The Guinness Partnership Limited (202214094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214094

The Guinness Partnership Limited

27 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s decision to upgrade the warden call system.
2. The conduct of the landlord’s staff.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The resident also raised complaints about:
1. the landlord appointing a different contractor to install the upgrade
2. the contractor doing the installation driving dangerously on the estate and vaping
3. the size and complexity of the equipment installed
4. the landlord giving the resident’s alarm pendant to another resident which involved the resident in time and trouble sorting this out
5. the landlord having sent the resident a cheque in another person’s name
6. the landlord having changed the name on the resident’s tenancy.

Background

Preliminary issues

The resident’s property was a one-bedroom, first-floor flat. He had a starter tenancy that began on 23 November 2012. This became an assured tenancy after 12 months. The resident’s property was part of a sheltered housing scheme. The landlord is a housing association.
The landlord informed this service the resident passed away. This was after the Ombudsman accepted the complaint but before we concluded the investigation. The personal representative of the resident is not known by the landlord or this service. The Ombudsman has investigated this complaint under paragraph 39 of the Scheme.

Summary of events leading to the complaint

The landlord wanted to upgrade a discontinued warden call system to a digital fire alarm system. This upgrade would create a digital system linked to fire and smoke detection. The landlord decided to consult residents on this.
The consultation ran from 22 January 2020 to 29 February 2020. The landlord told the residents that they would pay for the new system through service charges.
The landlord told the resident on 15 September 2020 that it had decided to install this new system in the 2021-22 financial year.
Following an onsite pre-installation inspection by the landlord at some point in August 2022, the resident complained. On 24 August 2022, the resident said that:
1. the surveyor who attended his property came without an appointment
2. the surveyor told him the landlord would probably take enforcement action if he did not agree to the installation
3. a contractor who attended with the surveyor refused to remove his boots or use shoe protectors before entering
4. other residents in the scheme had obtained their own call system for assistance
5. the landlord had ‘u turned’ after it had said it would not replace the old warden call system because of the cost
6. he felt the new system was not in the interests of residents or necessary, especially given the additional costs
7. new residents who arrived after the consultation would be unaware of the upgrade
8. he wanted to be exempt from the installation.
The landlord responded to the resident on 31 August 2022. It said:
1. it needed to install a new digital system under guidance from the National Fire Chiefs Council
2. it needed to ensure each resident had a two-way speech-enabled smoke and fire system in all flats
3. the UK government was switching to digital systems by 2025 andso a digital system would be necessary
4. it could not exclude the resident’s flat as the system would only work if all flats were connected
5. the work would only take a maximum of three hours
6. it was happy for a staff member to be present on the day of installation to oversee the work
7. it apologised if the resident felt pressured into receiving the contractor’s visit
8. the contractor’s visit was not planned and was done to inspect the equipment present before the installation
9. the contractor could have worn shoe covers but did not as he was not standing on carpet
10. it would ask all contractors to wear shoe covers on visits whenever they enter resident’s properties.
The resident told his landlord that he was concerned he would need to re-decorate after the installation.
On 1 September 2022 the resident told the landlord that:
1. he had received a letter referring to there being a ‘door entry system’ which he believed would be inappropriate
2. he was dissatisfied that his landlord allowed residents in bungalows to opt out of the installation
3. he did not understand why all flats had to have the system or the legal basis for the upgrade
4. he believed the landlord had not consulted residents on how it proposed to treat residents in bungalows differently.
The resident said on 8 September 2022 that he could not afford the £8 monthly increase on his service charge to cover the system.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 on 16 September 2022 and said:
1. it had consulted residents on its plan to install the system
2. the only change to the system since the consultation was that it would allow residents in bungalows to opt out
3. it allowed residents in bungalows to opt out as this system was not suitable for bungalows as they have different entrances and exits
4. the system would cost £1 per week to maintain and £1 per week to monitor, this had not changed since the consultation
5. any damage caused by the installation would be repaired at no cost to the resident
6. the new system would provide greater fire safety to residents in flats and was in line with the recommendations made by the National Fire Chiefs Council
7. it did not uphold his complaint as the only change to the consultation did not affect him as he lived in a flat.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. In his complaint escalation request of 17 September 2022, he said:
1. the existing fire and smoke alarm system was effective
2. he felt the landlord had been insensitive in suggesting the increased costs were insignificant
3. his tenancy agreement did not require him to give access
4. that since the landlord consulted there were new residents who would be unaware of the proposals.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint request on 21 September 2022 and said:
1. it apologised for the wording used in its letter referring to a new door entry system
2. it confirmed this was inaccurate and did not apply to the resident’s scheme
3. it was contacting other residents who have moved in since the consultation to explain the work
4. the cost of the digital system had not changed since the consultation
5. it apologised for any offence its letter had caused regarding the costs of the alarm system.
The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 on 29 September 2022 and said:
1. it apologised for an inaccuracy in its stage 1 response when it referred incorrectly to the work involving installation of a new fire alarm system
2. it was installing a system linked to the fire and smoke detection system
3. the only change made since the consultation was that those living in bungalows would be able to opt out of the installation
4. this is because a digital alarm system is not suited to bungalows and the National Fire Chiefs Council’s guidance does not apply to bungalows
5. as the resident lives in a flat it could not exclude him from the installation, and it did not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint
6. it offered the resident assurances at stage 1 that it would make good any damage caused by the installation, therefore it did not uphold his complaint about any damage
7. the cost of the system had not changed since the consultation and would be subject to an annual review, it did not uphold his complaint about costs
8. the changes were necessary to help protect residents in the event of a fire and are in line with guidance.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman and explained:
1. he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to upgrade the warden call system
2. he believed it was unfair that his landlord did not allow him to opt-out
3. that he felt the current fire and smoke detection system was adequate
4. he was concerned about the increase in service charges and how the landlord’s staff treated him on a visit in August 2022.
The resident allowed the landlord to upgrade the warden system in February 2023.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman was set up under a Scheme that defines what complaints we can and cannot look at. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not look at complaints that are made before a resident exhausts its landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident raised the following complaints with the Ombudsman about:
1. the landlord appointing a different contractor to install the upgrade
2. the contractor doing the installation driving dangerously on the estate and vaping
3. the size and complexity of the equipment installed
4. the landlord giving the resident’s alarm pendant to another resident which involved the resident in time and trouble sorting this out
5. the landlord having sent the resident a cheque in another person’s name
6. the landlord having changed the name on the resident’s tenancy.
The Ombudsman has not seen that the resident raised or pursued these complaints about the landlord’s conduct with the landlord. These parts of the complaint are therefore out of scope of this investigation under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

The landlord’s decision to upgrade the warden call system

The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had a right to object to the upgrade. However, the evidence shows the landlord was entitled to proceed with the installation. This is because the resident’s tenancy agreement (clause 2.3) allowed it to provide the resident with extra services, provided the landlord consulted him.
The landlord started the installation consultation with the resident on 22 January 2020. The landlord told the resident the outcome of the consultation on 15 September 2020. The resident has not disputed that the landlord consulted with him.
The landlord’s decision to upgrade was in keeping with the landlord’s fire risk assessment which recommended a new system. Clauses 14 and 21 of the landlord’s fire safety policy placed a duty on it to follow any recommendation in the fire risk assessment. The Ombudsman also accepts that the landlord’s decision was in line with guidance issued by the National Fire Chiefs Council relating to sheltered housing.
This guidance strongly recommended that landlords monitor smoke detectors within each flat by either a person on-site or an alarm receiving centre. The guidance specifically recommended a telecare system, whereby two-way speech can occur between the alarm receiving centre and each flat. This is so:
1. residents in individual flats can be given specific fire safety advice and instructions
2. calls can be filtered to avoid false alarms and to ensure the early attendance of emergency services where appropriate
3. residents in other flats can ‘stay put’ where it is not safe or necessary for them to evacuate.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord explained to the resident its reasons for proceeding with the upgrade on 31 August 2022, 16 September 2022, and 29 September 2022. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord provided the resident with reasons and the basis for the installation.
The Ombudsman accepts that the guidance provided by the National Fire Chiefs Council is non statutory guidance. However, this specialist guidance represents best practice for fire safety in sheltered housing. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord appropriately considered and followed this guidance.

Did the installation differ from the consultation proposal?

The resident alleged that the system the landlord installed in 2022 differed from the system it consulted on in 2020. For example, the resident claimed that the landlord had not explained that bungalows would be able to opt-out in 2020. He also reported that his landlord said in 2020 the new system would be like an iPad and would allow communication between properties.
The landlord accepted that there was one difference, this was that residents in bungalows would be able to opt out of the installation.
There is no evidence that this was a material difference to the resident as the landlord explained an opt-out was not possible for flats. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord adequately explained the reasons why it had treated residents in flats differently from those in bungalows.
The Ombudsman has seen a copy of the landlord’s presentation about the proposal to introduce a new digital system. In this presentation the landlord referred to a “2-way voice link in the event of fire or smoke activation”. The presentation also referred to messages being ‘broadcast’ to all properties and the facility for “flat to flat calls.”
The Ombudsman cannot verify when the landlord gave this presentation but given the content we are satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the landlord had used this as part of its consultation process. This is because the presentation refers to the digital system and a consultation process launch.
As the landlord’s presentation refers to a two-way speech function the Ombudsman considers that, on balance, the resident would have been aware of this. This service cannot find evidence in the presentation that the landlord specifically promised the resident an iPad like system. The presentation refers to the system as an “attractive, modern-looking contact hub.” In summary, the Ombudsman is not able to say what was consulted on and what was provided was materially different.

Was the landlord clear about the upgrade cost?

The resident complained to the landlord about the cost of maintaining and monitoring the new system (£2 per week). The Ombudsman notes that thisis the same figure quoted in the landlord’s presentation. This presentation mentioned an additional weekly cost of £1.50 for provision. It is unclear what the provision charge relates to, and the landlord did not refer to this charge in 2022.
However, clause 1.2.1 of the resident’s tenancy agreement allowed the landlord to charge the resident for the installation. This tenancy provision also allowed the landlord to increase or decrease the charges giving the resident one months written notice. The landlord told the resident on 22 January 2020 that there would be a cost and its presentation outlined this. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied the resident was aware there would be a cost.

The landlord’s conduct at the August 2022 home visit

The resident felt intimidated and bullied by the landlord. This was on account of a visit from a surveyor and a contractor in or around August 2022. The landlord had not informed the resident of this in advance. During this visit the resident alleged the surveyor told him he would probably face enforcement action if he refused to allow the installation. There is no record of the verbal discussion between the surveyor and the resident. This service is therefore unable to make a finding on this as this would be the resident’s word against the surveyor.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident opposed the upgrade and felt pressured into allowing it. However, after reviewing the landlord’s internal emails and the landlord’s responses, we have seen no evidence of heavy handedness or a lack of sympathy. The landlord apologised to the resident on 31 August 2022 for a contractor not wearing shoe coverings. The landlord explained to the resident why it had not told him about their visit in advance. The Ombudsman reminds the landlord that the resident had the right to the quiet enjoyment of their home, which includes living free from interference and unannounced visits from landlords. Importantly, section 11(6) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that landlords must give 24 hours written notice before attendance. That said, there is no evidence that the resident was significantly affected by this failure.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concern that the installation would cause damage that would require redecoration. It offered to send a staff member to oversee the installation. The landlord told the resident the installation would take no more than three hours and it would repair any damage. These were reasonable reassurances of the landlord to make. This service also notes that had the resident refused the landlord access it could have applied to court. The landlord could have sought an injunction to be permitted entry to make the changes. Whether it would have been successful would have been a matter for the court to decide.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord was required to respond to the complaint at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The resident complained on 24 August 2022 and the landlord responded on 16 September 2022. This was 16 working days, the delay was short and caused the resident no detriment.
The resident escalated the complaint on 17 September 2022 and the landlord responded on 29 September 2022 which was eight working days later. This was in line with its complaint’s policy.
The landlord sought to explain to the resident the reason it was doing the works and why it could not exclude the resident from them. It also addressed the resident’s concerns about changes to the consultation.
However, the Ombudsman notes that there were four complaints that the landlord chose to respond to outside of its formal complaint responses. These were the resident’s concerns about:
1. a contractor attending pre-installation and refusing to take his boots off
2. other residents not knowing about the installation works
3. the wording the landlord used about the system costs
4. the confusion caused by the landlord wrongly referring in a letter to a ‘door entry system’ as being part of the installation works.
The landlord responded to the first of these on 31 August 2022 and the last three on 21 September 2022. This was a service failure as this was not in line with clause 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (March 2022). This required the landlord to address all complaint points in a complaint response.
The landlord agreed with the resident at both stage 1 and 2 to make good any damage caused by the installation. This was a reasonable offer to make as the resident was concerned at having to redecorate. However, the evidence is that it did not do this. This was a service failure as the landlord told the resident it would do this. The landlord’s failure to keep to its promise meant the resident had to do some minor patch repairs himself. This caused him some distress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman has not investigated the following complaints, as there is no evidence they exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure before they were referred to us:
1. the landlord appointing a different contractor to install the upgrade
2. the contractor doing the installation driving dangerously on the estate and vaping
3. the size and complexity of the equipment installed
4. the landlord giving the resident’s alarm pendant to another resident which involved the resident in time and trouble sorting this out
5. the landlord having sent the resident a cheque in another person’s name
6. the landlord having changed the name on the resident’s tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to upgrade the warden call system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the conduct of the landlord’s staff doing a home visit in August 2022.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure, in not making good the damage caused by the installation. The landlord should pay this to the estate. If it cannot locate the executors or representatives of the estate, the landlord should notify the public trustee that it will hold the funds to be claimed by the estate and request details of who to pay. It can decide if it wishes to share a copy of our determination with the public trustee. The landlord should provide evidence of what action it has taken within 28 days of the date of this determination.