The Guinness Partnership Limited (202110662)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110662

The Guinness Partnership Limited

12 April 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of flooding.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and lives in a two-bedroom house.
3. Between 2012 and 2018, the resident experienced problems with flooding on her balcony. The landlord carried out repairs to the balcony’s drainage in 2018.
4. In June 2021, the resident reported flooding from her balcony through her patio doors. She was unhappy as she said it had happened a number of times previously, and so she wanted to make a complaint about this. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and explained it may take longer than usual to respond, due to the impact of Covid-19. It explained it would aim to resolve the complaint within 20 working days.
5. Although the landlord raised the repair as an emergency, the repair job was not passed to its contractor as it ought to have been. This meant the contractor did not attend in line with the landlord’s published emergency response time of 24 hours. However, when the contractor did attend, they found nothing wrong with the balcony’s drainage.
6. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It offered the resident £25 compensation for its contractor failing to attend within 24 hours. The resident did not accept this, and on 13 July 2021, she requested escalation of the complaint.
7. The landlord provided its stage two (final) complaint response on 14 October 2021. It said its contractor had not found any issues with the balcony, and that many properties in the local area had experienced flooding due to the amount of rainfall that day. Whilst it recognised the resident had experienced flooding previously, it pointed out that the last time had been three years earlier, and so it did not think the more recent flooding could be linked to this. The landlord again offered £25 compensation for its contractor failing to attend within 24 hours. It also offered an additional £25 compensation for failing to respond to the resident’s complaint within its usual timescales. Finally, the landlord explained that it had given feedback to its repairs team about the poor communication and delay in attending the resident, and they had taken this on board.
8. The resident asked this Service to consider her complaint. She thought the landlord ought to repair the drains, as well as decorate her kitchen walls and ceilings that were damaged by the flooding. This Service advised the landlord of this, and the landlord agreed to decorate the kitchen walls and ceiling, even though it said this should be the resident’s responsibility, though it did not accept that it had been at fault for the flooding.

Assessment and findings

Response to report of flooding

9. When the resident informed the landlord that there had been flooding, it raised this as an emergency repair. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that an emergency repair would include a flood or leak that cannot be contained. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have treated the matter as an emergency.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours. However, the landlord accepts that did not happen here. It explains the reason for that was because the repair job was not passed to its contractor as it ought to have been.
11. It is not known when the landlord’s contractor did attend. Though given that the flooding had been caused by rainfall (rather than a leak which could not be stopped), it is accepted that the landlord’s delay did not adversely impact the resident’s property. However, it is appreciated that the contractor’s failure to attend within the stated timescale of 24 hours would have caused the resident some inconvenience. The landlord’s compensation offer of £25 was reasonable, as this reflected the level of inconvenience caused to the resident.
12. The landlord explained to the resident in its stage two complaint response that it had given feedback to its repairs team about the matter, and that they had taken this on board and would take steps to avoid a similar situation arising again. This was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, that encourage landlord’s to identify learning from the outcomes of complaints that it progressed through its complaints process.
13. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events though the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress. As the landlord has done so here, no further action is required.
14. Although the resident says she wants the drains to be repaired, the landlord’s contractor did not find any issues with the balcony’s drainage. The flooding appears to have been an unfortunate one-off event, given the excessive rainfall that day. Whilst the resident has linked the event to the previous flooding she had experienced with the balcony, the landlord pointed out that the last flooding event occurred around three years earlier. It is understood the landlord carried out repairs in 2018, and so it was reasonable for the landlord to say that the flooding which occurred in 2021 was likely not linked to the earlier issues that the resident had experienced, given the time that passed since that repair. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord not to arrange any repairs to the balcony’s drainage, since its contractor had not found any issues.
15. The resident requested that the landlord redecorate her kitchen walls and ceilings that were damaged by the flooding. As the landlord has pointed out, it is not responsible for painting and decorating within the resident’s property. This is confirmed in the tenancy agreement. Since the flooding was not found to have been caused by any issues that were the landlord’s responsibility, the Ombudsman would not have required the landlord to decorate the resident’s kitchen walls and ceiling. However, the landlord made the decision to do this anyway; this amounted to a reasonable exercise of discretion, reflecting the landlord’s appreciation that the resident had been impacted by the issue.
16. There was a significant delay in the landlord responding to the complaint at

Complaint handling

17. The landlord’s complaint handling policy explains that it will aim to give its stage one decision within ten working days. If a complaint is escalated to stage two, the landlord will aim to provide its decision within 20 working days.
18. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response outside its published timescale of ten working days, though it did explain in its acknowledgement of the complaint that this was because of Covid-19. It then gave the resident a new timescale, and it issued its stage one complaint response within this. Given the affect of the Covid-19 pandemic, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to experience some delays, but it kept the resident updated about this, which was reasonable.
19. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated after she received the landlord’s stage one complaint response. However, she advised this Service that her request was made on 13 July 2021. The landlord did not provide its stage two complaint response for over 13 weeks after this, which was significantly outside its published timescales. This Service has not been provided with any evidence from the landlord to support that it kept the resident updated about this.
20. The resident is unhappy that the landlord attempted to call her rather than email her, to discuss her complaint. The landlord explained in its stage two response that it had attempted to call her on three occasions, and had left a voicemail, but did not hear back from her. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord made reasonable attempts to speak with the resident about her complaint before issuing its stage two response. Landlord’s are encouraged to communicate with residents regarding service issues and associated complaints. Whilst the resident has indicated that she would have preferred email contact, it is sometimes the case that a phone call is the most appropriate method of contact, for example if a landlord needs to explain a technical issue or speak to a tenant as a matter of urgency.
21. The landlord accepts there was service failure in its complaints handling, and offered the resident £25 compensation for this. Though this figure is relatively low, the Ombudsman is mindful that, in all the circumstances of the case, the resident has benefitted from landlord actions that it has stated it is not responsible for (re-decoration). As such, it is this Services view that the landlord’s overall response on this case has been reasonable, in respect of both the substantive issue of flooding, and in respect of the associated complaint. This includes the actions taken to remedy identified service failures.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident prior to the investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved the complaint concerning the resident’s report of flooding satisfactorily.
23. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to the service failures identified with its complaints handling.

Recommendation

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation previously offered at the completion of the complaints process.