The Guinness Partnership Limited (202302274)

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Leak

7. On 9 June 2023, when the resident raised her stage 1 complaint, she said she had been contacting the landlord about a leak and received no response.
8. On 28 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
   1. the resident’s neighbour had an ongoing leak and there had been issues with access
9. On 28 August 2023, the landlord’s records show a contractor attended to investigate and repair a roof leak and the “immediate leak source was mitigated.”
10. On 15 September 2023, after the resident remained unhappy, the landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response. It said it had no further outstanding repairs scheduled relating to the leak.
11. On 8 December 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint and mentioned a leak affecting her daughter’s bedroom.
12. On 2 January 2024, the landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response. It said it was treating the leak in the bedroom as a new report and a contractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment. It was appropriate for the landlord to treat this as a new report.
13. It also said a roofing repair had been completed, and on 19 December 2023, a different engineer identified a slow leak. It aimed to make the repair as a matter of urgency.
14. On 9 January 2024, the landlord in its stage 2 complaint response said the leak reported in the bedroom was scheduled for 19 January 2024. It apologised this was outside of its 20 working day timescale. It offered £75 for the delays in scheduling roof repairs.
15. On 19 January 2024, the landlord’s records show a site report relating to a leak in the dry riser cupboard next to the affected bedroom and a leak above the bedroom window. It stated there was an open vent pipe on the upper neighbour’s balcony. The report stated there was missing pointing and this was repointed with mortar. It is not clear to this Service if further work was completed in relation to the balcony.
16. On 2 August 2024, the landlord’s records show a further damp and mould wash was completed at the resident’s property and a mould wash was completed in the dry riser cupboard. This was 138 working days from the site report about the leak and was unreasonable in the circumstances because it was not in line with the landlord’s own policies and procedures.
17. On 20 August 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had identified further failings when getting the information requested by this Service. It said although the case was now with the Ombudsman it offered sincerest apologies and increased its compensation to £200 for delays in completing repairs.
18. We recognise the landlord looked to revisit the issue to try and put things right, but its revised compensation offer was over 7 months after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure.
19. As a result, it cannot fairly be considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints process. We cannot use it to reach a finding of reasonable redress. But the landlord’s total award is also consistent with our remedies guidance, and we have not ordered it to pay any additional compensation.
20. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak. It was delayed over a prolonged period of time, and the resident was required to chase the landlord on multiple occasions. The landlord did take some action, but this was delayed and not in line with its own policies and procedures. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident.

Damp and mould

21. On 9 June 2023, the resident raised her stage 1 complaint. She said she had been contacting the landlord about the issues and received no response. She also said there was an ongoing issue with mould, and it was not resolved. The resident had requested an air quality test as she and her daughter were unwell, and the symptoms were worse at home.
22. We recognise the situation was distressing for the resident. While we consider distress and inconvenience caused by landlord failings, personal injury claims are best addressed by the courts, which can rely on independent medical evidence. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or injury.
23. On 28 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. it agreed for a further inspection to be carried out in the resident’s home
    2. it arranged for another specialist contractor to carry out another assessment and measure the humidity in the resident’s home and the contractor would contact the resident directly
    3. it apologised for the failure to call the resident back within its timescale of 2 working days
    4. it offered £10 to the resident for the failed callback within 2 working days
24. On 10 August 2023, the landlord’s records show “customer thought she had mould but didn’t.” but it still completed a mould wash in the resident’s home.
25. On 15 September 2023, the landlord in its further stage 1 complaint response said the contractor undertaking the air quality test was going to confirm dates for the test. It apologised for the delay in having the test completed and acknowledged the resident’s frustration. It offered £75 for poor communication and time, trouble, and inconvenience in completing air test. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
26. On 29 September 2023, the landlord’s records show the air quality test was conducted. On 4 October 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and said it was awaiting the air quality test results and when received it would pass them to the resident.
27. On 6 November 2023, after receiving the test results, the resident told the landlord she had specifically requested an assessment that would focus on mould spores and mycotoxins, but this testing did not happen.
28. On 15 November 2023, the landlord replied to the resident apologising for the delay in responding. It said in the resident’s complaint it did not state which tests she requested. As the complaint was closed an additional test would need to be requested through the usual routes.
29. On 29 November 2023, a further complaint was made on behalf of the resident relating to the same issues.
30. On 2 January 2024, in its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the air test conducted in September 2023 showed the chemicals found were not because of damp and mould. The test results were negative for mould spores. It did not test for mycotoxins as this was not a service it provided.
31. It also said there was no evidence of damp and mould in resident’s home and did not believe damp and mould in a neighbouring property was having any impact on the resident’s home.
32. On 9 January 2024, after intervention by this Service, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It outlined the timeline of events from the resident making her complaint and the actions it had taken. It confirmed there was no damp and mould in the resident’s home and said because of this the repairs to her neighbour’s home would not be affecting the resident or her family.
33. It said while it had carried out the necessary repairs and air checks it would arrange 1 more air check within 20 working days to ensure air was safe for the resident and her daughter.
34. It also identified its poor communication and had not returned calls to the resident within its timescales on 5 occasions, and it apologised to the resident. It increased its offer of compensation to £75 for poor communication.
35. On 16 February 2024, the landlord’s records show a mould investigation report was completed. It recorded high levels of potentially toxic moulds were found in the property and recorded “likely to be a damp problem in the building that is adversely affecting the indoor air quality.” It made recommendations to remedy the situation including:
    1. removal of a plasterboard ceiling and intrusively inspect cavities
    2. removal of a window reveal and skirting board
    3. replace water damaged shelves
    4. upgrade of Mechanical Ventilation with Heat Recovery (MVHR) unit
36. In April 2024, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had not received any updates or communication as promised. On 16 April 2024, the landlord apologised for the delay and said it had not yet received a response.
37. On 14 May 2024, the landlord’s records show the MVHR unit was replaced. But it is not clear to this Service if the landlord considered or took forward the other recommendations. The replacement of the MVHR unit was 61 working days from the inspection and this was unreasonable in the circumstances because it was not in line with its policies and procedures.
38. On 20 August 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident about her contact with this Service. It said when preparing the information requested by the Ombudsman, it had identified further failures in how it handled the resident’s complaint. It said:
    1. it did not detail next steps in the stage 2 complaint response
    2. it was delayed in completing the air quality test
    3. it was delayed in replacing the MVHR
    4. it offered further compensation which replaced what was offered at stage 2 of the complaint process. It offered £700 which was broken down:
       1. £75 for poor communication
       2. £625 for time, trouble, inconvenience, and personal impact to the resident
39. It also told the resident what was doing to improve its service including reviewing its responsive repairs policy and was now employing qualified surveyors for investigating complex damp and mould cases. It also reviewed its promised actions after the stage 2 complaint to ensure they are monitored and regular updates are provided to the resident.
40. While this Service welcomes the fact the landlord looked to revisit the issue to try and put things right, its revised compensation offer was over 7 months after the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure and was after the intervention of this Service.
41. As a result, it cannot fairly be considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints process. We cannot use it to reach a finding of reasonable redress. But the landlord’s total award is also consistent with our remedies guidance. As a result, we have not ordered it to pay any additional compensation.
42. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, and we have ordered the landlord to apologise because:
    1. the landlord’s records show the resident was reported concerns about damp and mould as early as January 2023
    2. it was delayed in conducting the air quality tests it had committed to
    3. it was delayed in completing a recommendation from the mould inspection and it is not clear if it gave due regard to the other recommendations made in the inspection

Summary

43. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould. It is recognised the landlord did undertake some air quality testing, but it was delayed in completing this and other repairs. The situation was prolonged over a period of time.
44. It did not follow its own policies and procedures. It did recognise some of these failings during the complaint process, but it was not until August 2024 when the landlord told the resident how it had learnt from the complaint, recognised the personal impact to the resident, and changes it had made. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident.

45. On 9 June 2023, the resident made her stage 1 complaint. This Service has not seen evidence of the landlord acknowledging the complaint and this was unreasonable in the circumstances and is not in line with its own policies and procedures.
46. On 28 July 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 36 working days from the complaint being made. This was unreasonable in the circumstances because it was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord offered £75 for the delay in responding to the complaint and this was appropriate in the circumstances.
47. On 1 September 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and told her that her escalation request was outside the 15 working days advised and it would need to be handled at stage 1 again. The resident agreed to this. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day.
48. On 15 September 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 11 working days from the complaint acknowledgement.
49. On 29 November 2023, the resident raised a further a further complaint on the same issues via the headteacher at her daughter’s school.
50. On 8 December 2023, the resident requested her complaint to be escalated as it had not received the attention it deserved.
51. On 14 December 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and told her it required a 10 working day extension. On 2 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. This was 11 after the extension request.
52. On 3 January 2024, after intervention from this Service, the landlord’s acknowledged the escalation request to the resident.
53. On 9 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. This was 11 working days after the complaint acknowledgement. It increased its offer of compensation to £100 for complaint handling failures. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
54. On 20 August 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident about her contact with this Service. It said when preparing the information request by the Ombudsman it had identified further failures in how it handled the resident’s complaint. It said:
    1. on 3 occasions It had failed to respond to complaints within its timeframes in its Complaints Policy
    2. it should have considered the personal impact on the resident as the matter was not resolved and it should have escalated the complaint earlier
    3. it offered £100 for poor complaint handling
    4. it had a new training programme for all complaint handling staff
55. There was a failure in service to the resident in the handling of her complaint. While the landlord did acknowledge delays in its complaint responses it did not demonstrate how it had learnt from the complaint between the complaint responses. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident.

Learning

56. The landlord should ensure its complaint handling adheres to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and its own policies and procedures.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

57. There was sufficient information provided to allow this investigation to be completed.

Communication

58. As mentioned in this report, there were multiple occasions when the landlord did not respond to the resident in line with its own timeframes. We have made an order relating to this.