The Guinness Partnership Limited (202444348)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house. On 29 November 2024, the resident reported an issue with the electrical cooker socket, which the landlord repaired on 23 December 2024. The resident raised concerns with the landlord about the length of time taken to complete the repair and requested reimbursement of takeaway expenses incurred due to the delay.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a cooker electrical socket and takeaway expenses arising from this.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress which resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to a cooker electrical socket and takeaway expenses arising from this.
4. We have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of repairs to a cooker electrical socket and takeaway expenses arising from this.

5. The landlord acknowledged the failings we identified in this report and offered fair compensation. Furthermore, it applied discretion to its policy and sought cost estimates from the resident regarding takeaway costs This was reasonable and consistent with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

The complaint handling

6. The landlord handled the resident’s complaint in line with its policies and procedures.

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.

7. The landlord responded to the repair on 29 November 2024, the same day it was reported. Although the landlord’s responsive repairs policy did not classify the matter as an emergency, it followed the emergency repair process by making the situation safe within 24 hour and arranging a follow-up appointment on 6 December 2024. During this follow-up appointment, the operative identified that a part was required to complete the repair, but the landlord failed to book the appointment. The complaint response stated that the initial action met the 28 day timeframe however its failure to schedule the follow-up appointment resulted in unnecessary delays. The repair however was completed in 23 calendar days. The landlord offered £125 in compensation for the delay and its impact. This was reasonable and the landlord acknowledged its failures and attempted to put things right.
8. The landlord explained in its final response that it did not respond to the resident’s emails sent on 11 and 18 December 2024. We have not seen evidence of these emails however we note that these emails and the lack of response to them is not disputed by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged these communication failures and offered £25 in compensation. The landlord explained that it provided feedback to the relevant team and would arrange training where necessary. This was reasonable and the landlord acknowledged its failures, attempted to put things right and took learning from the failure.
9. In the initial complaint, the resident stated he was without full cooking facilities for nearly 3 weeks. The landlord did not dispute this and discussed reimbursement with the resident following the escalated complaint. The repair was closed in error and the resident raised this with the landlord again. However, it missed several opportunities to ensure the resident had adequate temporary cooking facilities.
10. The landlord followed its compensation policy regarding the resident’s reimbursement request, which required evidence of expenses. It also applied discretion by requesting an estimate or evidence of costs. The resident confirmed he could not provide estimates as he did not keep the receipts. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that as no receipts or estimates were submitted, it based its compensation offer solely on the identified service failures. The landlord’s approach was reasonable, as it exercised discretion appropriately.
11. The total of £125 compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and proportionate for the failures identified in this report. Furthermore, the landlord applied discretion to its compensation policy and asked the resident to provide a cost estimate, which he was unable to do. This request was reasonable. Therefore, the landlord made a reasonable offer to put things right.

12. The landlord responded to the resident’s formal complaint on 20 December 2024. This was within 1 working day of the resident raising the complaint on 18 December 2024, and within the 10-working day timeframe of its complaints policy.
13. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 December 2024 and it clarified with resident if he wanted increased compensation or to escalate the complaint. The resident confirmed on 27 December 2024 that he wanted to escalate his complaint. The final response was sent on 30 January 2025, in 22 working days. This was outside of its 20-working day timeframe for handling stage 2 complaints. However, the 2 day delay was minimal and did not have an adverse impact on the resident.

Learning

14. It is important that where a property has a loss of facility, the landlord considers whether temporary measures are needed and implements these in a timely manner.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. The landlord displayed good record keeping practice which allowed us to establish what went wrong and the measures required to put things right.