The Guinness Partnership Limited (202117909)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117909

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 May 2021


 

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 repairs to a leak in the resident’s roof
    2. The landlords’ response to damage to the resident’s carpet and sofa.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat.
  2. In January 2021, the resident informed the landlord about a roof leak on the property. The landlord arranged for contractors to visit the property to make repairs to the roof, however on the initial visit it was unable to do the repairs. This was because the contractor said an asbestos check or removal may be required and, due to the bad weather, it was unable to get someone to visit the property that day. The contractors visited the property the following day and managed to do part of the repairs, but another job was needed. Subsequently that month the resident informed the landlord the leak had returned in the lounge. The landlord explained to the resident that whilst repairing the leak to the front elevation, the contractor noticed there were further issues on the rear elevation. At the time it was unable to access the rear elevation due to the positioning of the scaffolding that was on site, therefore the landlord had been trying to arrange new scaffolding. The landlord explained that due to the pandemic this was taking longer than normal to arrange. It proceeded to inform the resident the scaffold would be constructed, and the repair would commence after. In reference to the contractor’s previous comments regarding asbestos, the landlord confirmed the property was built after all asbestos materials were banned.
  3. The contractor had been booked in for 10 February 2021 and the repairs were completed by 26 February 2021. The resident raised a complaint in March and said due to 3 months of misery, having to be in a miserable environment and Christmas being ruined he was seeking £500 compensation which equated to £5 per day. In response to this the landlord offered him £125 compensation for the trouble and upset caused which the resident accepted.
  4. On 12 May 2021 the resident informed the landlord of a further leak coming through the ceiling following the previous repair. The resident raised a complaint as he was unhappy about the reoccurring issue, and it had caused damage to his sofa and carpet. The landlord arranged for contractors to visit the property in June when the scaffolding was erected, however the repair was not carried out until 1 July 2021 due to availability.
  5. An independent inspection report was conducted on 7 September 2021 to assess the damage caused to the resident’s sofa and carpet. Following that, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response apologising for the delay in contacting the resident. To put things right it offered £120 as a goodwill gesture, this consisted of £50 for delays in having repairs completed, £50 stress and inconvenience and £20 for a delay in providing an outcome for the complaint. In response to this the resident did not feel the goodwill gesture was suitable as it would not cover the damage caused to the sofa and carpet.
  6. The resident stated the contractor had caused damage to the sofa and carpet when using sealant in the property, however the contractors believed the marks were not caused by sealant but were due to water ingress following the leak. In response the landlord said it was unable to find any evidence to suggest the contractors were at fault. The landlord proceeded to issue its stage 2 response, apologising for delays in providing a response within the timescales. It reiterated that it would not be accepting liability as its policy does not cover for storm damage, however it offered the resident a further £25 as a goodwill gesture.
  7. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s outcome and therefore brought the complaint to this service. The resident’s desired outcome is for the landlord to cover the costs of damage to his sofa and carpet.

Assessment and findings

  1. This service understands that the resident has experienced two leaks in the property over the course of several months and recognises that this would have caused inconvenience and upset for him. This service also acknowledges the resident’s concerns about the damage to his sofa and carpet. This service has therefore considered whether the repairs were conducted in a reasonable period of time and if the level of compensation offered is reasonable.
  2. As set out in the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs in relation to leaks. Section 11 of the Act also implies that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property.
  3. When the resident informed the landlord of the roof leak, it arranged for a contractor to visit the property. On the initial visit some repairs were conducted however, when repairing the leak to the front elevation, it found there were further issues on the rear elevation which the landlord was unable to access due to the positioning of scaffolding. It also explained that due to the pandemic things were taking longer than normal. This caused a delay in the work being completed, however once the scaffolding was erected the landlord proceeded to repair the roof, which was completed 49 days after it being made aware of the issue.
  4. When the landlord was informed of a further leak approximately two months later, it proceeded to make repairs. However, it took the landlord 50 days to fully repair the leak due to lack of availability.
  5. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states that if it is an emergency, it will complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make safe within 24 hours. With other repairs it aims to fix within 28 days or sooner. In this instance the landlord exceeded the timeframes on both occasions.
  6. The landlord was also delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint.
  7. The landlord offered the resident £125 compensation for the initial leak to reflect the delay and stress caused. For the second leak the landlord offered £50 for delay in having repairs done, £50 for stress and inconvenience, £20 for delay in outcome and a further £25 as a gesture of goodwill for the sofa and carpet. Overall, for the issues experienced the landlord had offered the resident £270.
  8. Whilst is understandable the delay in repairing the leaks and responding to the complaint would have caused frustration to the resident, this Service recognises the impact Covid-19 had on landlords’ resources during this period, which often resulted in repairs taking longer than usual. Furthermore, the landlord on both occasions attempted to put things right for the resident by apologising, and it ensured the repairs were completed. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the level of compensation offered is in line with the landlord‘s’ policy. It also reflects what this service would expect to see in the circumstance. Therefore, this service considers the amount offered to be reasonable.
  9. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord not compensating for damage to the carpet and sofa.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will compensate for both quantifiable loss or damage or make payment when the fault is caused by a third party working on its behalf.
  11. In this instance the resident claims the damage was caused due to the leak and sealant from the contractors. However, the contractors have stated the cause was water ingress. On observing the pictures, it is evident that damage has been caused, but based on the evidence available, the Ombudsman cannot conclusively confirm what caused the damage. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which indicates it may not be within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability, or negligence for damage to the resident’s possessions, where this is disputed by the parties, as in this case. This service can however assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedures, good practice and behaved reasonably.
  12. Section 18 of the landlord’s compensation policy states the landlord will not offer compensation where damage or loss was caused by circumstances beyond its control, such as storm damage or flooding.
  13. Section 19 of the compensation policy is in reference to water leaks. It states, where a water leak causes loss or damage to personal possessions, the landlord will only be responsible for paying compensation if it was at fault. Whether the leak comes from inside the resident’s home, from another property or from another part of the building, it would not pay compensation unless it had done something or failed to do something that caused the leak.
  14. In this instance the leak became apparent after bad weather. When the landlord was informed of the first leak it made repairs to the roof. It also proceeded to make repairs when the second leak appeared. The resident has confirmed that the leak appeared in separate areas of the room and the images provided have confirmed this. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have considered at the time of the work that the repair conducted for the initial leak was fixed. Therefore, there is no evidence that the subsequent leak was a result of the landlord failing to make adequate repairs. It is also worth noting that the leaks were reported 5 months apart, and the resident has stated seagulls are nesting on the roof and gully which may have contributed to the leaks.
  15. Whilst the resident feels that the landlord should cover the cost for damage, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of the landlord failing to act reasonably in the circumstances. Furthermore section 20 of the compensation policy states that it is expected that residents have their own household insurance to cover this type of loss or damage. In this instance the resident has confirmed that he does not hold household insurance. The resident may wish to get insurance to cover himself should an incident occur in future.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak in the resident’s roof.
  2. In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to damages to his carpet and sofa.

Reasons

  1. In response to the complaint about the repairs to the leak to the roof, the landlord identified and acknowledged service failings, apologising to the resident. It also made attempts to put things right for the resident by compensating him fairly in line with its guidelines. This offer of compensation was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable redress for the failings in this case.
  2. The landlord’s response to the residents claims for damages was in line with its guidelines and therefore in the Ombudsman’s opinion is considered reasonable.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to ensure residents’ complaints are responded to in a timely manner.
  2. The landlord to ensure repairs are conducted in a timely manner. 
  3. The landlord to investigate if seagulls nesting on the roof is contributing to the leaks. If so, consider what measures it can put in place to prevent this.
  4. As the Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s total offer of £270 compensation constituted reasonable redress in this case, the landlord should now ensure that payment is made to the resident (if this has not been previously paid).