The Guinness Partnership Limited (202330416)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330416

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 May 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of:
  1. The resident’s reports of condensation, damp, and mould.
  2. The resident’s reports of noise from the bedroom floorboards.
  3. The associated complaint.
2. The landlord’s communication with the resident.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy of the property, a 2-bedroom house. The tenancy started in February 2021. The resident lives at the property with his wife and 2 young children.
The resident reported issues with draughts from the back door and surrounding window panels to the landlord on 10 November 2022. The landlord inspected the property on 14 November 2022 and reported that the back door was swelling and letting draughts in, and it needed replacing. The landlord later informed the resident that the work would be completed under a planned programme of works but did not confirm which year this would be completed. The resident continued to report issues with the door including condensation and mould in the property and chased the landlord for an update on multiple occasions between December 2022 and October 2023. The door was not replaced in this time.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 June 2023. He was unhappy that he hadn’t heard anything from the landlord about the door replacement since November 2022 despite calling on several occasions. He said he wanted compensation for the extra money he was spending to heat his home due to the draughty door and told the landlord he was withholding rent until the issue was resolved. The resident also complained about noisy floorboards in the property. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 3 July 2023 and said the back door would be replaced under a planned programme and said it could not guarantee when that would be. The landlord offered £50 for the delayed complaints response. It responded at stage 2 on 3 August 2023 and apologised for failing to call the resident back on several occasions. It increased its offer of compensation to £250, comprising £100 for time and trouble, £100 for poor communication and £50 for the delayed complaints response at stage 1.
The resident remained dissatisfied and referred the matter to this Service on 29 November 2023. In referring the complaint to us, the resident said he remained unhappy with the way the landlord had handled things and with the standard of the landlord’s communication. He wanted the issue with condensation, damp and mould resolved and for the noisy floorboards to be repaired.
It is noted that the resident continued to contact the landlord about the issues after exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. On 9 November 2023 the landlord arranged a damp and mould inspection at the property. The landlord completed a mould wash on 2 February 2024 and the back door was replaced in May 2024. The resident has informed this Service that the issues with condensation, damp and mould have been resolved.
Following this Service’s request for evidence the landlord issued an updated response to the resident on 17 May 2024. The landlord said it had reviewed the case and found that the compensation offered was not reflective of the time and trouble the delays in resolving the issue would have had on the resident and his family. The landlord offered an additional £750, comprising £700 for time, trouble and inconvenience incurred by the overall handling of the issue and £50 for poor communication during the complaint process. The landlord also outlined changes it had made since dealing with his complaint which included staff training, policy reviews, a new working group reviewing repairs complaints and the implementation of a new software to help track repairs. The resident accepted this offer.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In his initial complaint to the landlord on 2 June 2023 the resident reported an issue with noisy floorboards. In its stage 1 response of 3 July 2023 the landlord confirmed this was the first time the issue had been reported and therefore it would be treated as a service request rather than a complaint. The landlord raised a repair order for the noisy floorboards to be inspected.
When referring the complaint to this Service, the resident has outlined his complaint to include the landlord’s handling of the reports of noisy floorboards.
Paragraph 1.4 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says a “service request is a request from a resident to their landlord requiring action to be taken to put something right”. The landlord acted appropriately in identifying this request as a service request. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the request, he can contact the landlord to raise a complaint.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme provides that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. The landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate this part of the complaint, therefore any issues raised by the resident regarding the noisy floorboards are outside of the jurisdiction of this Service to consider.
A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to contact the resident about the service request made in June 2023 and clarify whether he wishes to raise a complaint about its response to the service request.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp, and mould.

It is evident this situation was distressing for the resident. In this case, the resident reported issues with draughts coming from the back door and surrounding window panels on several occasions prior to specifically reporting issues with condensation, damp, and mould. It later became evident that the issue with the back door was likely the primary cause of the issue with condensation, damp, and mould within the property. It may help to clarify that the Ombudsman’s role is to assess if the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in its handling of the resident’s reports of these repair issues using the evidence that it had at the time the issues were reported, without using the benefit of hindsight.
For the avoidance of doubt, this section of the assessment covers the landlord’s handling of the initial reports of issues with the back door as well as the subsequent reports of condensation, damp, and mould.
The resident contacted the landlord about draughts from the back door on 10 November 2022. The landlord attended to inspect on 14 November 2022 and noted the door was swollen and letting in draughts. It informed the resident that the door and surrounding windows were beyond economical repair and needed replacing. At this time, there was no evidence or mention of the property being affected by condensation, damp, or mould.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that when it cannot complete a repair on the first visit it will communicate clearly with the resident explaining what will happen next and when it will be returning to complete the repair. Although the operative told the resident the door needed replacing in November 2022, it was not until the stage 1 response of 3 July 2023 that the landlord told the resident the door would be replaced under a planned programme of works. It is reasonable for the landlord to have decided to replace the door under a planned programme but it is unreasonable that the landlord took 8 months to formally notify the resident of this decision.
It is also noteworthy that at the time of issuing the stage 1 response on 3 July 2023 the resident had reported issues with condensation in the property in his initial complaint of 2 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged this in its response and acted reasonably in arranging an appointment on 5 July 2023 to attempt to complete some repairs to the door. The notes from the appointment state that the door was adjusted but the resident called the landlord on 10 July 2023 and said the repairs had not improved the situation.
The landlord was put on notice of the issue with condensation and mould from 2 June 2023. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will:
1. Provide dry, warm, healthy, and safe homes for residents which are free from any hazards.
2. Attend the property to treat the immediate problem, on receiving a report related to condensation, damp, and mould, as well as identifying other action needed to prevent the issue reoccurring.
It also states that finding out what is causing damp and mould is not always straightforward and that on some occasions it will need to further diagnose the problem.
The landlord is responsible for keeping the property free from hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System. Excess cold and damp and mould growth are listed as hazards. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The resident made the landlord aware that he had a young child with vulnerabilities and a newborn baby in the property in December 2022. It is understandable that having 2 young children in the house would have added to the resident’s concern with the cold temperature and eventual mould growth in the property. The landlord’s repairs policy does not make separate mention of prioritising repairs where residents are considered vulnerable and neither of its complaint responses acknowledged the distress this may have caused the resident. The landlord has failed to consider the household’s potential vulnerabilities when handling the repairs.
In a telephone call on 19 December 2022 the resident told the landlord he was spending extra money on energy bills keeping the property warm due to the draughts. There is no evidence of the landlord attending to inspect the property until 26 June 2023, when it sent an electrician to check the extractor fan. The electrician commented that the back door required replacing. However in its own internal communication, the landlord pointed out that the electrician may not have been best placed to suggest if the door needs replacing as it is not their trade. It is unclear why the landlord did not send a more appropriate tradesperson to inspect the door. It is also unreasonable that it took over 6 months for it to inspect the issue when its repairs policy states it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. The landlord failed to complete the repairs within a reasonable timescale.
As above, the resident first reported issues with condensation on 2 June 2023. There is no evidence of the landlord carrying out a damp and mould inspection until 9 November 2023. Furthermore there is no evidence of any works specifically related to damp and mould being carried out until 2 February 2024. The landlord’s damp and mould policy does not specify the timescales by which it would inspect properties after receiving a report concerning damp and mould, however it is reasonable to conclude that it would be less than 5 months.
Its policy does stipulate that any works identified from an inspection will be completed within the usual repair timeframes. Therefore it is unreasonable that it took until 2 February 2024 for any work to be done after the inspection was raised in November 2023. Had it organised for a specialist inspection sooner, the landlord might have identified potential interim repairs that could have improved the situation even temporarily. The landlord has failed to work in accordance with its policies and failed to ensure the resident is living in a home free from harm.
There is no evidence of the landlord reassessing its decision to wait to replace the door under a planned programme of works and no evidence of it considering prioritising the planned works. This is despite it knowing that the property was now suffering from damp and mould and the temporary repairs it had attempted had not improved the situation. It is reasonable to assume that the condition of the property may have deteriorated over time. This Service published a spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2022 which recommended that a landlord should be able to satisfy itself that it is taking all reasonable steps to manage a situation if structural works are not feasible. In this case, the landlord arranged to attend on 5 July 2023, 5 September 2023, and 6 November 2023 to assess the situation but there is no evidence of the damp and mould being tackled until a mould wash was completed on 2 February 2024.
In its stage 2 response of 3 August 2023 the landlord explained that it had ceased its contractual relationship with the contractor who had attended in November 2022. It said this was due to complaints about the standard of the repairs service being offered by them. It explained that ending the contract had caused some disruption to its repairs service and this had led to the resident’s repairs not being completed as promised. The landlord acknowledged that there had been an unreasonable delay and offered £100 compensation for the time and trouble incurred by the resident.
Although it is positive that the landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation, it failed to apologise for the issues caused by ending its relationship with the contractor and its compensation offer was not reasonable considering the impact the delay would have had on the resident and his family. Its stage 1 response of 3 July 2023 failed to offer any explanation for the delays at all.
The landlord’s compensation policy details offers of compensation will be made based on the level of impact and the length of time an issue has been ongoing. Offers below £250 are made for minor inconveniences where no lasting impact has been incurred by the household. At the time of making the offer of £100 the resident had been reporting issues with the back door for more than 9 months and had reported issues with condensation and mould affecting the property. It is inappropriate for the landlord to have defined this as a minor inconvenience in terms of its compensation offer, especially considering it had offered no commitment to resolve the issue in the long term and this is a failure.
The landlord made an increased offer of £700 for time and trouble in the follow up letter of 17 May 2024. This is more in line with its compensation policy, which notes this level of compensation as appropriate for significant inconveniences. In the follow up letter the landlord has apologised for the overall handling of the concerns but has failed to specifically identify any failures in handling the reports of damp and mould. It is therefore unclear how the landlord has come to this figure of compensation. The follow up letter has been assessed later in this report under complaints handling.
In its stage 2 response the landlord committed to assessing the door on 5 September 2023 following which it would confirm if further repairs could be completed or if a renewal was required. The notes from the inspection state that the door was not deemed an urgent priority and was “in an ok condition for its age”. There is no mention of damp and mould in the notes from this visit although the resident continued to report issues with mould.
It is unclear from the evidence if the operative completed any repairs at this visit and the operative’s notes said that a surveyor or a manager should review the case. This suggests that the operative in attendance was not authorised to make the decision around the replacement of the door. It is unclear why the landlord did not send someone with the appropriate level of authority or competency to complete the assessment in one visit when its repairs policy states clearly that it aims to resolve as many issues as possible in one visit. There is also no evidence of the landlord confirming if or when the door would be replaced following this visit, as was promised in its stage 2 response and this is a failure.
The resident first mentioned condensation in his complaint of 2 June 2023, where he suggested the extractor fan may not have been working as it should. The landlord sent an electrician to check the fan on 26 June 2023 who confirmed the fan was working correctly and that no condensation was present. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will always seek to find the cause of the issue and resolve it, even when it isn’t a straightforward fix. It is reasonable that the landlord sent the electrician as the resident suggested that the fan could be the cause and it is reasonable that it could not take any action where there was no visible issue. However, there is no evidence of any further investigation into other possible causes of the condensation and no evidence of the landlord providing any information to the resident regarding what he could do should the condensation return or worsen.
In its stage 2 response of 3 August 2023 the landlord said it would:
1. Visit on 5 September 2023 to assess the door.
2. Confirm to the resident whether the door could be repaired or if a replacement was required.
After issuing the response, the landlord:
1. Attended on 5 September 2023 however there is no evidence of the landlord confirming the outcome of the visit to the resident.
2. Attended on 6 November 2023 and fitted draught excluders to the door.
3. Booked a damp and mould inspection on 9 November 2023, although the landlord has not provided any notes from this inspection, so it is not clear if this appointment went ahead.
4. Issued a generic satisfaction survey regarding damp and mould on 20 December 2023. The resident responded and said the property was still suffering with mould and he was washing it away every few days.
5. Completed a mould wash on 2 February 2024 and identified works including insulation to be fitted in the eaves and insulated plywood to be fitted to the back door or for the back door to be replaced.
6. Installed insulation to the eaves on 4 March 2024.
7. Completed the back door replacement in May 2024.
These are all reasonable steps however it took the landlord an unreasonable length of time to complete them. There is evidence of the resident contacting the landlord 16 times between August 2023 and May 2024 chasing an update on the outstanding repairs. There is further evidence of the landlord actively choosing not to return these calls because it had no update to offer. This is unacceptable and has been assessed later in this report.
In conclusion to the handling of the damp and mould issues, although it was reasonable for the landlord to decide to complete the back door repair under a planned programme of works, it failed to communicate this decision to the resident in a timely manner. It also failed to take steps to support the resident and failed to carry out successful interim repairs to manage the mould from the time it was on notice of this. The landlord did not adapt its approach considering the vulnerability of the 2 young children living at the property and did not provide a proportionate level of redress for these failures through its complaints process. The landlord failed to fulfil its commitments from the stage 2 response. It then further failed to effectively communicate with the resident regarding the outstanding repairs over an unreasonably long period of time following the issuance of its final response.
This investigation has found maladministration and orders have been made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. In this case it took the landlord 23 working days to respond at stage 1. In its stage 2 response of 3 August 2023 the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing the stage 1 response and offered £50 compensation in recognition of this.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the issue satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology and offer of compensation), was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The delay was frustrating for the resident however this service failure caused no lasting impact on the resident. The landlord acknowledged the delay, apologised, and compensated appropriately for it and therefore no further service failure has been identified in this regard.
On 17 May 2024, after this Service requested evidence from the landlord regarding this investigation, the landlord sent the resident a follow up response which included the following:
1. An apology to the resident.
2. An acknowledgement that it had not taken into consideration the impact the delay to complete the repairs may have had on the family.
3. An acknowledgement that the compensation offer did not reflect the time and trouble and inconvenience experienced by the family.
4. An offer of an additional £750 compensation, comprising £700 for overall time and trouble and £50 complaints handling, making the total offer in relation to the matter £1000.
5. An outline of the learnings identified from the complaint and changes made since then.
Though it is positive that the landlord identified these failings, it is unfair to the resident that it only appeared to do so after it became clear this Service would be investigating the complaint. The outcomes offered in the follow up response are in line with the guidance used by this Service when considering appropriate remedies, but it remains a failure that the landlord failed to offer them at an earlier stage in the process. The landlord should consider how its own processes can offer appropriate resolutions to complaints without the need for intervention from this Service. For this reason this investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s communication with the resident.

The landlord failed to call back the resident on 6 occasions between November 2022 and March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response letter and acknowledged that it had fallen short of the level of service it should be providing. The landlord offered £100 compensation in recognition of its poor communication.
Although it is positive the landlord acknowledged and compensated for the failure, the landlord failed to demonstrate it had learned from this poor communication. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 occasions after receiving the stage 2 response, between August 2023 and May 2024. The evidence shows the landlord was reluctant to speak with the resident because there was no new information to provide. It is noted that a number of these contacts may have been regarding the issue with the floorboards which is not being assessed within the scope of this investigation. It was unreasonable for the landlord to refuse to speak with the resident, especially given the landlord had identified and apologised for its previous failure to do so in its complaint response.
If the landlord felt the resident’s level of communication was inappropriate or excessive, it could have discussed this with the resident and agreed upon a reasonable level of contact. It is the finding of this investigation that the levels of contact were not excessive, so it is unclear why the landlord did not engage with the resident to find an agreeable method of communication. The government’s Social Housing White Paper outlines the importance of resident’s feeling heard by their landlords and the landlord in this case has demonstrated a significant failure in this regard.
The landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations with regards to when the back door might be replaced. The resident was told the door would be replaced on at least 6 occasions between 14 November 2022 and 2 February 2024. Although the landlord was careful to explain that it could not confirm when the door would be replaced, it was unreasonable to continue telling the resident the door would be replaced without offering any new information or agreeing a method by which the resident would be updated.
The landlord’s internal communication shows it was basing its decisions mostly on its own stock condition data rather than listening to the resident’s lived experience in the property. Referring to the back door replacement, the landlord used phrases such as “if we do one, everyone will want them done”. This does not show consideration for the fact that the resident had told it he was distressed by living in damp conditions with a young child and a newborn baby. This type of communication suggests the landlord viewed the situation as minor and its attitude to the situation appears to have influenced how it has dealt with the issue. The landlord failed to apologise or acknowledge this, even in its follow up letter of May 2024. This is a service failure, and an order has been made below in relation to this.
In conclusion of the landlord’s communication, although the landlord identified its service had fallen short in its stage 2 response, it failed to learn from this and continued to offer the resident a poor service. It failed to listen to the resident and actively refused call back requests on several occasions and so this investigation has found maladministration in this regard.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation, damp, and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a further written apology to the resident addressing all the failings identified in this report.
2. Review the case with relevant staff members with specific consideration to how it responded to the resident’s repair requests. It should evaluate what changes have been made or can be made to prevent a reoccurrence of this situation in future. A copy of the review must be shared with this Service.
3. Review its policies to ensure household vulnerabilities are considered.
4. Pay the resident £1,050, inclusive of the £1000 already offered, comprising:
  1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in handling the complaint.
  3. £250 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s poor standard of communication.
The landlord is to pay the additional compensation ordered by this Service directly to the resident and not use it to offset any monies that he may owe the landlord. If the landlord has already made partial payment, it must provide evidence of this.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident regarding the noisy floorboards and confirm if he wishes to open a complaint regarding the handling of the matter.