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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202333249)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333249

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 June 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of repairs required to the property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. A stock condition survey was conducted by the landlord in March 2023. On 18 April 2023, the landlord raised works for the car port at the resident’s property following a surveyor’s report that stated the supporting post to the car port was not straight, supporting joist was cracked and the base of the post was not bolted to the ground.  
  2. On 16 May 2023 the landlord’s notes state the resident contacted it stating painting and decorating was needed in the bathroom due to a serious leak that remained unfixed for so long that they ended up having to do a lot of work downstairs as it was left dripping for weeks into a bucket in the hallway. The downstairs had been painted but the upstairs was not. The only works completed was the toilet being moved and the flooring changed.  On the same day the landlord raised repairs for built in wardrobes to be repaired.  
  3. On 15 September 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and stated that following the stock inspection some workmen had attended the property and had measured up for several things that were to be replaced. A few months had passed, and nobody had returned to do the work or called to make an appointment. The resident stated the repairs outstanding were:  Walk in wardrobe doors, bedroom door, cupboard under the stairs door, kitchen worktop sealant round sink and metal edge, lock on safety cupboard, a leak under sink which had had a bowl under it for months and was rotting the cupboard when it overflowed, bath sealant, bath panel to be replaced, painting bathroom and repair to the ceiling and a towel rail in the downstairs toilet that needed reattaching. The resident also informed the landlord the carport repair had been looked at but not done, this was a structural issue and therefore important for safety. 
  4. On 22 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and stated she had had no response to her email sent on 15 September 2023 and would like to escalate it to a complaint stating some of the repairs were many months old, were getting worse the longer they were left as water damage was becoming worse in the bathroom and kitchen. 
  5. The landlords records state it called the resident on 25 September 2023 and established the resident wanted the carport door looking at as a priority – the support beam in the middle was one brick and never had correct cladding to hold it in place.   The resident confirmed the repairs required in her email from 15 September 2023 and also asked for mould in a bedroom to be addressed. The resident forwarded photographs of the required repairs on 27 September 2023 to the landlord.
  6. The landlord issued its stage one response on 5 October 2023. The response stated one of the issues highlighted to it following the stock condition survey was a supporting post to the car-port, which was not placed correctly, causing additional stress to the structure. Its technicians attended to repair the fault but could not complete the required works and recommended that the works be passed to a Subcontractor. After two weeks of waiting for an update, the resident had asked for its Repairs Service Manager to visit and advised that there were multiple issues at the property which needed to be addressed and asked for a callback to discuss them further. It did not respond to that query within a reasonable timescale. It did arrange for a technician to attend to address some damage to doors, but when the operative arrived on 26 May 2023, they could not carry out the works.
  7. Having completed its investigation, the complaint was upheld. Once it was established that the Car port supports would need further works, it failed to respond to the resident’s repair concerns within a reasonable timescale and failed to keep the resident informed of progress. It offered £175 compensation and stated its Repairs Service Manager would visit the property to carry out an inspection of the required works on 19 October 2023. The follow-on works required for the carport were being arranged separately, and its subcontractor would be in touch to arrange an appointment. 
  8. The landlord escalated the complaint at the resident’s request on 31 October 2023. The landlord records state the request was received by the landlord on 27 October 2023.  The landlord’s records regarding the escalation request noted that the carport repair was urgent as this was a structural issue and the supporting pillar was leaning. It failed to attend for an inspection on 19 October 2023 and the sub-contractor had not been in touch about the carport repair. The resident was unhappy as no progress was made with the repairs. It had advised the complaint would be escalated on 27 October 2023 but didn’t escalate it until 31 October 2023. It did arrange a repair for blocked drains but didn’t arrange as an emergency as it had promised. The resident had advised that it had apologised for that, but nothing further was done about it. It advised that it would address that as part of the stage two complaint. 
  9. The landlord issued its stage two response on 28 November 2023. The landlord stated: 
    1. It found that the repair for the supporting pillar beneath the carport was first reported to it on 18 April 2023. It attended on 5 May 2023 to assess the repair and found that a pillar needed to be repositioned and fixed to the ground. Following this, it should have arranged a follow-on visit for the repair to go ahead but it failed to do so, and the repair was still outstanding. 
    2. The resident contacted it again via email on 16 May 2023, following a stock condition survey, and reported several repairs which she advised had been outstanding since 2017. It responded to advise that it had passed on her concerns about the outstanding repairs to its repair team and asked them to respond within two working days. However, her call was not returned within its advised timeframe, and it failed to follow up with her about the repairs. 
    3. In its stage one response, it advised the resident that it’s Service Manager would visit her on 23 October 2023 to assess the outstanding repairs. However, the visit did not go ahead, and its service manager failed to notify her of this. The landlord apologised to the resident. 
    4. The complaint was upheld regarding the outstanding repairs and poor communication from the landlord
    5. It offered the resident £335 consisting of £300 for the delay with the repairs, £25 for poor communication and £10 for failed promises. 
  10. In it stage two response the landlord noted that its service manager visited the resident on 16 November 2023, assessed the repairs, and it expected those to be completed by 8 December 2023. However, dependent on the findings of its visit to inspect the carport repair on 28 November 2023, additional visits may be needed. It would keep the resident informed about this and would contact her again on 9 December 2023 to ensure that no further issues remain outstanding. 

Events after the landlord’s formal complaints process.

  1. The landlord stated in its repairs records that it had completed works in December 2023 inside the property and the carport repairs were completed in March 2024.
  2. Following the completion of the carport repairs the landlord wrote to the resident in April 2024 and offered an additional compensation of £280 for the delays in those works being completed. It later increased the offer to £350 on 7 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. In correspondence with this Service the resident raised that she had reported damp and drainage issues at her property with the landlord. These issues were not raised as part of the resident’s initial complaint to the landlord in September 2023. It is noted that the resident raised a separate complaint with the landlord regarding those issues in March 2024 which she has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. For clarity that complaint will be investigated separately, and this investigation will focus on the complaint raised in September 2023 regarding outstanding repairs at the resident’s property which completed the landlord’s complaint process on 28 November 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the property.

  1. The landlord’s records showed that repairs were raised for the carport at the resident’s property on 18 April 2023 and wardrobes on 16 May 2023. In the resident’s complaint she listed many more repairs that were required throughout the property. The landlord records do not show any other repairs were raised until the resident contacted it on 15 September 2023.
  2. On 18 April 2023, the landlord raised works for the car port at the resident’s property. Although the landlord attended on 5 May 2023 to assess the repair and established further works were required it has not evidenced it remained in contact with the resident. This would have caused distress to the resident especially given the safety concerns about the structure.
  3. After waiting four months for an update regarding the outstanding repairs, the resident emailed the landlord on 15 September 2023 asking for an update. In the email the resident advised that the car port support was a safety concern and should have been addressed within a reasonable timescale. The landlord failed to respond to the resident or her safety concerns causing the resident to make a formal complaint on 22 September 2023.
  4. From the evidence provided there was no substantial reason for those delays to occur. It is not in dispute that the landlord was aware of the works required and had visited the property to inspect the carport. Under section 9 of the landlord’s repairs policy, it should complete a repair within 28 calendar days. At the time the complaint was formally made the repair had been outstanding for at least 158 calendar days after the landlord raised the works in April 2023.
  5. In the landlord’s stage one response issued on 5 October 2023. The landlord stated its technicians attended to repair the fault but could not complete the required works and recommended that the works be passed to a Subcontractor. The landlord acknowledged in the complaint response that once it was established that the car port supports would need further works, it failed to respond to the resident’s repair concerns within a reasonable timescale and failed to keep her informed of progress. This Service agrees with that conclusion as at this point the works had been outstanding for 171 calendar days after the landlord had raised the works in April 2023.
  6. The landlord did raise works for wardrobe doors within the expected timescales in the landlord repairs to be fitted but acknowledged in the stage one response that it had not responded to the resident’s request for a call back regarding other multiple repairs needing to be addressed. This meant no further works were raised by the landlord during this time period meaning all repairs identified were not completed within the landlord’s repairs policy timescales.
  7. After acknowledging those delays, the landlord would be expected to take steps to put things right. The landlord informed the resident in the stage one response that the follow-on works required for the carport were being arranged separately, and its sub–contractor should be in touch to arrange an appointment. The landlord arranged for a service manager to attend and inspect the outstanding repairs on 19 October 2023 for repairs to the carport. These were positive steps taken by the landlord.
  8. However, in escalating the complaint, the landlord’s records noted that it failed to attend the inspection on 19 October 2023 and the sub-contractor had not been in touch about the carport repair. This would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident and did not demonstrate the landlord was learning from the complaints process.
  9. A service manager did attend the resident’s property on 16 November 2023 and following that visit the landlord raised works for the remaining issues in the resident’s complaint between 21 November 2023 and 27 November 2023. The landlord’s repairs records stated those works were completed between 4 December 2023 and 11 December 2023 however this appears to be disputed by the resident in her correspondence to the landlord in which she stated appointments were either missed or cancelled. The landlord records were not clear regarding the dates it did attend for all repair issues raised and what works were completed during each attendance or if further appointments were either required or booked indicating a record keeping failure by the landlord.
  10. As part of the inspection the landlord inspected the internal doors that the resident had reported and determined that those doors would not be repaired as the landlord concluded the doors were damaged by a person who used to live in the property. This was disputed by the resident who said the landlord had offered to replace the door as a gesture of goodwill, however there is no evidence provided that offer was made to the resident.
  11. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for internal doors and door frames except where a resident or members of the household or visitors cause damage to those items, whether deliberate or accidental. Under this condition the landlord would be correct not to repair damaged internal doors.
  12. In the stage two response the landlord acknowledged that a manager should have visited the resident on 23 October 2023 to assess the outstanding repairs but it failed to do so. The landlord offered the resident £335 in compensation for the delays the resident had incurred.
  13. The evidence provided by the landlord showed that on 18 December 2023 it emailed the resident stating it was looking into the failed visits, had asked for a date for the remaining repairs to be provided as soon as possible and it asked its Repair Team to contact the resident directly. This would suggest the repairs were not fully completed at that time however the landlord records were not clear what repairs it was referring to.
  14. On 29 January 2024 the landlord told the resident it was waiting for an update on her carport repair, but it should have acknowledged her emails and explained to her that the outstanding works had been passed to a contractor who had advised that they expected work to be completed by mid-February 2024. Once complete, its service manager would carry out a post inspection to ensure that all work is satisfactory. At this time the repair was outstanding for at least nine months.
  15. The landlord did acknowledge this delay and that it would offer more compensation when works were completed. This again was a positive step as it was clearly aware of the prolonged process the resident had been through and that the delays continued after the formal complaint process had been completed.
  16. The landlord’s contractor attended on 2 February 2024 to inspect the car port and submitted a quote to the landlord of the works required. The resident confirmed the carport had been repaired on 20 March 2024. The landlord initially offered a further amount of £280 for the delays for the carport repairs which it later raised to £350 on 4 May 2024. This was in addition to the compensation of £335 it offered in the stage two response.
  17. The car port repairs remained uncompleted for a period of 338 calendar days, significantly more than the 28 calendar days the landlord states in its repairs policy it aims to complete a repair by. The other repairs referred to in the resident’s complaint in September 2023 that she tried to raise from May 2023 were also not completed within the landlord’s 28 calendar day timescale and were completed significantly beyond this timescale requiring the resident to need to frequently contact the landlord to get them done. This would have been further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  18. The landlord made a commitment in its stage one response to take action to complete the repairs to the carport and within the property. The landlord failed to do this within an appropriate timescale. In its own records the landlord acknowledged that at the time the resident escalated her complaint the repairs had not been completed, it had failed to attend a booked inspection, and its sub-contractor had not made contact with the resident. The landlord failed to undertake commitments it made in its complaint response and therefore failed to put things right for the resident.
  19. From the correspondence provided there was disagreement between the resident and landlord about the amount of compensation that had been offered. From the evidence provided the landlord offered a total award of compensation of £860 for its handling of repairs at the property consisting of £175 at stage one, £335 at stage two and the additional award of £350 once the car port had been repaired.
  20. This amount falls in the highest range the landlord offers in its compensation policy which it states is for issues that took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience having significant impact on the customer or the household which is likely to cause longer-term distress. The offer also falls within the range of compensation for maladministration this Service would award for distress and inconvenience.
  21. However, given the significant number of delays in all repair works being completed, the safety concerns regarding the carport repairs, the lack of updates and missed appointments by the landlord that award is not considered sufficient redress for the failings identified and an additional £100 should be paid to the resident. This means the total amount awarded is £960 inclusive of the offers previously made by the landlord. An order has also been made for the landlord to contact the resident regarding the repair issues raised in her email on 15 September 2023 and confirm all the repairs that the landlord is responsible for have all been completed.  

 

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The stage one response was issued within the timescales of 10 working days set out in the landlord’s complaints policy for a stage one response. The stage two escalation request was logged 1 working day late and the stage two response was also issued 1 working day late. The landlord is reminded of the need to ensure complaints are logged and issued in line with the timescales of its complaints policy.
  2. The landlord noted in both its complaint responses that the resident stated some repairs had been outstanding since 2017 and it informed the resident it could only consider complaints for events occurring within the previous six months. This was correct information provided to the resident and was in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at that time.
  3. In both stages of the complaint the landlord identified failings in its handling of the repairs at the resident’s property and informed the resident how it would put things right. The landlord however failed to complete the inspections it promised in its stage one response indicating it had failed to learn from the complaints process.
  4. The stage 2 response also committed to further visits and that it aimed to complete the repairs by 8 December 2023 although it did state the car port may take longer depending on the findings of a planned inspection.
  5. On 12 December 2023 the resident requested to escalate her complaint to a third stage due to the landlord not completing the repairs it committed to in the stage two response. The landlord informed the resident that it could not escalate the complaint any further and to contact this Service. While the landlord was correct it could not escalate issues that had completed the landlord complaint process, the landlord had not evidenced that it considered if the resident was making a new complaint about its handling of repairs after the complaint response.
  6. However, the landlord did state it would consider the actions taken after the complaints process and review the compensation it had already offered. The landlord did do this once the car port repair had been completed.
  7. The landlord’s records noted that the resident raised issues of drainage repairs in a conversation about her reasons for escalating her complaint to stage 2. Drainage repairs had not been part of her initial complaint made in September 2023. The landlord did make a commitment that it would address that repair during the stage two response however there was no reference to the drainage repairs in the stage two response.
  8. Overall, there was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint as it failed to fulfil the appointment it made in the stage one response and failed to consider if a new complaint should be raised following the residents request to escalate her complaint to a third stage. This was service failure by the landlord, and it should pay the resident £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a sum of £960 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property inclusive of the £860 it has already offered.
    3. Pay the resident a sum of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
    4. Carry out an inspection of the resident’s property and confirm all repair issues raised as part of the resident’s complaint in September 2023 have been completed and if not to provide the resident with a timetable for completion.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord reviews its repairs procedure and record keeping practices to ensure repairs are appropriately monitored and residents are kept informed to ensure repairs are completed within the timescales of the landlord repairs policies.