The Guinness Partnership Limited (202222516)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222516

The Guinness Partnership Limited

14 May 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of heat loss and repairs to the lounge window and back door.
2. The complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 13 January 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom house. The landlord has no known registered vulnerabilities in respect of the resident. The tenancy agreement states the landlord will maintain the structure of the property. This includes the windows and doors.
In October 2022 the resident requested a stage 1 complaint. She had reported repairs to her window and door. On one occasion the repair contractor had failed to attend. She called the repairs line but said that when she got through it had closed. On another occasion she received a text from the landlord. It said that she had missed a repairs appointment. She said she had not been made aware of the appointment and the repairs still remained outstanding.
The landlord responded at stage 1. It acknowledged that its Service and communication had been poor. It also acknowledged that the repairs still remained outstanding. It apologised and offered £75 compensation. £50 for delays to complete the repairs and £25 for its poor communication.
In December 2022 the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. The repair to the door and window still remained outstanding. There had been a further missed appointment. A note was left advising that the door had not been ordered. The resident then enquired about her repairs and was informed that the door would not be replaced.
The landlord responded at stage 2. It said that its specialist contractor had visited to complete an inspection and take pictures. It had then sent the photographs to the landlord’s commercial team to review. Based on this report the team deemed that the replacement of both the window and door was not necessary. The complaint handler had double checked this with its service manager on receipt of the complaint, but the decision remained the same. It re-offered the £75 it had offered in its stage 1 response and an additional £25 for the delay in issuing it stage 2 response.

Post complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied as the repairs still remained outstanding, so she contacted this Service.
The landlord has since advised this Service that it replaced the bedroom window on 28 February 2023. The back door was replaced on 23 March 2023. The remaining windows had all had draught work completed and were due to be replaced under a planned programme by April 2025. It had also revisited its offer of compensation and increased its offer to £500. £350 for the delay in making the decision to complete the replacement door. £150 as a contribution to the resident’s costs and to further acknowledge the stress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Resident’s report of heat loss and repairs to the lounge window and back door.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for structural repairs. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
Social landlords are expected to provide housing to residents which meet the definition of a decent home. The standard of a decent home from 2006, is that it provides a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
The landlord’s repair policy categorises repairs as either emergency or routine. Emergency repairs will be responded to within 24 hours and routine 28 days. It will seek to offer the resident a choice in appointments. If it needs to change the agreed arrangements it will contact the resident as far in advance as possible. It will communicate with the resident clearly at all times.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that if missed appointments are part of a series of failures it will take this into account as part of a compensation payment for a service failure.
The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 response that the resident had raised the repairs to the windows and doors on 16 July 2022. It said that it had scheduled an appointment for 8 August 2022 but had failed to notify the resident. This was a failing and not in accordance with its policy. The missed appointment prompted the resident to contact again, and the landlord agreed an appointment for 12 September 2022 which was 8 weeks after the resident’s initial report.
When its repair operative attended on 12 September 2022 it only looked at the door. Its recommendation was that the door be replaced. A further appointment had been made for 2 operatives to attend on 12 October 2022 to attend to the back door and the windows. Its operatives did not attend as the back door had not been ordered. The landlord acknowledged that it had not acted in accordance with its policy as it had not contacted the resident to inform her.
The landlord appropriately apologised. It further attempted to put matters right by offering £75 compensation for the delays and for its poor communication. The resident had however been waiting 3 months for the repair to be completed by this point. The landlord had missed 2 appointments without proper communication to the resident. It had however tried to find a quicker resolution for the resident. It arranged for its sub-contractor to attend on 20 October to assess the maintenance required. It also agreed to keep the complaint open until the repairs were completed. This was appropriate given the previous failings.
The landlord did do what it said it would do. Its sub-contractor attended and inspected the window and door. It submitted a report to the landlord with photographs. The records show that the landlord had continued to chase up the outcome of the visit with the relevant team as it said it would as part of its stage 1 complaint response.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord informed the resident that the relevant team had since viewed the photographs and the report submitted by its contractor. Based on the report it had determined that no repairs or replacements were required. The resident was unhappy with this response and asked for her complaint to be escalated.
It is unknown why it took 7 weeks for the landlord to inform the resident of the outcome of the visit by its sub-contractor on 20 October. The landlord does not address this delay either in its stage 2 response. Reasonably it should have.
The landlord’s explanation of its change of position in respect of replacing the door and window could have been explained in more detail. The resident had been advised previously albeit by operatives and contractors that the window and door required replacement. Her expectations were that this would happen. The landlord is of course entitled to change its position upon the presentation of a report from its sub-contractor. However, it should have clearly explained to the resident the reasons why. To say that it had taken that decision which was the correct one was an inadequate response and a failing in its handling of the matter.
It is important for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations, and its complaint responses are an ideal opportunity to do this. Failure to manage expectations can be detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship. It is also further noted although not part of this assessment that the landlord then changed its position again after the complaint. By March 2023 it had replaced the door and a bedroom window.
In summary this Service considers that the landlord’s poor handling of the matter amounts to maladministration. It arranged an initial inspection but failed to notify the resident of the date and time. It missed 2 appointments which the resident had waited in to facilitate access. Its communication was poor. These failings caused significant delays as well as time and trouble to the resident. The resident then had to wait a further 7 weeks for the landlord to advise that it would not be completing the repairs. It failed to fully explain its reasons for its change in position which was inappropriate. This did not foster a good landlord and tenant relationship.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord offered compensation for the delays of £50 and then a further £25 for its poor communication. This amount however does not fully reflect the time and level of impact on the resident. The resident had explained within her stage 2 request that she was over 70 years old. She said the cold from the door and window was having a detrimental effect on her health and wellbeing. It was also putting a financial strain on her due to the increase in cost to try heat the property. Her expectations were not managed, and the landlord failed to properly explain its change in position at the point it issued its stage 2. This was 6 months after the resident had initially raised the repair which was unreasonable.
It is acknowledged that after the complaint process the landlord did revisit its offer of compensation. It offered £500. £350 for the delay in its decision to complete the replacement and £150 towards the resident’s costs. While the landlord did this, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. The revised financial offer was, however, reasonable and this Service will order £575 to be paid which can be taken from the compensation already offered if it has not already been paid.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaints policy gives response times of ten working days for a stage one response, and 20 working days for a stage two response.
The landlord’s stage 1 response showed a thorough investigation. Its chronology of events highlighted where it had failed. Its version also coincided with the records provided to this Service. The landlord appropriately apologised. It sought to put matters right by offering compensation. It also arranged for a sub-contractor to attend to try to resolve matters sooner. Furthermore, the complaint handler continued to monitor the case after it issued the stage 1 response which was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued 24 working days after the resident requested her escalation. This is slightly outside of the landlord’s policy timescales. However, the landlord acknowledged this and offered £25 compensation because of its delay. This was appropriate and showed that it had considered its complaint handling within its response.
Its stage 2 response could have provided more of an explanation as to its shift in position. However, this has already been assessed and considered as part of the substantive complaint. The landlord appropriately reviewed its handling of the stage 1 complaint. It also confirmed its agreement to attend the property with the local environmental health team as the resident had requested. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was trying to get the matter resolved and maintain communication with the resident.
Failure to adhere to timeframes for complaint responses is a service failure. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It then went further to put matters right by offering £25 redress. The landlord has offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the 4-day delay in its response to the stage 2 complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heat loss and repairs to the lounge window and back door.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within the next 28 days the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £575 compensation which can be deducted from the £75 it offered in its stage 2 and £500 it offered after the complaint if already paid.
Within the next 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Consider the failings identified in this report and complete a review into its handling of repairs to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on its:
  1. Lack of proactive communication with the resident about appointments including delays and/or cancelled appointments.
  2. Internal communication in particular ensuring that its teams are aware of the relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the information.
  3. A copy of the review should be shared with this Service also within 6 weeks.

Recommendations

Within 28 days the landlord should pay the resident £25 it offered in its stage 2 response if it has not done so already.