs, and a replacement kitchen and front door. It asked her to provide a list of any other outstanding repairs.
The landlord’s repairs records demonstrate that between April 2022 and December 2022, the resident raised multiple repairs as follows:
1. Concerns about windows not closing or securing shut. The windows were draughty and leaking in water when it rained, and she had damp and mould around all of the windows.
2. Damage caused following a leak, when a water tank was dropped down the stairs, causing the stairs to become “weak”. She reported the staircase banister coming away from the wall, splits across the stairs and parts of the stairs breaking off.
3. A burnt out security light which was a hazard.
4. Raw sewage back surging into the kitchen.
The landlord’s records also show that the landlord had difficulties during this period with its contractor who had “pulled out of completing work in the area”. Its records referred to jobs having fallen through the cracks. This was 4 months after it had spoken with the resident about the outstanding repairs and asked her to provide a list of required work. This demonstrates that it was likely not monitoring work through to completion.
After receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord contacted her on 16 December 2022, stating that it had raised an emergency repair, within 24 hours, for a damp and mould wash. It said that its repairs service manager would inspect the windows and doors, and it had escalated the existing repairs for the kitchen sewage leak and the stairs to its head of repairs service to urgently resolve the matter. It said it would keep her informed of progress.
The resident responded 3 days later, stating that some issues had been ongoing for years. This included the staircase, damp, and smell in the kitchen. She also reported that no one had attended, within 24 hours, to complete the mould wash. The landlord responded the same day and said it was sorry that no one had attended. It had escalated this to the repairs team. It was arranging a visit with its contractor to look into the sewage smell and would assess the windows on 11 January 2023. It was waiting for a response about the staircase and would provide an update. Its failure to attend to complete the damp and mould wash would likely have further added to the resident’s frustration.
The landlord’s records of 21 December 2022 referred to the resident raising her concerns via Twitter. She repeated her concerns about a broken water main and sewage in the kitchen, damp and mould in her home and raised concerns about pest infestations. She said that the broken staircase was getting worse. The doors and windows were draughty, and she could push the tip of her finger through the back door. The patio was uneven, and water flowed toward the house. The walls were soft which meant that electrical sockets would not stay in situ and that electrics required upgrading. She believed that the house was unsuitable to live in. The contractors never completed work and claimed that she was not in for appointments, which was untrue. She wanted it to resolve the matters or move her to a safe, healthy, secure home. She also reported struggling financially due to her home being cold.
The landlord’s records of 3 January 2023 referred to the outside back wall needing pointing to stop water from leaking through the door. This was a matter that it had been aware of since March 2022. It needed to replace the front door and resolve the uneven garden slabs. It would install a kitchen once it had resolved the drainage issues. Again, matters which had been ongoing since March 2022. The records also referred to the following:
1. The windows did not need replacing but it would replace the window boards with uPVC and seal the windows.
2. It needed to replace the bathroom and electrical cupboard locks.
3. It would strengthen the stair handrail to prevent any movement and a few treads on the stairs needed replacing. The resident advised that the staircase was damaged in 2020 when the water tank burst and was dropped down the stairs. This suggests that the matter had been outstanding for a number of years.
4. It needed to make good the kitchen ceiling and flooring in the bedrooms.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 January 2023 stating that her complaints had been outstanding since 2016. She had seen no resolution and asked it to escalate her complaint. She included a link to a Trust Pilot review she had completed in which she repeated her concerns about sewage smells, pests, water ingress and the patio. She said she had watched contractors eat lunch and drive off without ringing her doorbell, and left calling cards without knocking her door.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response it acknowledged that it had let the resident down. It listed the resident’s repairs concerns and acknowledged her assertion that this was making underlying health conditions worse. Its response included as follows:
1. It had undertaken an inspection in December 2023 and identified several repairs including the garden slabs, pointing of the wall, replacement front door and a replacement kitchen once it had resolved the drainage issue. It did not need to replace the windows but would reseal the windows and replace the window boards. It had also agreed to install replacement locks for the electric cupboard and bathroom doors. It would strengthen the banister to help prevent any excessive movement and replace a few treads on the staircase. It would carry out repairs to the flooring in the bedrooms and install underlay to help prevent noise.
2. It attended on 10 January 2023 to begin completing work and had completed a mould wash. The replacement of the kitchen and front door had been approved and assigned to its contractor. It had made safe the banister on 11 November 2022 and would complete the identified follow-on work. Its contractor would return on 16 and 26 January 2023 to complete repairs to the windows, garden, and outside walls.
3. It had found that she had reported the issues on 11 November 2022 and it had failed to resolve them in a reasonable timescale due to poor internal communication. It apologised for the overall experience and offered £80 for the delay in completing the repairs. It had provided feedback to its repairs team to ensure that it learnt from the failure, took steps to ensure its service improved, and that repairs were completed within its specified timescales going forward.
4. It also acknowledged her request to escalate her complaint and said it would confirm the next steps.
The landlord’s response failed to demonstrate that it had investigated its repairs history. While it acknowledged that the repairs had been outstanding since her reports from 11 November 2022, and that it had failed to respond in a reasonable timescale, it failed to acknowledge that some repairs had been outstanding for significantly longer. This was demonstrated in its records of March 2022, some 10 months prior, when it acknowledged the need to point the outside wall, garden slabs, kitchen sewage smell, and replacement kitchen and front door. It also failed to acknowledge or respond to her reports of pest infestations, raised in her complaint and escalation request.
There was evidence from January 2023 that the landlord had asked its customer support team to contact the resident to provide assistance in relation to food and fuel bills. This demonstrates good practice, and that the landlord had listened to the resident’s concerns. It had also considered offering the resident a temporary move to another property (known as a decant), but following its inspection in December 2022, said this was not necessary.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that it had identified service failures that had contributed to the delays, and it committed to resolve all of the issues. Its response included as follows:
1. Its service manager had attended in December 2023 and identified a long list of repairs, including damp and mould throughout her home. It repeated the list of repairs from its stage 1 response. As the list of repairs was extensive, some of the repairs were scheduled to be completed by its in-house team whereas others were passed to its contractor.
2. It completed the replacement of the electric cupboard lock on 10 January 2023 and repeated that its contractor had visited to treat the mould. It again stated that its contractor would return to complete the repairs to the garden, windows and external wall.
3. Due to poor record keeping and information sharing, it was not clear which repairs were complete and which remained outstanding. This was not good enough and it must do better.
4. It contacted the resident on 9 March 2023 to discuss the outstanding issues and sent her an email asking her to confirm exactly what was outstanding so it could arrange the necessary repairs and replacements. It said that the complaint “remained upheld” due to its poor response to her repairs and unreasonable delays. It apologised for her time and trouble spent pursuing her complaint and the distress and inconvenience the situation had caused. It offered additional compensation of £100 for the delays.
The landlord’s response repeated much of its earlier stage 1 response from 13 January 2023. It had asked the resident in March 2022 for a list of her outstanding repairs and again in its stage 2 response of March 2023. This demonstrates poor record keeping and a failure to adhere to its responsive repairs, damp and mould, and disrepair policies. It also failed to show due regard to its obligations under HHSRS with regard to any hazards in the resident’s home. While it increased its compensation offer, the sum offered did not reflect the length of time the repairs had remained outstanding, or any likely detriment to the resident.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response, it received a letter from the resident’s solicitor, on 12 July 2023. The letter said that there was a potential claim for disrepair and hazards due to the damp, mould, ineffective windows and doors, water ingress and multiple repairs including reports of pests.
An expert report was produced, on 19 July 2023, which said that the property was found to be affected by some condensation, dampness and disrepair. The report highlighted the following:
1. It found the front door to be in a reasonable condition given its age. However, noted that there was mould growth adjacent to the door frame.
2. There was a defective socket in the living room. It understood that work had been completed in the past to address electrical issues. There was an inspection sticker on the consumer unit of May 2022, and it recommended that the landlord provide sight of the inspection report to enable it to comment further.
3. The rear access door was noted to “bind with the frame.” This would be considered disrepair to the structure and exterior of the property. In addition, it understood that rainwater penetrated the rear access resulting in disturbance of the flooring and reveals to the kitchen. It recommended further inspection and testing with any disrepair to be addressed.
4. It found some dampness to the door and minor mould growth. This appeared to be the result of potential damp penetration. There was some disrepair with the kitchen sink, missing false drawer fronts and damage to plasterwork. The sink backboard was missing. Work to resolve water penetration would also address the issues of insects entering the property. It also noted, that following the water tank leak, there was staining to the ceiling and recommended that the landlord address this.
5. There was some mould growth in the bathroom considered to be caused by condensation. There was ventilation to the ceiling in the bathroom, however, no mechanical extract ventilation. It recommended the installation of a mechanical fan.
6. It noted some particle board flooring defects in the double bedroom and recommended taking up the floor finish, inspecting the floorboarding and securing.
7. In the second double bedroom it noted that the window was located at a low level and therefore must have a guard. It was concerned as it noted no indications on the glazing that the glazing was of significant quality. It was also concerned that the frame may not be sufficient to act as a guard. It advised that the windowsill board was insecure. It recommended that this was removed, the void inspected, and that it should address any absence of insulation.
8. In the small bedroom, it noted that there was no restrictor on the window which was a safety hazard. The window was ill-fitting with gaps between the window and frame when it was fully closed. This required overhauling. There was minor mould growth from condensation.
9. It understood that there had been a problem with mice in the property, that contractors had visited to bait, were due to return, but failed to do so. It recommended that it engaged a pest control service to bait the property and undertake any necessary works found until resolved.
10. There was no water present to the WC flushing cistern. This had been turned off by the resident as the water continued to run. It recommended an inspection and overhaul.
11. It referred to the central heating and said that at the recent gas safety test, the installation was noted to fail. It recommended that it inspect the appliance and complete any necessary work.
12. It said that the works could be completed, with the resident in situ, within 56 days.
In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that it had received a letter from the resident’s solicitor regarding potential disrepair, however, no particulars of claim were issued, thus the matter remains within our jurisdiction to consider. It said that it had made settlement offer in April 2024, however, the resident’s solicitor had failed to respond. The fact that the resident had need to contact a solicitor demonstrates that the landlord failed to resolve many of the repairs it committed to undertake in its stage 2 response. This was not reasonable given the length of time the repairs had remained outstanding, likely causing further distress and inconvenience to her and her family.
The landlord’s records of February 2024 referred to it completing a technical inspection. This highlighted multiple repairs which remained outstanding. This included as follows:
1. The electrical socket in the living room was not working. It needed to adjust the front door frame, renew the rubber seals, and storm guard to prevent the draught. It is not known whether a new front door was ever fitted as stated in its complaint responses.
2. It also showed that the living room windowsill was damp which required replacing with a uPVC sill.
3. There were drawer fronts missing to the kitchen units. This demonstrates that it had not installed a new kitchen as stated in its complaint responses or actioned the recommendations in the expert report. It also referred to the need to install new vinyl flooring due to water damage seeping in via the patio doors. It referred to a new back board to the sink unit, as per the expert report, again demonstrating that it had not undertaken the recommended work. It also identified that a double socket was not fixed to the plasterboard which needed securing, filling, and decorating.
4. Aco drains needed to be installed along the property to prevent tide marks on the brickwork and stop water penetrating through doors. The patio doors needed overhauling once it had completed a water test, and it needed to ensure that the drainage had been correctly installed. There was a brick missing on the soldier course.
5. The downstairs WC required a new toilet and cistern, and the walls needed to be washed down and treated as per the expert report.
6. It referred to overhauling the bedroom windows, replacing restrictors, and repairing the flooring, all of which were outlined in the expert report.
7. The bathroom required a mould wash and treatment along with the installation of new skirting board which was rotten and a new bathroom floor. It also referred to overhauling the mechanical extraction system as it was not working at the time of the visit.
8. It had been unable to access the consumer unit and would need a full electrical test prior to commencing work. It said that the resident had been under the impression that it would install new windows, doors and a kitchen, however, this was not the case.
The landlord’s further inspection was 6 months after it had received the solicitor’s letter and expert report. It is not known why it had taken so long to act on the recommendations made. It is also evident that it identified additional repairs following its technical visit in February 2024. It should also be noted that it had stated, on several occasions, that it would replace the kitchen once it had resolved the drainage issues.
The landlord’s records of July 2024, referred to all of the windows and doors requiring servicing and overhauling and to refer to the expert report. Its contractor confirmed that it had undertaken repairs to the loose banister, installed a new pendant light in the living room, treated the mould, and carried out repairs to the locks. It had quoted for disrepair works but received no response. This demonstrates that repairs remained outstanding, now over a year since receipt of the expert report.
In August 2024 the landlord’s records referred to the resident refusing access to the property. It had sent 2 operatives on 2 separate occasions; however, she would not allow access. Further records of 2 September 2024 referred to the resident not wanting to progress with it arranging a survey to quote for window and door repairs. We appreciate that this would have added to the delays in completing the repairs.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 September 2024 and apologised further for its failings. It apologised for the repairs delays, offered an additional £760 compensation, and set out further learning from the complaint.
The landlord stated that it would resolve the repairs urgently in December 2022 and committed to resolving them in its complaint responses. However, it continued to repeat its failures after its stage 2 response, the expert report, and its further technical visit. While it set out its learning from the complaint, it did not demonstrate that it had changed its practices. It failed to follow its policies, continued to let the resident down, and put things right.
The landlord’s further compensation offer does not reflect the length of time the repairs remained outstanding, its repeated failures to complete repairs, or the likely distress, inconvenience and detriment caused to the resident. We have, therefore, found severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs. We have awarded additional compensation, in line with our remedies guidance of £1,500.

Associated complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days unless an extension is agreed between the parties. It will respond to stage 2 complaint within 20 working days. If there is a good reason, it may take longer than this, but it will explain this to the complainant, but it will not exceed a further 10 working days unless both parties agree an additional extension.
It is not disputed that the landlord’s complaint responses were late. In both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses it apologised for the delays and offered a total of £60 compensation. It offered a further £100 in its letter of September 2024. Its stage 1 response was delayed by 19 working days and at stage 2 by 40 working days. We saw no evidence that the landlord had communicated the delays to the resident or requested an extension of time to enable it to respond. It failed to effectively communicate with the resident.
That said, it apologised, and its £160 compensation offer was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration in the range of £100 to £600. We, therefore, find, that the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, including damp, mould and pest infestations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident, and not offset against the rent account, the sum of £2,440. This is broken down as follows:
1. £940 offered in its stage 1, 2 and further complaint response of September 2024. (This includes £80 offered at stage 1, £100 offered at stage 2, and £760 offered in its further complaint response. This can be deducted if already paid).
2. A further £1,500 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience likely caused by the repairs delays and the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
The landlord must send a written apology to the resident, by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must contact the resident and make a further offer to complete the repairs identified in the expert report, and its further technical inspection of February 2024.
Within 4 weeks of this determination, the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

Pay the resident £160 for its complaint handling failures (This comprises £20 offered in its stage 1 response, £40 offered in its stage 2 response and £100 offered in its further complaint response).