The Guinness Partnership Limited (202110442)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110442

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property.
The resident raised a complaint on 4 June 2021. She said that she had been calling the landlord on multiple occasions to follow-up with repairs that needed to be completed in the property. She listed her outstanding issues as: an asbestos survey that had been completed in April 2021 with no follow up action having taken place, a fencing repair she had reported in November 2020, internal doors that needed replacing and smoke alarms that required repair.
On 22 June 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint. It stated that repair work had been scheduled in for 7 July 2021, but it was ‘not aware’ of the repair being completed. It also informed the resident that the asbestos survey confirmed asbestos in most rooms, but it did not present a danger unless disturbed or damaged so advised not to rub or clean the asbestos areas. In response, the landlord stated that the asbestos report was incorrect as it did not mention the current damage to the ceilings namely, a hole in the kitchen ceiling, plaster falling off the walls, due to a previous leak and lining paper pulling plaster off the walls also. The resident stated she was worried about the impact this was having on her health.
On 16 July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to inform her that the ceilings in the hallway and kitchen, would be removed on 9 August 2021 and reinstated between 10-11 August 2021. The resident raised concerns amount the need for her to move furniture in advance of the works and this culminated in her cancelling the works as she said she was unable to move the furniture to another room due to the damp and mould in that room.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 30 September 2021. It stated that on 30 September 2021, repairs had been completed to the fencing and damp and mould. However, it was awaiting confirmation of the date to have the ceilings in the bedroom, hallway and kitchen removed. Upon completion of the ceiling work, it would install new smoke detectors. The landlord agreed that the resident had waited ‘too long’ for the repairs and had to make contact ‘too many times’. Therefore, it offered the resident £250 compensation in recognition of its acknowledged service failures.
The resident referred this matter to this Service on 26 April 2022. The resident stated that the ceiling work had not been completed and the compensation offered had not yet been paid. As a resolution, the resident would like the ceiling work to be completed and compensation paid. She said that the landlord had completed the fencing and damp/mould works back in September 2021, but that the asbestos related works remained outstanding, with a scheduled date of 1-5 August 2022 for their completion. When the landlord’s contractor attended on 1 August to commence these works, the resident refused access.
The landlord contacted this Service on 3 August 2022, stating that it had offered an increased compensation amount of £600 to the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident has expressed her concerns regarding the affects the asbestos has caused to her and her families health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s concerns about the affect of asbestos of her health; however, the Ombudsman is not able to determine matters of liability or causation and will not consider complaints which would be more reasonably dealt with via another organisation or procedure. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.

Policies and procedures.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs are those which are not emergencies. For these types of repairs, the landlord will aim to repair within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that, a stage one response should be received within ten working-days and a stage two response, should be received within twenty working-days.

Repairs.

The resident’s concerns about the finding and condition of asbestos within her home are wholly understandable. However, the Ombudsman’s role is not to investigate the level of asbestos in the property and potential risk to the resident, but rather, it is to provide an independent review of the landlord’s actions in its response to the resident’s concerns.
Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 relates to housing conditions. This states that landlords have a duty to review housing conditions and identify any hazards that might exist. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) details 29 different types of housing hazards and the effect that each may have on the health and safety of occupants.
Asbestos is one of the 29 hazards set out in the HHSRS. Under the HHSRS, the landlord needs to identify the location of any asbestos in the property, assess how vulnerable it is to damage and identify any current damage or potential fibre release. Where a hazard is identified, it is classified as Category 1 (being a serious and immediate risk to health or safety) or 2 (a less serious or urgent risk). The landlord must take appropriate enforcement action in relation to any Category 1 hazards.
When the landlord was informed by the resident in April 2021 of her concerns relating to asbestos, it was in line with its responsibilities under the HHSRS that it arranged a survey in order for it to identify any hazards and assess what risks it had to the occupants of the property. Based on the report produced, the landlord subsequently agreed to remove the asbestos ceilings in the kitchen, living room and hallway.
However, the landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s reports that the asbestos containing areas were deteriorating, plaster ‘falling down’ from the ceiling (landlord telephone call with the resident 22 June 2021). When the landlord received the further reports of asbestos deterioration, it would have been appropriate to risk assess the situation to determine whether urgent action was required. However, there is no evidence of the landlord having taken further action on the resident’s further reports.
The resident’s refused access to the landlord’s contractors on 10 August 2021 so the asbestos works did not proceed as scheduled. No contemporaneous records of this attempted works visit have been provided, though the landlord subsequently confirmed in internal correspondence (from September 2021) that it had discussed this issue with the contractor, who had said that the resident had referred to her outstanding complaint as the reason for refusing access.
It is of concern that the landlord (or its contractor) has not retained records from the visit as this would support its subsequent finding that it was the outstanding complaint that had prevented the resident from allowing access. In addition to the complaint, it is noted that the resident had also expressed concerns about moving her furniture whilst works took place and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that these concerns factored into the resident’s decision making when refusing access.
In any case, having failed to complete the works as intended, the landlord did not follow up on the issue by making further contact with the resident in order to arrange a new date for the works to commence. The works involved here were potentially serious and urgent as they related to a potential category one hazard. Whilst it is appreciated that the landlord may not have been able to get a new appointment immediately after the cancelled appointment, it ought to have ensured that appropriate action was then taken, including consideration as to whether the resident could remain living at the property whilst the works remained outstanding. There is no evidence however that a temporary decant was ever considered or offered to the resident.
It is also unclear why the landlord selected certain asbestos in the property to be removed, despite other areas having been rated the same risk on the asbestos report namely, two bedrooms and the landing area. In the interests of providing reassurance to the resident about the remaining asbestos containing materials (ACMs) in the property, the landlord should conduct a further review of the case, based on the expertise of its asbestos contractor, and inform the resident if it is appropriate to complete any further removal.
Furthermore, the communication provided shows that there was a degree of confusion surrounding works to be completed. An example of this is where the resident believed a contractor would attend the property to plaster the ceilings after being removed. However, when the contractor contacted the resident she was informed that the plastering ‘may not be completed’. This lack of communication between the parties would have been distressing for the resident and the poor record keeping has not assisted in gaining clarity on the overall handling of the matter.
The most recent update in relation to the asbestos related works confirmed that the resident had again refused access to the property (August 2022). It is of concern that the works remain outstanding more than a year after they were first identified. It is also of significant concern that the resident has again refused access to the property for these works to take place. It is noted however, that the landlord contractor attended at a later part of the day, following works it had completed elsewhere. The resident was reluctant to allow access, given that this would entail the works progressing until into the evening.
In the circumstances, an order has been included below for the landlord to complete the works within a limited timeframe of 6 weeks from the date of this investigation report, with the resident expected to play her part in ensuring that these works can progress in this time. The landlord should act promptly to identify and address any concerns about the works, such as furniture removal or the timings of contractor attendance, and should also consider whether a temporary decant may be required.
The resident also complained about having damp and mould in the property. The resident raised this as part of her complaint on 4 June 2021. The damp and mould were subsequently treated on 28 September 2021. This was 57 working days outside of the landlord’s repairs policy of 28 calendar days. Therefore, the landlord delayed the repair without sufficient reason and in turn, did not comply with its repairs policy on this aspect of the complaint.
The resident also reported on 16 November 2020, that the fence panels in her rear-garden had ‘fallen down’. The fencing was not repaired until 28 September 2021, nine months outside of its repairs policy. There has been no communication with the resident as to why the repair had been delayed and she was not kept informed of the progress of the repair. Therefore, the landlord has not acted in compliance with its own policy, leading to a further failure in its service delivery.
The poor communication highlighted above, also impacted the length of time it took for repairs to be completed. The miscommunication between the parties added confusion to the repair and contributed to the resident’s decision to refuse access to contractors and also led to contractors turning up unannounced due to the landlord not having communicated appointments to the resident. These additional delays were unnecessary and time consuming for the resident, in which she had specifically informed the landlord of. It is the landlord’s responsibility to provide clear instructions to the contractor, relay this to the resident and ensure the correct repairs are completed.
The Ombudsman cannot assess any health concerns raised by the resident or the long-term impact of potential asbestos exposure. However, any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by a landlord’s service delivery failures can be considered. In this case, the resident was severely distressed regarding the asbestos and the concerns about her and her family’s health as evidenced by the amount of times the resident contacted the landlord. The distress caused to the resident, has been considered in the compensation award below.
The landlord should pay the resident £1,000 compensation in recognition of its handling of the repairs. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award compensation of £700 and above for cases where the Ombudsman has found maladministration or severe maladministration, that had a severe long-term impact on the resident.
In this case, the landlord’s failures to resolve the fencing and damp/mould issues within reasonable timeframes are both considered to warrant an award of compensation. In addition, the landlord’s overall response to the asbestos related issue has demonstrated multiple service failures over a protracted period of time, including delays, poor communication, poor record keeping and an overall failure to focus on the customer.
As such, a total order of compensation amounting to £1,200 has been ordered for the repairs aspect of this case. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases involving maladministration or severe maladministration. It is relevant here that the overall finding of this case has been identified as maladministration, though a finding of severe maladministration might have been identified had the landlord not offered a significant amount of compensation post complaints procedure. In this respect, the landlord’s attempts to complete the asbestos works and the resident’s refusal of access has also been factored in as a mitigating factor.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that a stage one response should be received within ten working-days. However, the landlord did not issue a stage one response to the resident. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must provide a complaint response, at all stages of the complaint. The landlord’s failure to provide a stage one response, is not in line with its policy and therefore, a failure in its complaints service delivery.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 30 July 2021. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that a response should be provided within twenty working-days. However, the stage two response was not provided until 30 September 2021, 44 working days after the escalation. This is a substantial delay with no evidence that the landlord updated the resident as to when she would receive a response until 24 September 2021. Given that the landlord failed to provide a stage one response and significantly delayed in providing its stage two response, this amounted to maladministration.
The landlord’s complaint handling was also not in-line with policy or good practice, as it appeared that the landlord put up unnecessary barriers for escalation of the complaint, namely, not providing a stage one response in which the resident should have been provided the opportunity to escalate if she remained unhappy with the response. The landlord should provide a stage one response within the time frames stipulated in the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code and its own complaints policy.
It is also acknowledged that the initial complaint handler stated it was ‘no longer dealing with the complaint’, when a contractor contacted the landlord. There has been no evidence provided to this Service that the landlord passed this on to the relevant parties. This is not good practice. It is appreciated that the employee may not have been dealing with the complaint, however, the information should still be passed to the relevant department and the complaint notes updated.
The landlord’s overall complaint handling has been poor. Its response gave an impression that it did not understand the impact on the resident and in turn, gave the impression that the landlord was not taking her concerns seriously. This has been considered in the compensatory amount as set out below.
The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance (published on our website). The guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award between £250 to £700 for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but there may be no permanent impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1,450 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £1,200 for identified failures with its repairs service delivery .
  2. £250 for poor complaint handling.
2. The landlord to evidence compliance with this order to this Service within four weeks of this report. The total amount of compensation ordered here includes any compensation already paid or offered in relation to this complaint.
3. Complete the removal of the identified asbestos related works within six weeks of this report.
4. Complete a case review identifying any points of learning from this case and demonstrate its intention of implementation of these findings, to ensure similar failings are not repeated in the future. The landlord must report these findings to this Service and the resident within six weeks of this investigation report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review:
1. If the resident and her family should be temporarily decanted whilst the asbestos removal works take place.
2. Whether any further ACMs require removal at the property, and of not, confirm this with the resident.