The Guinness Partnership Limited (202325377)

Background

1. The resident raised a number of concerns about external communal maintenance not being carried out and repair issues effecting her property. She asked the landlord to resolve the issues she felt were outstanding. The landlord was aware at the time of the complaint that the resident’s son had asthma.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concern that the landlord’s name on the estate signs was not accurate.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance.
   3. Handling of guttering repairs and associated damp and mould.
   4. Response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
   5. Response to the resident’s concerns about its customer service.
   6. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern that the landlord’s name on the estate signs was not accurate, is outside our jurisdiction.
4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance.
5. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of guttering repairs and associated damp and mould.
6. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos.
7. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its customer service.
8. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Estate signs

9. The accuracy of the landlord named on estate signs does not affect the resident’s occupation of her property or cause significant adverse effect to the resident. As such, we are not able to investigate this.

Grounds maintenance

10. The landlord acknowledged failures in the grounds maintenance being carried out. It took appropriate steps to address the concerns and offered a refund of service charge. The redress offered was proportionate to its failings and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Guttering and damp and mould

11. The landlord did not consider the ongoing nature of issues with the guttering or the household vulnerabilities during its internal complaints procedure. It only acknowledged these failures and offered sufficient compensation following our involvement.

Asbestos

12. The landlord inappropriately relied on an asbestos inspection report of other parts of the property to say there was no asbestos in the utility room ceiling.

Customer service

13. The landlord acknowledged its call wait times had been longer than it aimed for. It explained the steps it was taking to address this and apologised. The redress offered, by way of the apology, was proportionate to its failings and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint handling

14. The landlord failed to acknowledge that its stage 2 response had not been provided in the timeframe set out within its complaint policy of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It did not acknowledge this or offer redress until after our involvement.

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.

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 have not investigated

15. We do not investigate complaints about service charges. Part of the resident’s complaint is about the reasonableness of the amount of service charge refunded for the lack of grounds maintenance. This is not something we can investigate. The tribunal is best placed to consider this aspect of complaint.
16. The resident previously complained to the landlord about the grounds maintenance. This complaint was investigated by us under our reference 202215678. We are not able to consider matters which we have already investigated. As such, our investigation is limited to the concern raised by the resident in her June 2023 complaint, which was about the grounds maintenance between March and June 2023.

What we have investigated

17. It is not in dispute that the landlord is responsible for communal grounds maintenance or that this fell below its expected standard.
18. The landlord’s estate and neighbourhood management policy says the landlord is responsible for ensuring communal areas are well maintained and inspected at least quarterly. The policy says it will ensure grass is cut regularly, shrubs are pruned and communal areas are free of rubbish.
19. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord explained it had appointed a new grounds maintenance contractor in June 2023. It advised the new contractor was known to the landlord. As such, it was confident the new contractor would deliver an improved service.
20. The landlord’s actions in appointing a new contractor was reasonable and demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. In addition, the landlord explained within its complaint response, that in recognition of the failures in the delivery of grounds maintenance, it had credited effected tenants towards their service charge accounts. A refund towards the service charge was appropriate given the landlord’s acknowledgement that grounds maintenance services had not been carried out as they should have been.
21. Within her escalation request, the resident queried how the landlord had calculated the service charge refund. The landlord explained within its stage 2 response that the contractor had not charged per visit and so it had determined the amount as a goodwill gesture for the services falling below standard. The landlord’s explanation was reasonable and addressed the resident’s concerns about how it had made the decision to offer the amount as a refund.
22. In summary, the landlord demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord’s actions in apologising for the issues, instructing a new contractor and crediting the resident towards her service charge, was proportionate to the failings we have identified. As such, the landlord put things right.

23. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and staff involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Our Scheme states we may not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising.
24. Although the resident did not formally complain to the landlord until June 2023 the evidence shows the landlord was made aware of reported issues with the guttering in March 2022. It engaged with the issue and the resident from that point onwards.
25. As such we have exercised our discretion, and it is appropriate for this investigation to focus on the landlord’s response to reports of guttering repair issues since March 2022. This is because the landlord’s subsequent actions and complaint responses were linked to the actions it had taken since March 2022.
26. The resident told the landlord in March 2022 there was an issue with the guttering and damp and mould in the property. The landlord subsequently said it had caried out a repair to the guttering in 2022. However, we have not been provided with evidence of what work was carried out or whether the landlord checked the work had resolved the issue.
27. The resident reported a further issue with the guttering in late 2022. We have not been provided with evidence of work completed in respect of this. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord checked the issues had been resolved at the time. This was a missed opportunity to confirm if its actions had resolved the issue.
28. There was a gap in correspondence about the gutters until 14 March 2023, when the resident reported leaking guttering and damp and mould. A contractor carried out an inspection on 22 March 2023. It described the leaking guttering as “bad”. The contractor told the landlord the guttering had been temporarily fixed but required a permanent repair as a clip was missing. The contractor concluded the damp and mould had been caused by condensation.
29. The landlord’s repairs records show it completed a gutter repair on 13 April 2023. The repair records did not include details of the work completed. The landlord subsequently raised a job on 27 April 2023 and noted part of the guttering was being held up with screws and needed a permanent repair.
30. The landlord’s contractors attended to carry out the guttering work between 11 and 24 May 2023, however they could not gain access. During this time, the resident told the landlord there was damp in the kitchen near where the guttering was leaking.
31. The landlord’s repairs logs note it repaired the gutter clip on 25 May 2023. This timeframe, of around 2 months, was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy which says it aims to carry out repairs within 28 days.
32. Within her complaint, the resident told the landlord the guttering issues had been ongoing and that only temporary fixes had been caried out. The landlord raised a job 2 days after the complaint, to replace part of the guttering. We have not been provided with evidence this was completed.
33. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord said it would not consider the resident’s reports about issues with the guttering from 2022. This was because the resident had not raised these concerns as complaints at the time.
34. The landlord’s complaints policy that was in place at the time, says it will not investigate matters that occurred over 6 months before the complaint was made, unless it is a recurring issue.
35. The nature of the resident’s reports and repeated concerns about the guttering would suggest it was an ongoing issue. In addition, we have seen evidence the resident had told the landlord in both 2022 and 2023 that there was damp and mould in the property. The landlord was aware the resident’s son had asthma.
36. As the landlord had been aware of issues with the guttering since 2022, the resident’s concerns about damp and mould, and the household vulnerabilities, it was not reasonable for the landlord to disregard the guttering repair issues from 2022. By only considering the resident’s reports from 2023, the landlord missed the opportunity to fully consider the impact on the resident for the duration she had been experiencing issues with the guttering.
37. As part of its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had tried to carry out guttering repairs but there had been no access on a number of occasions. It advised it had rearranged the work.
38. When the landlord completed its review at stage 2, it acknowledged it could not confirm it had told the resident about the appointments to compete the guttering work. It also agreed with the resident, that guttering repairs should have been able to be completed without her being present.
39. The landlord maintained its position, that it did not need to consider the resident’s reports about the guttering from 2022.
40. The landlord apologised for its failures in respect of the guttering repairs in 2023. It offered a total of £250 for its poor communication and inconvenience caused to the resident. It committed to complete the guttering works within 20 working days.
41. Following our involvement and around a year after its stage 2 response, the landlord reconsidered the matter. Within its reconsideration it acknowledged as follows:
    1. It had not considered the ongoing nature of the repairs since March 2022.
    2. It had not fully completed the guttering repairs until November 2023.
    3. It had not completed damp and mould repairs until April 2024.
    4. It should have monitored the completion of the repairs and should have acknowledged the household vulnerabilities.
    5. It increased its offer of compensation to £850.
42. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
43. We encourage landlord’s to take resolution focussed action, irrespective of the stage at which a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that a case in dispute progresses to a fair resolution during its internal complaints process.
44. It was not until the resident referred her complaint to us that the landlord conducted a further review and concluded it should have considered the repair issues since 2022 and the household vulnerabilities.
45. We have not been provided with evidence of the landlord’s decision making in respect of how it determined the revised offer of compensation. The £850 compensation offered was within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there have been failures which had a significant physical or emotional impact on a resident.
46. Although the offer of £850 compensation can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord failed to offer this compensation during the internal complaints procedure. As the landlord did not offer sufficient compensation until after our involvement, this amounts to maladministration.
47. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay the increased offer of compensation if this had not already been paid.

48. The landlord carried out an asbestos survey in the property in 2021. We have been provided with a copy of this survey. The survey recorded that only the bathroom and a cupboard had been surveyed. There was no access to other areas. It noted no asbestos had been found in the bathroom or cupboard.
49. The resident said within her complaint that the landlord’s contractor had advised her not to wipe flaking paint off the utility room ceiling due to possible asbestos. The landlord said it could find no evidence its contractor had told the resident this.
50. Within both of its complaint responses, the landlord relied on the asbestos report from 2021. It said that no asbestos had been identified in the property. It went further in its stage 2 response and said it had reviewed the asbestos report, which confirmed there was no asbestos present in the ceiling area.
51. This was not an accurate summary of the findings of the asbestos report and was not reflective of the evidence it had from its specialist contractor. It is clear from the asbestos report that the utility room was not tested for asbestos. As such, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s concern that the utility room ceiling had not been tested for asbestos.
52. To acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure, we have ordered £150 compensation. This is within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where failures adversely affected a resident.

53. The resident told the landlord she was unhappy with the time it had taken to speak to a member of the landlord’s staff on the telephone.
54. Within both of its complaint responses the landlord explained there had been an increase in customer calls it had been receiving. It acknowledge this had impacted its ability to answer calls in a timely manner.
55. The landlord apologised for the effect of its call wait times on the resident. It explained the steps it was taking to address this, including staff training, introducing different customer communication channels and analysing data to improving its services.
56. Although we understand that call wait times can be frustrating, the landlord had a number of ways available to residents to communicate with it. The resident advised, that following the lengthy call wait times, she would prefer email communications with the landlord. We have seen that the landlord was responsive the resident’s email communications.
57. The landlord’s response to this concern demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. In the circumstances its apology was appropriate to put things right.

58. The landlord’s complaints policy says at stage 1, it aims to acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. Our Code allows for 5 working days for an landlord to acknowledge a complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy goes on to say the landlord aims to respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aims to respond in 20 working days. These response timeframes mirror the timeframes in our Code.
59. It took the landlord 7 working days, from 26 June to 5 July 2023 to acknowledge the complaint. It then took a further 5 working days to provide the stage 1 response on 12 July 2023. Although the acknowledgement was slightly delayed, the landlord responded in line with its overall total response timeframe for a stage 1 complaint.
60. The resident escalated the complaint on 3 August 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 12 September 2023. This was a period of 28 working days. This was 8 working days over the timeframes in its complaints policy and the Code.
61. The landlord did not acknowledge this delay during its internal complaints procedure. It was not until the landlord’s subsequent review following our involvement that it acknowledged its delay in responding at stage 2. During this review it offered £50 compensation for the effect of this delay.
62. The compensation offered by the landlord was within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where there was minor failure that the landlord did not acknowledge. Although the amount of compensation was reasonable, the landlord failed to identify the delayed response or offer redress during its internal complaint procedure.
63. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay its increased offer of compensation to the resident if this has not already been paid. Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

64. The landlord did not provide us with records of all of the guttering works it had completed. As such, it was not always clear what work had been completed during appointments. The landlord should ensure that its record keeping is detailed, particularly in respect of repairs and resident communications.

Communication

65. The landlord appropriately communicated with the resident by her preferred means of communication. Its communications were generally timely, however, the landlord should ensure that it makes residents aware when it has arranged appointments.