The Guinness Partnership Limited (202111591)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111591

The Guinness Partnership Limited

10 December 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 handling of:
    1. The repair to the resident’s patio door and the associated offer of compensation.
    2. The formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In September 2020 the resident reported that the top hinge of her patio door (which lead onto the balcony) had fallen off. A repair was raised at the time with the landlord’s contractor. The evidence shows that the work was then assigned to a different contractor in December 2020 and the top hinge was removed, with a view to ordering a replacement. The resident was informed in January 2021 that an appointment had been arranged for March 2021 to carry out the repair, however, in March the appointment was rearranged to April 2021 as the required part had not arrived. Soon after, a need for a replacement door was identified.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 16 April 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the length of time it was taking to repair the door. She advised that she had experienced numerous missed and failed appointments between September and December 2020, where operatives did not know what work they were due to undertake. She was dissatisfied that there had been no progression and wanted the door to be fixed, as well as compensation for her time and trouble. The landlord provided its stage one complaint response in July 2021.
  4. The resident later escalated the complaint as she had been informed on 27 May 2021 that a new door had been ordered and was given a six-week timeframe, but was then told that additional measurements were required in July 2021. She was dissatisfied as the door had been measured twice previously.
  5. The landlord provided its final response to the complaint in August 2021. It apologised for the length of time it was taking to resolve the problem with the door. It confirmed that further measurements were taken on 2 July 2021 and a replacement door had been ordered. It said that it had asked its contractors for a completion date but was still waiting for a response. It also acknowledged that the initial complaint handler had not kept the resident adequately informed, and that there had been several service failures over the eleven-month period since the repair was first reported. It offered £250 compensation by way of apology.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the delay in repairing the door, and the lack of contact from the landlord. She seeks additional compensation for the number of missed and unnecessary appointments, being unable to open the door or access her balcony during this period, increased energy usage to keep the room cool due to the lack of ventilation (because she has been unable to open the door), and for the stress and inconvenience caused.
  7. The evidence shows that the patio door was replaced on 17 February 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on 11 November 2022 and increased its offer of compensation to £400, comprised of £250 in recognition of the unreasonable delay in completing works, £50 in recognition of the complaint handling delays, and £100 in recognition of poor communication and failure to keep promises. The resident remains dissatisfied with this offer. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. Generally, and in line with the terms of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will only consider matters that have completed a landlord’s formal complaint process, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and formally respond to complaints before the Ombudsman makes a determination.
  2. As part of her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised concerns that the door installed in February 2022 was the wrong size, and said that she could not place her existing blind over the new door because of this, and wanted the landlord to pay the cost for new blinds, which had been quoted at approximately £300. While the Ombudsman appreciates that this matter is linked to the original complaint, there is no indication that concerns about the replacement door being the wrong size have been raised with the landlord at any point, and so the landlord has not been provided with the opportunity to investigate and formally respond to this specific complaint. As such, this matter and the resident’s request for £300 compensation is not considered as part of this investigation. It is open to the resident to contact the landlord regarding this matter and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s patio door.

  1. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairs required to external doors within the property. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. Some repairs, including those where parts need to be manufactured, may take longer. In these instances, the landlord would be expected to provide regular updates to the resident on the progress of the repair, and an estimated completion date.
  2. In this case, the resident initially reported the repair in mid-September 2020, and therefore the landlord was obliged to repair this in a reasonable timeframe. The resident stated in her stage one complaint that there were multiple missed appointments and failed visits to her property between September and December 2020. While there is no reference to these in the repair records, it is noted that the landlord did not dispute this in its stage one response. The evidence shows that contractors determined that the door hinge required replacement on 15 December 2020, which was well outside of the landlord’s 28-day timescale for routine repairs.
  3. Following this, the evidence shows that there was a lack of progression with the resident having to chase the landlord up regarding the repair. Whilst it is understandable that there may have been some delay due to the need to order a new hinge, this does not account for the entirety of the delay between 15 December 2020 and 7 May 2021, at which point it was established that a new door was required.
  4. Landlords are entitled to attempt to repair items if it was felt this was economical to do so, before replacing them. But while it was reasonable in the circumstances that a repair was attempted in the first instance, the need for a new door should have been identified much sooner. In addition, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the landlord adequately communicated with the resident, provided updates on the progress of the repair, or provided an estimated completion date in order to manage her expectations. Whilst it is noted that the landlord made efforts to chase its contractors for a date for the door to be replaced, it would have been appropriate for it to consider escalating the matter given the extensive delay with this. It is noted that the resident was informed on 27 May 2021 that a new door had been ordered, with a six-week lead time for manufacture. She was then informed that measurements of the door needed to be taken on 2 July 2021, which was likely to have caused confusion and indicates poor organisation by the landlord and its contractors, and suggests that previous measurements were not accurately recorded. 
  5. In its August 2021 final response to the complaint, the landlord stated, ‘It is obvious that there have been a number of service failings over the past 11 months.’ In light of the failings in the handling of the matter, the landlord, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, needed to take action to ‘put things right’ for the resident, taking into account the impact that the delay had on her: In her July 2021 stage two escalation request she had detailed impacts including the length of time it had taken to repair/replace the door, which meant that she had been unable to open the door since September 2020. She also said that numerous appointments had been a waste of her time as the repair required a specialist, but was only referred to one on 16 April 2021. She also referred to the landlord having to attend and measure the door again in July 2021.
  6. In its stage two response the landlord acknowledged the delay in the repair, and apologised for this, which was appropriate. It also offered the resident £250 in compensation, which was broadly in line with the amounts set out in its compensation policy, which allowed for amounts of up to £250 for short term, low inconvenience issues, and £250 upwards for issues that took a long time to resolve, and had resulted in medium inconvenience to a resident.
  7. In terms of resolving the repair, the landlord said that it was chasing the subcontractor for a date for the replacement door to be fitted, and that as soon as it had more information it would be in touch to confirm. This was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to take, and it clearly was aware at this stage of the need to proactively manage the repair.
  8. However, it took another eight months for the door to be replaced, a significant delay, and a further failing on the part of the landlord. The landlord has explained to this Service that the delay between August 2021 and February 2022 was largely a result of the impact of Covid-19 on its repairs service, including reduced staff, difficulties sourcing subcontractors that were qualified to complete the work, and issues obtaining the required parts from the manufacturers. Whilst these factors may have been somewhat outside of the landlord’s control, the landlord has not provided any documentary evidence which demonstrates that it had attempted to progress works during this time or evidence the difficulties it faced. As such, while the Ombudsman acknowledges that landlord’s comments here, they are not substantiated with any contemporaneous records or evidence.  Further, there is little evidence to suggest that the resident was updated or informed of the reasons for the ongoing delay, which would have caused additional inconvenience and frustration.
  9. After contact from this Service in late 2022, the landlord increased the compensation offered by £100, which was for failings in communication. No increase was made to the £250 previously offered for the delay to the repair, despite this having been ongoing for eight months more since the original £250 offer. Given the year and a half delay in completing the repair, during which time the resident’s ability to ventilate the property and access the balcony was impeded, £250 is an insufficient amount.
  10. In recognition of the overall inconvenience caused to the resident by the number of attendances it took to resolve the matter, her time and trouble in pursuing the issue with the landlord, poor communication, and the impact on the use of her home as a result of the landlord’s failings, the landlord is ordered to pay a total of £500 compensation in relation to the repair. The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s comment that there were increased energy costs due to the inability to ventilate the property, but no details of this increase have been provided. Overall, the Ombudsman considers £500 a proportionate overall amount in the circumstances. This amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (available online).   
  11. As the landlord has recognised failings and made attempts to ‘put things right’ a finding of service failure is made in relation to this matter, rather than the more serious finding of ‘maladministration.’

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has a two-stage formal complaints process. At stage one, the landlord should respond within ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay at any stage, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timescale.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. It states that the landlord should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions made,. Where something has gone wrong a landlord should acknowledge this, provide an explanation and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. For example, where there was an unreasonable delay or where the landlord’s policy or procedure was not followed correctly without good reason.
  3. In this case, a formal complaint was raised on 16 April 2021, and the landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 9 July 2021. Whilst the landlord somewhat managed the resident’s expectations by explaining that it was taking longer than expected to issue responses due to the impact of Covid-19, this was outside of the extended 20-working day timescale provided by 38 working days. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was adequately updated on the progress of her complaint which would have been appropriate in order to manage her expectations. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 9 July 2021 to formally escalate the complaint. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 5 August 2021, which was within its 20-working day timescale at stage two.
  4. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the resident’s complaint or explained its position. The landlord has acknowledged that its stage one complaint response failed to offer a resolution to the resident, however, it also failed to offer any analysis of the complaint issues raised and simply provided a list of actions taken, as detailed in the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord. It should have identified what went wrong and explained why the issues had not been previously resolved or offered a suitable remedy in view of the inconvenience caused. Its failure to do so was likely to have caused frustration to the resident, and indicates poor complaint handling by the landlord.
  5. In addition, the resident specifically raised concerns about the number of missed and failed appointments by its operatives, particularly in relation to the period between September 2020 and December 2020. Whilst the landlord did not dispute that the overall delay in completing the patio door replacement was unreasonable, it would have been appropriate for it to have addressed the delay between these dates and the reported multiple missed and failed appointments in order to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the complaint. The landlord also failed to provide documentary evidence from this period to confirm what happened. This indicates poor record keeping by the landlord
  6. At stage two, the landlord would have had the opportunity to identify any issues by looking at how the original complaint was dealt with in line with its policy. Whilst it acknowledged that there had been “a number of service failings”, the response failed to identify or provide further explanation of any specific failings, which would have been appropriate to demonstrate that the complaint had been fully considered. It would have been appropriate for it to have also explained the actions it had taken or the delays which had occurred since its initial response. It would also have been expected to identify points of learning to ensure that similar service failures did not occur in future.
  7. Following a request to the landlord from the Ombudsman for further information in October 2022, the landlord reviewed the complaint and identified several points of learning. It acknowledged that its communication, record keeping, and complaint handling was poor. It confirmed that it had made changes to its complaints procedures and implemented training for complaint handlers at stage two to ensure outstanding actions were monitored through to completion. It also acknowledged the delay in issuing its complaint responses and offered £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
  8. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to offer additional compensation and detail what action it had taken to address failings, it would have been more appropriate for it to have considered this sooner as part of its complaints process prior to any intervention from this Service. It is therefore recommended that the landlord takes steps to ensure that the circumstances of a case and points of learning are fully considered as part of its complaints process to avoid similar circumstances in the future.
  9. Overall, the landlord has not demonstrated that it took adequate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns or explain its position to her. As such, it has failed to provide a satisfactory response to the complaint. Its offer of £50 compensation in recognition of the delays in its complaint handling is not considered proportionate in light of this. In recognition of the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings, the landlord is ordered to pay a total of £150 as a remedy to the complaint handling.
  10. As above, as the landlord has recognised failings and made attempts to ‘put things right’ a finding of service failure is made in relation to this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s patio door and the associated offer of compensation.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

 

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £650 in compensation in recognition of the adverse affect caused by the delayed repair (£500) and the poor complaint handling (£150). If any of the amounts previously offered to the resident have already been paid, they may be deducted from this total.
    2. If it has not done so in the last 12 months, carry out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that responses clearly identify where things have gone wrong and provide an explanation of any failings and steps to put things right, as well as identifying learning points.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring that there is a clear audit trail for complaints and repairs. This should include details of when contact was made, what was said and what the agreed next steps and expectations were. It should also include a clear timeline of actions taken to progress and resolve the issue reported as well as details of any limitations faced where appropriate.