The Guinness Partnership Limited (202337119)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337119

The Guinness Partnership Limited

18 December 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. She lives in a top floor flat within an over 55’s scheme. The resident’s son made the complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of the resident. For the purpose of this report, we will refer to both parties as ‘the resident’.
4. The resident reported that the roof was leaking in July 2021. The resident complained about the handling of the repairs and the landlord issued a stage 1 response to this complaint on 18 March 2022.
5. The resident made further reports that the roof was leaking in October 2022 and February 2023. She raised a new complaint about the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs on 27 November 2023, in which she raised the following points:
   1. The landlord had attempted to repair the leak 3 times previously but there was still water ingress through the roof, which had caused damage in her bedroom.
   2. The landlord’s communication was poor and that a repair was booked for 15 December 2023, but she had no confidence that this would go ahead or be successful.
   3. The resident said that she was vulnerable and raised concerns about living with the leak during winter.
   4. The landlord was in breach of the lease agreement.
6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 8 December 2023, in which it:
   1. Stated that it was unable to complete the repair within its 28-day timeframe due to an issue with the scaffolding contractor.
   2. Apologised for the distress caused and offered the resident £25 compensation in recognition of the delays.
   3. Confirmed that the repair was scheduled for 15 December 2023 and that it would contact the resident on 18 December to ensure that no further issues were outstanding.
7. The resident escalated her complaint on 11 December 2023 and stated that:
   1. The complaint response and compensation offered were unacceptable.
   2. The leak had been reported earlier than November 2023 and the landlord had reassured her it would be repaired.
   3. There was damp on her bedroom ceiling and carpet.
   4. She had experienced stress and anxiety caused by the situation
8. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 January 2024, in which it:
   1. Found that the stage 1 response had failed to consider that the roof leak had been a recurring issue following the March 2022 complaint outcome.
   2. Stated that the 15 December 2023 appointment did not take place because the scaffolding contractors were unable to do the works and that it needed to source an alternative contractor.
   3. Confirmed that all works should be completed by the end of January 2024.
   4. Apologised for the further delays in completing the roof repair and offered £175 compensation which replaced the offer made at stage 1. This amount was comprised as follows:
      1. £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience
      2. £25 for poor communication. 
9. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 22 January 2024. She stated that the roof leak had been ongoing for 4 years and had not been properly resolved. She said that water was coming through the ceiling which had caused damage. In order to resolve her complaint, she said that the landlord should fix the roof and repair damage caused inside the property which had been caused by its lack of action.
10. The landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident on 6 August 2024, in which it found that it had identified failures in how it had handled the complaint. The landlord stated that:
    1. It failed to address the resident’s request for it to repair damage to the inside of the property following the leak and her request for a meeting with a senior staff member.
    2. It did not discuss the resident’s vulnerabilities with her, the impact that this had on her or how it could support her further.
    3. It had increased its offer of compensation to £575, which was made up as follows:
       1. £150 for the time, trouble and inconvenience.
       2. £25 for the delays in erecting scaffolding.
       3. £400 for failing to acknowledge her vulnerabilities.
11. On 9 December 2024, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the roof had been successfully repaired and that the damage to the ceiling had also recently been repaired. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident stated that the landlord should take learning from the outcome of the complaint and change its processes to ensure such reports are properly recorded and to make it easier for those in over 55’s accommodation to report repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope

12. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. This investigation will not consider the resident’s July 2021 complaint as the landlord considered this in its previous stage 1 response and there was no indication that the resident escalated this to stage 2. This investigation will therefore consider events from October 2022 onwards. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof leaks

13. The lease agreement states that the landlord will maintain and keep in good repair the main structure of the building, including the roof. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it categorises repair requirements as either emergency or routine. Emergency repairs are those that address an immediate health and safety risk and will be completed within 24 hours. Routine repairs are not emergencies and will be fixed within 28 calendar days.
14. The resident reported that the roof was leaking on 18 October 2022. The landlord scheduled the repair for 25 October 2022 however, the repairs were not carried out on this date. The repairs notes state that scaffolding was required and that the job had been re-booked.
15. In its stage 1 response, the landlord stated that it needed to return to the property with more materials to fix the issue and the repair went ahead on 8 November 2022. In the resident’s escalation request, she disputed this version of events and said that the roofing contractors refused to use the scaffolding that was erected and the landlord had failed to adequately coordinate the works. While it is acknowledged that the resident was required to wait a further 2 weeks for the repair to take place, the landlord did complete the works within the required 28-day timeframe, which was acceptable.
16. The resident reported that the roof was leaking again on 21 February 2023. She said that the landlord had already completed 2 previous repairs for the same issue and that the leak had caused damage to the bedroom ceiling.
17. The landlord conducted an inspection of the roof on 14 April 2023, which was 52 days after the resident reported the issue. During this visit, the engineer identified that scaffolding was required for the repair to be completed. The landlord has not provided evidence of how long it took to arrange the scaffolding or confirmed when it was erected. The repairs records state that the roof repairs were completed on 16 May 2023, which was 84 days after the resident reported the issue. No evidence has been provided to indicate that there were unavoidable delays in sourcing the scaffolding. The evidence therefore reflects a failing by the landlord to inspect and repair the roof within the 28-day timeframe stipulated in its repairs policy. Further, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord repaired the damage caused inside the resident’s property, which it ought to have done.
18. The landlord’s notes reflect that the resident further reported that the roof was leaking in the same place on 14 November 2023. When she escalated her complaint, the resident said that she had reported the most recent leak in person to a member of the landlord’s staff prior to November 2023. The repairs records do not refer to any reports made prior to this. The landlord is reminded that it should maintain accurate contemporaneous notes of repairs that have been reported both verbally and in writing.
19. Following the 14 November 2023 report, the landlord raised a works order and noted that scaffolding was required. A repairs appointment was scheduled for 15 December 2023. However, the landlord’s emails indicate that its scaffolding contractor had gone out of business and the repair had been passed to the major works team. It is unclear when the landlord became aware of this and it is therefore difficult to assess whether efforts were made to identify a new contractor in good time.
20. A new contractor had been instructed by 15 December 2023. Emails sent between the landlord and the roofing contractor during December 2023 indicate that the contractor could not initially provide a date for the repairs due to being busy. On 22 December 2023, the contractor advised the landlord that the scaffolding would be erected within the first 2 weeks of January 2024, and in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the repairs would be completed by the end of January 2024.
21. The landlord’s correspondence with the contractor during January 2024 indicated that the works had been delayed due to bad weather, and the contractors advised that the repairs would take place on 2 February 2023. The information provided by the landlord does not state whether this repairs appointment went ahead, and it is therefore unclear when the issue was resolved. The landlord should ensure it provides clear evidence of repairs to the Ombudsman.
22. The scaffolding contractor and poor weather delays were out of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord ought to have taken steps to assess whether any interim measures could have been taken to mitigate the issues within the resident’s home, particularly given that she is elderly and that the leak occurred in her bedroom during winter. There is no evidence that the landlord undertook any temporary repairs inside the property, or that it considered moving her to alternative temporary accommodation. The lack of action by the landlord in this regard indicates that it did not properly consider the impact of the ongoing leak on the resident despite her reporting her concerns several times. This was a failing by the landlord.
23. This service understands that a further inspection of the roof took place in July 2024, but it is unclear what date any further roof repairs took place. The resident reported that the leak had been resolved and the landlord provided evidence to show that the bedroom ceiling was repaired on 8 November 2024.
24. Overall, the landlord failed to ensure that a lasting resolution had been reached regarding the repair and the evidence indicates that the roof issues continued after the stage 2 response. Further, the landlord did not take steps to mitigate the impact of the leak caused by the repairs delays. While the landlord did identify failings in how it handled the repair, the additional failings identified in this report amount to maladministration. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
25. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs and the resulting leak into her property. Significant concern and frustration will have been caused as the same issue occurred several times, causing damage to the ceiling. 
26. The landlord offered the resident £575 compensation, which could have been sufficient to resolve the resident’s complaint. However, this offer was made outside the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of leaks. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay £575 compensation, if it has not already done so.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord issued a further complaint response to the resident on 6 August 2024, in which it identified failings regarding how it handled the complaint and offered additional compensation. While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, it is not clear why the landlord did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure, rather than some 7 months after its stage 2 response.
28. The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress because the offer was made after the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. This is because our investigation is focused on the landlord’s handling of the complaint through its complaints process and whether it did enough to resolve the complaint through its complaints process. If the landlord failed to fully resolve the complaint through its complaints process, the Ombudsman will make a finding of service failure or maladministration depending upon the extent of the landlord’s failings and how these affected the resident.
29. The Ombudsman has therefore found that there was service failure in terms of the landlord’s complaint handling. However, we have not ordered any additional compensation as the amount already offered is sufficient to put things right.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of roof repairs.
31. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

32. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. pay the resident the £575 compensation already offered for the unreasonable delay in completing the repairs to the leaks, and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
    2. the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint.
    3. provide evidence of the above payments to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

33. It is recommended that the landlord considers any learning that could improve its response to repairs, and that it gives specific consideration to the resident’s request for adjustments to be made regarding how elderly residents can report repairs to make this more accessible.
34. It is recommended that the landlord conducts staff training on the importance of keeping clear and accessible records of property inspections.