The Guinness Partnership Limited (202123686)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123686

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 November 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 concerns:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the poor condition of the balcony doors when the property was let.
   2. The associated formal complaint into this matter.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The resident visited the property prior to signing the tenancy in August and September 2021. Due to her concerns as to the condition of the balcony doors and cleanliness of the property, the sign-up process was postponed and the landlord arranged for its cleaning team to visit. The landlord also informed the resident that once the tenancy was signed that it would be able to book an appointment for the balcony doors to be repaired. The tenancy was signed on 4 October 2021 and a work order to repair the balcony doors was raised on the same day. An appointment was agreed for 5 November 2021.
4. The operative who attended on 5 November 2021 recommended that the balcony doors be replaced. The landlord raised a work order for the replacement on 9 November 2021. On 7 December 2021, the resident called the landlord and raised a complaint into how it was handling the issue. The landlord’s notes of the call described the elements of the resident’s complaint as:
   1. The balcony doors should have been replaced before she moved into the property.
   2. She had been informed that the work to measure, manufacture and replace the doors would take three months. This timeframe was not reasonable.
   3. She had received poor communication from the landlord and its contractor since she first raised issues with the doors prior to moving in.
   4. The condition of the current balcony doors meant that the property was not weatherproof and this had put a lot of strain on her and her family.
5. In its complaint responses, the landlord:
   1. Confirmed that the balcony doors were replaced on 10 March 2022.
   2. Accepted that the resident had received a poor level of service during its efforts to first repair and then replace the doors.
   3. Apologised and explained that as a result of the complaint it was in the process of changing subcontractors.
   4. Explained that the balcony doors were not replaced during the period when the property was vacant as its void team were satisfied that the doors met its empty home standard.
   5. Offered the resident £350 compensation, which it broke down as; £150 for the delays in completing repairs, £150 for the stress and inconvenience this caused, and £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident pursuing the complaint.
   6. Noted that the resident had requested to receive compensation to cover the costs of the increase in heating costs caused by the poor condition of the original balcony doors. The landlord informed the resident what evidence it would need from her utility supplier to allow it to consider her request and it would then write back with its decision on receipt of the evidence.
   7. Apologised for the delays in providing the stage one and stage two complaint responses.
6. Following the completion of the complaint process, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the work to the balcony doors had not been completed. The contractor informed the landlord that the trickle vents were not sent by the manufacturer with the doors and it was waiting for replacements. An appointment was arranged for 20 May 2022; however, the work was not completed as the contractor required further parts. A second appointment was booked for 17 June 2022 and the repair was completed. An internal landlord email stated that it would write to the resident to offer further compensation for the delay in completing the work from when the stage two complaint response was sent on 26 March 2022 up to the 17 June 2022 appointment. It also said that it would provide further information on her claim for heating costs.
7. In referring the case to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues as that she felt mislead into accepting the tenancy, disputed that the property met the landlord’s empty homes standard and the level of compensation it had offered was inadequate. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord increase its compensation offer and to receive a guarantee from it that it will cover the excess heating costs in full.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

8. Section 2.1 of the tenancy relates to the landlord’s repair responsibilities. This, in part, states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside and structure of the property including windows, doors and door frames.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy categorises its repair types as “Emergency” (attend within 24 hours), “Routine” (attend within 28 calendar days) and “Planned”. Planned maintenance is defined by the policy as “work that is carried out on an agreed cycle and as part of our planned reinvestment in our homes. This can be both substantial works carried out over a longer time frame or the cyclical repair or upgrade of components of a property or scheme”. The policy does not give any information on timescales for planned work.
10. The landlord’s empty homes policy describes its process of preparing an empty property to be ready to be re-let. It states that the landlord, or its contractor, will “carry out an inspection wherever possible to assess the work that is required to meet the minimum empty home standard. [The landlord] will define the scope of the works required by classifying them as either major or minor work and providing a target time for completion of the work in all cases”. In regard to planned work, the policy states that “[The landlord] will not, unless there are exceptional circumstances, consider enabling planned or cyclical works to take place at an empty home”.
11. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 15 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
12. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering a discretionary compensation payment in circumstances where it has been found to be at fault and an apology or other remedy alone is not sufficient. It also states that it will consider offering a payment for quantifiable loss to “restore the customer to the position they were in before the service failure had occurred and [the landlord] is at fault. We will offer a reasonable amount for replacing any lost or damaged items. We will require evidence of the loss or damage before compensation is paid”.
13. The landlord’s remedies guidance’s categories it’s levels of compensation payments as “up to £250”, ”£250-£700” and “£700+”. The guidance recommends compensation payments at the up to £250 tariff when “the issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household” and at the £250-£700 tariff when “the issue took a long time to resolve which resulted in moderate inconvenience having a demonstrable impact on the customer or the household”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the poor condition of the balcony doors when the property was let

14. Once it was informed by the resident of the issue with the balcony doors, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Initially, the landlord acted appropriately to the resident’s report. When the tenancy was signed, it arranged an appointment for the doors to be repaired and, on the advice of the operative who attended, raised a work order with its planned work team to replace the doors.
15. However, the landlord recognised that there were failures in how it handled the replacement work. It accepted that there was poor communication and delays in completing the work, which had caused stress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident, offer compensation and explain what steps it had taken to improve its service. This position is also in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
16. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It looked to put things right by ensuring the balcony doors were replaced and offering £350 compensation. It looked to learn from its mistakes by changing the subcontractor responsible for the work to the doors. The stage two response also stated that the landlord had provided feedback to its staff members based on the issues raised in the complaint.
17. It was appropriate, and in line with the guidance set out in its compensation policy detailed above, for the landlord to compensate the resident for its admitted service failures and the inconvenience that this had caused. The landlord offered a total of £350 compensation based on its medium level tariff of £250-£750. The total compensation offer was also broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s own
18. remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This recommends a payment of £100 to £600 for considerable service failure or maladministration which adversely affected the complainant, but there was no permanent impact. The types of service failure considered at this level of redress would include a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement.
19. The landlord has also stated that it would consider covering the costs for the increase in energy usage on receipt of suitable evidence. This is in line with the landlord’s position on quantifiable loss set out in its compensation policy, as it would not expect the resident to experience financial loss from its service failure. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain in its complaint response what evidence it would require for it to make its decision as it would first need to compare the difference in usage from when the old doors were in place to after the new doors had been installed in order to calculate a compensation figure.
20. The resident has disputed that the home met the decent homes standard when it was offered due to the condition of the balcony doors. The property was handed to the voids team on 21 July 2021. 55 jobs were identified as required to be completed before the property was ready to be let. It was then returned to the landlord on 20 September 2021. An email sent by the void team on 21 September 2021 confirmed that the work had been completed and provided copies of the post work inspection and the electric and gas certificates. In regard to the balcony doors, the void team informed the landlord that the doors were “eased and adjusted” and deemed to meet the re-let standard. It is reasonable for a landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors. In this case, the landlord’s voids team concluded that the property was ready to be re-let and provided an inspection report to the landlord to support this. However, based on the reports from the resident and the housing officer during the property visits, it was appropriate for it to arrange for further cleaning to be undertaken prior to the property being offered to the resident.
21. The resident also described her dissatisfaction that the landlord would only raise a repair to the balcony doors once she had signed the tenancy agreement. She has stated that she felt ‘coerced’ into signing the agreement. Once the property had been returned to the landlord, the void team would no longer undertake any further work. Repairs would then become the responsibility of the landlord’s reactive repairs team once a tenant was in place. Therefore, the information provided by the landlord was correct as to when a repair could be raised to undertake the recommended work to the balcony doors.

The landlord’s complaint handling

22. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised for delays in providing both of its complaint responses to the resident. However, this element was not considered by the landlord when it calculated its compensation offer.
23. The stage one response was sent on 22 December 2021; one working day outside of its published target of ten working days. The stage two response was sent on 26 March 2022; 47 working days outside of its published target of 15 working days. The resident also contacted this Service and requested assistance in progressing her escalation request. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the delays in its complaint handling, to fully resolve this aspect a further compensation award is warranted.
24. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests a payment of £50 to £100 for service failure of a short duration that did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay £100 compensation for not providing the complaint responses within its published timescales and £50 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in requesting our intervention in order to progress the complaint. The total compensation award of £150 is also in line with the landlord’s recommended payment of up to £250 for service failure that results in “minor inconvenience”.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports of the poor condition of the balcony doors when the property was let which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling. 

Orders

27. For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £150. This payment should be made directly to the resident and within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

28. As the decision of reasonable redress was reached based on the landlord’s offer of £350 compensation, this should now be paid to the resident if the landlord has not done so already.
29. The landlord should also write to the resident to offer further compensation for the delay in completing the work from when the stage two complaint response was sent on 26 March 2022 up to the 17 June 2022 appointment, if it has not done so already.
30. The landlord should also provide further information on the resident’s claim for heating costs if it has not done so already.