The Guinness Partnership Limited (202309509)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309509

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 February 2025

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. Report that an electrical cable was incorrectly supplying electricity from her property to a separate garage below.
   2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat, and the landlord is a housing association. The property is located above a garage which does not form part of the resident’s accommodation.
3. Void and electrical inspections were carried out at the property in November 2019, prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy in December 2019.
4. In May 2023, the resident’s neighbour made her aware that there was electrical cabling running from the property into the garage below (seemingly installed by a previous tenant). The resident raised the issue with the landlord on 23 May 2023 and an operative attended on 31 May 2023. The cabling was identified and removed that day.
5. The resident submitted a complaint by telephone the same day, saying that the non-standard cabling should have been identified and addressed during the void inspections. She was concerned she had been paying for electricity used in the garage since the start of her tenancy.
6. In its response of 14 June 2023, the landlord declined to investigate the complaint on the basis that the issue giving rise to the complaint occurred more than 6 months before the complaint was made. It noted that the cabling issue had been resolved and directed the resident to us if she was dissatisfied.
7. The resident referred the complaint to us in July 2023, stating that the property had not been properly inspected before she moved in. Following our notification to the landlord in April 2024 that we would be investigating the complaint, it carried out a case review. It found that it should not have declined to investigate the complaint as the resident had only just become aware of the issue when the complaint was made. It apologised, offered £250 compensation, confirmed that the complaint investigation would now be carried out, and detailed the learning it had taken from the case.
8. The landlord provided the outcome of its investigation on 8 May 2024. It advised that:
   1. The garage had become vacant in September 2019 (prior to the start of the resident’s tenancy) and had not been occupied again until November 2023 (after the cabling had been removed). As a result, the electricity supply had not been misused during her tenancy.
   2. The resident should supply copies of her annual electric usage summaries along with her current usage since the cabling had been removed so that these could be reviewed for any additional usage costs.
   3. It was undertaking a review of its Empty Home Repair Standard guidance.
   4. Its voids team complete full pre- and post- inspections on an electronic form, which includes images of the property internally and externally and commentary with any recommendations of repairs.

Assessment and findings

Electrical cable supplying the garage

9. The property was inspected prior to being let to the resident. It is not clear from the evidence why the landlord did not identify during that inspection that there was non-standard electric cabling supplying the garage below. It should have then investigated the cabling issue in May 2023 when the resident reported this. But, it did not.
10. Once the resident became aware of the cabling she reported it to the landlord for its removal. The landlord’s repair policy says it is committed to working with its customers to achieve improvements in service delivery and performance, including by seeking feedback and responding effectively to complaints. It also sets out timeframes for carrying out repairs, categorising them as emergency (24 hours) or routine (28 days). The resident’s report met the definition of a routine repair.
11. The landlord responded promptly (within 7 days) to remove the cable, in line with its repairs policy. However, it did not investigate why/how it was installed in the first place and why/how it had been left in place after its voids inspection. It also did not consider any financial detriment to the resident as a result of its potential failing. The resident had expressed concerns about this at the time of her report which should have been investigated and responded to.
12. The resident has said she would like to see the electrician’s report from 31 May 2024, but no report was produced. It is not our expectation that a full electrician’s report would be produced during a routine repair such as this. However, the landlord is expected to carry out annual electrical inspections, so should the resident have wider concerns in this regard, this should be raised with the landlord in the first instance for its consideration. Following this if she is still dissatisfied, she can refer this to us.
13. Once the landlord investigated in May 2024, it established that there was no actual detriment to the resident due to the garage being vacant for the duration of the issue. It also invited her to provide evidence of any financial impact of the cabling such as her electric bill summary for before and after the cable removal. This was an appropriate response, albeit delayed by a year. It is not known whether the resident provided the requested evidence, but the landlord made her aware of the action required for it to consider and compensate for any financial loss, which is sufficient.
14. The landlord explained the learning it had taken from the case and confirmed that the voids process was under review. However, it did not actually address the resident’s concern about the standard of the inspection prior to her tenancy starting. It did not comment on the inspection report/s produced prior to the resident taking possession or say whether the cabling should have been addressed at that time. This is not in line with our expectations or good practice.
15. In light of the above, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of an electric cable supplying electricity to the garage below. The landlord has already removed the cable, but an order is made for it to pay the resident £150 compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for its failure to fully investigate the issues raised. If it has not already done so, it should provide an explanation to the resident for why it failed to identify and remove the cable prior to the start of her tenancy.
16. We encourage landlords to self-assess against our Spotlight reports following publication. In March 2019, we published our Spotlight on complaints about repairs. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with the recommendations made in that report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless it can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Complaint handling

17. Following intervention by us, the landlord accepted its initial service failure in complaint handling. It sincerely apologised for this and offered £250 compensation for its error. It has further implemented changes that ensure all future refusals to consider a complaint are first reviewed and signed off by a senior manager.
18. These actions demonstrate that the landlord openly acknowledged areas for improvement and took action to rectify the identified failings. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. The compensation the landlord offered was proportionate to its failing and in line with our remedies guidance for findings of maladministration in complaint handling.
19. However, given that the landlord’s remedies were not offered as part of its complaints process, and were delayed by a year, it would not be appropriate for us to make a finding of reasonable redress. We have, therefore, found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, but only ordered it to pay the amount of compensation previously offered (if it has not done so already).
20. On 8 February 2024, we issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in policy and practice. The new Code applies from 1 April 2024 and we have a duty to monitor compliance with it. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. As a result, no specific order is made on this case with regard to the landlord’s compliance with the Code, and the contents of its policies and procedures in that regard.
21. However, an order is made for the landlord to review its handling of the complaint in this case, alongside the provisions of the Code in order to: understand how the failings occurred; identify areas for improvement; and note where current practices may be at odds with the requirements of the Code.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Report that an electrical cable was incorrectly supplying electricity from the property to the garage.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Orders

23. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has:
    1. Paid directly to the resident (and not offset against any rent arrears) £400 compensation, as follows:
       1. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the report an electrical cable was incorrectly supplying electricity from the resident’s property to a separate garage below.
       2. £250 it offered in recognition of the upset and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the associated complaint.
    2. Provide an explanation to the resident why the cable was not identified and removed prior to her occupation of the property.
    3. Reviewed the complaint handling failures highlighted in this investigation alongside the provisions of the Code.