The Guinness Partnership Limited (202113264)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113264

The Guinness Partnership Limited

8 February 2023

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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to plaster cracks at the property.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of a property owned by the landlord and the tenancy began on the 5 October 2020. The property is a one bedroom flat.
3. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside and structure of the property. The resident is responsible for maintaining and keeping in repair the inside of the property. This includes:
   1. Internal decorations – to keep the inside of the property and the landlord’s fixture and fittings in repair. The resident is also required to decorate the property as often as required.
   2. Minor repairs – to carry out minor repairs which include filling small plaster cracks.
4. The landlord’s repairs policy says at section 23 and 26 says that:
   1. Customers are responsible for decorating and maintaining decorative order within their homes. However, where the landlord has completed a repair and that repair has resulted in damage to an existing décor, or an obvious and significant contrast between the repaired area and the existing décor, it will make good that area and decorate it.
   2. It recognises that some customers may need more help when it comes to meeting their repair responsibilities. It may provide a service in addition to its statutory and contractual responsibilities, to assist customers whom are considered to be in need of support to meet the conditions of their tenancy.
   3. It will assess the support required based on its judgement in relation to the specific circumstances and the individual customer’s needs, including whether there is anyone else who might be able to assist them, and whether there are any immediate risks to their health or safety. This service may include an extension to the scope of repairs which we carry out or an acceleration of our normal timescales for carrying out repairs
5. The landlord’s website says that it will deal with complaints following the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. Paragraph 5.1 and 5:13 of the Code says that a landlord’s complaints procedure shall include the following maximum timescales for a response:
   1. logging and acknowledgement of complaint – five working days.
   2. Stage one decision – 10 working days from receipt of complaint. If this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received should be provided. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
   3. Stage two response – 20 working days from request to escalate and if this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received should be provided. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
6. In July 2021 the resident had reported plaster cracks to the ceilings and walls in the bedroom, lounge, kitchen and the bathroom. The contact notes provided say that the resident had made a further call in August 2021 asking the landlord to repaint over the plaster cracks it had repaired.
7. On the 6 August 2021, the resident raised his official complaint by telephone because the landlord had refused to repaint the plaster cracks it had repaired. The main issues raised were:
   1. He was asked by the customer care team to complete an income expenditure form in order to assess his eligibility for decorating vouchers. The resident had refused to complete the form because he had only asked the landlord to repaint over the plaster cracks it had repaired.
   2. He was unable to repaint by himself because he was disabled and had a heart related health condition.
   3. He had the paint available but needed help to repaint the patches.
8. On the 11 August 2021 the resident called the landlord again to say that there were several other plaster cracks inside the property that needed filling and repainting. The resident also said that:
   1. The complaints team had initially agreed to help him repaint the plaster cracks it had filled. They later changed their mind saying that it was his responsibility.
   2. He has been advised by the landlord that decorating the property was also his responsibility.
   3. He would not allow any further works to be completed at his property until the landlord repainted over the plaster cracks it had repaired.
9. On the 16 August 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint saying that:
   1. It had reviewed all the complaint points raised.
   2. An inspection was arranged by its surveyors to inspect the plaster cracks that were reported on the 12 July 2021.
   3. A repair was raised after its inspection to fill the cracks in the plaster to the walls and ceilings in the bedroom, bathroom, lounge and kitchen.
   4. It had found that the resident’s query was misunderstood by its customer care team, and details had been passed to its customer liaison officer for a call back to discuss decoration of his property. It apologised that his query was not answered correctly about repainting over the plaster cracks it had already repaired.
   5. The customer liaison officer had contacted the resident and said that the decoration of the property was the resident’s responsibility. The resident was asked to provide his financial details to assess his eligibility for the decoration vouchers. This was inappropriate and it apologised for its miscommunication.
   6. It had reviewed the surveyor’s findings from the inspection. The report had said that the plaster cracks were found to be superficial, minor plaster cracks.
   7. The tenancy agreement says that the resident is responsible for filling in minor plaster cracks. Therefore, the repairs to fill in the plaster cracks were completed in error and were the resident’s responsibility. Any paint work required was also the resident’s responsibility.
   8. It apologised for its miscommunication and the inconvenience it had caused the resident.
   9. It offered £150 compensation to the resident for its communication failures.
   10. It had provided feedback to its customer care team so it could learn from its failures and avoid such failure in the future.
   11. It had provided details to escalate the complaint to stage two if the resident was not satisfied with its response.
10. On the 17 August 2021, the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage two of the process. The main reason for escalating his complaint was the landlord’s refusal to repaint over the plaster cracks it had filled. The resident also said that:
    1. The landlord had not acted in his best interests by miscommunicating its responsibilities. It had failed to repaint over the plaster cracks it had filled leaving the patches visible.
    2. The landlord had failed to take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities, and he felt that the landlord was discriminating against him.
    3. The landlord had failed to take into account his medical, physical and emotional needs when making its decision.
11. On the 27 September 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response saying that:
    1. It had investigated and reviewed its stage one complaint response.
    2. The plaster crack repairs were completed in error, and were in fact the resident’s responsibility.
    3. It had agreed with its stage one complaint response.
    4. It apologised and offered an additional £50 for the delays during its stage two complaint response.
    5. This was its final response and provided details to escalate the complaint further to this Service, if required.
12. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service and the main issues raised were:
    1. He wanted his property repainted following the works completed by the landlord.
    2. He felt the landlord was directly and indirectly discriminating against him by referring to the terms of the tenancy agreement.
    3. The landlord had failed to apply any discretion considering his disability and personal circumstances.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the residents reports of repairs required to the plaster cracks at the property.

13. This assessment carefully considered the resident’s argument that the landlord should have completed the remedial works by repainting over the plaster cracks it had repaired. The starting point was to refer to the wording of the tenancy agreement, which is the legal document defining the respective obligations of both parties. It was noted that the wording of this document says that minor repairs inside the property including minor cracks in the plaster are the resident’s responsibility. The internal decoration of the property is also the resident’s responsibility.
14. However, the surveyor had inspected the property, and the landlord arranged for its operatives to complete the required repairs. The cracks in the plaster were filled into the ceilings and walls in the bedroom, lounge, kitchen and bathroom. Evidently, a substantial amount of filling of the plaster cracks was completed in most areas of the property. The landlord said this was done in error but it was unreasonable for the landlord to not complete the works it had started by decorating the areas it had repaired.
15. The repairs policy says that where works have been completed by the landlord which would result in an obvious and significant contrast between the repaired area and the existing décor, it will make good that area and decorate it. The resident had said that visible patches were left that needed repainting. Accordingly, as the landlord completed the repairs works it should have decorated the areas it had repaired in accordance with its policy.
16. The resident made the landlord aware of his disability and health conditions and said that he needed help to repaint the walls. There is no evidence that the landlord had considered the resident’s personal circumstances by asking him if there was anyone else that could have helped him. There was no assessment by the landlord to consider any additional support required by the resident. Instead, he was asked to provide financial information in order to assess the eligibility for a decoration grant. This was inappropriate and distressing for the resident.
17. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of process change) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
18. In this case the landlord acted appropriately by:
    1. Acknowledging and accepting that it was inappropriate for its team to complete an income expenditure form. It apologised for this error.
    2. Apologising for its miscommunication and by offering compensation of £150 for the inconvenience caused to the resident.
    3. Referring the feedback of its failures to its internal care team to ensure improvements were made.
19. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests awards of £50 to £250 may be paid where instances of service failure have resulted in some impact on the complainant. Therefore, the compensation of £150 offered by the landlord for its miscommunication, inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident was reasonable as it was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
20. Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s communication regarding its repair obligations and due to these failures, it was unreasonable for it to not apply its own discretion to make good the repairs already completed by decorating the areas it had filled in. The resident said that he had the paint available at home for the operatives to use. It was also unreasonable that the landlord did not assess the resident’s personal circumstances so it could have provided the support required to him. If an assessment was completed and the support required was provided to the resident, the matter would not have escalated. This caused further inconvenience and distress to the resident.
21. Therefore, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the repairs required at the property. The compensation of £150 alone was not sufficient redress and an order has been made below for the remedial works to be completed by the landlord.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on the 27 September 2021 which was 27 working days after the resident had requested to escalate his complaint to stage two. This exceeds the 20 working days response time set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord did not provide any explanation for its delay. Therefore, a failing has been identified in this regard.
23. However, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays during its stage two complaint response, offering £50 compensation. This was proportionate redress in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which suggests awards of £50 to £250 where instances of service failure have resulted in some impact on the complainant.

Determination (decision)

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to plaster cracks at the property.
25. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about its complaint handling.

Reasons

26. There was miscommunication by the landlord in its repair obligations when the surveyors had inspected the property. The plaster cracks were filled in and the patches were left visible without decorating the areas it had filled in. The landlord failed to make good and decorate the repairs it had completed. The landlord also failed to assess the resident’s personal circumstances to offer him the support he required to complete the works at his property.

Orders

27. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £200 compensation (reduced by any compensation already paid) in total made up as:
    1. £150 previously offered by the landlord, if it has not already done so.
    2. £50 previously offered for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its complaints handling failures.
28. The landlord must update this Service when payment has been made.
29. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to decorate the walls where it has repaired the plaster cracks at the property.