Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202224892)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224892

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of heating repairs.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 12 April 2019.
  2. The landlord is a housing association.
  3. On 5 December 2022 the resident told the landlord his bedroom radiator was not working properly. The landlord replaced the radiator on 31 January 2023.
  4. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 6 March 2023 and requested it register a complaint for its handling of the radiator repair.
  5. On 17 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. In its response it:
    1. Said its contractor attended on 5 December 2022 and said the radiator needed to be replaced. It had told the landlord only one radiator was affected so it was not necessary to provide temporary heaters.
    2. Said it replaced the radiator on 31 January 2023. The delays were due to it waiting for the delivery of the radiator and the incorrect radiator being ordered.
    3. Said its contractor contacted the resident on 20 January 2023 to apologise for the delays and its poor service.
    4. Acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication and the delay in it accepting the complaint.
    5. Offered the resident £210 compensation which was broken down as:
      1. £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused
      2. £100 for poor communication
      3. £60 for delays in resolving the complaint.
    6. Provided feedback to its contractor and staff to ensure residents were provided with updates on repairs and it was logging complaints correctly.
  6. On 13 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. In its response it said:
    1. It responded to the repair within its timescale of 28 days for non-emergency repairs.
    2. It offered to isolate the bedroom radiator on a couple of occasions so the heating would not be affected, however, the resident declined this offer. The loss of heating was unfortunate, but it was avoidable.
    3. The complaint remained upheld because its communication was poor, and there were delays completing the repairs.
    4. Said it was satisfied the stage 1 response acknowledged all aspects of the resident’s complaint and provided a reasonable response and resolution.
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint as he was seeking higher compensation due to the time, he had to take off work for the repairs, and due to the cost of running fan heaters whilst he had no heating.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of repairs had a negative impact on his health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman will not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. Whilst such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents, their occupancy agreement will require them to give access for repairs to be carried out, and it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair and working order, the installations for the supply of gas and electricity, water and sanitation, and space heating and heating water. This includes radiators. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states its target response time for emergency repairs is 24 hours, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  3. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint’s policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s compensation procedure states the landlord will pay:
    1. up to £50 if minor repairs are not completed within its target timescale. The policy states it will not pay compensation for loss of earnings, it says if missed appointments are part of a series of failures, we will take this into account as part of any compensation for a service failure.
    2. up to £250 for distress and inconvenience, if the issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the resident.
    3. Between £250 – £700 if the issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in moderate inconvenience having demonstratable impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating repairs

  1. The resident first reported issues with his bedroom radiator to the landlord on 3 December 2022. The landlord acted appropriately by sending its contractor to investigate on 5 December 2022, which was within its target timescale of 28 calendar days for routine repairs. The landlord acted reasonably by relying on the contractor’s recommendation that the repair should be treated as a routine repair and that no interim measures were required at that time.
  2. At this initial appointment the contractor told the landlord the resident declined its offer to isolate the bedroom radiator. The contractor told the landlord this would prevent the boiler from losing pressure and the resident would have heating in the rest of the house. The resident told the Ombudsman that he did not refuse, he told the contractor it would not be possible to isolate the radiator. The landlord acted reasonably by relying on the advice of its contractor that the radiator could be isolated.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 16 December 2022 to seek his permission to isolate the radiator. Its records show the resident refused this appointment. The resident told the Ombudsman he spoke to the contractor after this and told them to assess whether the radiator could be isolated, however, he did not hear back from them. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence of the communication between the contractor and the resident and therefore cannot investigate this further. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to contact the resident to discuss why he thought the radiator could not be isolated, and to discuss the process and that it could restore his heating. The landlord failed to do this, this was not customer focused. The landlord failed to be pro-active in resolving the situation.
  4. The resident told the landlord on 4 January 2023 he had been without heating for a month, there was no evidence the landlord contacted him back. The evidence shows the landlord contacted the contractor and asked it to arrange an appointment to fix the radiator and said the resident had refused to have the radiator isolated. The landlord was aware that there was a delay in the radiator being replaced and the resident was without heating during the winter period. However, there was no evidence the landlord contacted the contractor to discuss if there were any alternative options to restore the residents heating or any interim measures or support it could put in place until the repair was completed.
  5. It is not disputed there was a lack of communication from the landlord throughout the repair process. The contractual obligation remains between the landlord and the resident. The landlord was therefore responsible for updating the resident, setting expectations of when visits will take place, and notifying the resident if delays were expected. The landlord failed to do this. It also made promises on several occasions that it would call the resident back but failed to do so. This resulted in the resident becoming frustrated and regularly chasing updates. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage his expectations.
  6. The resident told the Ombudsman he wanted compensation for the cost of running heaters for the 58 calendar days he was without heating. Although the landlord may not have been proactive in trying to resolve the repair, unfortunately, there is no evidence the resident gave it an opportunity to try to isolate the radiator and restore his heating. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to order the landlord to pay compensation for the cost of the resident using heaters.
  7. In summary, there were delays in the landlord carrying out the repairs. There was evidence of poor communication and the landlord failed to consider any interim measures or support whilst the resident waited for the repair to be completed. Although it is recognised that the lack of heating and hot water had a significant impact on the resident, the heating and hot water may have been restored had the radiator been isolated. The landlord acknowledged, apologised and offered £150 compensation for the impact the delays and its lack of communication had on the resident. The landlord also showed learning from this complaint, it provided evidence of the feedback it gave to its staff members to ensure residents are provided with updates on their repairs. The redress offered was in line with the amount recommended in the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance. It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the compensation offered was reasonable redress by the landlord.
  8. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The resident expressed a clear dissatisfaction with the landlord’s services on 13 December 2022 and numerous times in January 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 March 2023, this was 61 working days later. It is noted the landlord only accepted the complaint after the Ombudsman became involved. This was an inappropriate delay. The landlord failed to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 March 2023, this was within its target timescale of 10 working days. The landlord acted appropriately by considering all the complaint issues the resident raised within its response. It detailed what action it had taken, what action it was going to take.
  3. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 17 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this within its 2 working day timescale. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 22 March 2023 to discuss a resolution to the complaint.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 13 April 2023, this was within its 20-working day target timescale. The landlord provided a clear explanation on why it had upheld its previous decision. It acknowledged and apologised for the fact that it had provided the resident with the incorrect email address to make a complaint. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with evidence that it had discussed this error and provided feedback to its customer service team.
  5. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was an inappropriate delay in the landlord accepting the complaint. However, once the complaint had been accepted the landlord maintained effective communication with the resident, investigated all the complaint issues, and considered the impact on the resident. It acknowledged and apologised for its mistakes, showed learning and attempted to put things right. Its offer of £60 compensation was in line with its compensation policy and the Ombudsman remedy guidance. It is the opinion of the Ombudsman that the compensation offered was reasonable redress by the landlord.
  6. Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of heating repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.