The Guinness Partnership Limited (202014482)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014482

The Guinness Partnership Limited

3 February 2022


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
  1. Repairs at the property.
  2. Alleged damage to his vehicle.
  1. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property (‘the property’), a two–bedroom flat contained within a building, owned and managed by the landlord. The tenancy agreement does not detail any exclusive rights to a parking space, however, it is not disputed that the resident has access to parking facilities and that these facilities are also owned and managed by the landlord. Fencing surrounds the area within which the resident parks his vehicle and this is also landlord responsibility.
  2. The resident has raised a number of historic complaints regarding the condition of the property, dating back to 2014. The complaint under investigation however, commenced in January 2021, when the resident complained about outstanding repairs and damage to his vehicle, which he alleged had resulted from landlord operatives whilst they completed works, as well as the actions of neighbours discarding cigarettes over their balcony. In responding to the complaint, the landlord included elements of a previous complaint (submitted by the resident in March 2020) which it acknowledged remained outstanding.
  3. At stage one of the landlord’s complaints process(15 February 2021), the landlord acknowledged that outstanding repairs, dating back to before the resident’s March 2020 complaint remained outstanding and that these would be completed once Covid-19 related restrictions lifted. It confirmed that repairs had been identified during a December 2020 inspection and that these would be completed once normal services resumed; it also apologised for its poor communication and complaints handling in progressing and resolving these repair issues for the resident. The landlord also identified no evidence that its operatives were responsible for any damage to the resident’s vehicle and refused his request for compensation. The landlord listed the outstanding repairs that were due at the property and said that it would discuss possible compensation once repairs were complete.
  4. At the final stage of the complaints process (5 March 2021), the landlord confirmed that outstanding repairs would complete once Covid-19 related restrictions lifted and listed 6 April 2021 as the point at which the resident would be contacted in this regard. The landlord detailed the outstanding repairs as relating to flooring to the living room, hall and second bedroom, plus multiple repairs issues within the kitchen. The landlord also reiterated the stage one position regarding damage to the resident’s vehicle and confirmed that it had not accepted responsibility for the alleged damage.
  5. The resident remained dissatisfied, stating that the landlord’s decision to restrict its consideration to the last six months of his complaints was unsatisfactory as he had experienced repair issues at the property for eight years. He also disputed that he had informed the landlord that works could not progress during Covid-19 restrictions as, despite ongoing health concerns (the resident has Crohns disease), he had said that he would be willing to temporarily vacate the property whilst works progressed, which the landlord had refused. The resident also believed that the landlord had used the ongoing pandemic as an excuse for not resolving his concerns to a suitable standard and within a reasonable timeframe.
  6. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman, on 11 May 2021, that the works identified to the flooring and kitchen remained outstanding. He also referenced a new water ingress issue and a separate door frame issue, which he also considered to be outstanding. In correspondence with the Ombudsman in June 2021, the landlord confirmed that the flooring/kitchen works had completed on 28 May 2021, with the exception of a UPVC cock spur (subsequently confirmed as completed in September 2021). The landlord also confirmed to the Ombudsman, in February 2022, that it had no outstanding repairs scheduled at the property.
  7. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident requested compensation for the landlord’s protracted and historical handling of the property condition issues, plus for the landlord to pay the costs of repairing his vehicle.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

  1. The landlord’s decision to limit its investigation to issues raised within the complaints process, and the period before this (dating back to the complaint submitted in March 2020) was both reasonable and appropriate. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for consideration of complaints that are raised within six months of relevant events and, additionally, that it will only review closed complaints within a six month timescale. The Ombudsman also expects complaints to be raised within a reasonable timeframe of the issues occurring so that the landlord has the opportunity to investigate thoroughly and effectively. The historic issues, dating back as far as eight years, that the resident referred to were therefore not within the scope of the landlord’s complaints process and it was appropriate that it did not investigate these historic concerns.
  2. The March 2020 complaint, for which there is no evidence of a formal response from the landlord, related to two issues. One of these, the heating and hot water system, was resolved promptly with the resident confirming that it was no longer an issue. The resident also referred to outstanding repairs and the landlord’s communication thereafter acknowledged ongoing issues at that time – though it is not clear what these specific issues were. The landlord acknowledged, in its stage one complaint response of 18 February 2021 that its complaints handling and communication had not been up to standard in relation to this earlier period. This was appropriate given the apparent failure to respond through its complaints process and the lack of clarity concerning what transpired at this time.
  3. The resident made further contact regarding unresolved repair issues during August 2020 and these resulted in the landlord confirming (10 September 2020) that issues he had raised at that time (including drainpipes, fencing, a bin store lock, the door entrance system, lighting and lift signs) had been listed as appointable repairs, to be completed within 28 days. It is not clear whether these issues amounted to the full extent of the resident’s dissatisfaction with property repair issues, dating back to his reports from March 2020, though this is unlikely given that the landlord’s description of the March 2020 complaint contained within its stage one response referred to ‘a number of repairs that had been outstanding for several years’.
  4. It is also not known if these issues were completed within the 28 day timeframe detailed by the landlord. The landlord confirmed that it completed fencing works on 15 January 2021, four months after its September 2020 correspondence with the resident, indicating that this issue at least was not resolved within the scheduled timeframe.
  5. Additional works were identified on 9 December 2020, these included multiple issues within the kitchen and renewal of flooring in the living room, hallway and second bedroom. The resident acknowledged access issues in relation to landlord attempts to complete repairs when he submitted his further formal complaint (18 January 2021) but stated that this was because the landlord had failed to notify him of scheduled appointments in relation to works. His complaint also raised his concerns about damage to his vehicle and questioned the landlord’s communication and complaints handling throughout the case.
  6. In responding to the resident’s complaint, the landlord acknowledged the communication and complaints handling failures during 2020, and also confirmed that the outstanding repairs would complete once Covid-19 related restrictions lifted, to which end he would be contacted in April 2021. The resident was dissatisfied as he believed works could take place earlier if the landlord arranged a temporary decant for him, which it refused on account of the works being manageable without such a move. However, this decision was refused reasonably, with the landlord confirming that the repairs identified could be completed whilst the resident remained in occupation.
  7. The landlord’s June 2021 update to this Service confirmed that the repairs it identified in December 2020 were largely complete, with the exception of a UPVC cock spur which it later confirmed as having completed in September 2021. In the circumstances, given the history of the case from March 2020 onwards, the Ombudsman does not consider this a full resolution to the repairs issues raised by the resident. It is not known what repairs the landlord acknowledged remained outstanding at the point of the March 2020 complaint, its communication from that point was, by its own acknowledgement, not up to standard, it is not known to what extent it completed the (largely) communal repairs identified in September 2020 and the repairs it identified in December 2020 took more than five months to complete (with one issue left outstanding at that point).
  8. In addition, there is a clear discrepancy between the landlord’s and the resident’s consideration of the current situation at the property. The resident has stated to this Service that he considers all the works to remain outstanding at the property, whereas the landlord has confirmed that all works are complete and that nothing further is scheduled at the property. This investigation will not make further findings about current and ongoing issues however as they post date the complaints process under investigation. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman is satisfied, based upon the landlord updates, that works identified as outstanding at the completion of the complaints process have been completed by the landlord (albeit in a delayed and protracted manner). Given the resident’s ongoing concerns however, its is recommended that the landlord make further contact with him, including consideration of a further property inspection, to ascertain what, if any, further works might be required at the property.
  9. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged service failure in its stage one response, though this broadly related to complaints handling and communication failures rather than specific issues it had identified with how it responded to repairs. The landlord’s final response upheld the findings of its stage one response, though it did not expand on the possibility of offering compensation.
  10. In all the circumstances of the case, given the lack of a reliable set of records that clarify the landlord’s actions and decision making throughout, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there has been sufficient concerns about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair reports from the period of his March 2020 complaint up until the point that works were largely completed at the end of May 2021. For this period an amount of compensation has been identified below. This figure has been reached through reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases involving significant service failure or maladministration and takes into account the fact that the repair issues that have been identified above, whilst no doubt of significant concern for the resident, would not be expected to impact his day to day living in a serious manner, for example by rendering the property uninhabitable or restricting him to certain parts of the property.
  11. In recent correspondence, post dating the complaints process under investigation, the resident has stated to the Ombudsman that he continues to experience issues with the landlord’s repairs service. He has also requested assistance from the landlord in sourcing alternative accommodation. These issues have not been referenced any further, however, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss these repair concerns further and to advise on his re-housing options.

The resident’s vehicle

  1. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports about vehicle damage. It concluded, on the basis of photographic evidence provided by the resident that its operatives had sufficient room within which to operate. It also confirmed that a staff member had acknowledged witnessing neighbours smoking over their balcony though it did not agree that this meant amounted to evidence that the neighbours were responsible for damage to the vehicle.
  2. Having concluded that there was no evidence that its operatives were responsible for any damage to the vehicle, the landlord refused to pay the resident the compensation that he requested. Given the available evidence, the Ombudsman is not in a position to conclusively state what caused the damage to the vehicle. However, in response to the complaint, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has investigated this issue and offered a reasonable response based upon the evidence it had available to it.
  3. The landlord also confirmed that it had written to the neighbours advising them not to smoke over balconies, which again presents as a reasonable solution. It should also be noted that the landlord would not be responsible for any damage such actions by the neighbours caused in any case.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord has acknowledged that it did not manage the resident’s initial complaint, in March 2020, appropriately. There is no evidence of a formal response and the landlord’s communication at this time did not meet a reasonable standard so this conclusion was appropriate. Had the landlord progressed through its formal complaints process at this earlier stage, it is possible that an earlier resolution to repair issues might have taken place, with a consequent improvement in the resident’s living conditions and an improvement in the landlord/tenant relationship.
  2. Having raised a new complaint in January 2021, there is evidence that the landlord progressed through its complaints process promptly and efficiently, though there is no evidence that it followed through on its stage one agreement to consider compensation once repairs completed. In the circumstances, a further amount of compensation to reflect the earlier complaints handling failures acknowledged is considered appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repair issues within the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about alleged damage to his vehicle.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s overall response to the repair issues raised by the resident was lacking in clarity and customer focus. In addition, there were protracted delays in the landlord resolving repair issues it had identified.
  2. The landlord investigated the resident’s reports about vehicle damage and, having identified no evidence that its operatives were responsible, did not upheld this aspect of the complaint.
  3. The landlord acknowledged that it had not managed the resident’s earlier complaint satisfactorily, though its response to the new complaint he raised in January 2021 was responded to promptly.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord to pay the resident £600 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £500 to reflect the failures identified with its response to the resident’s repair reports.
  2. £100 to reflect the failures identified with its complaints handling.
  1. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order within four weeks.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to contact the resident to discuss his ongoing repair concerns and advise on his re-housing options.