The Guinness Partnership Limited (202429863)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom bungalow. The landlord is aware that the resident has vulnerabilities including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), asthma and heart conditions. He lives in a scheme for over 55’s. The landlord has responsibility for the external parts of the bungalow including the roof.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. There was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. We found that:
   1. There were delays in the landlord completing repairs to the roof to address the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and it was unclear whether they were effective.It failed to follow its repairs and damp and mould policy in its handling of the repairs.
   2. There were communication and record keeping failings evident in this investigation.
   3. There were unreasonable delays and errors in the landlord’s complaint handling, however, the landlord’s compensation offer suitably recognises the delays. The landlord has taken some learning from the complaint which is positive.

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.

What we did not investigate

7. The resident told us that the situation had a detrimental impact on his health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this any further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The resident told us that he had other complaints with the landlord. He provided us with the landlord’s final complaint response of 10 October 2023 regarding his complaint concerning his property purchase. However, this was not referred to us to investigate within a reasonable period which would be within 12 months of the final response. The resident also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s grounds maintenance service that he pays for through service charges. If the resident’s complaints about these issues have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, he may wish to refer these to us to investigate.

What we did investigate

9. We have investigated the period from the resident’s initial letter that the landlord said it received on 12 February 2024 to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response of 12 September 2024.
10. Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property on 12 February 2024, the landlord raised 2 works orders on 22 February 2024. This was to inspect and repair the brickwork and to rectify a leak from the roof. It is not clear why there was delay in the landlord raising the works order or a lack of acknowledgement of the resident’s letter which was inappropriate.
11. The landlord booked an appointment for 4 April 2024 for the brickwork and either the 23 or 24 April 2024 for the roof repair. Though the property is a leasehold property, the lease states that the landlord is responsible for the exterior structure of the property. The resident is responsible for the interior of the property including the walls and ceilings.
12. According to the landlord’s repair records its contractor found no damage to the brickwork when this was checked on 8 March 2024. The response timescale was15 days after the repair was raised in line with the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 28 calendar days which was appropriate. The landlord’s contractor suggested that the landlord fit an extractor fan. According to the lease this would not form part of the landlord’s responsibility.The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response of 12 September 2024 that it had provided this advice to the resident, but we have not seen evidence that it did this at the time, evidencing poor record keeping.
13. The landlord agreed to complete a mould wash despite the resident being a leaseholder as the resident had COPD. It raised a works order on 13 March 2024. This was appropriate given the resident’s circumstances and as the cause of the damp and mould could have been because of an external repair issue that the landlord was responsible for. The works order was cancelled. The landlord said that this was an error and when the contractor was due to attend on 3 April 2024, it was unable to verify what if any work was completed due to its poor record keeping. According to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it should have completed the work within 5 working days. The delay was therefore unreasonable.
14. According to the landlord’s repairs policy provided to us for this investigation (which can also be found on its website), it should attend routine repairs within 28 calendar days. However, it said in its stage 1 complaint response that it should respond to routine repairs within 20 working days The landlord should ensure it updates its website with the correct policy.
15. The landlord advised in its final complaint response of 12 September 2024 that it had completed the roof repairs on 23 April 2024. This was to renew the broken tiles and felt where there was a hole. The landlord checked on 29 April 2024 confirming that the work was completed but it is not clear whether this was a post-inspection which would have been appropriate to do. This was outside of the landlord’s repair policy timescales, though it did advise the resident of the reason for the delay which was due to a roofer leaving and it needing to recruit. This issue was outside of the landlord’s control.
16. The resident called the landlord on 24 May 2024 as he was unhappy that there was no follow-on work to redecorate the ceiling. After initially advising the resident that this would be his responsibility as a leaseholder, it agreed to apply a stain block which was reasonable. The works order was raised on 28 May 2024. The landlord’s repair records show that the work was completed on 18 June 2024 which was in line with its repairs policy timescales which was appropriate.
17. The landlord’s records are not clear as to whether it post-inspected the work undertaken to check if this had fully resolved the damp and mould issues. If it had, it may have then found the clogged downspout which it raised a works order for on 8 July 2024. The landlord’s repair records are incomplete as there is no completion date noted for this, so it is unclear whether the work was completed which was inappropriate.
18. According to the landlord’s damp and mould policy the landlord needed to communicate clearly and regularly regarding any actions it would take offering advice and diagnosis. It would also make reasonable adjustments for residents with a disability and undertake a comprehensive risk assessment for particularly severe or recurring damp and mould issues. It may provide dehumidifiers, or install positive pressure, mechanical or passive ventilation systems. There are no records of a risk assessment, or the provision of dehumidifiers which the landlord needed to consider since it was aware of the resident’s COPD that could be impacted by damp and mould conditions. We have not seen that the landlord maintained the regular communication which it acknowledged in its final complaint response of 12 September 2024.
19. Following the end of the internal complaints process the landlord raised a further works order on 27 November 2024 to inspect to see if there was an external cause of the damp and mould. This was not marked as completed until 30 January 2025. It raised further works orders on 30 January 2025 to install 2 vents, loft insulation and to install a new fan in the kitchen. Completion dates are missing for the fan. The additional work indicates that the damp and mould issue was still not resolved at this point.
20. The landlord acknowledged its mistakes, poor communication and record keeping in its final complaint response of 12 September 2024. It appropriately apologised and it awarded £200 compensation to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings and a further £75 for the identified communication failures. The Ombudsman considers that this does not fully address the ongoing damp and mould issues and the added worry, distress and the additional time and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.
21. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies we have ordered the landlord to pay £375 compensation (inclusive of the landlord’s £275 previously offered). This comprises £200 in respect of the delays in completing the repairs and £175 in respect of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings.

22. The landlord recorded receipt of the resident’s undated complaint letter on 12 February 2024. There is no record of an acknowledgement being sent which was contrary to the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord incorrectly stated in its records on 15 February 2024 that it was not a complaint and just a request for a visit which was inappropriate.
23. The landlord spoke with the resident on several occasions between 13 March 2024 and 20 March 2024. It noted that it needed to log the resident’s complaint on 15 March 2024, however it did not do this until 20 March 2024. It issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2024. This was 46 working days after the resident made his complaint. This was an unreasonable delay, and it was not in line with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code requires an acknowledgement to be sent at both stages within 5 working days and for a response to be sent at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
24. The landlord phoned the resident on 8 July 2024 when he requested is complaint to be escalated to stage 2. There was further delay in the landlord acknowledging the request. It did this on 14 August 2024 before issuing its final complaint response on 12 September 2024. This was 48 working days later which was not in accordance with the Code. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
25. The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings and awarded £125 compensation for the complaint handling failings in its final complaint response. The Ombudsman considers that this suitably recognises the delays in its complaint handling. This is in line with our guidance on remedies, as above. We have therefore found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
26. The landlord said in its final complaint response that it has implemented a working group with senior leaders to review its repair related complaints regularly to identify and address any barriers. It has also increased its complaint handling resources to ensure compliance with the Code. This demonstrates that the landlord has taken some learning from the complaint which is positive.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. There were inconsistencies in the landlord’s records that would have contributed to the errors in its responses and the delays. The landlord identified in its stage 2 complaint response of 12 September 2024 that its lack of record keeping meant that it was unable to confirm what work if any was completed on 3 April 2024.
28. There was inconsistency in the landlord’s records with some saying that an appointment was confirmed for the roof repairs for 23 April 2024 and some saying an appointment was confirmed for 24 April 2024. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response noted that the roof repairs were completed on 23 April 2024. There was inconsistency in the landlord’s complaint responses concerning repair timescales with the stage 1 response saying repairs should be completed within 20 working days which changed to 28 days at stage 2. The landlord should review its self-assessment of its knowledge and information management based on our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) if it has not already done so to improve its record keeping practices.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication was poor, and it failed to recognise the resident’s complaint that it received on 12 February 2024 or to action it appropriately in line with its complaints policy. It failed to provide timely and regular updates to the resident on the damp and mould repairs in line with its damp and mould policy.