The Guinness Partnership Limited (202428916)

Background

1. The resident has mental health vulnerabilities, which the landlord was made aware of in August 2024. The property is a 3-bedroom house. In May 2024, the resident reported issues with the front door. In July 2024, the resident reported issues with the bath handle. The landlord completed some repairs to the front door between May and July 2024. It has not repaired the bath handle.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door and bath handle.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door and bath handle.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

Handling of repairs to the front door and bath handle

5. The landlord handled the front door repair appropriately. It completed the work within its timeframes and focused on resolving the issue. However, it couldn’t finish the repairs because the resident refused access, which was outside the landlord’s control. There were failures in how the landlord handled the bath handle repair. It acknowledged this, apologised, and offered compensation that reflected the impact on the resident and put things right. It said it had learned from the complaint and would improve communication with residents.

Complaint handling

6. There were considerable delays in the landlord’s stage 1 complaints process. Furthermore, the landlord didn’t complete the stage 1 investigation. It apologised for these failings, and offered compensation which acknowledged the impact on the resident and was sufficient to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Front door

7. The resident reported to us that the landlord had treated him unfairly and discriminated against him based on his mental health. We will not be able to look at potential discrimination as this is more suitable for the courts. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue his concerns using equality legislation. However, we will be able to look at the landlord’s responses to the repair’s reports, whether these were appropriate and the impact of any potential failures.
8. The landlord must complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 calendar days, as set out in its policy. The resident reported his front door was not secure on 8 May 2024. The landlord attended the property and replaced the lock on 9 May 2024, in line with its policy.
9. The resident reported in May 2024 that the door handle kept getting stuck after the repairs. The landlord took positive steps and replaced the door handles in June 2024, within its routine repair timeframes. While these repairs were not delayed, the issue remained unresolved. The landlord completed further repairs in July 2024, it repaired the handle and adjusted the hinges to free up the door. These were reasonable steps to take.
10. The evidence shows the landlord’s service manager tried to call the resident several times between July and August 2024 to discuss the repairs and left a voicemail each time. During that period, the resident reported that the door was difficult to open and close. The landlord took steps to resolve the issue and asked contractor 2 to assess the door and provide a quote for a new frame. However, the resident refused to allow contractor 2 to do the work. As such the delay was outside of the landlord’s control.
11. In September 2024, the resident told the landlord he wanted contractor 1, who were no longer employed by the landlord, to complete the works. He also wanted a new door replacement and said the door could not be repaired. However, the landlord said a full door replacement was not needed, the door was 2 years old, and it would try and repair first.
12. The landlord showed further resolution orientated approach when it said it would try again to schedule a door survey in October 2024, however the resident refused. On 15 October 2024, the resident said he wanted contractor 3 to complete the repairs. The landlord’s internal emails show that it considered contractor 3, but that contractor 2 needed to attend as it was unclear the reason for the resident’s preference. Landlords are entitled to use the contractors which they have employed, and it is not unreasonable that the landlord tried to send a contractor which was in a contractual relationship with and found appropriate to send.
13. In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated its repair policy requires it to attempt a repair before replacing. The landlord said it would arrange for contractor 2 to inspect the door and approve any recommendations. These steps were in line with its repairs policy and reasonable. However, the resident refused this appointment.
14. We found that the landlord was resolution focused. The landlord made meaningful attempts to resolve the repair. It changed the lock and door handle, adjusted the hinges, and ordered a new frame. However, the repairs are still incomplete because the resident has refused the landlord access. Since the issue remains unresolved, we’ve recommended that the landlord agree a way forward with the resident to complete the repairs to the front door.

Bath handle

15. The landlord acknowledged delays in attending to the repairs of the bath handle. It also acknowledged it could have provided better communication. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances, took learning and put things right.
16. The resident reported a loose bath handle on 22 July 2024. The landlord arranged to attend by 19 August 2024 in line with its routine repairs policy.
17. On 7 August 2024, the resident called the landlord and said he wanted contractor 1 to carry out the repairs as they originally fitted the bathroom. Contractor 1 no longer worked for the landlord. The evidence shows the service manager tried to call the resident on 12 August 2024. The notes say they left a voicemail and explained that only landlord-approved contractors could attend. This was in line with its policy.
18. The evidence shows the resident reported his mental health to the landlord around 9 August 2024. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 acknowledgement, however it appears the resident’s mental health was not recorded on its system until 16 October 2024. This delay is a failure on the landlord as it did not appropriately acknowledge the resident’s mental health and informed its contractors of the resident’s circumstances which would have assisted their understanding of his needs.
19. The landlord’s operative visited the resident’s property on 16 August 2024 but couldn’t complete the repair. They said the bath needed to be removed to fix the handle. Contractor 3 attended on 4 September 2024, but the resident refused the works because he didn’t want the bath removed. The resident said he would pay for the repairs himself and charge the landlord. In its stage 1 response, the landlord offered compensation the resident could use toward the repairs if he wished. It also offered to send its own contractors instead. This shows the landlord remained focused on resolving the issue and appropriately explored different options for resolution.
20. The evidence shows the resident contacted contractor 1 in October 2024 directly and asked them to complete the bath handle repairs. Furthermore, the resident told the landlord he wanted a qualified bathroom specialist to complete the repairs. During a call with the landlord on 18 October 2024, the resident said contractor 1 were liable for the repairs as they installed the bathroom. As stated above in its stage 2 response the landlord appropriately addressed the resident’s request for a certain contractor.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord further acknowledged the delay in its initial attendance to the repair. However, it did not acknowledge its failure to timely update the resident’s tenancy for any vulnerabilities related to his mental health.
22. Following the initial delay, we have seen reasonable attempts from the landlord to complete the repair. The resident’s refusal however was outside the landlord’s control. The landlord appropriately recognised the impact on the resident’s mental health in its stage 2 response despite its failure to initially update its files.
23. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £125 for the time and inconvenience and poor communication. This was a meaningful step to acknowledge its failures. This compensation is sufficient step to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays in repair, including the failure caused by the delay in updating its file with the resident’s vulnerabilities. This is also in line with our remedy’s guidance. The landlord said it would learn from the complaint and improve its communication with residents. While we’ve found that the landlord’s action in response to the repairs was reasonable, we’ve recommended that the landlord agree a way forward with the resident to complete repairs. If the resident wants to use the compensation for his own repairs, he may wish to discuss this with the landlord.

24. The landlord’s complaint policy mirrors our Complaint Handling Code which says it must acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. It should acknowledge stage 2 within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timeframes, it will request an extension of up to 10 days at stage 1 and 20 days at stage 2, unless there is a valid reason.
25. The landlord should have acknowledged the Stage 1 complaint by 12 July 2024 but didn’t do so until 4 September 2024, a delay of nearly 2 months. It provided its stage 1 response on 9 October 2023, more than 3 months after receiving the complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy or the Code. While the stage 1 said it failed to fully investigate the complaint, we have seen that the landlord responded appropriately in its stage 1 response. The landlord offered £200 compensation for the delay and failure to complete the stage 1 investigation.
26. It should have acknowledged the stage 2 complaint by 16 October 2024 however it sent the acknowledgement on 17 October 2024 which was 1 day late. It provided its stage 2 response on 28 October 2024 which was in line with its complaints policy and the Code.
27. The landlord acknowledged its delays. It has offered compensation to acknowledge its failures which is within the suggested range for maladministration in our remedy’s guidance for the impact to the resident of the failures we have identified.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. There were delays in recording the resident’s mental health issues. The landlord should consider how it can improve its record keeping and ensure residents vulnerabilities are recorded at the earliest opportunity.

Communication

29. The landlord should consider improving how it communicates with residents about repairs and during the complaint process.