The Guinness Partnership Limited (202127126)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127126

The Guinness Partnership Limited

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. There are vulnerabilities in the property, namely the resident’s child.
The resident first reported damp and mould in her property on 26 June 2019. No further report occurred until 25 February 2021.
The resident complained to the landlord on 25 February 2021. The resident stated she had been complaining about damp and mould in her property for over a year. However, the damp and mould had now caused damage to belongings, namely a bed frame and mattress. The resident requested £400 compensation for this damage. The resident also stressed the importance of having the damp and mould resolved, as her child was vulnerable.
On 23 March 2021, the landlord received a contractor report regarding humidity in the property. It stated that the property had high levels of humidity in the property and as a resolution, a ‘unit’ aimed at reducing humidity levels in the property should be installed.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord visited the property and noted that the walls were drying out, and no new signs of damp and mould had occurred. It also recorded that humidity levels had dropped in the property.
On 14 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the damp and mould had started to return in the property. No record was kept by the landlord, of when it visited the property to rectify this issue.
On 13 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that, she had removed her bath panel and found a hole behind, due to damp. This had further allowed pests to enter the property. On the same day, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 22 December 2021. The landlord stated that it had offered to ‘strip the walls to brick’ to treat the mould, but the resident did not want to be in the property whilst this was completed. It also stated it had recalled its contractors to assess if the air vent system that was installed, was working correctly. The landlord acknowledged that it had been a long process to resolve the damp and mould, and therefore, the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 11 March 2022. The resident stated that the work to treat areas of mould in the property had still not been completed. however, other damp work had been completed two weeks prior, which the resident felt was unacceptable as it had been ongoing for three years and felt it should have been resolved sooner. The resident also raised that, when the landlord completed works, it had left electrical wiring exposed and left holes in the ceiling. It was also reported to this Service that further areas of the property had begun to be affected by damp and mould – namely the kitchen cupboards. As a resolution, the resident requested outstanding repair works to be completed and increased compensation.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states, it expects residents to clear mould spots as soon as they appear. If residents have attempted to clean the area for a period of four weeks and it continues to come back, it should be reported to the landlord, so it can arrange for it to be inspected and assess the underlying cause.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that, routine repairs are those which are not emergencies. For these types of repairs, the landlord will aim to repair within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that, a stage one response should be received within ten working-days and a stage two response, should be received within twenty working-days.

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated that the damp and mould has caused health concerns, for which the resident sought medical attention. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her son’s health; however, the Ombudsman is not able to determine matters of liability or causation and will not consider complaints which would be more reasonably dealt with via another organisation or procedure. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and how the landlord responded.
There is no evidence that the resident’s concern about bathroom repairs, exposed wiring and holes in the ceiling after repairs, have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. As this is a separate issue to the complaint originally raised with the Service, the Ombudsman is unable to adjudicate on the matter at this stage. This is as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this issue through its complaints procedure before the Ombudsman becomes involved. This is in line with paragraph 39a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale’. As such, the resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise or escalate a separate complaint if these issues are still outstanding and have not yet been resolved. The resident may be able to refer this new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once it has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Damp and mould.

The damp and mould in the resident’s property has been occurring since 2019, therefore, as per the landlord’s repairs policy, it would be responsible for treating the damp and mould and a repair should be completed within 28 calendar days as per its policy. When the landlord cannot repair the issue within 28 calendar days, it should communicate clearly with the resident what steps will be taken to resolve the damp and mould.
It is generally accepted that damp and mould can take multiple attempts to fully treat and resolve. In this case, the landlord had specialist damp and mould contractors attend the property and complete a report, highlighting what work needed to be completed to resolve the damp and mould. Subsequent to the specialist report, the landlord did complete work in the property such as installing vents and air systems, to which it relied upon its experts’ opinions, would resolve the damp and mould. Therefore, the landlord seemingly attempted to resolve the damp and mould.
However, this Service cannot be sure that all recommended works have been completed and implemented by the landlord, due to the lack of records. This Service also cannot be assured that the damp and mould has fully been resolved again due to poor record keeping on behalf of the landlord.
There has been a failing regarding the landlord’s record keeping which has affected both the landlord’s and this Service’s investigation of the resident’s complaint. The landlord has not kept comprehensive records of when repairs and visits were carried out or the type of repairs being completed in the property. This has impacted this Service’s investigation as it has been difficult to establish when events occurred and the actions the landlord took in relation to those incidents. In the absence of clear evidence and the continuing damp and mould, the Ombudsman must conclude that the landlord did not take appropriate action following the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
From the communication provided, it also appears that there was a degree of confusion surrounding works to be completed. An example of this is where the resident believed a contractor would attend the property to install a vent into a bedroom cupboard, however, upon the contractor’s arrival, the resident was informed that the landlord had not approved the work. This lack of communication between the parties would definitely have been distressing for the resident and again the lack of records as not assisted in gaining clarity on the overall handling of the matter.
The poor communication highlighted above, also impacted the length of time it took for repairs to be completed. The miscommunication between the parties added confusion to the repair and resulted in contractors leaving the property, without completing the required repairs. These additional delays were unnecessary and time consuming for the resident, and it was the landlord’s responsibility to provide clear instructions to the contractor, relay this to the resident and ensure the correct repairs were completed. This failure caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and unnecessary time and trouble and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord should pay the resident an additional £250 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the repairs. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which notes awards of £250 to £700 may be for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples could include a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant and failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that a stage one response should be received within ten working-days. However, the landlord did not issue a stage one response to the landlord. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that landlords must provide a complaint response, at all stages of the complaint. The landlord’s failure to provide a stage one response, is not in line with its policy and therefore, a failure in its service.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 13 August 2021. The landlord’s complaint handling policy states that a response should be provided within twenty working-days. However, the stage two response was not provided until 22 December 2021, 93 working days after the escalation. This is a substantial delay with no evidence that the landlord updated the resident as to when she would receive a response. Given that the landlord failed to provide a stage one response and significantly delayed in providing its stage two response, this amounted to maladministration.
The landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as set out above.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £500 compensation. This is comprised of:
  1. £250 for its failure when responding to the residents reports of damp and mould (including poor record keeping).
  2. £250 for poor complaint handling.
2. Acquire a contractor to assess the property and complete any suggested work. The outcome of this report should be communicated to the resident and this Service.
The compensation ordered above is in addition to the £250 already offered by the landlord in its stage two response.
To reduce the likelihood of a similar situation occurring in the future, it is recommended that the landlord carry out a review of its record keeping practices, ensuring that detailed and accurate records are kept of any repairs and that this information can be accessed by staff investigating complaints and can be provided to the Ombudsman upon request.
These actions should be completed within four weeks of this report.