The Guinness Partnership Limited (202125458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125458

The Guinness Partnership Limited

21 July 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 the resident’s reports of his faulty boiler.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. On 15 November 2021, the resident reported that his boiler was not functioning properly and requested the contractor to attend
4. The resident raised a complaint on 3 December 2021 as the repair to his boiler was still outstanding, following several failed and missed appointments from the contractor. He paid for an independent contractor to complete the work on 22 December 2021. He said the contractor’s communication was poor and he had been left without heating. The resident requested £1611.21 compensation, due to loss of earnings, the repair cost, his increased electricity costs and pain and suffering.
5. In the landlord’s final response, it apologised for the failings by its contractor. It offered £243 to compensate for the repair, £80 for the unreasonable delays by its contractor, £100 for failed call backs and lack of communication, £74.21 for the increased electricity costs and £20 to apologise for the resident needing to pursue the complaint. It said that it could not offer compensation for loss of wages as it was not covered under its policy.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as the landlord had failed to handle the repair as an emergency and he had to chase the repair, without support from the landlord. e He also He also wanted the landlord to re-evaluate its compensation policy and offer him an additional £900 compensation, to cover his loss of wages.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident has explained how the landlord’s failure to repair the boiler impacted his health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. Any complaint about the impact a situation had on someone’s health would be for a personal injury claim through the courts.
8. In his complaint, the resident has raised similar issues with the landlord’s contractors’ level of service in 2018. Under Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. As a result, this report will focus on events following the resident’s report of the boiler repair issue on 15 November 2021.

Repairs

9. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping installations it has provided for heating and hot water in good repair. The landlord’s repairs policy states that loss of heating and hot water during winter is considered an emergency repair and therefore should be attended within 24 hours. Furthermore, as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, it should have ensured the repair was completed as a priority.
10. The resident initially reported an issue with the boiler to the contractor on 15 November 2021; the contractor’s records show that he reported there was no heating or hot water. The contractor attended on 24 November 2021 and the resident states he asked him to wait a couple of minutes, so the contractor said he would return later that day, but he did not. The resident chased a follow-on appointment with the contractor on 29 November 2021 and 30 November 2021. He then called the landlord regarding the issue on 1 December 2021 and 2 December 2021. The contractor attended on 3 December, but did not have the correct parts to complete the repair, which had to be ordered. Three further appointments were booked for 6 December 2021, 13 December 2021 and 21 December 2021, but there were two missed appointments and one failed appointment. On 22 December 2021, the resident arranged for the repair to be completed by an independent contractor.
11. In some circumstances, there may be appropriate reasons for why the landlord cannot adhere to its repair’s timeframe. It is not unreasonable for a follow-on appointment where necessary for additional parts.
12. However, the landlord should have ensured that the resident was kept reasonably updated and provided explanations for the delay. In the landlord’s final response, it concluded that “on at least five occasions [the contractor] either turned up with the wrong parts or did not turn up at all and at least one occasion where the engineer left and did not return when he should have”. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “If missed appointments are part of a series of failures, we will take this into account as part of any compensation for a service failure”. In its complaint response, the landlord offered £80 for unreasonable delays by the contractor. Landlord compensation policies often award £10-£20 per missed appointment. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the landlord was appropriate for the missed appointments. As the contractor the resident independently hired completed the repair in one visit, this suggests the landlord’s delays were unreasonable. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord reimburse the resident the price of the repair.
13. The resident stated that he had to make numerous calls to the contractor to arrange the appointment. It was not necessarily inappropriate for the resident to report the repair issues directly to the contractor. However, given that the resident had raised his concerns to the landlord regarding the poor service he had received, the landlord should have assumed responsibility as it is responsible for the actions of its contractors. Although the landlord did call the contractor on 1 December 2021, the resident still incurred significant time and effort in chasing the contractor for the repair. The landlord acknowledged the poor communication by its contractor in its complaint response and offered £100 for the failed call backs and poor communication, which was appropriate in light of the inconvenience caused.
14. The landlord should assess whether there are any interim solutions possible, while the works are outstanding. The contractor provided heaters on 3 December 2021. However, the landlord should have made these arrangements as soon as it became aware the resident had no heating, particularly as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and it was during the winter period. As the issue was reported on 15 November 2021, the resident was without heating for over two weeks. The resident advised the landlord on 14 December 2021 that he had hot water. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had previously confirmed this and the contractor’s records show that the resident initially reported he was without heating. The landlord has failed to acknowledge its omission to ensure that the resident had heating and hot water at the time of the repair issue being reported. It has also failed to demonstrate that it considered the impact that loss of heating had on the resident. While the landlord does not have a specific compensation clause regarding loss of heating, it should have considered the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, it was reasonable that the landlord reimbursed the resident for his electricity costs, as he provided evidence that they had increased due to using the heaters.
15. In his complaint, the resident said he was significantly impacted due to the several missed and failed appointments, which he has requested compensation for due to loss of income. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not consider loss of earnings. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident is required to provide access to contractors for scheduled appointments. The landlord is expected to consider the overall inconvenience of any delayed service, and this in turn can be assessed by the Ombudsman. However any claim for lost earnings requires an assessment of how connected any reported lost earnings are to the landlord’s service (liability) and about the level of lost earnings (damages). Any claim about disputed liability and the level of associated damages can only be determined by insurers or the courts. Therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to say it would not compensate for lost earnings through its complaint process.
16. Overall, although the landlord has compensated the resident for several specific aspects of the complaint, it has not considered the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the period he was without heating. The landlord also failed to ensure that the work was prioritised as a result of the loss of heating at that time of year, and the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Determination 

17. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of the faulty boiler.

Orders

18. As a result of the determination above, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £150 compensation within 4 weeks. This is in addition to any previously offered compensation.