The Guinness Partnership Limited (202215678)

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215678

The Guinness Partnership Limited

6 June 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

The complaint concerns:
1. The standard of garden maintenance on the resident’s estate
2. The condition of the estate’s signage.
3. The associated formal complaint into these issues.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a house. The resident pays a weekly fixed service charge for “maintenance of communal TV aerial and landscaped area; warden; common part lighting; window cleaning and management fees”.
Since at least 23 June 2022, the resident had been in contact with the landlord regarding the poor quality of garden maintenance at the estate. The landlord’s records state that a staff member undertook an inspection of the estate with the resident. The landlord’s notes stated that the resident showed them areas of the grounds that the gardening contractor had not maintained and stated that litter was not picked up. The staff member called the resident on 1 July 2022 and informed her that the issue had been raised by the landlord with the contractor and it hoped to have the matter resolved that month.
On 12 July 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a formal complaint into the issue. The resident described the elements of the complaint as:
1. There had been no grounds maintenance of the communal grounds around the resident’s property for the last three months.
2. Following the inspection by the landlord, she had received no further contact on when the landlord would resolve the issue.
3. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the landlord use a different contractor to maintain the communal grounds and to receive a reduction in the service charge in light of the grounds maintenance that had not been done.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 2 August 2022 and a stage two complaint response on 22 September 2022. It also sent an update to its stage two response on 17 April 2023 where it reviewed its compensation offer. In its responses, the landlord:
1. Explained that following the resident’s report on 23 June 2022, that it had contacted the gardening contractor’s management team. The contractor informed the landlord that it was experiencing staff shortages which has had an impact on the standard of its work. Following discussions between the landlord and contractor about how to improve its service, the contractor agreed to:
  1. Expand its advertising for staff to areas outside the areas it operates in.
  2. Use staff members from other teams to support areas where there were staffing gaps.
  3. Use local sub-contractors.
  4. Work on weekends where permitted.
2. Informed the resident that it undertook a joint inspection of the grounds with the contractor where it was discovered that some areas had been missed off the specification provided to the contractor. This had now been rectified and all areas would be maintained going forward.
3. Declined the resident’s request to be compensated for lack of service, noting that while the resident had paid for a service she did not receive via the service charge, that the contractor was now over-resourcing and spending additional time on the scheme to ensure it was meeting its specification.
4. Apologised for the delays in providing its responses at both stages of the complaint process and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience that this had caused.
In referring the complaint to this Service, the resident described the outstanding issues as the landlord had not responded to her request for a service charge refund or addressed the element of the complaint relating to the condition of the signage. The resident also stated that she did not believe that it had learnt from its failures in complaint handling as it continues to fail to meet its published targets. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the element of the service charge for grounds maintenance be refunded for the time period she was not receiving a full service, and to receive a detailed explanation as to why some areas had been missed off the gardening contractor’s maintenance schedule.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord agrees to “take reasonable care to keep the common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passages, rubbish chutes and any other common parts including their electric lighting in reasonable repair and fit for use by the Tenant or other occupiers and visitors to the premises”.
The landlord’s estate and neighbourhood management policy states that the landlord will:
1. “Keep our estates and neighbourhoods clean, safe, secure and well-maintained.
2. Inspect our estates on a regular basis to check the quality of the services we provide, identify any maintenance issues and remedy any health and safety concerns.
3. Provide the agreed services reliably to all residents but we will, where appropriate, work with residents and provide additional services to address a specific issue or improve the neighbourhood.”
In regard to inspections, the estate and neighbourhood management policy states that “estate inspections will be conducted on at least a quarterly basis. We will publish the dates and times of the estate inspections in advance. We will encourage residents to accompany us during the inspection or to take the opportunity to discuss any issues with us”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy states, in part, that it will consider offering compensation in circumstances where “when we are at fault and an apology or other remedy alone is not sufficient [and for] the detriment caused to the individual or the household by our failure”. The policy’s payment guidance recommends a payment of up to £250 in circumstances where “the issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household”.

The standard of garden maintenance at the estate

When the resident informed the resident of her dissatisfaction with the quality of service, she had received from its gardening contractor, the landlord had a duty respond to the issue in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures.
Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in responding to the issue. When informed by the resident on 23 June 2022, it arranged for a joint inspection of the estate the next day where the resident was able to point out the areas to the landlord staff member where the gardening contractor had failed to carry out any work. This feedback was then passed on the contractor. This was appropriate action for the landlord to take ensure the contractor was completing the specified work to the agreed standard.
When the resident raised a formal complaint as she was dissatisfied with the steps the landlord had taken at that point to resolve the matter and the responses she had received to her requests for updates, the complaint-handler assigned to the case contacted the team responsible for the oversight of the gardening contractor and received updates on what steps the landlord had taken based on the resident’s feedback. The team informed the complaint handler of the staff issues the contactor had experienced, as described in the report detailed above, and also stated that it had determined that the contractor’s specification had not included all of the areas that required maintenance. An internal email sent on 22 July 2022 noted that the map the landlord had provided to the contractor to show the areas of the estate it was responsible for did not have all the areas highlighted. The landlord looked into how this error occurred but was unable to determine how the mistake was made. The landlord then informed the complaint-handler that it was working with the contractor to arrange additional visits to the site to complete work to the missing areas.
The landlord identified 14 incomplete visits between March 2022 and October 2022 by the gardening contractor for the estate where the resident lives. In an internal email sent on 17 April 2023, the landlord stated that it had arranged a credit from the contractor for the missed visits and that “some of the visits were not credited back as they did additional work to rectify the missed visits”. When setting out the outstanding issues of the complaint to this Service in an email sent on 12 July 2022, the resident requested that she was informed by the landlord what impact this issue would have on the service charge for the upcoming financial year. This is a reasonable request for the resident to make and it is recommended that the landlord write to the resident and provide this information if had has not does so already.
While the landlord has acted appropriately by working with its contractor to improve its service, arrange for extra work to be undertaken to the areas that had been missed, and explain to the resident in its complaint responses what action it had taken; the landlord would also have been expected to consider the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident. In having to raise and pursue a complaint in order for the issues with grounds maintenance to be identified and resolved.
Therefore, there has been service failure in how the landlord has responded to this element of the complaint and in order for it to be fully resolved, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £100 to £600 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration by a landlord. This includes distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence, and delays in getting matters resolved. Therefore, a payment of £200 that recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident in having to raise a complaint in order for the landlord to identify and resolve the issues she was experiencing with grounds maintenance would be appropriate in the circumstances. This payment would also be in line with the payment guidance given in the landlord’s compensation policy detailed above.

The condition of the estate’s signage

In her request to escalate the complaint, sent to the landlord on 23 August 2022, the resident described the poor quality of the signage in the estate which still bore the name of the previous housing association, despite this changing in 2007 following a merger with the current landlord. The resident noted that this issue had been raised with the landlord on numerous occasions.
The stage two complaint process will undertake a review of how the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one and address the outstanding issues from the stage one complaint given by the complainant when they set out the grounds for requesting the escalation. Although a landlord can use its discretion to consider new elements to the complaint raised at the final stage of its complaints process, it is under no obligation to do so. However, while the landlord was not obligated to address the issue of the signage in its stage two complaint response, it would have been expected to have explained to the resident why it was not able to and advise the resident to raise a sperate complaint into the matter. By not addressing the signage issue the landlord has caused inconvenience to the resident as she pursued the matter as an outstanding issue of this complaint with this Service, when the landlord should have advised her to raise separate complaint in its stage two response.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends a payment of £50 to £100 in cases of service failure of a short duration that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Therefore, it would be apocopate for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for not referring to the issue of the condition of the signage at the estate and either using its discretion to address the matter in its stage two response or advising the resident to raise a separate complaint. It is also recommended that the landlord write to the resident to enquire if she still wishes to raise a complaint into the issue.

The Landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord did not follow its complaints policy at either stage of the complaints process. The resident raised a complaint on 12 July 2022 and the landlord sent a stage one complaint response on 2 August 2022, six working days outside of its published target of ten working days. The resident then requested an escalation of the complaint on 23 August 2022 and the landlord sent a stage two complaint response on 22 September 2022, two working days outside of its published timescale of 20 working days.
While the length of the delays was not significant, it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the inconvenience that this caused to the resident and offer compensation. The £100 compensation offer was calculated in line with both the landlord’s and this Service’s remedies guidance detailed above. the landlord also identified an issue with how the complaint was logged at stage one of its complaints process which caused the delay.
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 this element of the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account 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. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by offering £100 compensation and identifying an issue with how it logged the complaint at stage one. It demonstrated it had learned from its mistakes by giving feedback to its complaint teams to ensure complaints are properly logged on its system when received.
The resident has disputed the dates of the complaint responses, noting that she did not receive the stage one response until 12 August 2022 and the stage two response on 28 September 2022. The landlord posted the complaint responses to the resident. The landlord’s internal logs state that the stage one complaint-handler called the resident on 2 August 2022 and left a voicemail informing her that the stage one response had been posted. When requesting an escalation of the complaint, the resident asked the landlord not to call her and to make all responses in writing. The stage two complaint-handler noted these instructions in an internal note added to the landlord’s system on 22 September 2022 stating that it the two response had been sent and they had not called the resident to advise her of this.
While the additional delays in receiving the response would be understandably frustrating for the resident, this was not something that was under the control of the landlord and it would not be expected to offer additional compensation for delays caused by the postal service. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this element of the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of:
1. The standard of garden maintenance at the estate
2. The condition of the estate’s signage.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of its complaint handling which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves this element of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation comprising:
1. £200 for its service failures in how it managed the garden maintenance of the estate.
2. £100 for how it responded to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the condition of the estate’s signage.
This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

As the finding of reasonable redress was made based on the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation, it is recommended that this should be paid to the resident if the landlord has not done so already.
It is further recommended that the landlord, if it has not done so already. write to the resident and:
1. Explain what effect, if any, the issue of grounds maintenance had on the following year’s service charge calculations.
2. Enquire if the resident still wishes to raise a formal complaint into the condition of the estate’s signage.