Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202331791)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331791

The Guinness Partnership Limited

9 July 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to damage caused by its operative.
    2. Damp and a pest infestation in the property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. Her tenancy at the property began on 8 December 2003. The property is a 2 bedroom, second floor flat within a residential block.
  2. On 14 September 2022, the resident reported damp and an infestation of silverfish in the property to the landlord. The landlord inspected the property on 3 October 2022. Following this it raised an order to its contractor to remove a kitchen unit, the kitchen flooring and the bath panel to check for damp and block any access points.
  3. On 27 January 2023, the landlord sent an operative to conduct an electrical test in the property. Later that day, the resident contacted the landlord to say that the operative had damaged paintwork in her bathroom.
  4. The resident made her complaint to the landlord on 17 March 2023. She expressed dissatisfaction that the works order for the kitchen and bathroom had not progressed. She also said that she had an appointment with the landlord earlier that day which nobody had attended. The resident said she was having to clean all surfaces in her kitchen every morning due to the silverfish and they were having a “detrimental effect” on her mental health. She said she had still not heard from the landlord about repairing the paintwork damaged by its operative.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2023. It said that it had:
    1. “Responded appropriately” to the resident’s reports of damp. However, the works it had raised in October 2022 had not been attended within its target timescales and its communication had been poor.
    2. Not received reports of silverfish from any other residents and so the infestation was the resident’s responsibility to address, rather than a communal issue.
    3. Failed to take action to address the damage caused to the bathroom paintwork.
    4. Awarded the resident compensation of £75 for stress, inconvenience and its poor communication and a further £25 for the delay in its stage 1 response.
  6. The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 10 May 2023. She disputed the landlord’s assertion that the silverfish were not in other properties in the block. She said it had still not arranged to make good the damage to her bathroom paintwork.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 5 June 2023. It said that:
    1. Its contractors had found that the silverfish infestation was not caused by any repair issues within the resident’s property.
    2. The contractor had identified a possible leak from the roof, which may be contributing to damp and mould in the block. The contractor had returned to inspect the roof on 1 June 2023, and it was awaiting its findings.
    3. It was aware that other residents were also experiencing issues with silverfish and had raised an order to its pest control contractor. However, this was on hold whilst it investigated the roof.
    4. Its operative had been late to an appointment to repair the bathroom paintwork on 24 May 2023. This had led to the appointment being rescheduled for 31 May 2023. The rescheduled appointment had then been “cancelled incorrectly”.
    5. A new appointment to repair the paintwork had been made for 25 June 2023.
    6. It had increased its offer of compensation to £325, plus a further £60 for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response.
  8. The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint on 14 February 2024. She expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had still not resolved the silverfish infestation and that its communication with her remained poor.

Assessment and findings

Damage caused by operative

  1. On 22 February 2024 the resident told the Ombudsman she considered her complaint about the damage to her bathroom paintwork “resolved”. She said that she did not wish for this Service to investigate it.
  2. The Scheme allows that “the Ombudsman may investigate any complaint duly made but withdrawn”. The landlord did not apportion its final offer of compensation between the 2 issues of complaint. Due to this, it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to assess both issues to determine the reasonableness of the landlord’s overall offer.
  3. The resident notified the landlord of the damage its operative had caused on 27 January 2023. On 30 January 2023, the landlord asked the resident to send it photos of the damage.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to act once it had received these. Despite this, the landlord still failed to progress the matter following its stage 1 investigation. It did not raise a works order to repair the paintwork until the resident escalated her complaint on 10 May 2023. 
  5. The landlord arranged an appointment for the morning of 24 May 2023. The resident says that she took time off work to give access for this. hhHHHHowever, the operative did not arrive at the property until the afternoon, by which time she had left for work. There is no evidence the landlord informed the resident that its operative was behind schedule. The resident had called the landlord at 11:27am that day and it had confirmed the appointment was still scheduled for that morning.
  6. On 26 May 2023, the landlord rebooked the appointment for 31 May 2023. This time the resident arranged for a neighbour to be available to give access. However, the landlord has said that “as the previous repair was incorrectly marked as no access, the subsequent repairs were closed down”. This led to this appointment being cancelled without the resident’s knowledge.
  7. The landlord appropriately apologised for this error and the “poor service” the resident had received. It reasonably arranged to complete the repair on a Sunday to avoid the resident taking further time off work. The paintwork was repaired as scheduled on 25 June 2023.
  8. The detriment caused by the damage can be considered limited due to its cosmetic nature. However, the delay in repairing it (which ran approximately 4 months beyond the landlord’s 28 calendar day repair target) and the 2 missed appointments resulted in distress and inconvenience for the resident. The Ombudsman determines that £125 of the £325 compensation offered by the landlord represents reasonable redress for these failings.

Damp and pest infestation

  1. The resident reported the damp and silverfish in the property on 14 September 2022. The landlord appropriately arranged to inspect the property. It completed the inspection reasonably promptly on 30 September 2022. Following this, the landlord raised a works order to its contractor on 6 October 2022.
  2. The landlord also sent an operative to treat mould in the property on 3 October 2022. However, the operative reported that the resident had already cleaned down and painted over any mould prior to their visit. There is no evidence the resident reported any further issues with mould during the period of complaint.
  3. On 4 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update on the works. The landlord phoned the resident back on 7 November 2022. It apologised that its contractor had not yet been in touch with her and said it had chased this up.
  4. The landlord’s contractor closed the works order on 29 January 2023. It recorded that it had been unable to access the property. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord found that its contractor had failed to notify the resident of this appointment. It also acknowledged that the appointment had exceeded the target of 28 calendar days which its repairs policy sets for routine repairs.
  5. On 8 February 2023, the landlord raised the works order to its contractor for a second time. On 3 March 2023, the contractor attended the property and was unable to gain access. It then closed the second works order. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that the contractor had again failed to notify the resident that it would be attending on that date and inappropriately recorded the appointment as ‘no access’.
  6. As part of her complaint, made on 17 March 2023, the resident alleged that the landlord had failed to attend a scheduled appointment that day. However, the landlord said it was unable to find any evidence of this appointment. The repair logs provided to this Service for this investigation also do not contain any record relating to 17 March 2023. As such, this Service is unable to determine if this appointment related to this complaint.
  7. After the resident made her complaint, the landlord raised the works order to its contractor for a third time on 24 March 2023. After chasing the contractor several times, the landlord engaged a second contractor on 12 April 2023 to carry out the order instead. This was reasonable considering the lengthy delay the works had already been subject to and the fact that the second contractor had confirmed it could attend immediately.
  8. The second contractor attended on 19 April 2023 – as the resident was not available prior to this. It assessed that the silverfish were not related to any repair issues in the resident’s property and so closed the works order.
  9. The contractor did identify a possible leak from the roof of the building. It assessed that this could be contributing to damp and mould in the block, and the presence of silverfish. The landlord sent the contactor back to the block on 1 June 2023 to investigate this further. In its stage 2 complaint response, 4 days later, the landlord advised that it was still awaiting the contractor’s report and recommendations.
  10. A period of almost 6 weeks for the contractor to return and inspect the roof was an unreasonable delay. However, it is noted that the landlord could not disturb birds nesting on the roof and so could not conduct an external inspection. Internal access to the roof space of the block was only available from inside properties on the top floor. This would have required the landlord to arrange access with the residents of these properties, which likely contributed to the delay.
  11. The landlord’s procedure for dealing with pests says that infestations inside a resident’s home are their responsibility – as set out in its tenancy agreement. It says that it will deal with infestations in communal areas or where there is evidence an infestation is the result of “disrepair” or “a defect to the building”.
  12. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that “we have not received any other reports from residents in the building regarding silverfish in their homes, as this is not a communal pest issue, treatment of the silverfish would fall under the tenant’s responsibility. However, we will carry out any work to prevent the damp, which is subsequently causing the presence of silverfish in your home”.
  13. This was not in keeping with its policy. The landlord had acknowledged that the presence of the silverfish was due to damp in the property caused by repair issues. It should therefore have assumed responsibility for the pest control.
  14. The resident escalated her complaint on the basis that other residents were experiencing issues with silverfish too. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that this was the case and its previous statement had been incorrect. It is concerning that the landlord failed to identify the wider silverfish issues during its stage 1 complaint investigation and an order is made concerning this below. At stage 2, the landlord appropriately accepted responsibility for the pest control and confirmed it had raised an order to a contractor.
  15. It advised that this order was on hold until it had completed its investigation of the roof and any repairs identified. It was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to address the root cause of any infestation prior to arranging pest control. To do otherwise would risk the issue reoccurring and the initial pest control being futile.
  16. During the period of complaint, the resident expressed concern that the silverfish were linked to the building’s sprinkler system – having appeared around the time this was installed. The landlord appropriately investigated this as part of its stage 2 response. It confirmed that this could not be the case due to the system being pressurised. It said the only way the silverfish could be linked to the sprinkler system was via a long-term leak. However, it had recently had the system inspected and not identified any such leaks.
  17. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £385, £60 of which was for the delay in its stage 1 complaint response. This Service has assessed a figure of £125 as offering reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the damage caused by its operative. This leaves £200 as redress for its handling of the damp and silverfish.
  18. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments “up to £250” in cases where “The issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household”.
  19. Considering the near 6 month delay between the landlord’s initial inspection and its second contractor attending, the issue cannot be said to have been resolved within a reasonable time. Nor can the resident living with silverfish throughout this period be deemed a “minor inconvenience”. It is the Ombudsman’s view that £200 does not appropriately reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  20. Owing to the landlord’s recognition of its failures and attempt to put things right, a finding of service failure is made and additional compensation of £150 ordered.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the damage caused by its operative.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of damp and a pest infestation in the property.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident a further £150 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the damp and pest infestation.
    2. Contact the resident, and any other residents of the block who have reported silverfish in the past 12 months, to ascertain if they are still experiencing this. Based upon this the landlord should assess whether it is appropriate to:
      1. Inspect any affected properties, and the block itself, for defects contributing to this.
      2. Raise an order for further pest control.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the way it records reports of pest infestations (including where these are deemed to be resident responsibility). The landlord should ensure that reports can be cross referenced and collated by staff to identify wider pest issues which may be linked to disrepair, defect and environmental issues within its blocks and estates.