The Guinness Partnership Limited (202433548)

Background

1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. He moved to the 1-bedroom flat in 2019 under a mutual exchange. The resident lives at the property with his partner and young son. The resident complained to the landlord about his damaged belongings following damp and mould repairs in his home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items, following their reports of damp and mould
3. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items, following their reports of damp and mould.
5. We found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord did not follow its own policies and procedures. The issue was over a prolonged period. It consistently failed to respond to the resident. Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failings it did not take sufficient action to resolve the issue. The issue is ongoing.
7. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged its failings. This included record-keeping, communication and complaint handling. It apologised and made an offer of compensation.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

8. On 21 December 2022, the resident told the landlord the damp and mould was awful. The landlord said a temporary move would be needed and this would take place after Christmas. On 1 March 2023 the resident and family moved back into their home.
9. On 5 January 2023 the landlord’s records show the resident had contacted the landlord and said “you asked me to take a photo of damaged goods, but as you know I can’t take a photo of smell or electrical faulty items… I will make a list of all damaged goods including those which has bad smell or mould on them.”
10. On 27 March 2023, the resident submitted photos of items damaged by damp and mould. The invoice totalled £10,355.00. The resident told the landlord of the impact on the resident and his family including ill health.
11. We recognise the situation was distressing for the resident. While we consider distress and inconvenience caused by any landlord failings, personal injury claims are best addressed by the courts, which can rely on independent medical evidence. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or injury.
12. This Service cannot determine whether the landlord is liable for damage to the resident’s belongings or carry out a loss adjustment, as this would be more appropriate for an insurance claim or the courts. However, we can assess whether the landlord:
    1. communicated fairly and provided appropriate advice and information
    2. gave due consideration to the resident’s concerns
    3. caused any distress or inconvenience through any failings
13. On 4 May 2023, the landlord’s records state that the resident had not provided evidence of damage to goods, so it closed the case.
14. In July and August 2023, the resident called the landlord on several occasions requesting callbacks and asking about the invoice he had submitted.
15. On 5 October 2023, the landlord called the resident to discuss his query about damp and mould. The landlord advised a complaint was the best course of action and told the resident about the complaint handling times. This was 191 working days from the resident’s contact about his damaged belongings. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
16. On 17 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. It failed to respond to the resident’s requests 7 times in July
    2. It failed to escalate the resident’s requests to have a Repairs Service Manager call him back
    3. It asked the resident to re-submit his invoice with any supporting evidence, but it had not yet received a response from the resident.
    4. It upheld the complaint because it failed to keep the resident informed of progress and did not call him back on multiple occasions
    5. It apologised for any stress and inconvenience
    6. It offered £250 which was broken down as:
       1. £100 for failure to call resident back
       2. £150 for failure to respond to the invoice for damages
17. The landlord also stated it would still consider compensation for the damages and requested a new invoice with attached evidence.
18. Between 27 November 2023 and 14 June 2024, the resident contacted the landlord no fewer than 15 times in relation to his damaged items. When it did respond the landlord’s responses varied including:
    1. it appreciated the resident’s frustration
    2. it could only compensate for what it can prove and evidence
    3. it would provide a figure of what landlord can compensate “tomorrow”
19. On 24 June 2024, the landlord emailed the resident and told him “It doesn’t meet threshold for awarding compensation as no supporting proof of purchases such as receipts, invoices, digital payment receipts. Normally this would be covered under home and contents insurance.” It told the resident he had the option to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
20. The landlord’s compensation policy states when a claim is made it will need to be provided with evidence.  This includes “Proof of ownership and the value of the lost or damaged item. For example, photos, instruction booklets or receipts.” It also states “If the claim is for loss or damage a customer will need to give us or our contractors access to, or allow inspection of, the damaged property.”
21. On 25 June 2024 the landlord’s records show it called the resident to discuss compensation offer. It advised it could not offer unsubstantiated amounts.
22. On 26 June 2024 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. On 9 July 2024 the landlord acknowledged this and asked the resident for any information if not already sent. This included any photos, an inventory of items, approximate values. It also said bank statements may show purchases or anything else to evidence the claim. It said it would provide a response by 31 July 2024.
23. On 26 July 2024 the landlord told the resident it needed an extension to the deadline due to the complex nature of the complaint, length of time since repairs completed and attempts to retrieve information. It would provide a full response no later than 28 August 2024.
24. On 8 August 2024 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The complaint response stated it:
    1. had arranged for removal and storage of the resident’s belongings
    2. had ceased working with its contractor and was unable to confirm precisely what work was undertaken
    3. was unable to confirm when the resident’s items were removed and how they were stored due to a change in personnel
    4. was concerned about the lack of information and highlighted a need for better record keeping
    5. gave an explanation about its compensation policy and what proof was required
    6. did not return the resident’s calls due to a lack of resource and a lack of awareness about the compensation process
    7. failed to contact the resident in relation to his complaint and unexpected absence contributed to this
    8. apologised and offered £650 for its failings.  This was an increase from its offer at stage 1 and was made up of:
       1. £250 for poor communication
       2. £100 for poor complaint handling
       3. £300 for the impact the repairs had on the resident
    9. provided individual feedback to the Complaints and Resolution team
    10. had merged the repairs service into its Customer Service directorate to hold them more accountable in their actions
    11. had recruited more resource into the Complaints Team
25. Where a resident believes a landlord caused damage to personal items, we expect the landlord to either direct them to its insurance process or resolve the issue through its complaint’s procedure. There is no evidence to show the landlord considered directing the resident to its insurer or requested to inspect the damaged items. In this case, the landlord focused on gathering evidence from the resident to satisfy itself of the loss, which was unnecessary as this should have been dealt with by the insurer. This was unreasonable, and the landlord has yet to address the issue.
26. The landlord did identify its failings and told the resident what it found. From 5 January 2023 to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 8 August 2024 was a total of 404 working days. 
27. This was unreasonable in the circumstances because:
    1. the landlord did not follow its own policies and procedures in recognising “any expression of dissatisfaction” as a complaint
    2. the landlord did not direct the resident to its insurer
    3. the resident was repeatedly contacting the landlord
    4. the landlord’s record keeping could not demonstrate how the resident’s belongings were stored during the repairs
    5. the delay in responding to the resident may have impacted the landlord’s decision making
    6. it did not take any proactive measures to confirm damaged items
    7. it relied upon proof of purchase and receipts and did not address the resident’s concern about “I cannot take a photo of the smell and faulty electrical items.”
    8. it did not sufficiently acknowledge the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble for the resident
28. Although the offer of £550 was reasonable up to the stage 2 complaint response, it has not put this right for the resident by providing insurance details. This has significantly delayed a claim being made by the resident should he wish to do so. Therefore, we are awarding further compensation for the distress and inconvenience up to the present day.

29. On 5 October 2023 the resident raised his stage 1 complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
30. On 17 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 9 working days from the date the resident raised the complaint.
31. On 26 June 2024 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2. On 9 July 2024 the landlord acknowledged this. This was 10 working days.
32. On 26 July 2024 the landlord told the resident it required an extension to the deadline, and it would share a full response no later than 28 August 2024. This was 23 working days from the resident escalating his complaint.
33. On 8 August 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This was 10 working days from the complaint extension.
34. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was unreasonable because it did not follow its own policies and procedures. But in its stage 2 complaint response it did recognise its poor complaint handling, apologised and offered compensation and this was reasonable.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord acknowledged its record keeping in this case was poor. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively.

Communication

36. As mentioned in this report, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor in the circumstances. The landlord should assure itself that its processes for communicating with residents are effective and timely.