The Guinness Partnership Limited (202335309)

Background

1. The resident lives in a new build semi-detached 3-bedroom house and the lease started on 23 March 2015. She reported render damage in March 2021. The landlord told her to claim under the premier guarantee warranty, which she did and said the claim was rejected in May 2021. The landlord surveyed the property in July 2021 and again told her to make a warranty claim. The resident said in October 2023 her claim was refused because of delays by the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The residents report of structural damage.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that:
   1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of structural damage.
   2. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right. 

Summary of reasons

Handling of the residents reports of structural damage

4. The landlord handled the residents reports of structural damage appropriately, in line with its policies and lease agreement and clearly communicated its position to the resident. It carried out surveys and offered help with warranty claims and excess fees, exceeding its responsibilities.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to both stages of the complaint in line with its policy timeframes. It acknowledged a lack of detail in its stage 1 response and its failure to respond to the resident’s emails. It offered compensation which acknowledged these failings and was sufficient to put things right and noted it has taken learning from the complaint.

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.

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.

6. The resident first reported issues with rendering to the external walls in March 2021. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, external walls are listed as structural. It states defects in homes less than 12 months old are handled by the developer or, where appropriate, by the landlord. After the defect period, which is the case here as the resident’s lease was over 6 years old at the time of her reports, repairs are handled according to the lease terms, which generally make the shared owner responsible for structural issues.
7. One of the agreed terms of the resident’s occupancy agreement is that the leaseholder is responsible as a full owner. Structural damage is covered by the premier guarantee warranty for the specified warranty time, which starts from the completion date shown on the certificate not the move in date. Although we have not seen evidence of the start date, details of the warranty are usually provided in the homeowner’s handbook.
8. The resident further reported in May 2021 that she made a claim following the landlord’s advice, but it was rejected as cosmetic. We cannot consider the outcome of any claim because our role is limited to disputes about a landlord’s housing management. Warranty claims are handled by third-party insurers and not the landlord. However, we will look at the overall response of the landlord to her reports and whether it was reasonable.
9. In this case the landlord did not have responsibility to complete the repairs as per the terms of the lease. However, it took a number of appropriate steps in line with its obligations. The steps were as follows:
   1. The landlord carried out surveys in July and October 2021 to properties affected by the render defects.
   2. It wrote to the resident in October and December 2021 and clearly explained to homeowners the option, and managed their expectations in relation to submitting a claim. It offered help and free of charge support with the claim process under the premier guarantee warranty for permanent repairs.
   3. It had offered to install an installation mesh to the properties which needed it as a temporary measure. 
   4. In February 2023 the landlord offered to contribute to warranty excess fees for approved claims and sent both survey reports to the resident in August 2023. Although the delay in providing survey reports from 2021 until 2023 is unclear, the offer to send homeowners copies of survey reports free of charge exceeded the landlord expectations and demonstrated a proactive approach.
10. In her complaint in October 2023, the resident stated that premier guarantee rejected her recent claim as it was out of time. While we have not seen evidence of when the resident made her second warranty claim, evidence shows the landlord told the resident to check if her own home insurance covered the defects in a timely manner and as early as October 2021. This was reasonable and in line with the information provided on its website. The landlord maintained in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses that shared owners needed to make their own warranty claims and did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
11. We found that the landlord has acted in line with the requirements of the lease and warranty. The landlord adhered to its obligation to provide support and information about any potential insurance claim. It went beyond its obligations and showed a supportive approach and communicated its decision clearly at each stage. If the resident disputes the outcome of her warranty claim, she should contact premier guarantee about this.

12. The landlord’s complaints policy mirrors our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Its policy says it must acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It should respond to stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timeframes, it can extend stage 1 up to 10 days and stage 2 up to 20 days with explanation.
13. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 7 November 2023 and the stage 2 complaint on 18 December 2023 both of which are within its policy timeframes. However, the landlord didn’t address the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response about the lack of response to her emails in September 2023. In line with the Code landlords are expected to address all the issues raised in a complaint. At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged its omission and offered £50 compensation.
14. The landlord’s failure in this case did not have significant impact on the resident or the outcome of the complaint. The compensation was sufficient to acknowledge its failures which is within the suggested range for service failure in our remedy’s guidance and recognise the level of the failure and the impact on the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

15. We were able to make a robust decision on the evidence available, but in the future the landlord might benefit from improving its record keeping with logging evidence of its communication with residents.

Communication

16. Overall, the landlord maintained a good level of communication. However, it did not respond to the resident’s emails in September 2023. The landlord should explore ways to improve its communication further and ensure it responds timely to residents.