The Guinness Partnership Limited (202120378)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120378

The Guinness Partnership Limited

18 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of leaks to the resident’s bath and shower;
2. Handling of external drainage issues;
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a newbuild three-bed semi-detached house. The lease began on 6 November 2020.
The resident owns 40% of the property and rents the remaining 60% from the landlord. The current rent is £3,366.24 per year.

Landlord policies and processes

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. It states that it will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation may be paid at the following levels:
1. Up to £250 – an issue causing minor inconvenience to the customer resolved within a reasonable time.
2. £250 to £750 – an issue which took a long time to resolve and caused “moderate inconvenience” and “demonstratable impact” on the customer.
3. Over £700 – An issue took a long time to resolve and had a “significant inconvenience” and “significant impact” on the customer, likely causing “longer-term distress”.
The landlord’s decant policy outlines that it may temporarily rehouse residents in non-emergency situations where repairs are required and it is “not safe to do the repairs while the customer is still living in the property”.

Summary of events

On 6 November 2020, the resident moved into the property and reported a leak from her ensuite shower into her stairs and hallway below. On 9 November 2020 repair works were raised however this Service has not seen evidence that these repairs were completed.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 21 December 2020 to report that her shower was leaking again through the ceiling downstairs.
On 8 January 2021 the resident was visited by the developer’s site manager who inspected the ensuite shower and stated that it needed resealing and regrouting.
On 11 January 2021 the resident reported that after using the bath, water leaked into the living room below. She now reported that she had no useable bathing facilities.
A plumber attended to assess the leak from the bath on 12 January 2021 and advised that the bath hadn’t been sealed property. The resident reported that the plumber applied some sealant but that the leak returned the following day.
Also on 12 January 2021 a tiler attended the resident’s property and re-tiled a section of the ensuite shower in an attempt to stop the leak. The developer’s site manager attended and advised the resident not to use the ensuite at all and to keep water away from the edges and bottom end of the bath in the main bathroom. This Service has not seen evidence that a date for repairs was provided.
The resident was advised by the developer on 19 January 2021 that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, non-urgent repairs were being suspended until restrictions were lifted.
On 7 March 2021 the resident called the landlord to report that her external drains were backing up. The landlord responded to the resident on 8 March 2021 to advise that this was the resident’s responsibility. She therefore made arrangements through her home insurance and paid £30 for the issue to be inspected. On inspection her insurance provider stated that the gulley pipework was installed incorrectly and therefore the repair was the landlord’s responsibility.
The resident chased the landlord by email on 30 March 2021 stating that her shower and bath had not been repaired and she had only been able to use the shower once since 1 January 2021 and her bath had not been useable since 12 January 2021.
The resident chased the landlord again on 7 May 2021 via its website stating that she had been told that someone would give her an estimate on when the outstanding snagging repairs would be completed but she had not been updated.
The resident wrote the landlord a formal complaint letter dated 24 May 2021, the landlord states it received the complaint on 3 June 2021. The complaint stated:
1. She had no use of the ensuite shower since November 2020 and no use of the bath since January 2021. Since this time she had to drive to her parent’s house 3 miles away to bathe.
2. On 11 January 2021 there had been a leak from her bath which was caused by incorrect installation. The following day the developer had attended and had patched the repair with sealant. The repair was not satisfactory and leaked again immediately.
3. She had experienced a leak from the ensuite shower since moving in on 6 November 2020 caused by holes in the sealant and cracked grouting. The leak had caused the plaster on the ceiling above the stairs to come away from the wall. She had been advised not to use the shower.
4. The only communication she had received was that the snagging issues would be rectified at the end of the defects period which ended 16 July 2021.
5. The gulley pipework had been incorrectly installed and caused water to drain across the patio into the garden. She had been advised by the landlord to arrange for someone to attend herself as the issue may have been caused by household waste. She had paid £30 on her insurance for someone to attend and this would likely increase her insurance premium.
6. The resident requested a rent reduction of 30% as she was unable to use her bath and shower and wanted the rent to remain reduced until the repairs were completed.
The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on 3 June 2021. On 4 June 2021 the landlord contacted the resident and requested a full list of outstanding repairs. The landlord advised that this would be passed on to the landlord’s development team who would advise how it would resolve the issue. It stated that compensation could then be discussed.
On 4 July 2021 the landlord emailed the resident stating that due to Covid-19 it would take them longer than usual to deal with her complaint. It advised it would resolve the complaint within 20 working days.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 7 June 2021. The landlord responded on 8 June 2021 and advised that the list of defects had been provided to the developer and asked that the issues be resolved as quickly as possible. The landlord said it would update the resident.
On 10 June 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident and left a voicemail asking whether the developer had made an appointment to resolve the defects.
The landlord telephoned the resident again on 24 June 2021. The resident advised that most of the repairs had been completed but the following remained outstanding:
1. The bath had not been repaired properly and the taps still made a “chugging” noise.
2. The tiling in the ensuite moved when pressed and there was a crack in one of the tiles in the main bathroom.
On 25 June 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident and stated that the developer had provided assurances that the outstanding issues would be resolved and that all works would be checked to ensure they were of an acceptable standard. The landlord apologised and advised that the wrong tiles had been ordered and so the tiling would be completed the following week.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2021 to advise that her tiling had been completed but that the shower screen repair remained outstanding.
On 1 July 2021 the landlord completed a compensation request form. The form outlined that:
1. The resident was requesting a 50% rent reduction – she had paid rent of £1948.13 up to 30 June 2021.
2. The resident had been unable to use her shower since 6 November 2020 and unable to use the bath since 12 January 2021.
3. Since 12 January 2021 the resident had been forced to travel to her parent’s house three miles away to bathe as she had no bathing facilities.
4. The resident was advised many times that the repairs would be completed at the end of the defects period despite the repairs being urgent. The repairs were completed at the end of June 2021.
The landlord telephoned the resident on 2 July 2021 and left a voicemail advising that, as the request for compensation was for over £500 it had been escalated for authorisation.
On 16 July 2021 the resident telephoned for an update about the compensation. The landlord advised that it was awaiting authorisation and asked the resident to clarify whether she had been offered a decant to temporary accommodation when she reported that she had no bathing facilities. The resident advised that she had not been offered temporary accommodation and was never asked if she had access to alternative bathing facilities.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 9 August 2021. The resident advised that all repairs except cosmetic items such as cracks to the wall, painting and tiling had been completed. The landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £530 which comprised:
1. £300 for stress and inconvenience of travelling to her parent’s house to bathe for a prolonged period.
2. £150 for delays to repairs and poor workmanship.
3. £50 for time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
4. £30 reimbursement for the insurance call out fee for the drainage issue.
The resident was unhappy with the compensation offered and on the same day asked that her complaint be escalated.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 4 October 2021. In its response the landlord accepted that it could have offered to move the resident to another property until the repairs to her bath and shower were complete. In recognition of this it offered the resident a further £100 compensation taking its total offer of compensation to £630.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 October 2021, she stated:
1. Her bath had not been repaired to a satisfactory standard. It could not be safely used due to the additional beading that had been installed interfering with her being able to hold on to the sides of the bath to get in and out.
2. The cosmetic finish of the bath repair was “appalling”.
3. Her ensuite shower was not repaired until 15 October 2021 – she did not understand “how a complaint can be seen as resolved and exhausted when a part of the complaint had not been resolved”.
4. She requested that the landlord increase its compensation award to £1,223.20 comprising:
  1. £345.60 for mileage travelling to her parents to bathe for 32 weeks;
  2. £502 for 25% of her rent for an eight-month period when she had no bathing facilities;
  3. £75.60 for 10% of her rent for a further three months when she had limited bathing facilities;
  4. £100 for stress and anxiety;
  5. £200 so she could employ someone to rectify the poor-quality repairs to the property.
Internal emails dated 12 November 2021 demonstrate that the landlord had advised the resident that it considered the beading added to the bath was appropriate and no further work would be carried out. An email from the resident dated 16 November 2021 indicates that she was unhappy about this.
On 17 December 2021 the resident advised this Service that repairs carried out on 3 December 2021 had not resolved the leak. The leak from the ensuite shower had in fact worsened and was now coming through the living room ceiling. The resident advised she had been experiencing panic attacks due to the leaks and had to take time off work due to the stress of the situation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 June 2022 and advised that the ensuite shower continued to leak and that water was coming through her downstairs hallway ceiling.
On 26 September 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the shower was still leaking. The landlord asked the contractor to do a “total strip back and remove all tiles and shower and look at pipework”. The landlord’s internal communications demonstrate that the contractor attended on 14 October 2022 and stated that the leak was a result of “damaged…poorly connected waste fitting and a lack of silicone, basically poor plumbing which has now been rectified”.
On 28 November 2022 the resident informed the landlord that the shower was still leaking and that as a result the architrave had gone back and mouldy. The landlord asked the contractor to contact the resident to arrange an appointment to rectify the leaking shower, on 2 December 2022 the contractor advised that a plumber would contact the resident the same day.
On 19 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the shower was again leaking.
The resident advised this Service in response to a recent request for an update, that the leaking shower was not repaired until 3 February 2023 and that she did not have use of the ensuite shower from 6 November 2020 until 3 February 2023. The landlord has stated in response to information requests from this Service, that the resident “has had intermittent use of shower and bath during the period November 2021 – March 2023”.

Assessment and findings

Handling of leaks to the resident’s bath and shower

The resident first reported that her ensuite shower was leaking on the day she moved into her new build home on 6 November 2020. The landlord failed to provide a long-lasting remedy to this leak until 15 October 2021, 49 weeks later.
The resident reported to the landlord on 12 January 2021 that her bath was also leaking and she was subsequently advised by the developer not to use the bath. Despite the resident making clear to the landlord that she had no bathing facilities, her bath was not repaired until 30 June 2021, 24 weeks after it was first reported.
From 6 November 2020 until 12 January 2021, and again from 30 June 2021 to 15 October 2021 the resident had use of the bath to bathe but did not have use of all the facilities in her property. From 12 January 2021 until 30 June 2021 she had no bathing facilities at all and had to travel to her parent’s house to bathe.
The developer advised the resident in January 2021 that it was unable to complete “non-urgent repairs” due to Covid-19. Whilst it is true that on 6 January 2021 the United Kingdom entered its third national lockdown, this would not have prevented the developer from resolving the repair issues. A lack of bathing facilities constituted an urgent situation and should have been responded to accordingly.
During the period of 6 November 2020 to December 2021 the resident states that the landlord attended her property 13 times to inspect or repair her leaking bath and shower. That the landlord failed to resolve the repairs satisfactorily within this period was a significant failing. Whilst the landlord accepts this failing, it has failed to provide reasonable redress. This is explored in more detail in the complaint handling assessment.
During the time that she was unable to use her bath and shower, the landlord did not enquire whether the resident had alternative arrangements in place for bathing. Whilst the landlord’s decant policy does not expressly state that it will decant a resident when they do not have access to bathing facilities, it does say that it “may” temporarily move a resident if repairs are required. Therefore, as a minimum, the landlord should have investigated whether the resident had access to nearby bathing facilities and considered whether it was reasonable to offer to provide her with temporary accommodation. The landlord acknowledged within its stage two complaint response that it should have considered offering to move the resident to alternative temporary accommodation until the repairs were completed. That it failed to do so was unreasonable and a missed opportunity to ensure that the resident had access to adequate facilities. An order has been made in respect to this failing.
Overall, the landlord delayed unreasonably in resolving the leak reported by the resident. The landlord’s delay caused the resident significant inconvenience in terms of time and expense travelling to and from her parents to bathe.

Handling of external drainage issues

It was unreasonable of the landlord to advise the resident that the external drainage issues may have been caused by household waste and that therefore she should arrange for a repair herself. This Service has seen no evidence that any inspection was carried out or that the landlord relied on any diagnostic information to make this assumption.
The landlord does not dispute the conclusion of the tradesperson who the resident arranged, through her insurance, to attend and inspect the issue. It is therefore accepted that the external drainage issues were caused by the incorrect installation of the gulley pipework by the developer and that the repair should consequently have fallen within the landlord’s responsibility.
An order has been made for the landlord to reimburse the resident for the £30 call out fee charged by her insurer along with a further £50 for time and trouble caused by giving the resident incorrect advice on the issue.

Complaint handling

The landlord took 48 working days to respond to the resident’s stage one complaint, 38 working days longer than the timeframe outlined in its complaints policy. Whilst the landlord did advise the resident that it may take longer than usual to respond to her complaint due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it failed to provide any holding responses or keep the resident updated about the progress of her complaint and this was unreasonable.
The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s stage two complaint escalation within the 20 working days outlined in its complaint policy, instead taking 39 working days to provide its response. Again, the landlord failed to keep the resident informed or provide a holding response. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlord’s “should keep residents regularly updated about the progress of the investigation even where there is no new substantive information” and the landlord failed to do this.
The resident rightly pointed out that the landlord should not have closed her complaint without first resolving the substantive issue of the complaint. As the leak was still ongoing, the landlord was unable to correctly calculate the length of time the resident experienced distress and inconvenience and therefore could not be sure that it was “putting things right” in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.
It is the view of this Service that the amount of compensation offered to the resident does not provide reasonable redress for the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident of being without bathing facilities for an extended period of time.
This Service considers that the landlord should pay the resident 20% of her rent for the 33-week period she was without the use of her bath – this amounts to £623 when increased to consider the proportion of the property owned by the resident. This Service also considers that the landlord should pay the resident 20% of the rent for the 68-week period she was without the use of her shower, this amounts to £1,350 including the proportion of the property owned by the resident. This Service also considers that the landlord should pay the resident £500 for the inconvenience of having to travel to her parent’s house four times a week for more than six months to bathe when she had no bathing facilities at all.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged its failures within its complaint responses, it did not fully acknowledge and provide adequate redress for the significant detrimental impact that the failings had on the resident. This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced the loss of all bathing facilities in her newly purchased property over a prolonged period of time. This Service accepts that the resident states she has experienced stress and anxiety as a result of the issues and that she took time off work due to stress. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability and award damages. However, an order has been made that the landlord pay the resident £200 in recognition of the avoidable distress she has experienced.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks to the resident’s bath and shower;
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of external drainage issues;
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in resolving two separate leaks in the resident’s property. The resident was left without her full amenities for more than two years, and without any bathing facilities at all for six months. During this time the landlord failed to enquire whether the resident had alternative bathing arrangements or to consider moving her temporarily in line with its decant policy.
The landlord failed to rely on any diagnostic information when advising the resident that the issues with her external drainage were her responsibility. The advice it provided was incorrect and the drainage issue was caused by incorrect installation by the developer and was therefore the landlord’s responsibility to repair.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within the timeframes outlined in its complaints policy and the compensation offered to the resident did not provide a satisfactory level of financial redress for the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident.

Orders and recommendations

A senior officer of the landlord to apologise to the resident.
The landlord to pay the resident £3,203 comprising:
1. £623 for loss of use of the bath for 33 weeks;
2. £1,350 for loss of use of the shower for 68 weeks;
3. £500 for the inconvenience of having to travel to her parent’s house to bathe;
4. £200 for failing to consider offering the resident a temporary decant;
5. £200 for distress;
6. £50 for time and trouble for its handling of external drainage issues;
7. £30 reimbursement of the resident’s payment to her insurer;
8. £250 for its delay in responding to the resident’s complaint;
9. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £630. If the landlord has already paid the resident this amount, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and the landlord should pay the resident the remaining £2,573. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks of this report.
The landlord to carry out a full inspection of the property and ensure that any defects that were reported during the defects period are repaired to a satisfactory standard.
If it has not done so within the past six months, the landlord to review its staff training materials and conduct staff training ensuring that all relevant staff are aware of the importance of not formally closing a complaint until the substantive issue has been demonstratively resolved.