The Guinness Partnership Limited (202202231)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202231

The Guinness Partnership Limited

08 March 2024

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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of requests for improvement in the maintenance of the communal garden.
2. The landlord’s handling of requests for cleaning and renovation of interior decoration and carpets in communal areas.
3. The landlord’s handling of lift repairs, including delays in replacing the communal lift.
4. The landlord’s handling of requests for other repairs.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident owns a lease for a flat in a medium sized block of flats. The landlord owns the freehold for the property and manages the property directly. The resident moved in around 2019 and lives there with her partner.
The resident is hard of hearing and does not cope well with IT systems. She is supported by a relative who has contacted the landlord on her behalf on many occasions; this relative is referred to as ‘the resident’s representative’ in this report. The landlord states that no vulnerabilities are recorded on its systems for this resident.
The property is a development for people aged 60 and over. There is a warden call system provided by the landlord which links to the fire brigade for immediate response. No other support is provided.
The resident pays a variable service charge. As of April 2023, this is £194.26 per month. It covers cleaning, grounds maintenance, communal lifts, communal water and electricity, fire safety, tree works and landscaping, repairs, and the warden call system.
On 16 September 2020, the landlord inspected the property and noted that some lighting in the communal areas was not working, internal corridors were cluttered with items, and repairs were required to guttering. Records state that repairs were requested for these issues, and that residents were asked to remove items from corridors by 30 September 2020.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord inspected the property and noted that internal corridors were still cluttered with items, there was no evidence that earth had been dug periodically in beds/planters in the communal garden, and that a tree was obstructing a path in the grounds and growing onto the building. Records state that the landlord intended to discuss garden maintenance issues with its contractors.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord sent the resident a notice under Service Charge (Consultation Requirements) Regulations 2003 that it was intending to replace the communal lift as it was nearing the end of its lifecycle and was likely to break down more frequently in the near future. The landlord asked the resident to propose contractors for it to approach for estimates by 3 May 2021. Records show that the landlord acknowledged the first stage of consultation for major works had been completed on 10 June 2021, that it could now approach contractors for quotes for replacing the lift, and that replacing carpets in the communal areas could be done following the lift replacement but may be looked at as part of future renovation works.
On 22 June 2021, the resident’s representative told the landlord that the communal garden was not being maintained properly. She stated that the lawn was being mown regularly but flowerbeds were overgrown with weeds, ivy was growing in the garden, and bushes needed cutting back. The representative offered to send the landlord photos of the issues. The landlord contacted its contractor for maintaining the garden the next day to make enquiries and asked the representative to contact again if there was no improvement.
The representative contacted the landlord on 9 and 15 July 2021 about the garden. On 20 July 2021, the landlord contacted the representative and told her that their gardening contractor was going to go out within the week to check areas of concern.
On 19 November 2021, a contractor attended to inspect the lift after a report that the warden call system was not working. Records show that the contractor checked the issue but noted that the warden call system was maintained by someone else and did not repair it.
On 11 December 2021, a fault with the lift was reported. The contractor attended on the same day and took the lift out of service. Records state that the works were completed on 13 December 2021 with the lift left in service. The lift broke down again on 21 December 2021, repairs were completed on 22 December 2021 with the lift put back in service.
On 9 February 2022, the landlord inspected the property and noted that communal carpets needed cleaning due to staining, that the carpets also needed to be replaced due to the stains and as it was over 20 years old, and that the glass on the entrance door was smeared.
The representative and the landlord discussed issues at the property on 4 March 2022. The representative asked about gravel being put near the front entrance of the property, if guttering had been inspected, an update on the timescale for the lift replacement works, and told the landlord that the window frame in the resident’s bedroom was faulty and letting in cold air. The landlord agreed to repair the window frame and to relay the other issues to the manager responsible for the property. Repairs logs show that the repair to the window frame was raised on the same day.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord attempted to contact the representative via telephone to inform them that renewing internal decorations was not on the programme of planned works for this financial year but that this would be reassessed for the new financial year covering 2023 to 2024. Records state there was no answer and no voicemail facilities to leave a message.
On 30 March 2022, the representative told the landlord that there had been issues with the communal gardens for the property for the last 18 months and that the landlord had previously agreed to deep clean the carpets after the lift repairs were completed. She also stated that the landlord’s website stated services at the property include gardening, that it was not acceptable only to cut the lawn, and that the borders were overgrown with weeds resulting in shrubs dying. The representative told the landlord she believed it had a responsibility to maintain the entire garden rather than simply doing spot works and that it could not expect elderly residents to do this work on its behalf. She asked that a complaint was escalated to the landlord’s senior management and a response given within 10 working days, with the complaint covering the following points:
1. Issues with poor garden maintenance.
2. Delays to the replacement of the lift and the current lift being out of service on a number of occasions.
3. That redecoration had been promised after replacement of the lift, with the representative asking that communal carpets were replaced after these works were completed.
4. Guttering had not been repaired which had led to water damage to brickwork by the front entrance.
5. Gravel on the border between a path and the property near the front entrance had not been replaced.
6. That the resident had contacted the landlord about issues with the bedroom window last year but was misadvised that she was responsible for repairs. As the resident did not know how to fix the window frame, repairs were not carried out until the representative was informed of the issue and told the landlord about it.
On 28 April 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended to repair the lift. The lift was left out of service while further repairs were arranged, with the job being marked as complete with the lift service restored on 4 May 2022. The lift was tested again on 6 June 2022 and left in service, with further works and tests carried out on 11 July 2022 and 19 August 2022.
The landlord told the resident on 23 June 2022 that the consultation period for replacing the lift had now ended and that these works would start in the coming months. It warned the resident that the lift would be out of service while it was replaced and asked all ‘vulnerable customers’ to identify themselves to the landlord. Internal correspondence on 6 July 2022 shows that the landlord acknowledged that a contract to replace the lift had been tendered and approval given to commission the cheapest contractor.
On 15 August 2022, the landlord contacted the resident following an MP enquiry about a complaint. It explained that it could not find the original complaint and agreed the points of the complaint as follows:
1. Issues with ground maintenance.
2. Dissatisfaction with the services provided by the landlord and the level of service charge.
3. Poor condition of communal carpets and internal decorations.
Both landlord and resident agreed for the landlord to inspect the property and that the representative should be the first point of contact for the complaint.
The landlord inspected the main building and the grounds on 16 August 2022 and told the representative it considered it to be in good condition and in line with its specifications for grounds maintenance and cleaning. Some small concerns were expressed by the landlord about items which needed to be removed and ivy which needed treating, with the landlord agreeing to these works. The representative was told that there was no clear date on the lift replacement works or when redecoration and recarpeting of the communal areas would take place. A deep clean of the carpets would be considered as a temporary measure if renewal of the carpet was not planned for the near future. It agreed to top up gravel on the border between the property and the path as well as to repair gutters and canopies.
On 25 August 2022, the landlord noted that the second stage of consultations on the lift replacement had finished and the contract could now be awarded to their preferred contractor.
The landlord’s stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint was issued on 30 August 2022. It acknowledged that the complaint had been received on 30 March 2022 but not logged. The response covered the following points:
1. Garden maintenance – this was not upheld. The condition of the garden was in line with specifications but the landlord acknowledged minor issues such as removal of some items, removal of ivy required, and gravel needing to be topped up in the border.
2. Lift replacement – this was not upheld. Delays were due to a need to follow a tendering process for appointing a contractor, with works expected to start in November 2022.
3. Replacement of carpets in communal area and redecoration – this was not upheld. Redecoration had been done in 2015 and may be included in planned works for 2023/24. Carpets were last replaced in 2002 and were being reviewed that year, with a deep clean agreed as a temporary measure. It stated that the condition of decorations and carpets at the property was reviewed in 2020 and considered satisfactory.
4. Guttering – this was not upheld. Guttering was replaced in 2008 and reviewed in 2020. Due to the lifespan of the materials used, the guttering would be replaced in 2038. The repairs team were informed of overflowing from the gutters and damaged brickwork and would attend on 22 September 2022.
The landlord apologised for the ‘overall experience’ and offered £70 compensation – £50 for delays in logging the resident’s complaint and £20 for not providing a response within 10 working days.
Repairs records state that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 20 September 2022 and cleared out the guttering.
On 5 September 2022, a large number of photos were circulated internally following a site visit by the landlord. Internal correspondence stated that the grounds were being maintained to an acceptable standard and that ‘customers need to bare [sic] in mind that we have moved away from a gardening service and now provide a grounds maintenance [service]’. Issues were noted with some items left on the premises that needed removing, gravel to be topped up over exposed weed suppressant membranes on the borders, and minor repairs were required to an outside tap and its housing. Photos show ivy and other weeds in flowerbeds, as well as ivy growing up the external wall of the property to the first floor and touching window frames.
On 21 September 2022, the landlord forwarded photos internally of a large stain on the carpet in a communal area near the resident’s flat with comments that this was the only issue that ‘looked bad’ after an inspection.
On 22 September 2022, the landlord’s contractor inspected the lift after a report that the warden call system was not working. The contractor noted it was not its responsibility to maintain this system, tested the lift and left it in service. On the same day, the landlord recorded that repairs were required to the call system.
A stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint was issued on 29 September 2022. It stated that an escalation request was received on 15 August 2022 and covered the following points:
1. Garden maintenance – this was not upheld. The manager responsible for this property stated that the grounds were in an acceptable condition as the contractor was following a commercial grounds maintenance specification, which was less rigorous than a garden maintenance specification. No changes were planned to the level of maintenance provided. In explaining the difference between grounds and garden maintenance, the landlord stated that ivy would only be removed if it was causing a problem. Minor works were agreed to remedy issues identified on the latest site visit.
2. Lift – this was not upheld. Delays were due to the tendering process and its replacement would start on 31 October 2022.
3. Decoration and carpet in communal areas – this was not upheld. Carpets were last replaced in 2002 and renewal of this would be reviewed with the potential to include this work in planned works for 2023/24. An inspection took place on 21 September 2022 which identified a large stain on the carpet near the resident’s flat but the landlord was no longer prepared to deep clean the carpet.
On 5 October 2022, the landlord informed residents at the property that lift replacement works would start on 31 October 2022. Internal correspondence states that the replacement works commenced on 31 October 2022 and were due to be signed off on 19 December 2022 with the lift being put in service.
On 8 August 2023, the landlord inspected the property and noted there were overgrown bushes in the garden which needed cutting back, lots of weeds in the garden, moss on paths which needed removing, and a repair to the path to remedy a trip hazard had not been carried out. Internal requests were made to resolve these issues.
On 2 November 2023, the landlord inspected the property and noted that weeds were visible in some parts of the garden.
On 13 December 2023, the resident’s representative informed this Service of the following concerns:
1. The resident had reported the issue with her bedroom window before the representative’s report but the landlord had told her that it was the resident’s responsibility to fix this. The representative had challenged the landlord on this point when she discovered the issue and the landlord eventually agreed to do the works.
2. Issues with guttering at the property had been reported but not fixed.
3. The landlord’s officers had been rude to the representative during telephone conversations.
4. The landlord insisted that any issues with the property are reported via an online portal. The resident struggles with this as she is not confident using IT systems or the internet.
5. The resident had become isolated since moving into the flat and felt that the landlord does not take her concerns seriously. She regretted moving in.
6. Other residents at the property were having similar issues with the landlord.
On 30 January 2024, the landlord told this Service the following:
1. A review of the external and internal decorations, including the carpeting in communal areas, is scheduled for the current financial year.
2. The schedule of works for grounds maintenance at the property are:
  1. Fortnightly visits between March to October.
  2. Monthly visits between November to February.
  3. Between March to October, grass to be cut on each visit unless not required.
  4. Litter picked up from grounds on each visit.
  5. Edging of borders.
  6. Moss clearance.
  7. Weed spraying.
  8. Hedges trimming; hedge maintenance every 3 months with a hard cutback between November and February.
3. There has been no change to the schedule since the resident moved into her flat.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s representative raised the following points on 28 February 2023 with this Service which were not mentioned in the initial complaint or request for escalation:
1. There is a lack of monthly window cleaning at the property.
2. Water to the outside tap has been cut off.
3. Scaffolding has been at the front entrance of the property with no communication from the landlord as to its purpose or when it will be removed.
4. The light at the front entrance porch is not working.
5. Residents at the property have been told that the front doors to their flats are not compliant with fire safety regulations and will have to be replaced at their expense.
These pointsare not linked to the substantive issues which have been brought to the attention of this Service and were not addressed by the landlord in its complaint responses. This Service has therefore decided that these issuesare not within the scope of this investigation. If the resident continues to have concerns about any of the issues above she should now discuss her concerns with the landlord to give it a fair opportunity to respond and put things right. This is in line with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Although the Ombudsman has not investigated these points, we have made a recommendation to the landlord at the end of this report to ensure that any outstanding issuesare resolved.

The landlord’s handling of requests for improvement in the maintenance of the communal garden

The landlord first noted concerns about the maintenance of the communal garden on 11 March 2021, namely that there was not evidence that flowerbeds were being tended to and that a tree was overgrown and obstructing a pathway. The resident’s representative raised similar concerns over garden maintenance, including that weeds were prevalent in the garden, on several occasions before making a formal complaint about this on 30 March 2022. Subsequent inspections by the landlord while investigating the complaint at Stage 1, on 5 September 2022 while preparing a Stage 2 response, and on 8 August 2023 and 2 November 2023 all highlight that there were weeds in the garden with ivy growth particularly noticeable.
Records show that the landlord had noted that it would ask its gardening contractors to take action over weeds on 11 March 2021 and on subsequent inspections where issues with the condition of the garden were noted. It is therefore reasonable to assume that weeds, including ivy growth, has been an issue in the communal gardens since this date.
The landlord’s Estate and Neighbourhood Management Policy explicitly states that “grounds maintenance includes […] weed removal” and “the garden and flower beds will be well maintained, free of weeds[.]” As there is evidence that this issue was noted by the landlord from at least March 2021, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord would have considered this point in their policy and taken a robust approach in tackling issues it had identified in the garden. The landlord should have responded appropriately to the resident and her representative about her concerns, rather than deny that there was an issue.
The landlord’s response to this point at Stage 2 is misleading as it states that ivy would only be removed if it was causing a problem. Ivy is widely acknowledged as being a weed and the landlord’s policy clearly states that gardens and flowerbeds will be kept clear of weeds. The landlord’s inspection reports note ivy and other weed growth in the garden and the landlord did not find this acceptable. This shows that the landlord did not act in line with its own policy on grounds maintenance and that it did not consider whether it had breached this policy in its complaint response. This is a failure of the landlord to act fairly when responding to the resident’s concerns.
The summary of the grounds maintenance schedule provided to this Service states that it covers weed spraying but it does not explicitly state that it covers removal of weeds. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it is the landlord’s choice about the methods it chooses to tackle weeds in the communal garden, but we also note that this schedule does not appear to be in line with the landlord’s own policy regarding weeds and maintenance of communal areas. The landlord should have a maintenance schedule in place which complies with its policies, it should also pay due regard to these policies when considering what steps to take after reports of issues with grounds maintenance.
The resident’s representative has told this Service that the resident originally bought the lease for her flat as she had been attracted to the property by the well-maintained garden, and that she had been a keen gardener before she became too ill to do this herself. The landlord’s Estate and Neighbourhood Management policy states that it ‘recognise[s] that the cleaning and maintenance of our communal areas significantly impacts the way residents feel about where they live.’ The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about garden maintenance do not take this into account and led to a breakdown in the relationship between both parties, having an adverse impact on the resident’s faith that the landlord would take steps to resolve her concerns.
Neither Stage 1 nor Stage 2 response took account of the landlord’s Estate and Neighbourhood Management policy when considering points regarding maintenance. This is a failure of the landlord to adopt the Ombudsman’s key dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.’
The landlord has failed to pay due regard to relevant policies regarding grounds maintenance, failed to take effective action after identifying issues with grounds maintenance after inspections, and mislead the resident about the landlord’s responsibilities when responding to the complaint. This has had an adverse impact on the way that the resident feels about where she lives and negatively affected the relationship between landlord and resident. Due to these issues, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for improvement in grounds maintenance.

The landlord’s handling of requests for cleaning and renovation of interior decoration and carpets in communal areas

The landlord has acknowledged it has a responsibility to clean and maintain the communal areas of the property in which the resident’s flat is located. The resident pays towards cleaning and upkeep of the communal areas in the property via her service charge. As noted earlier in this report, the landlord’s Estate and Neighbourhood Management Policy states that it acknowledges that cleaning and maintenance of communal areas significantly affect how residents feel about where they live.
The landlord’s inspection report on 9 February 2022 clearly identifies that the communal carpet was stained, over 20 years old, and needed to be replaced. It is unclear why the landlord decided against replacement of the carpet after this report or why replacement has not yet been included in any planned works for the resident’s building. It is also unclear why the landlord decided not to deep clean the carpet after its Stage 1 response suggested this as a possible measure if the renewal date for the communal carpets was not in the near future, particularly in light of the investigation report’s recommendations and a subsequent inspection identifying a large stain on the carpet. This is a failure of the landlord to be clear about what steps it is willing to take regarding the condition of the carpet and to take reasonable measures to ensure that the communal areas were kept clean.
No concerns over the condition of the internal decoration at the property have been raised in any of the property investigation reports provided to this Service. Internal correspondence describes the condition of the communal areas as dated but that there are no concerns about its overall condition. The landlord has taken reasonable steps to identify if there are issues with the condition of the communal areas (excluding the carpets) and acted appropriately by assessing whether redecoration works were appropriate. However, the landlord should still assess whether to include redecoration works in planned maintenance as per the promises in its complaint responses and commit to a clear date for any planned works.
It is unclear why the landlord’s offer at Stage 1 to deep clean the communal carpets as an interim measure was overturned at Stage 2, despite the Stage 2 response identifying a large stain on the carpet. The Ombudsman appreciates that the Stage 2 response states that there ‘were no major concerns’ about the carpet other than the stain, but this is not a clear response which sets out why a deep clean was no longer necessary. The landlord’s Stage 1 response would have created an expectation that a deep clean would take place and the decision to go against this at Stage 2 would have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord’s failure to be clear about what steps it was willing to take about the condition of the communal areas, failure to provide deep cleaning as an interim measure, failure to adequately explain why it was no longer willing to deep clean the carpets, and failure to adequately communicate when renovation works were likely to be carried out, all had an adverse impact on how the resident felt about where she lives and had a negative impact on the relationship between landlord and resident. Due to this, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for cleaning and renovation of interior decoration and carpets in communal areas.

The landlord’s handling of lift repairs, including delays in replacing the communal lift

The landlord started the necessary legal processes for consultation over replacing the communal lift on 30 March 2021 as it identified that the lift was nearing the end of its lifecycle and would break down more frequently in future. Works started on 31 October 2022 and were completed on 19 December 2022, 438 working days after the consultation process began. This is the only lift in the building.
As the lift replacement was classed as qualifying major works under Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had to follow a consultation process under section 20 of the 1985 Act before it could carry out the work. The first stage was to give a notice of intention that it would carry out works, the second was a notice of estimates obtained by the landlord, and the final stage was notification of award of the contract, although this is only necessary if the chosen contractor is not one chosen by a leaseholder or whoever has submitted the lowest estimate. Each stage requires a minimum notice period: 30 days for the first stage, 30 days for the second stage, and 21 days for the final stage. The minimum period of time that a landlord could successfully go through a section 20 consultation is therefore 60 days (81 days if a notice of award of contract is required).
The Ombudsman appreciates that consultation is likely to take longer than 60 days due to the need to tender for contracts, to appropriately address any objections or alternative proposals from residents, and to evaluate bids from contractors. The Ombudsman also appreciates that works may start some time after a section 20 consultation as it depends on the availability of the appointed contractor. However, there was a significant delay between the initial notice of consultation and the notice of estimates where it is not clear if the landlord was actively managing the consultation process and ensuring that avoidable delays to the lift replacement did not occur. Works should have commenced in a reasonable period of time after the landlord first identified that the lift was near the end of its lifecycle, with any delays in the process communicated to the residents. It is positive the landlord informed residents when the consultation had ended and when proposed works were likely to take place, but it should have done more to inform them on the progress of works and the estimated date of when works were likely to be carried out at an earlier stage.
Records show the landlord called its lift repairs contractor out 10 times for repairs and safety checks after consultation started and before the lift was replaced. The lift was out of service at points while repairs were arranged, often for a day at a time with the longest period being 6 days. As the lift was nearing the end of its lifecycle, it is reasonable to expect that it would break down more often and that repairs would be required with greater frequency. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord acted promptly when informed of issues with the lift and that it was not left out of service for long periods pending the completion of repairs.
However, it is of concern that faults with the warden call system in the lift first reported on 19 November 2021, and noted by the contractor responsible for lift repairs on callout reports, appear not to have been addressed by the landlord until 22 September 2022. Although the warden call system is not an integral part of the lift itself, it is a safety feature which is present within the property for which residents pay a service charge. This Service has not been provided with evidence that repairs were made to the warden call system in the lift before 22 September, implying that repairs were carried out 212 working days after the issue was first reported. This considerable delay left the resident without a critical safety system when travelling in the lift. As the landlord has acknowledged itself, the lift would have been more prone to breakdowns due to being at the end of its life cycle, which would have made it even more important that the warden call system was kept in repair and proper working order.
Due to the landlord’s failure to keep the resident informed on the progress of lift replacement works, delays in replacing the only lift in the building when the landlord acknowledged it was more prone to breaking down, and failing to fix the warden call system in the lift in a reasonable period of time, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs and replacement.

The landlord’s handling of requests for other repairs

The resident has also complained of issues with the landlord’s handling of requests for repairs to guttering and to her bedroom window.
The terms of the resident’s lease state that the landlord has an obligation to keep guttering in good and substantial repair.
The representative raised concerns about the guttering with the landlord on 4 March 2022 and on 30 March 2022, explaining that water damage had been caused to brick work by the main entrance due to this. The landlord acknowledged that repairs to roof gutters were required in its Stage 1 response on 30 August 2022 and that this would be raised with its repairs teams. Records show that the landlord’s contractor attended the property on 20 September 2022 and cleaned the guttering, although no evidence has been provided to this Service which demonstrates that brickwork which may have been damaged by the gutter leak had been assessed or repaired. This is a delay of 138 working days from the date that the issue was reported by the representative to the date that repairs were carried out. The representative has told this Service that there continue to be issues with guttering. This is a failure of the landlord to carry out repairs in a reasonable period of time.
As the gutter leak is not located within the resident’s flat or directly affecting it, the actual impact of this issue would have been minimal. However, this point should still be addressed as leaks left unrepaired would have an increasing impact on the condition of the main building and potentially on the resident’s flat or other flats in the building. This would have been frustrating for the resident, raised concerns about potential damage to her property and communal areas from the unrepaired leak.
This Service has not been provided with evidence of the original contact referred to by the representative between the resident and the landlord regarding repairs to the bedroom window. The representative reported the issue on 4 March 2022 with the landlord acknowledging it had an obligation to fix the window. Correspondence between the representative and the landlord on 30 March 2022 shows a repair had been booked to fix the window but had not yet been carried out. No evidence has been provided to this Service that the repairs were completed but, as the representative has not raised this point as an issue beyond this date, it is reasonable to assume repairs were carried out shortly after 30 March 2022.
Due to the landlord’s failure to carry repairs to the guttering in a reasonable period of time, resulting in an adverse impact on the resident due to concerns that this would affect her property and communal areas, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for other repairs.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy sets out a two stage process. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 2 working days of receipt with a response provided within 10 working days, although an extension of a further 10 working days is allowable if there are good reasons for delays with any delays explained to the complainant and a date given when to expect the response. Stage 2 complaints will be reviewed by an independent manager within the landlord and a response given within 20 working days, with an extension of a further 10 working days if there are good reasons for delays. If there are any delays to the Stage 2 response, this will be relayed to the complainant with an explanation and a date when the Stage 2 response will be sent.
Paragraph 5.6 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that “[l]andlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.”
The resident’s representative made a complaint on 30 March 2022. The landlord has acknowledged that this complaint was misplaced, it later accepted a complaint on 15 August 2022 after contact from the local MP. The landlord’s Stage 1 response was issued on 30 August 2022, 106 working days after the initial misplaced complaint and 11 working days after the landlord accepted the complaint from the MP. This is a failure of the landlord to keep to the time limits for complaint responses set out in its complaints policy. The landlord has offered the resident £50 to recognise its failure to log the initial complaint and £20 for not providing a response within time limit. This is not sufficient as it does not reflect that a complaint was only accepted due to the intervention of the local MP.
The landlord’s Stage 2 response states that an escalation request was made on 15 August 2022. The Ombudsman accepts that this is a minor error and that an escalation request must have been made after the Stage 1 complaint was issued, with the earliest date that such a request could be made being 30 August 2022. The Stage 2 response was provided on 29 September 2022, 21 working days after the assumed date of the escalation request. This is a failure of the landlord to keep to the time limits for Stage 2 responses in its complaints policy and an additional £20 compensation should have been awarded for the delay as per the landlord’s Stage 1 response.
The landlord did not address all of the complaint points raised in the complaint made on 30 March 2022, leaving out the issue regarding repairs to the resident’s window. It is understandable that this point was left out by the landlord’s complaints handling team as it was not raised again by the representative when the landlord made contact on 15 August 2022 and the landlord’s complaints responses do address all the points discussed with the representative at that date.
In view of the landlord’s failings, the compensation offered by the landlord in connection to compensation for complaints handling issues was not appropriate. Due to the delay in accepting a complaint, and not giving complaint responses in timescale, this Service has found service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for improvement in the maintenance of the communal garden.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for cleaning and renovation of interior decoration and carpets in communal areas.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of lift repairs, including delays in replacing the communal lift.
4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of requests for other repairs.
5. Service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Review whether carpets in communal areas at the buildingshould be deep cleaned, bearing in mind the current staining on the carpet and when the landlord plans on replacing the carpets. The landlord must let the resident and this Service know about the outcome of this review and what steps it has decided to take.
2. Commit to a specific date or timeframe for replacement of the carpets in communal areas. The resident and this Service must be informed of this date in writing.
3. Commit to a specific date or timeframe for redecoration of the communal areas. The resident and this Service must be informed of this date in writing.
4. Pay £350 to the resident as compensation, minus the previous offer of £70 if this has already been paid. This compensation comprises of:
  1. £50 as compensation for the landlord’s failure to effectively handle requests for improvement in the maintenance of the communal garden.
  2. £25 as compensation for the landlord’s failure to effectively handle requests for cleaning and renovation of internal decoration and communal carpets.
  3. £150 as compensation for the landlord’s failure to effectively handle lift repairs and prevent avoidable delays in replacing the communal lift.
  4. £25 as compensation for the landlord’s failure to effectively handle other requests for repairs.
  5. £100 as compensation for the landlord’s failure to effectively handle the resident’s complaint.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Ensure that weed removal is covered by its grounds maintenance schedule for the building. Evidence of this must be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should arrange a meeting with the resident and her representative to discuss her concerns about issues not considered during the complaints process, as noted in paragraph 36 of this report.