The Guinness Partnership Limited (202318479)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318479

The Guinness Partnership Limited

11 March 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:
   1. Reports of repairs to the communal roof and its decision to re-charge the resident.
   2. The complaint.

Background

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a 1-bedroom flat on the third floor within a 5-storey building. The landlord is not the freeholder of the building. The managing agent (the agent) is responsible for certain repairs to the building, on the freeholder’s behalf.
3. On 13 December 2022 the landlord emailed leaseholders of the block regarding the condition of the roof. It explained that while the condition of the roof had an effect on its residents, it did not have authority or control over the actions of the freeholder or their agent and that the roof required major works. Between April and June 2023, roof repairs were carried out by a contractor on behalf of the agent.
4. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 27 May 2023. He said the roof was in a ‘deplorable’ condition and felt the landlord had neglected the building. He also said it had failed to take action to address the state of the roof since the building’s completion in 2009 despite notifying it about this many times. He continued to contact the landlord again on 2 and 3 June 2023 reiterating his concerns. He felt the landlord allowed the situation to deteriorate and that this resulted in repair costs being passed onto residents which he felt was unfair. He wanted the landlord, the agent, and the freeholder to take full responsibility for the condition of the roof.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 July 2023. It did not uphold the complaint. It said repairs to the roof loft hatch were completed on 14 June 2023 to help prevent any leaks and that there were plans for a roof replacement. It said it would not pass on the increased cost of the roof, and would only pass on the original cost quoted in November 2021. It also apologised for the delay in providing its stage 1 response and offered £50 in recognition. 
6. The resident asked to escalate his complaint the same day. He felt the landlord failed to adequately address the severity and longevity of the roof issue. He also felt it was unfair that the landlord only investigated occurrences within the last 6 months. He added the landlord did not utilise the ten-year building insurance to rectify the roof, despite him reporting concerns. He wanted a professional assessment of the roof and repairs or replacement carried out at the landlord’s expense.
7. The landlord issued its stage 2 final response on 25 July 2023. It did not uphold the complaint and repeated its position in its stage 1 response. It said the landlord was not responsible for the cost of roof replacement and this cost would be retrieved through the service charge in line with the terms of the lease. It added that any increase to the initial quote received for this work would not be passed on to residents. It reiterated, due to the time that elapsed, it would not investigate concerns further back than 6 months. It said it could not confirm the condition of the roof in 2009/2010, or whether a claim via the building insurance would have been permissible or feasible. It added it was not responsible for carrying out these roof works and these would be dealt with by a contractor appointed by the agent. The agent was responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, and they would contact him with details of the planned work.
8. In the resident’s complaint to this service, he believed the landlord had not adequately addressed the roof issue and that its 6-month limitation on investigations was inappropriate. On 10 May 2024 the landlord reviewed the complaint identifying there were failings it had not previously recognised. It noted the resident had pursued this matter since September 2022, and that there were internal landlord delays in communicating with the agent and freeholder. It offered £250 compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience in pursuing this matter. It also offered a further £100 for its poor handling of the complaint.
9. The roof appeared to be replaced at some point between April 2024 and February 2025. However, the resident remained concerned that the costs would be passed on. As an outcome, he wanted an apology, further compensation for the distress and inconvenience and for the landlord to pay for the roof.

Assessment and findings

The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation

10. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s comments that the issues with the roof were longstanding and that he had reported this as early as 2011. While this may be the case, the Ombudsman has seen that the resident formally complained to the landlord in May 2023. In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which was not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Accordingly, this report will therefore focus on the relevant events from 12 months prior to the resident’s submission of his formal complaint of May 2023 to the landlord’s final response of July 2023. This is because it is difficult for us to investigate further back than that as records may not be available, accounts become less reliable and it becomes more problematic to validate and verify information.

The landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the communal roof and its decision to re-charge the resident

11. The resident and landlord’s lease states that the landlord must maintain, redecorate and renew all external parts and common parts of the building, and references the headlease for defined terms of the property and common parts. The landlord’s responsibilities under their lease must be read in conjunction with those set out in the head lease between the landlord and the freeholder.
12. The landlord has provided the head lease agreement for the property, which states that the freeholder is responsible for repairs to the structure of the building, including the roof. While the lease agreement between the resident and the landlord states that the landlord “shall maintain repair redecorate renew … the roof foundations and the main structure of the building”, the freeholder of the building is ultimately responsible for completing the repairs, although the landlord also has a role to ensure that such repairs are completed.
13. When the work was identified as the freeholder’s responsibility, the landlord should have promptly contacted the agent to complete the work on the freeholder’s behalf. It should have also regularly pursued updates from the agent and passed on relevant information to the resident in a clear and timely manner.
14. On 13 December 2022 the landlord’s homeowner team issued a letter to leaseholders setting out that the landlord was not responsible for how the roof was repaired and that it had been in discussion with the agent and that major works would be required. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep residents informed and for it to set out its position.
15. As part of his complaint, the resident raised concerns regarding the responsibility for the roof and that he felt the landlord had neglected the situation. He asserted that the landlord had allowed the roof to deteriorate and felt that due to the length of time taken to complete the repairs this likely resulted in further costs and an increased chance of damage. It was reasonable that the landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 response that it would not recharge more than the roof works would have initially cost. It advised it received a quote in November 2021 and that these would be applied to service charge accounts.
16. This came about from a previous Ombudsman case for the landlord in the same building, 202202262, where we found that there were delays caused by the landlord in engaging with the agent. We considered that due to these delays, leaseholders in the block should not be affected by a potential increase in service charge costs, due to the length of time taken to complete the roof repairs. The landlord effectively advised it would not recharge more than the repair would have initially cost, regardless of any further deterioration.
17. In this case, the landlord appropriately referred to this in its formal responses, and consistently and clearly explained that resident leaseholders have an obligation to contribute towards the cost of the roof repair/replacement through service charges. Considering the terms of the lease, and the obligations of the landlord, this was appropriate and fair, and showed it was not treating the resident unfavourably to other leaseholders.
18. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on “landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents” identified the landlord is responsible for liaising with the freeholder or managing agent as required, and ensuring it holds them accountable for fulfilling their obligations and responsibilities. With respect to the resident’s complaint, the landlord engaged well with the agent, though it is appreciated in other landlord cases for the same building, we previously found the landlord failed to pursue the issue with the agent in a timely manner which resulted in no meaningful action in progressing the roof works.
19. In the resident’s escalation request, he said it was unfair that the landlord only investigated occurrences in the proceeding 6 months from the date of his complaint. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident felt the landlord was absolved from any responsibility in doing so. However, the landlord’s complaints policy was in accordance with our Complaint Handling Code at the time and it was therefore entitled to apply this to the resident’s complaint. The landlord also reasonably explained that it was unable to confirm the condition of the roof 10 years prior, and that it could not confirm whether a claim via the building insurance would have been permissible or feasible. Given the elapsed time since 2009/10, these comments from the landlord were balanced and fair.
20. Overall, the landlord acted fairly by explaining it was not responsible for the cost of the roof replacement and that this would be retrieved via service charges in line with terms of the lease. It consistently and clearly explained this throughout its complaints process. However, the landlord failed to identify its lack of communication between September and December 2022 regarding a leak from a property above, which appeared to be a separate issue to his concerns about the roof. Nevertheless, this led to the resident pursuing the landlord on several occasions, eventually making a formal complaint about the roof causing him additional time and trouble. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to comment on this and offer an appropriate remedy. Yet, it did not recognise this at any time during the complaints process.
21. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord apologised for its communication failures in its May 2024 complaint review and offered £250 compensation in recognition of this. This service’s remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience and suggests awards from £100 in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord recognised its failings, and compensated accordingly. It was also appropriate that the landlord demonstrated it had learned from the outcome of the complaint, as it stated feedback had been given to the repairs team, to ensure that it provided clear, consistent communication regarding responsibilities for repairs going forward. A recommendation has been made to reinforce this.
22. Its findings and the remedies offered outside its complaints process has now met this service’s expectations for appropriate resolution and redress. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord paid this £250 compensation in May 2024. However, we expect landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2. Had the landlord done so, it would have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right through its complaints process. It appears the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation and had it offered this compensation during the complaints process it likely would have been satisfactory in putting things right. As it did not, however, this there was service failure in its handling of reports of repair issues to a communal roof.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

23. In accordance with the landlord’s complaint handling policy, the landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The resident raised a formal complaint on 27 May 2023, and the landlord only acknowledged the complaint on 22 June 2023 following further contact from the resident on 2 and 3 June 2023. It subsequently issued its stage 1 response on 19 July 2023. This exceeded its response timeframe, and there was no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to inform him about the delay and requesting an extension to allow it more time to investigate the matter. This was inappropriate and likely made the resident feel his concerns were ignored.
24. It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delay in issuing its stage 1 complaint response. It offered the resident £50 compensation for delays in way of an apology which was paid in July 2023. Additionally, the landlord’s formal responses failed to identify or address its poor communication despite the resident raising this as an issue throughout. It was not until May 2024 after the resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman did the landlord apologise and recognised its poor communication. Its 2024 complaint review identified these failings and offered a further £100 compensation which was paid in May 2024. Further, it identified learning such as staff training.
25. Overall, it paid compensation of £150 for its complaint handling which exceeded the suggested awards of up to £100 in line with this service’s remedies guidance where there was a minimal failing by the landlord, frustration to the resident but may not have significantly affected the overall outcome, as was the case here. Nonetheless, the landlord should have recognised these complaint handling errors sooner and within its complaints process. No further orders have been made because the Ombudsman is satisfied the compensation awarded by the accompanied apology adequately put matters right, though an adverse finding has been made to encourage further learning to prevent to recurrence of this situation.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the communal roof and its decision to re-charge the resident.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Recommendation

28. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s report titled “landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents”, particularly recommendation 3. This encourages landlords to ensure they have clear and accurate communication mechanisms with managing agents and/or freeholder.