The Guinness Partnership Limited (202319222)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319222

The Guinness Partnership Limited

12 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s report of a collapsed wall at the front of her property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident has held a shared ownership lease for the property with the landlord, a housing association since January 2001. The property is a 3-bedroom house. There is no record of any vulnerable people living at the property.
On 21 November 2022, the resident reported that the stone wall at the front of her property had collapsed onto the public pavement following adverse weather. The landlord told her that it was the responsibility of their insurer and gave her the relevant contact and policy number.
The insurer told the resident that it would not cover the wall so the resident contacted the landlord again on 25 November 2022 and asked it to complete repairs. It told the resident that she was responsible for the maintenance and repair of the wall under the terms of the lease. It gave the resident the details of how to contest the insurance decision if she wished to do so. She requested a copy of the insurance policy, and the landlord sent her a copy of the policy summary.
On 10 January 2023, the resident made a formal complaint stating:
1. The landlord had breached the terms of the lease which set out that it was responsible for making claims on insurance, and that it had to provide a copy of the insurance policy on request.
2. The lease stated that the landlord would maintain any boundary walls and the resident was to pay a fair proportion, but this did not happen.
3. The landlord should have checked that its buildings policy covered all aspects of the land.
4. A large proportion of the wall was on the public highway and the local highways department had been pressuring her to arrange a repair.
5. The situation had caused her a lot of stress and upset as she was a pensioner and not in the best health.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 January 2023 to say that she had full repair responsibility under the terms of the lease and included a copy of the land registry title plan. It said that the front wall was not a boundary wall as it has been demised under the shared ownership lease to the resident as the leaseholder.
It acknowledged her complaint on 9 February 2023 and said it would provide a full response within 10 working days. On 16 March 2023, the landlord responded at stage 1 of the complaints process. It said:
1. It confirmed that the front wall was not a boundary wall as it was demised to the resident in the lease.
2. It signposted the resident to the section of the lease relating to repairs and maintenance.
3. It told the resident that she could contact the Leasehold Advisory Service (LAS) and the Ombudsman if she wanted any additional advice.
4. It apologised for the delays she experienced in getting a clear response about ownership of the wall, and for the number of times she had to call.
5. It offered £110 compensation made up of:
  1. £50 for poor communication about who was responsible for repairing the wall.
  2. £60 for complaint handling delays.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure on 22 March 2023. She disputed the landlord’s definition of a boundary wall and stated that it had not addressed her questions regarding the insurance being the landlord’s responsibility. She did not accept the compensation. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and advised it would respond within 20 working days.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord told the resident that it was still gathering information to investigate the complaint and there would be a delay. The resident chased the stage 2 response on 1 May 2023, and it contacted her again on 16 May 2023 to say that it was awaiting feedback regarding the lease from the council’s lead solicitor and would update her as soon as possible.
It issued the final response on 25 May 2023, and partially upheld her complaint due to complaint handling delays. It explained that it had consulted the homeowner legal services team and the lead solicitor and stated:
1. While the wall was continuous and formed the boundary of several properties, the lease itself demised the wall within her property boundaries to her. Her property boundaries were defined in the plans from the Land Registry, which showed the wall as her responsibility.
2. All maintenance and repairs were therefore her responsibility under the terms of the lease.
3. It apologised for the delays and confusion and provided the resident with contact information for the LAS and Ombudsman.
4. It offered an additional £60 for complaint handling due to the delays with the stage 2 response.
The resident contacted us and asked us to investigate her complaint on 26 September 2023. Following our contact in June 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to summarise its findings following her complaint. It said that the response contained inaccurate dates and spelling mistakes, and it apologised for any additional frustration or distress. It reiterated its offer of compensation and said that since her complaint it had implemented a new training programme to ensure all staff followed the complaint process correctly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaint journey, the resident stated that the situation was having a negative impact on her health. We understand that this was a challenging time for the resident however we cannot make any determinations about any impact on the resident’s health. However, we will consider any overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case may have caused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a collapsed wall at the front of her property

The lease states that:
1. The leaseholder must keep the premises repaired at all times.
2. The leaseholder must contribute a fair proportion, as assessed by the landlord, towards the reasonable cost of repairing and maintaining any boundary walls, fences, hedges.
3. The landlord will always keep the premises insured against loss of damage during the term. It must also on request provide the leaseholder with a copy of the policy and the receipt for the last premium.
4. In the event of the premises being damaged, destroyed by fire or affected by other risks covered by the insurance, the landlord must make a claim against the insurance.
5. The leaseholder, at their own cost, must complete works on the premises that are directed or required by any national, local, or other public authority.
The Land Registry holds a plan of the plot and according to the landlord’s records, 3 walls were marked with a T on this plan which indicated structure ownership. This includes the wall which collapsed. Based on this information, the landlord’s decision not to complete works itself was reasonable based on the terms of the lease.
The resident told the landlord that the local highways department had asked her to complete repairs as the wall presented a health and safety risk to the public roadway. Under the terms of the lease, the responsibility lay with the resident to complete works on the property as directed by local authorities.
When the resident first reported that the wall had collapsed the landlord told her to contact its insurance company. The lease states that the landlord is responsible for making any claims, so the landlord should have done so on the resident’s behalf. She asked for a copy of the policy and while the landlord did provide the policy summary, in line with its policy it should have provided a copy of the insurance policy wording.
There was some confusion with the landlord as to whether it was responsible for the wall as it recognised the wall served as a boundary wall for a few properties. Internal records show that several departments were consulted, and it took photographs so that they could be compared to the plan in the lease.
It was positive that the landlord consulted its legal services team to gain clarity on the responsibility for the wall. Once its lead solicitor had given advice, it relayed this to the resident in its final complaint response.
We recognise that there was a great deal of confusion for the resident, and the prospect of unexpected repair costs may have been distressing. The landlord originally indicated that the repair would be covered by its insurance company, and then later informed her that she was responsible for the wall. This led to additional delays and inconvenience for the resident as she had to speak with the insurance company and then chase the landlord for updates.
During the complaints process, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for poor communication regarding who had legal responsibility for the wall. Where there are failings by a landlord, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The compensation offered in this case was consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a collapsed wall. Its original advice to contact the insurance company was incorrect and not in accordance with the lease. This caused additional frustration and inconvenience for the resident. Several departments were consulted internally so that the resident could be given a definite answer on who was legally responsible. However, it should have been clear to all staff so that the resident was given the right information on the first call. The landlord offered compensation for the inconvenience, time, and trouble the resident experienced, which was consistent with our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. At each stage, it provides the contact details for the Ombudsman so that residents can get advice. In both stages of the complaint the landlord provided contact information for the Leasehold Advisory Service and the Ombudsman in case the resident wanted to seek additional advice.
It was 26 working days between the stage 1 acknowledgement and the stage 1 response. This is 16 days longer than the 10 days stated in its policy. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered £60 compensation. At stage 2, it was 42 working days which was 22 days over the 20-day response time in its policy. It offered another £60 compensation for the delay in complaint response.
There is evidence that the complaint handler contacted the resident to provide updates on the complaint, and to apologise for the delays. While the delay may have caused additional inconvenience for the resident, the landlord attempted to minimise it. Despite this, the resident did have to chase a response on one occasion.
Internal records show that the complaint handler at stage 2 contacted the homeowner legal team and the lead solicitor to gain clarity on the lease terms. They also queried whether a similar complaint where it completed partial repairs would act as precedent, however they were advised the wall was not the same construction or in the same position. This was positive as the solicitor would be the most appropriate person to interpret the terms of the lease.
Following contact from the Ombudsman, the landlord updated the resident on what it had learned since the complaint. It found that it had made some clerical errors at stage 1 and apologised. It also told her that it was implementing a new training programme to ensure complaint investigations were thorough and timely. This demonstrated a commitment to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Considering the evidence, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling as its responses were not issued in a timely manner. However, the landlord apologised at both stages, kept the resident updated on its progress and made an offer of compensation. The compensation proportionately reflects the impact of the delay on the resident and amounts to reasonable redress in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a collapsed wall at the front of her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £170 compensation offered during the complaints process.
The landlord should provide refresher training for staff on its policy for insurance claims. This will ensure residents are given correct advice at the first point of call.