The Guinness Partnership Limited (202202262)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202262

The Guinness Partnership Limited

13 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s report of a leak from the loft hatch in the communal area and the associated damage.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord, in a flat with a communal lift. The landlord is not the freeholder of the building, anda managing agent is responsible for certain repairs to the building, on the freeholder’s behalf.
  2. On 27 June 2021, the resident reported several repair issues, as a damaged loft hatch in the communal area had caused a leak outside the lift. He also reported there was a cracked wall in the communal area. A contractor attended an emergency appointment on 29 June 2021 and made the loft hatch safe.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 1 September 2021, as the repairs to the leaking roof, damaged loft hatch and cracked wall had not been completed. In his complaint escalation, the resident stated that when the leak occurred, there was water pooling outside the lift, which he considered would pose a slip hazard. He also raised concerns that the landlord’s failure to resolve the leak would cause additional damage, such as further damp, which would lead to an increase in his service charge.
  4. In the landlord’s final response to the complaint on 16 December 2021, it stated that the managing agent of the building was responsible for the repair to the leak from the roof hatch, and the landlord was not responsible for this. It apologised that it had not advised the resident of this earlier and stated it had contacted the managing agent, but had not received confirmation of an appointment date. The landlord offered a total of £450 compensation, comprised of £100 for its poor communication, £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused and £100 for the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the complaint. It advised that feedback had been provided to its repairs team to ensure that communication is clear regarding which repairs the landlord is responsible for going forward.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied as the leak had not been resolved. He thought the leak posed a health and safety risk, due to water outside the lift. He also stated he had not received any updates on the progress of the works, as promised in the landlord’s stage two response. He thought the landlord was not fulfilling its responsibilities and he was not receiving value for money for his service charge.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has provided the head lease agreement for the property, which states that the freeholder is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building, including the roof. The landlord is not the freeholder of the building. The lease agreement between the resident and the landlord states that the landlord “shall maintain repair redecorate renew … the roof foundations and the main structure of the building”. Although the freeholder of the building is ultimately responsible for completing the repairs, the landlord has a role to ensure that such repairs are completed. The landlord should demonstrate that it is regularly communicating with the freeholder to ensure the repairs progress and provide the resident with any updates.
  2. In this case it is not disputed that there was a delay in completing the works to resolve the leak. In its stage two complaint response the landlord acknowledged it should have notified the resident that the managing agent was responsible for the repair sooner, to ensure the repair was completed at an earlier date. As a result of its failings, it offered £450 compensation. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The resident initially reported the required repairs on 27 June 2021. The landlord acted appropriately, as it completed repairs on 29 June 2021 to make the loft hatch safe. As it was identified that the leak was caused by a roof repair issue, the landlord should have promptly identified that it was the managing agent’s responsibility to complete the repair, on behalf of the freeholder. In its stage one response on 23 September 2021, the landlord advised an appointment had been passed to its subcontractor. As the repair should have been completed by the managing agent, this was the incorrect action to take. The landlord should ensure that it reviews its staff training requirements to ensure such omissions are identified at an earlier date and repairs are correctly allocated in order to avoid similar delays in future.
  4. During correspondence on 10 August 2021 (prior to the landlord’s stage one complaint response), the managing agent advised that it had contractors assessing the issue, thus indicating the landlord was aware the managing agent was responsible for the repair. There were ongoing discussions between the landlord and the managing agent throughout September and October 2021 regarding the repair responsibility. However, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord advised the resident of this until its stage two complaint response on 16 December 2021. As a result, it took almost six months for the landlord to appropriately manage the resident’s expectations regarding the progress of the repair. The landlord should ensure that it has clear internal communication, as this could have prevented the incorrect action being outlined in the stage one response, as the landlord was seemingly already aware the managing agent was responsible for the repair.
  5. The resident had raised concerns regarding the potential increased service charge costs, due to the length of time taken to complete the repairs, causing an increased chance of damage. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident on 22 November 2021, that it would not recharge more than the repair would have initially cost, regardless of any further deterioration. The landlord should ensure that it maintains this position, so there are no financial implications to the resident and other affected residents, as a result of the landlord’s failing.
  6. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord apologised that it had not advised the resident that the managing agent was responsible for the repair at an earlier date. It offered £100 compensation for its poor communication, recognising that it had given incorrect advice and £250 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused. This Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience. The guidance suggests awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. In this case, the landlord’s miscommunication led to the resident pursuing the repair on several occasions, causing him additional time and trouble. It also failed to ensure the leak was repaired within a reasonable timeframe, which would also have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord recognised its failings, and compensated accordingly. It was also appropriate that the landlord demonstrated it had learned from the outcome of the complaint, as it stated feedback had been given to the repairs team, to ensure that it provided clear, consistent communication regarding responsibilities for repairs going forward.
  7. Although the landlord demonstrated reasonable redress for the events prior to its final complaint response, the resident advised this Service, on 13 November 2022, that the repair was still outstanding. Therefore, this Service has considered the landlord’s actions following the final complaint response, given that the issue has been ongoing with very little change. The Ombudsman does accept that once the repair was referred to the managing agent, it was somewhat out of the landlord’s control. However, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that the landlord was actively pursuing the repair with the managing agent to ensure that the issue was resolved. There is limited evidence to suggest that it did, so this is evidence of a further failing by the landlord.
  8. This Service’s spotlight report on “landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents” identified the landlord is responsible for liaising with the freeholder or managing agent as required, and ensuring it holds them accountable for fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities. In this case, when the work was identified as the freeholder’s responsibility, the landlord should have promptly contacted the managing agent to complete the work on the freeholder’s behalf. It should have also regularly pursued updates from the management agent and passed on relevant information to the resident. As the landlord failed to pursue the issue with the freeholder, there was no meaningful progress in the works.
  9. Following the stage two response, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord communicated with the managing agent until 2 March 2022, as the resident had reported the leak was causing a slip hazard. The landlord then intermittently followed up with the managing agent between April 2022 and August 2022, and it more persistently chased the managing agent in September 2022, seemingly as the resident had reported the leak to be a greater issue. This was inappropriate, as the landlord should have ensured that it completed the actions promised in its stage two response, and followed up with the managing agent at an earlier date.
  10. On 30 September 2022 in an internal email, the landlord stated that it had passed the issue to the legal team to liaise with the managing agent. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider pursuing legal action at an earlier date, given the lack of progress on the works much earlier. However, whilst it was not able to carry out the repair itself – as ultimately, the repair was the freeholder’s responsibility – there is not enough evidence that it did enough to attempt to resolve the matter.
  11. In view of this failing and that the issue is still outstanding, the landlord should award the resident a further £150 compensation. As the leak is in the communal area, rather than the resident’s property, there would be a lower direct impact on the resident than a repair issue within his own home. Regardless, the additional time and trouble caused to him pursuing the issue over the prolonged period of time is acknowledged, hence further compensation has been awarded. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which states awards of £100-£600 are appropriate in cases where the offer of compensation made by the landlord, has not been proportionate to the failings outlined in this report. If the repairs remain outstanding, the landlord should take the necessary steps, including seeking legal advice if appropriate, to ensure the managing agent completes the required work to stop the leak. The landlord should ensure that it provides the resident with weekly updates on the progress of the works until it is completed. It is also ordered that the landlord offers additional compensation if there is a further delay.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, the landlord has a two stage internal complaints process. It should respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The resident initially raised a complaint on 1 September 2021, and the landlord issued its stage one response on 23 September 2021. Although it slightly exceeded its response timeframe, the delay was not excessive. The complaint was escalated the same day, but the landlord did not issue its stage two response until 16 December 2021, thus exceeding its published response timeframe.
  2. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in issuing its stage two complaint response. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble pursuing the complaint and the delays. This compensation was reasonable, as it was in line with this Service’s remedies guidance which states awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where there was a minimal failing by the landlord, which “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident”, as was the case here. As a result, the compensation was proportionate to the delay.
  3. This Service’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. In accordance with the Code, the landlord is expected to address all points raised by the resident in a complaint, and provide clear reasons for its decisions. In its complaint response, the landlord advised that the managing agent was responsible for the repairs to the loft hatch and the associated leak. However, in his complaint, the resident also raised concerns regarding the cracked wall and that the contractor had plastered the wall while the leak was ongoing, which had caused a brown mark. While the repair issue also appears to stem from a leak from the loft hatch, the landlord should have clearly outlined its position regarding all of the repair issues mentioned. As a result, the landlord failed to address the complaint in full, so has not reasonably managed the resident’s expectations.
  4. The landlord should therefore ensure that it confirms its position regarding the additional repair issues raised, and provides any relevant updates. Furthermore, in light of the additional time and trouble caused to the resident, in pursuing the issue, the landlord should award the resident an additional £50 compensation. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which states awards of £50-£100 are appropriate when the landlord has not fully acknowledged its failings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s report of a leak in the communal area and the associated damage.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £500 compensation in light of its failings to resolve the leak in the communal area. This amount includes the £350 offered in its stage two complaint response, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £50 due to its complaint handling failings, as well as the £100 already offered, if it has not been paid already. This means that the total compensation for complaint handling should be £150.
  3. The landlord should provide proof of the total payment of £650 to this Service, within four weeks of this report.
  4. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a clear timeframe of the outstanding repair works and weekly updates until the work is completed. This should be done within four weeks. If the repairs are not completed within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to consider additional compensation for any further delays.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provides additional staff training regarding the responsibilities of the landlord and the freeholder, to ensure that repairs are allocated correctly to avoid future delays.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff training requirements regarding complaint handling, to ensure that all points are addressed within complaint responses going forward.