The Guinness Partnership Limited (202406803)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202406803

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 April 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for a new kitchen.
2. Concerns about the condition of the bathroom flooring.
3. Reports of a faulty electric shower.
4. Concerns about window cleaning.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began in November 2017. The landlord has advised us that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a medium-rise block.
On 14 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and advised him that it would review his kitchen for possible inclusion in its planned programme from 2022 onwards. The resident contacted the landlord in 2024 to report his concerns that his kitchen had not yet been replaced.
The resident contacted the landlord in February and June 2023 to report defects with the lino in the bathroom. He chased the landlord in September 2023 and the landlord renewed the flooring on 19 December 2023.
The landlord raised an order on 12 May 2024 to repair the electric shower in the property. The shower unit was replaced, however, during the remainder of May and June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord various times to report ongoing problems with the shower.
On 20 May 2024, the resident made a stage 1 complaint in which he stated the following:
1. He said he was dissatisfied with ongoing property management and maintenance issues and he gave the following examples:
  1. He said there had been damaged flooring in the bathroom and this had taken over a year to rectify.
  2. He said there was still a problem with the electric shower, even though an engineer had replaced it on 15 May 2024.
  3. He said that he had been paying a service charge for window cleaning but had not noticed his windows being cleaned.
  4. He said that no progress had been made in replacing his kitchen, even though the kitchen replacement had been agreed in 2022. He said the current condition of the kitchen units posed safety and hygiene concerns.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 2 July 2024 in which it stated the following:
1. The resident had contacted the landlord on 8 June 2023 to report the damaged lino in the bathroom. The landlord had replaced the lino on 19 December 2023 and accepted that there had been an unreasonable delay in completing the work.
2. The resident had reported problems with the electric shower on 12 May 2024. The landlord had replaced the shower but then identified a secondary problem with the unvented hot water system. It had therefore passed the matter to its heating and hot water team.
3. In terms of the resident’s requests to replace the kitchen, the landlord said it had written to advise the resident that his kitchen would be reviewed in relation to its planned programme. However, it said it had advised the resident that this was not a guarantee or definite indication of when the kitchen would be replaced. The landlord accepted though that it had failed to respond to the resident’s request for information about the planned programme within a reasonable time and therefore upheld this part of his complaint.
4. The landlord said it had requested its customer liaison officer to contact the resident regarding his concerns about the window cleaning.
5. The landlord apologised to the resident for the distress caused by the service he had received and offered him compensation of £200.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2, 3 and 5 July 2024 to request the landlord to escalate his complaint because he disputed some of the information contained in the stage 1 reply. He said:
1. His bathroom had been left without floor covering and with damp flooring for over a year.
2. He had been unable to have a shower for 2 months. The situation had been made worse because he was unable to have baths due to a medical condition.
3. Although an engineer had attended on 14 December 2023 to carry out works to the kitchen units, no work had been done. The resident said the engineer had advised the resident to contact the landlord as the replacement of the kitchen was overdue.
4. The resident said he had still not seen his windows being cleaned.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 2 December 2024 and stated the following:
1. It was satisfied that the information in its stage 1 reply was correct and it did not consider it reasonable to replace the kitchen at that stage.
2. It confirmed there had been an unreasonable delay in replacing the lino in the bathroom and said this had been addressed in its stage 1 reply.
3. It had arranged for a heating contractor to carry out work to the unvented cylinder on 14 July 2024 and the resident had not reported any further problems with the shower since this date.
4. The landlord’s customer liaison officer had spoken to the resident about his concerns regarding the window cleaning. She had advised the resident that the window cleaning was carried out quarterly. The contractor had last attended on 22 April 2024 and was next due to attend in July 2024. The landlord had advised the window cleaning contractor about the resident’s concerns.
5. The landlord acknowledged that it had not escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 when he had requested and therefore it apologised and offered him an additional £100 compensation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2024 and disputed some of the information given in the landlord’s stage 2 reply. He said the bathroom flooring had been damaged by a roof leak in 2021. An engineer removed the lino and the floor remained without lino for over 2 years.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 February 2025 to say that it had reviewed the level of compensation offered to the resident and believed this had not been in line with its compensation policy. The landlord therefore offered an additional £450 compensation. The resident wrote to the landlord and to us on 28 February 2025 and said he was happy to accept the £750 offered. However, he mentioned there were some ongoing issues with his bath, kitchen and windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2024 and said that the flooring in the bathroom had been damaged by a roof leak in 2021. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. In this case, the resident raised his complaint in May 2024. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the events relating to the bathroom flooring from 2023 onwards.

The resident’s request for a new kitchen

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
1. “We will normally repair rather than replace individual elements. However, where either the repair would be poorer value for money or ineffective, then we will replace the element. The decision about what to replace, when to replace it and what we will replace it with, will be made at our discretion”.
2. Repairs are categorized as either emergency or routine. In the case of emergencies, the landlord will either complete a repair or make safe within 24 hours. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The Safety and Quality Standard published by the Regulator of Social Housing states that social landlords must ensure that tenants’ homes meet the Decent Homes Standard (DHS) and must maintain their homes to at least this standard. In order for a property to meet the DHS, it must have reasonably modern facilities and services. A property fails to meet the DHS if it lacks three or more modern facilities, such as the kitchen being more than 20 years old.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 November 2023 to report damage to the kitchen shelf and a faulty kitchen cupboard door. The landlord raised a job on the same day to carry out the repairs and the repairs were completed on 14 December 2023. As the repair had been raised as a 28-day routine job, the landlord had carried out the work within an appropriate timescale.
During the operative’s visit on 14 December 2023, the resident advised him that he had been told the kitchen was due to be replaced. The operative advised the resident that it was not possible for the landlord to replace the kitchen at present due to budget cuts. We have seen no evidence that the landlord followed up the resident’s concerns about the replacement of his kitchen. This was unreasonable as the resident had raised a concern about the replacement of his kitchen and therefore the operative should have reported this back to the landlord so that it could respond to the resident. The advice given by the operative was unhelpful as it did not provide the resident with any meaningful information about when his kitchen might be renewed in the future.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 March 2024 to ask when his kitchen would be replaced. He said he had previously been advised that it would be renewed in 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 March 2024 and advised him that he had previously been told that his kitchen would be reviewed from 2022 for the planned maintenance programme but no guarantees had been given about the timing of the actual replacement.
We have reviewed a letter sent by the landlord on 14 January 2022 which advised him that it would review his kitchen for inclusion in a future planned programme from 2022. The letter said that this was not a definite indication of when the kitchen would be replaced and the replacement could be later than the year shown. The letter said that the resident would be contacted nearer the time the renewal was due to take place. Based on this letter, our view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to have written to the resident on 18 March 2024 and advised him that no guarantees had been given about the timing of the kitchen replacement. The information given in the letter of 18 March 2024 was consistent with the information in the earlier letter of 14 January 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 and 21 May 2024 as part of his stage 1 complaint and repeated that it had initially been agreed that his kitchen would be replaced in 2022 and no progress had been made since then. He said that the current state of his kitchen posed safety and hygiene concerns. He added that the cabinets were falling apart, the countertop was cracked and there was mould due to persistent leaks.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 2 July 2024 and referred to the letter it had sent to him on 14 January 2022 stating that his kitchen would be considered for replacement from 2022 but this was not a definite indication of the replacement timescale. The landlord quoted from its responsive repairs policy which states that it will normally repair rather than replace individual elements unless it was decided the repair would not provide value for money or would be ineffective. Given that the resident had raised concerns about when his kitchen would be renewed, it was reasonable for the landlord to clarify the position set out in its letter of 14 January 2022. It was also appropriate for the landlord to point out that its policy was to repair rather than replace items unless this represented poor value for money or the repair would not be effective.
The landlord apologised for the inappropriate advice given by the operative on 14 December 2023 about not being able to replace the kitchen due to budget cuts. Our view is that an apology was a reasonable and proportionate response for the incorrect advice given by the operative.
The landlord inspected the kitchen on 5 June 2024 and concluded that it was in a repairable state and would not currently be considered for replacement. The landlord referred to this visit in its stage 1 reply dated 2 July 2024. As the resident had raised concerns about the condition of the kitchen on 21 May 2024, it was appropriate that the landlord had arranged to inspect the kitchen within a reasonable timescale. The inspection enabled the landlord to check the current condition of the kitchen and whether it was still serviceable or required renewal. The inspection was carried out by a senior repairs manager and, as such, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on his opinions.
The landlord said in its stage 1 reply that during the inspection on 5 June 2024, the manager had identified some repairs that were needed. The landlord had therefore arranged for an operative to attend on 1 July 2024 to carry out the works. It was appropriate that the landlord had arranged for an operative to carry out the repairs within the landlord’s 28-day target for routine repairs.
The landlord said in its stage 1 letter that the resident had refused to allow the operative to complete all of the works on 1 July 2024. The resident disputed this account in an email dated 5 July 2024. He agreed the operative had attended on 1 July 2024 to repair the hinge on a kitchen cupboard and apply some silicone sealant around the sink. However, the resident said he had suggested to the operative that it needed more than sealant and said the operative had agreed with this. Nevertheless, he had asked the operative to proceed with the works. Where there are conflicting accounts about events, we rely on the evidence to reach conclusions. However, based on the evidence seen, we are unable in this case to establish the correct account of events on 1 July 2024.
Overall, we are mindful that landlords have limited financial resources and need to prioritise their planned programmes to ensure best use of these resources and to ensure their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. It is, therefore, not always possible for landlord’s to give a definite timescale for replacing components such as kitchens and bathrooms as there may be more urgent works that have to take priority. Nevertheless, we do expect landlords to ensure that all enquiries regarding their planned programmes are given appropriate consideration and an explanation is provided to residents about any decision made. We also expect landlords to meet their day-to-day repair obligations. In this case, the evidence shows that the landlord carried out repairs to the kitchen, inspected the kitchen to ensure it was serviceable and was clear with the resident that it could not currently give a clear timescale for replacing the kitchen. We have, however, found there was a failing by the landlord in not responding to the resident’s enquiry about the renewal of the kitchen following the operative’s visit on 14 December 2023.
In its stage 1 letter, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint about the kitchen renewal because it had failed to respond to the resident’s request for information regarding its planned programmes within a reasonable time. The landlord apologised for this and offered £50 for poor communication. Although the landlord did not elaborate on the “poor communication” it was referring to, our view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to apologise and to put things right in terms of its communication failing. We consider the amount offered to be reasonable because the delay in communication would not have affected the overall outcome in terms of the landlord’s position regarding the renewal of the kitchen.
We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress as the landlord apologised for the delayed communication and offered suitable financial redress to put things right. We have, however, recommended that the landlord provides the resident with updated information about its estimated timescale for renewing the resident’s kitchen as part of its planned programme.

The resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom flooring

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:
1. The landlord aims to complete repairs at the first visit. Where this is not possible, it will advise the resident why the repair cannot be completed at the first visit, what it intends to do and what should happen next, including when it will return to complete the repair.
2. The policy says the landlord will try to arrange a date and time for the repair when the resident first reports the repair, or as soon as practicable afterwards.
3. Where practicable, the landlord will offer residents choice in booking appointments for repairs.
The landlord raised a repair order on 6 February 2023 to repair damaged lino in the bathroom. The landlord’s records show that it attended on 6 March 2023 but the resident was not at home. The job was therefore shown as a ‘no access’ visit on the landlord’s system. The landlord had therefore attended within its 28-day target timescale for routine jobs and had therefore responded appropriately.
The landlord raised a further order to repair the lino on 8 June 2023 and attended on 3 July 2023. However, the resident did not provide access. The landlord stated in its stage 1 reply that the resident had subsequently advised the landlord that he had not received sufficient notice before the visit. The landlord did not dispute this in its stage 1 or stage 2 replies. Therefore, although the operative’s attendance on 3 July 2023 was within the landlord’s 28-day target timescale for routine jobs, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not agreed the appointment with the resident beforehand. It had therefore not followed its repairs policy in this respect.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not contact the resident after the no access visit on 3 July 2023 to rearrange the appointment. This was unreasonable, particularly as the visit on 3 July 2023 had not been agreed with the resident beforehand.
On 29 September 2023, the resident again reported the damaged lino in the bathroom and the landlord raised an order on the same day to repair the lino. An operative attended on 16 November 2023 and took measurements. The landlord then raised a follow-on order on 16 November 2023 for 2 joiners to remove the bathroom suite, replace the floating floor in the bathroom and fit new Polysafe flooring. The work was completed on 19 December 2023.
We are mindful that the work needed 2 operatives and was a substantial job. However, it took the landlord 81 calendar days to complete the work compared to its 28-day target for routine jobs. Therefore, the time taken to carry out the work was inappropriate. The resident had contacted the landlord on 29 September 2023 to express his frustration because the lino was coming away and he said he had phoned multiple times. He also said that operatives had just turned up at his property without giving notice. Therefore, the landlord was aware of the resident’s distress in relation to the flooring and should have acted sooner to replace it.
The landlord accepted in its stage 1 reply dated 2 July 2024 that there had been an unreasonable delay in replacing the lino. The landlord apologised for its failings and offered compensation of £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience. However, this sum was not broken down to explain what it covered. This was unhelpful as it provided limited information to help the resident understand how the landlord had assessed the level of compensation.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take 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.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by using the complaints process to acknowledge its failings in handling the resident’s concerns about the bathroom flooring. It also identified learning in its stage 1 and 2 replies, including arranging additional training for its staff. In terms of putting things right, it apologised and offered compensation. However, as the lino had been outstanding for some time and had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, we do not consider the landlord’s offer of £100 to have been proportionate to the failings we have identified, which were:
1. The landlord had not agreed the appointment on 3 July 2023 with the resident and this resulted in a ‘no access’ visit.
2. The landlord did not contact the resident after the visit on 3 July 2023 to arrange a new appointment.
3. There was a delay in replacing the bathroom flooring after the landlord had raised a new order on 29 September 2023.
We have therefore made a finding of service failure which recognises that the landlord made an offer of compensation but the amount offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation nor to the detriment experienced by the resident.
The landlord later wrote to the resident on 17 February 2025 and accepted that the level of compensation offered had not been in line with its compensation policy. It offered additional compensation of £450, which was made up of £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience and £50 for its failure to acknowledge the true impact at stage 2 of its complaints process.
The landlord did not break down the sum offered in its letter dated 17 February 2025 to show the amount awarded for each element of the resident’s complaint. However, it did say that the sum was partly to acknowledge that it should have rearranged the appointment following the no access visit on 3 July 2023. Our view is therefore that the sums offered on 17 February 2025 and at stage 1 of the complaints process were sufficient compensation in relation to the bathroom flooring. We have therefore not awarded additional compensation.
While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, it is not clear why it did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure. Due to the delay in making the additional offer to put things right, we do not consider it appropriate to make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ as set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. Instead, as previously stated, we have made a finding of service failure.

The resident’s reports of a faulty electric shower

On 12 May 2024, the resident reported a fault with his electric shower. The landlord raised an order on the same day to repair the shower. An engineer attended on 16 May 2024 and replaced the shower. As the repair was categorised as a routine, 28-day job, the landlord attended within an appropriate timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 and 21 May 2024 and confirmed that the shower had been replaced but said this had made the problem worse. He said it was taking a long time for the water to heat up, it would then get very hot and then would go cold. He said he was unable to use the shower and was unable to use the bath due to health reasons. The landlord therefore raised an emergency job on 21 May 2024 to repair the shower. An engineer attended on the same day and identified the need to replace the shower again. As the job had been raised as an emergency it was appropriate that the engineer had attended on the same day.
The landlord raised a follow-on order on 21 May 2024 to supply and fit a new electric shower, with a target date of 18 June 24. An engineer attended on 11 June 2024 and fitted a new electric shower. The engineer had therefore attended before the deadline date for the job, which was appropriate. However, while fitting the shower on 11 June 2024, the engineer identified that the water pressure was too low.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 June 2024 to say that he was not getting any hot water from the shower, even though it had been replaced. He said that he had contacted the water company about the water pressure and they had confirmed there were no problems with the water pressure. The resident said he had now been without a shower facility for nearly a month and this was affecting his wellbeing.
An engineer attended again on 25 June 2024 and identified a secondary fault with the unvented water cylinder serving the shower. The matter was therefore referred to the landlord’s heating and hot water team who diagnosed a problem with the inlet valve on 2 July 2024. An order was raised on 3 July 2024 to replace the inlet valve and this work was completed on 14 July 2024.
The evidence shows that the resident was without a properly functioning shower for a 2-month period between 12 May 2024 and 14 July 2024. During this period, the landlord raised repair orders and arranged for operatives to attend. We are mindful, therefore, that the landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its engineers to diagnose the fault correctly and rectify the problem when they attended. However, the resident had advised the landlord that being without a functioning shower was causing him significant problems as he was unable to take baths due to medical reasons. He also said it was affecting his wellbeing.
Overall, we therefore consider that the delay in resolving the issues with the shower was unreasonable and we would have expected the landlord to have given the matter greater urgency. For example, there was a 2–week gap between the engineer’s attendance on 11 June 2024 and the re-attendance on 25 June 2024, even though the landlord’s engineer was aware that the shower was still not functioning correctly.
During the complaints process, the landlord acted fairly by accepting in its stage 1 reply that there had been an unreasonable delay in completing the work and a lack of communication. As previously stated, as part of its stage 1 reply the landlord offered compensation of £50 for poor communication and £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience. Given that these sums were intended to put things right in relation to other failings identified in this assessment, we do not consider these amounts to have been proportionate to the impact that the defective shower had on the resident during the 2-month period in question.
We have made a finding of service failure, which takes into account all the circumstances, including:
1. The impact of the delay on the resident.
2. The landlord had arranged for engineers to attend on various occasions and therefore had tried to rectify the problem.
3. The landlord acknowledged its failings, offered some financial redress and identified learning in its complaint responses.
We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation of £100 to the resident in relation to its handling of the reported faults with the shower. The sum is in line with our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has made an offer of compensation but it does not reflect the detriment to the resident nor the failings identified in our investigation.

The resident’s concerns about window cleaning

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident pays a variable service charge as defined under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and 1987. The service charge includes a charge for the landlord to provide window cleaning.
The landlord sends out an explanatory leaflet to residents with its annual service charge statements. The leaflet states that the window cleaning service charge element is for: “The cost of cleaning the windows of communal areas which includes materials, equipment and staff costs”.
The landlord advised us on 14 April 2025 that the window cleaning contractor is required to clean all external windows plus all internal communal windows in the resident’s block.
As part of his stage 1 complaint dated 20 May 2024, the resident said he had been paying a service charge for window cleaning but had not noticed his windows being cleaned. The landlord’s records show that its customer liaison officer contacted the resident on 22 May 2024 and advised him that the windows were scheduled to be cleaned quarterly. She advised that the window cleaning contractor had attended on 22 April 2024 and was next due to attend in July 2024. It was reasonable that the landlord had contacted the resident in a timely manner to discuss his concerns about the window cleaning and had provided him with clear information about the frequency of the service, the last date the contractor had attended and when it was next due to attend.
The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply dated 2 December 2024 that it had passed the resident’s concerns about the window cleaning service to the contractor. This was reasonable as it would enable the contractor to consider any quality issues regarding the service it was providing. However, given the resident’s concerns about the service, it was a shortcoming that the landlord had not provided any information to show how it would check that future window cleaning had been satisfactorily completed. For example, it would have given the resident greater reassurance if the landlord had confirmed that it would check the windows shortly after they were next cleaned.
On 14 April 2025, the landlord provided us with copies of its records stating that the window cleaning was carried out on 30 July 2024, 2 October 2024, 15 January 2025 and 2 April 2025. The landlord’s records are therefore consistent with the contractual arrangements for the windows to be cleaned every quarter.
Our role is not to determine whether the window cleaning was actually carried out but to consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the service. In this case, the landlord provided timely information to the resident about the service and showed that it took the resident’s concerns seriously by passing his comments to the contractor. The information provided to us also indicates that the landlord maintains appropriate records of the dates the window cleaning contractor attends. Therefore, our view is that overall the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about the window cleaning service. We have therefore made a finding of no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about window cleaning.

The associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding. However, the extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without good reason. The landlord will explain the reason to the resident and inform them of the expected timescale of the response.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 May 2024 and said he was making a formal complaint about ongoing property management and maintenance issues. He then sent additional information about his complaint on 21 May 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 May 2024, which was 6 working days after the resident submitted his complaint. It was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord that it took slightly longer than its 5-working day target to acknowledge the complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 2 July 2024, which was 24 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. The landlord therefore took longer than its 10-working day target to respond. Although the landlord’s complaint policy does allow an extension of 10 working days, we would expect the landlord to have advised the resident of the need to extend the deadline and provide a new deadline. Our complaint handling code states: “Landlords must decide whether an extension to this timescale is needed when considering the complexity of the complaint and then inform the resident of the expected timescale for response”. It was inappropriate that the landlord took longer than 10-working days to respond to the stage 1 complaint and did not advise the resident that it was extending the deadline. The delay prompted the resident to chase the landlord for a response on 21 June 2024.
The landlord acknowledged in the stage 1 reply that there had been a delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and it offered compensation of £50. We consider this amount to have been a fair and reasonable offer to put things right in terms of the delay in responding at stage 1. The offer recognised the additional time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay, including having to chase the landlord for a reply.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2024 and outlined various reasons why he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 reply. He requested the landlord to escalate his complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint until after we had contacted the landlord on 25 November 2024. This was inappropriate and contrary to its complaints policy as the resident had clearly expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage 1 reply and had asked for his complaint to be escalated.
The lack of acknowledgement or response to his stage 2 request prompted the resident to contact us on 13 August 2024 to request assistance with his complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2024 and asked it to either issue a final complaint response or write to the resident setting out its reasons for not accepting the resident’s escalation request. The landlord therefore wrote to the resident on 26 November 2024 to acknowledge his stage 2 complaint and it sent its stage 2 reply on 2 December 2024.
The landlord therefore took 106 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint submitted on 5 July 2024. This was an excessive delay which caused the resident further time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord used its stage 2 reply to apologise for its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint. Although this went some way to putting things right in terms of the landlord’s complaint handling, we do not consider the amount to be proportionate to the delay experienced by the resident in receiving a response to his stage 2 complaint. We have therefore made a finding of service failure to reflect that although the landlord made an offer of compensation, the amount offered was not proportionate to the failing.
As stated earlier, the landlord later wrote to the resident on 17 February 2025 and accepted that the level of compensation offered had not been in line with its compensation policy and it therefore offered additional compensation of £450. This sum was offered partly to put things right in terms of other failings mentioned in this assessment. However, the landlord’s letter also stated that its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 was “unacceptable”. Therefore, we consider the landlord’s additional offer, when combined with the £100 already offered at stage 2, to have been sufficient compensation in terms of the landlord’s complaint handling.
However, for the reasons stated earlier, we do not consider it appropriate to make a finding of ‘reasonable redress’ under paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and therefore we have made a finding of service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for a new kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty electric shower.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about window cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the delay in resolving the reported issues with the shower.
2. Paid the resident the £150 offered in its stage 1 reply for poor communications, time and trouble.
3. Paid the resident the £150 offered for complaints handling.
4. Paid the resident the £450 offered in its letter dated 17 February 2025.

Recommendation

The landlord should provide the resident with updated information about its estimated timescale for renewing his kitchen as part of its planned programme.