The Guinness Partnership Limited (202442511)

Background

1. The resident lives at the property with her 2 young children. Between September and November 2024, the resident reported the loss of heating and/or hot water to the property on several occasions. The landlord’s gas contractor attended on each occasion but was unable to provide a lasting resolution to the issue. On 26 November 2024, the landlord agreed to replace the property’s boiler.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of boiler repairs.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Reasons

Boiler repairs

6. The resident first reported that she had lost hot water supply on 9 September 2024. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the following day. This was in keeping with its repairs policy which says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord’s records show that the contractor descaled the boiler, changed some parts and left it in working order.
7. On 28 September 2024, the resident reported loss of both heating and hot water supply. The landlord’s gas contractor again attended within 24 hours. It recorded that the hot water was “on and off” and further investigation of the issue was needed. On 1 October 2024, the landlord ordered new parts for the boiler. Its gas contractor returned to the property on 4 October 2024 and descaled it again as an interim measure. This was a reasonable to maintain supply while waiting for the parts to arrive. The gas contractor received the boiler parts on 8 October 2024. It attended and fitted them the same day and recorded that the boiler was in working order. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the issue resolved at this point.
8. The resident reported a further loss of heating and hot water on 27 October 2024. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the property the following day and diagnosed that the system required a ‘power flush’. The landlord attempted to complete this on 5 November 2024, but the resident was not available for the appointment. It arranged to attend and complete the power flush the following day.
9. This represented a period of 9 days where the resident was left without heating or hot water, during colder weather, while waiting for the contractor to power flush the system. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that its contractor had been unable to “confirm conclusively” whether it had provided the resident with temporary heaters during this period, or any other where she was without heating and hot water. This was unreasonable, particularly considering the 2 young children in the household.
10. After completing the power flush, the landlord’s gas contractor recorded that if the error reoccurred it would need to assess whether a new boiler was required. Despite this, when the resident reported a loss of hot water again, 4 days later, there is no evidence the contractor considered this when it attended the following day. Instead, it determined that further parts needed replacing and left the heating and hot water “working intermittently”.
11. Despite identifying that further parts were required, the landlord’s gas contractor failed to order these until 13 October 2024, 3 working days later. This was unreasonable considering the intermittent supply and young children in the household.
12. On 14 October 2024, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint. When doing so she mentioned that she had been boiling water using her kettle and hob to substitute for the loss of supply and that in doing so she had scalded herself. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that it could not comment upon personal injury matters within its complaints process. This was in keeping with its complaints policy which states it “does not cover claims for personal injury”.
13. The landlord reasonably suggested the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice about the matter. However, it would also have been appropriate for it to have signposted her to its insurers, should she wish to make a liability claim against it.
14. On 14 October 2024, the resident also asked the landlord if it could provide her with temporary provisions, such as a hot water urn, until it had fully resolved the issues with the boiler. As established above, we have seen no evidence that the landlord or its contractor considered this, despite the recurring ongoing issues.
15. The landlord’s gas contractor attended and fitted the new boiler parts on 18 November 2024. It recorded that it tested the boiler and left it in working order. However, it also noted there was still ‘debris’ in the bottom of the boiler and it would need replacing if the problems persisted.
16. The resident reported that she had lost heating and hot water once again on 20 November 2024. The landlord’s gas contractor attended the following day and at this point recommended that it replace the boiler. However, it does not appear to have communicated this to the landlord until 4 days later. The landlord promptly authorised the new boiler and this was installed over 3 days between 4 and 6 December 2024. It is unclear whether the resident had any heating or hot water supply between 20 November 2024 and the beginning of the boiler replacement – over 2 weeks later.
17. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged a delay in it installing the new boiler, and that it should have prioritised this to be done sooner due to the young children in the household. This failing formed part of its offer of compensation.
18. During the boiler replacement, the resident contacted the landlord to express concern that its contractor was installing new heating pipes along the outside of the walls, rather than under the floor as the previous ones had been. She said that she felt this was unsafe for her children and risked them being burnt by the hot pipes. On 11 December 2024, her children’s school wrote to the landlord also expressing concerns over the exposed pipes, highlighting that one of the children was being assessed for autism which increased the risk involved. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 18 December 2024 partly on this basis.
19. The landlord had explained in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractor had done this as “to install pipes under the floor would have been very destructive and taken much longer to complete”. The landlord’s records also indicate that the contractor was unsure whether this would have even been a viable option. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord and its contractor to resolve the issue quickly and with minimal disruption to the resident and her children. However, it would have been appropriate for them to have identified the potential hazard of exposed heating pipes with young children in the home and addressed this as part of the boiler install.
20. Instead, the landlord advised in its stage 1 complaint response that its contractor would be returning on 6 January 2025 to “fit trunking around the pipes”. This left the resident living with distress and anxiety over the potential hazard of the hot pipes for a month, including the Christmas period. This was unreasonable.
21. The landlord’s gas contractor attended on 6 January 2025, as scheduled. However, it only boxed in the pipes directly below the boiler, while taking measurements for trunking for the further pipes throughout the property. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the contractor would return on 17 January 2025 to complete the works. However, the resident emailed it on this date advising that the contractor had attended but still not fitted the trunking. The reasons for this are unclear from the information available to us, but it is apparent that the pipes have since been covered.
22. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the “personal stress and inconvenience” caused by the situation. In its stage 2 response it offered £350 composed of £250 for “personal distress and poor communication” and £100 towards her increased energy bills from boiling water. It is unclear whether this was in addition to the stage 1 offer or inclusive of it, but we have taken the view that it is the former.
23. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately acknowledged that, while it attended all appointments within its required timescale, “there were a significant number of attendances for the same issue until we concluded that the boiler needed to be replaced”. The landlord’s repairs policy says that “will normally repair rather than replace individual elements”, and it was reasonable for it to initially attempt to repair the boiler. However, its should have considered replacing it sooner than it did, based upon its contractor’s comments from the visit on 6 November 2024.
24. The landlord also identified that it was unable to confirm whether its contractor had offered the resident temporary heaters at any point. It made no mention of temporary provision for hot water, despite it being apparent that the resident and her children were left without bathing facilities during the periods they were without supply.
25. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the majority of its failings in the handling of the boiler repairs. Its offer of £600 compensation was at the upper limit of its compensation policy’s range for issues which took a long time to resolve, had a demonstrable impact on the resident or their household but resulted in no permanent impact. This is also in keeping with our remedies guidance for such cases. This offer was reasonable given the level of failings identified and the duration of events.
26. However, the landlord has not acknowledged its failure to consider the potential hazard of the exposed heating pipes during the boiler replacement works. Nor the significant delay in it remedying this – even after the resident and her children’s school raised their concerns about it. Due to this, we make a finding of maladministration and order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her a further £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount is in keeping with our remedies guidance for failings which adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact, which the landlord has not acknowledged.

Complaint handling

27. The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 14 November 2024 to raise a complaint about its handling of the boiler repairs. In the first instance, the landlord directed her to its gas contactor due to it being the one carrying out the repairs.
28. The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will accept complaints from “anyone who is adversely impacted by the service we provide or our failure to provide services”. As the contractor was providing a service on behalf of the landlord it was inappropriate for it to direct the resident, who had no direct relationship with the contractor, to make her complaint to it. However, the detriment caused by this was minimal as the gas contractor directed the resident back to the landlord to make her complaint the same day.
29. When the resident contacted the landlord again later that day, after speaking with the gas contractor, it appropriately logged her complaint. However, its records indicate that it managed this as a ‘quick fix’. The landlord’s complaints policy contains no reference to this mechanism. While it states that “we will aim to resolve complaints as quickly as possible, at first point of contact where possible”, it is clear that it will initiate its 2 stage complaints process whenever a resident raises a complaint. This is also a requirement of our complaint handling code (the Code), which says that “it is not appropriate to have extra named stages” outside of the standard 2 stage process.
30. Despite this, the landlord did not log the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process until 27 November 2024. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord identified that it had failed to acknowledge this complaint within the 5 working days its policy required. It also acknowledged it had failed to issue its stage 1 response within the 10 working day timescale required by its policy and the Code. It offered the resident £50 compensation for these failings, which was reasonable and in keeping with its compensation policy’s suggested amount for a ‘minor failure in service’.
31. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 14 January 2025. This was 16 working days from the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. This was within the 20 working days its policy and the Code allow.
32. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the events of 14 November 2024, when it incorrectly signposted the resident to its gas contractor to raise her complaint and then inappropriately raised and closed a ‘quick fix’ with the issues still unresolved. Due to this, we make a finding of service failure and order the landlord to pay the resident a further £50 compensation. This is in keeping with our remedies guidance for a minimal failure of short duration which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

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.