The Guinness Partnership Limited (202417187)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417187

The Guinness Partnership Limited

21 March 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:
1. the resident’s request to repair an electric point for a new cooker.
2. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant under agreement dated January 1991. The landlord is a housing association. She lives in a mid-terrace house with her partner and has osteoarthritis and a brain aneurism.
On 24 April 2024, the resident told the landlord she wanted to switch from gas to an electric cooker. She hired an electrician that said the electrics for the cooker point had been cut, so she asked the landlord to reconnect it.
On 9 May the landlord told the resident it does not consider reconnecting the cooker point as a repair. It acknowledged she changed the kitchen 12 years ago and as no alteration request had been received, she is responsible for reconnecting the cooker point, and the costs involved.
On 21 May the resident complained that she bought an electric cooker to replace her gas one, but the landlord would not repair the cooker point as it had not received an alteration request. It acknowledged her complaint on 29 May.
On 7 June, the landlord said due to higher demand it would need more time to respond and will do so by 14 June. Its stage 1 response on 13 June, said:
1. it does not consider the request to connect the cooker point as a repair.
2. it did not receive a kitchen alteration request 12 years ago or more recently to connect electrics for her cooker, and as it must give permission before changes are made, it will not reconnect the cooker point.
3. the cooker had gas point access and whoever is renovating the kitchen is responsible for organising the electric rewiring.
The resident replied to the landlord the next day on 14 June 2024 and requested to escalate to stage 2. It acknowledged this on 21 June, and on 26 July it responded at stage 2 and said:
1. the cooker had gas point access and although she wanted to change to electric, it had not received an alteration request. So, it would not reconnect the electrics, and she is responsible for any changes.
2. it provided a link to complete an alteration request.
3. it acknowledged it didn’t return 2 of her calls and offered £50.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 2 August 2024. She explained her gas cooker was broken and so she purchased an electric one, but the landlord had not reconnected electrics in the cooker point.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

The resident submitted an alteration request to the landlord in August 2024 and made a separate complaint about this. It has since approved her request to replace kitchen electrics before she completes her alterations.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

The resident referred to property changes the landlord made in 1999 and the landlord referred to kitchen changes she made around 12 years ago. Although we understand why these have been raised in the context of the substantive issue, considering the passage of time and reliability of any evidence, this assessment has not considered these events. It has instead focussed on the substantive issue raised from 24 April 2024.
After the landlord provided its final response about the request to repair the electric wiring, the resident made an alteration request and subsequently raised a separate complaint about it. The landlord needs to be given fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before the involvement of the Ombudsman. This investigation will only consider the issues raised in her complaint on 21 May 2024 about the request to reconnect electrics.

Request to reconnect the electric cooker point

On 24 April 2024, the resident told the landlord she wanted to change from gas to an electric cooker and wanted the electrics to the cooker point reconnected as the switch does not work. There is no evidence that she specifically asked for this as part of its repair or home improvement alteration policy.
It’s important to consider the landlord’s obligations when it comes to the provisions provided in a kitchen. Essentially, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 sets out, amongst other things, that a landlord is responsible for providing facilities for the preparation and cooking of food.
We have also considered relevant policies, and good practice for repairs and property improvements:
1. the tenancy agreement confirmed the resident:
  1. can improve the property but will not make alterations or improvements without written consent.
2. the landlord’s responsive repair policy confirmed:
  1. once notified by a resident, it will make good a component, installation, or part of a property when it is faulty or in a state requiring repair, within 28 calendar days and will respond to emergency repairs and make the situation safe within 24 hours.
  2. it will keep in repair and proper working order any installations it provides for the supply of electricity within the property, including electric wiring for sockets and switches.
3. The landlord’s home improvement policy confirmed:
  1. changes proposed, such as a change to the kitchen, needs to be submitted to it for written permission first and it may set some conditions.
  2. any proposed property changes are paid for by the resident.
4. The landlord’s website confirmed it will:
  1. call back a resident within 2 working days.
On 2 May the landlord sent its own electrician to inspect the request to reconnect electrics. The electrician said the request to reconnect the electrics for the cooker point was not a repair. The time taken to attend was reasonable and within the 28-day timescale outlined in the landlord’s repair policy.
The landlord found from its electrician’s report on 2 May that the resident wanted to alter the kitchen, which included installing her own electric cooker. The repair policy confirms it will keep in repair and proper working order any installations it provides for the supply of electricity, including electric wiring for sockets and switches. It did not provide the electric cooker she wanted to install. So, it was reasonable for it to conclude that this was not a repair it is responsible for, as it had not provided the installation (the cooker).
Additionally, the landlord provided a gas supply for a gas cooker which the resident had previously. And although she opted to change to an electric cooker, it had met its obligation to provide facilities for the preparation and cooking of food.
The landlord recognised in its stage 1 and stage 2 response that it did not call the resident back when she requested on 7 May. We have not seen further evidence of this, but it’s reasonable it had taken accountability for failing to call the customer back within 2 working days, as per its own policy.
On 9 May 2024 the resident told the landlord she changed the kitchen 12 years ago. It told her she did not ask for permission then, or more recently using its property alteration form. It did not suggest submitting an alteration request. Instead, it explained it does not consider her request as a repair. It said she needed to arrange the changes to the cooker point and cover the cost as she changed the property 12 years ago without permission.
The tenancy agreement and the alteration policy confirm a resident cannot make property changes, like altering the kitchen, without its written approval. And the alteration policy also confirms the resident needs to pay for any home alterations proposed. As she was opting to change the set-up of the kitchen and no alteration request was submitted, it’s understandable why it told her it would not fix the electric cooker wiring and said she is responsible for costs.
The landlord told her on 9 May, 21 May, and 13 June that reconnecting the cooker point is her responsibility, and in its stage 2 response on 26 July clearly signposted her to the alteration request form. It had taken 3 months to link her to this form so it can consider the changes to the kitchen, although it would not have been obligated to pay for changes, as per its alteration policy. She submitted the alteration request in August 2024.
From the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 response, it recognised it did not call the resident back and offered £25. It did not recognise the delay providing the alteration request form sooner, although there was minimal impact as even with this form, it was not obliged to reconnect the electrics or pay for it.
In summary, the landlord failed to call the resident back on 7 May. And it did not clearly communicate she could consider submitting an alteration request until its stage 2 response on 26 July. Therefore, we find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the request to reconnect the cooker.
After careful consideration and in line with our remedies guidance as well as considering the landlord’s compensation policy, a fair level of compensation would be £50. This recognises the delay to signpost her to the alteration request form to consider the changes to the kitchen, as well as the missed call back. The £25 it offered for the missed call back on 7 May can be deducted from this amount.

the associated complaint to the substantive issue

Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must ensure they:
1. acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days.
2. respond to the complaint within 10 working days from the date it acknowledged it.
  1. if an extension is needed, it communicates the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 10 working days.
3. provide a final response within 20 working days of the date it acknowledged the stage 2 escalation.
  1. if an extension is needed, it communicates the timescale to the resident, and that it is no longer than a further 20 working days.
The landlord’s policy is aligned with the Code.
The landlord received the resident’s complaint on 21 May 2024 and so it had until 29 May to acknowledge the complaint.
On 29 May it acknowledged the complaint, and told the resident a stage 1 response will be provided in 20 working days due to an increase in demand.
On 3 and 5 June 2024 the resident asked the landlord to call her back about the complaint. And although the landlord’s policy says it will call a resident back within 2 working days, in this instance, it was bound by the complaint timescales to provide a response to her and had up until 26 June 2024 to provide its stage 1 response. So, it was reasonable that a call back did not happen whilst it was investigating the complaint.
The landlord updated the resident on 7 June that it will respond to her complaint by 14 June. And on 13 June provided its stage 1 response. This was reasonable and within the Codes overall stage 1 timeframe of 20 working days to provide a response to her.
On 14 and 18 June the resident said she was not happy with the outcome, wanted to escalate to stage 2 and speak about the complaint. As the landlord was bound by complaint timescales to respond, it was reasonable that it had not called her back yet, as she requested for the complaint to be escalated.
On 21 June, the landlord acknowledged the escalation and said it will respond within 20 working days. This was reasonable and in line with the Code.
On the same date, the resident told the landlord she prefers a call over other communication. She called and spoke to it on 28 June about her complaint. As mentioned earlier, the landlord is bound by complaint timescales to provide a response. It had until 19 July to provide its stage 2 or confirm an extension.
It provided its stage 2 response on 26 July 2024, 5 working days late. There is no evidence the landlord communicated a stage 2 extension to the resident, which is not in line with 6.4 of the Code. This is a failure to adhere to its own policy timescale and the Code. It also did not call her about the complaint, as she requested, until 31 July 2024.
The landlord accepted its complaint handling failures in its stage 2 response. And although it’s not obliged to call her back whilst it investigates the complaint, it offered £25 for not calling her back about the complaint.
In summary, the landlord failed to respond to call back requests once it had provided its complaint responses, and there was a small delay in responding at stage 2. Therefore, we find that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. Had the landlord responded to its stage 2 on time, a finding of reasonable redress would have been found.
After careful consideration and in line with our remedies guidance, the landlord is ordered to pay £100. The £25 offered for failing to respond to call back requests can be deducted from this amount. This is to recognise the inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord with its handling of the resident’s enquiry to reconnect electrics.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord with its handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. pay the resident a total of £50 compensation for the missed call back and delay caused by the landlords handling of her enquiry to reconnect the kitchen electrics. The £25 offered for the missed call back during her enquiry can be deducted from this amount.
2. pay the resident a total of £100 compensation for the failures in the complaint handling. The landlord can deduct the £25 it offered for these failures if it has already been paid to her.