The Guinness Partnership Limited (202337778)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337778

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 August 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 response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a smell coming from her sink and washing machine;
    2. Reports of damage caused by a leak from a neighbouring property;
    3. Request for new key fobs;
    4. Concerns about grounds maintenance and communal cleaning;
  2. This report has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared owner of a 2 bedroom flat, which she purchased in June 2023. The landlord is the owner of the remaining share of the property and the resident pays a service charge towards communal cleaning of the block and grounds maintenance.
  2. On 6 July 2023, the resident made a request to the landlord for 2 new key fobs; one to get into the building and one for the communal gate.
  3. On 19 July 2023, the landlord spoke to the resident on the phone about damage to her property caused by a leak from the upstairs flat. The landlord told her that, as a leaseholder, she was responsible for getting the damage repaired.
  4. The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on her behalf. As we have not been provided with an original copy, it is not clear on what date the letter was sent. However, the resident did provide the contents of the letter she sent to her MP. It stated that:
    1. She had experienced issues trying to get repairs fixed, to make a complaint and to communicate with the landlord.
    2. On 19 July 2023, she contacted the landlord to report:
      1. “Foul smells” coming from her sink and washing machine that was attracting flies;
      2. A leak from the flat above, which had caused damage to her ceilings and walls;
      3. No communal cleaning or garden maintenance had taken place;
      4. She had asked for new key fobs and had paid £35 up front for them.
    3. She had asked it to send her a cleaning and garden maintenance schedule but it had not responded to her request. She asked how a monthly inspection could prove that the contractors were “sticking to their contract”.
    4. The landlord had told her on 3 August 2023 that contractors would attend on 18 August 2023 to resolve the cause of the smell but nobody turned up.
    5. She had asked the landlord to send her a copy of its complaints process but was told to either make a telephone call or visit its website.
    6. An officer had visited her on 24 August 2023 and told her over the intercom that the landlord had sent the key fobs out on 10 August 2023. She told it that she had not received anything and asked the officer to come to her flat to discuss the matter. However, it did not reply or enter the building to speak to her.
  5. The landlord responded to the MP on 8 September 2023 and stated that:
    1. On 20 July 2023 it had received reports of a “sewage smell” and blockage in the communal drains. When its contractor attended, it found no blockages or any issues with the water drainage system.
    2. In August 2023 it received further reports of a sewage smell. On 18 August 2023, its contractor carried out an “extensive camera survey of the sewage system” of the block next door and had found no issues.
    3. It had instructed its contractor to complete a further camera survey and would aim to complete this within its 28 day timescale.
    4. It had informed the resident that its contractor had difficulties programming the fobs but they were ready and would be delivered to the resident in the following few days.
    5. Its cleaning contractor was attending on a weekly basis and it had completed monthly inspections, which found the building to be in a “satisfactory condition”.
    6. It was aware of reports about its garden maintenance service and had fed this back to its contractors.
    7. As a leaseholder, the resident was responsible for the internal repair and maintenance of her property. It had explained to her on 19 July 2023 that she would need to arrange for the repair of any damage caused by the leak from upstairs.
    8. She was entitled to claim via the landlord’s buildings insurance policy and could find further details on its attached policy document.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 September 2023 to say she was unhappy with the response that had been sent to her MP. She stated that:
    1. The landlord had told her someone would come to her property on 18 August 2023 to investigate the smell and look at the damage caused by the leak. She took annual leave but nobody had attended. The landlord provided no apology or explanation for the missed appointment.
    2. Although cleaners were attending on a weekly basis, they were not cleaning the communal areas. Relying on a monthly inspection was “not good enough” and was not working.
    3. On 12 September 2023 a cleaner had informed her they had not been hoovering for weeks because the plug sockets were not working. When she asked whether this had been reported, they told her they would report it that day.
    4. The garden maintenance contractors had attended on 8 September 2023 but had left by 1pm. She added that no gardening had taken place in the car park since she moved in, that the children’s playground was “unkempt”, and there were weeds, overflowing rubbish bins and worn out playground equipment.
    5. The landlord had given her conflicting advice about repairs from the leak. It had told her the damage would be “dealt with” on 18 August 2023 while also informing her that it was her responsibility to “sort out the damage”. While she was prepared to contact the landlord’s insurer, she was not prepared to pay the excess as she was not responsible for the leak.
    6. She had also received conflicting information about the key fobs. Although the landlord had told her they were ready, she only received the car park fob. It then told her there had been problems cloning the keys, which was why she did not receive the fob for the building.
    7. She wanted to “be clear” that she had raised the matter in the first instance as a stage 1 complaint and not an MP enquiry, as the landlord had suggested. For this reason, she wanted to escalate it to stage 2.
  7. The landlord has not provided a copy of its acknowledgement letter. However, it called her on 15 September 2023 to discuss her complaint. It issued its stage 1 response on 28 September 2023, which stated that:
    1. The resident told it she wanted to escalate its response to her MP. As an MP enquiry was not the same as a stage 1 complaint, it could not escalate it at that point.
    2. It had made an emergency appointment for a drainage company to attend, but unfortunately this was cancelled. An appointment was arranged for 18 August 2023, which had also not gone ahead. It was “sincerely sorry for the distress and frustration this caused.
    3. It was aware the smell was an issue in the block and a specialist contractor was working to identify and rectify this issue with the water drainage system in the building.
    4. All the residents on the floor above her were leaseholders and, in line with the lease, internal repairs and maintenance was the responsibility of the homeowner. She could make a claim via its buildings insurance for the damages.
    5. Its cleaning contractor was attending on a weekly basis and completing monthly inspections where it had found the building to be in a satisfactory condition.
    6. It had arranged for an electrician to attend on 13 October 2023 to check and repair the communal plug sockets.
    7. It was sorry to hear the garden maintenance team were not cutting back the branches or weeding the car park area. It had provided feedback to its contractors who would address her concerns over the following few visits.
    8. There had been a delay in the manufacturing of the 2 key fobs the resident had paid for in advance. It was “very sorry for the inconvenience caused by this delay.
    9. It offered her £170 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
      1. £100 for delays in arranging the drain repair;
      2. £50 for the delay in sending the key fobs;
      3. £20 for the failed appointments for the drains.
    10. To ensure it learnt from the resident’s experience and that it took steps to improve its service to residents, it had provided specific feedback to its staff on the failings it had identified.
  8. On 20 October 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord to ask why nobody was liaising with her about any of the outstanding issues. She said she was being “kept in the dark” and had to keep contacting it for updates. She added that the smell had been “worse than ever in the past few weeks”. The landlord responded on the same day to say that it would call her on 31 October 2023 to follow up on her queries.
  9. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 2 November 2023 and asked it to tell her:
    1. How often it carried out garden maintenance, when it was next due and details of what its inspections had shown.
    2. What action it had taken with regard to a damaged flower bed and post in the car park that had been reported 18 months previously.
    3. Whether the landlord managed the play area and what action it had taken to maintain it.
    4. Whether the landlord had reported that the car park gates kept experiencing problems, and failed to open on one occasion meaning residents were unable to exit with their vehicles.
    5. Whether it was aware of the rodent issue in one of the blocks.
  10. On 7 November 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say she had not received a call as promised. Although it had called her to arrange for the drains contractor to visit her on 15 November 2023, she had still not received any news about the key fobs. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. On 10 November 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint. On 15 November 2023 the resident contacted it to say that she had taken a day off to allow access to the drains contractor. However, she had waited in all day but nobody had arrived, or contacted her to cancel the visit.
  11. The landlord called the resident on 24 November 2023. It apologised to her for not calling sooner. She told it that there had been dust and debris outside her front door for 2 and a half weeks, and “smears” on the lift mirror for 3 weeks, which proved the cleaners were not “doing their job”.
  12. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 December 2023. It stated that:
    1. Although its stage 1 response had addressed all the resident’s concerns, it could have provided more detail.
    2. Its contractor had attended on 15 November 2023 to inspect the external drain. As this was a communal repair, it did not need access to her property. However, it acknowledged that it should have contacted her to let her know the visit had been completed and what work was required.
    3. Its cleaning contractor had completed an additional visit and addressed the issues the resident had highlighted about the debris and smears on the lift mirror. A manager had attended shortly afterward to check the standard of work and would closely monitor it going forward.
    4. There was an issue with the software needed to reprogramme the key fobs, which led to the delay providing them. It understood the matter had been resolved and that it had sent her the key fobs.
    5. It employed an external agency to carry out monthly inspections of the playground and the most recent one had not identified any issues that required immediate attention. It had no plans to complete any repairs but would arrange to carry out some weeding and pruning to the area.
    6. It offered the resident a revised amount of compensation, which it broke down as follows:
      1. £200 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the delay repairing the drains;
      2. £30 for failed appointments.
      3. £50 for the delay in sending her key fobs.
      4. £25 for the inaccurate information provided to her about maintenance of the communal playground.
      5. £50 for poor communication.
    7. It had provided feedback to its service manager about its poor communication and delay investigating the drainage issue. It would review its ways of working and implement measures to prevent similar failings.
    8. It would review how it had managed the provision of replacement key fobs and make improvements to prevent delays of a similar nature being made again.
    9. The drainage contractor would visit the block on 23 and 24 December 2023 to complete the CCTV survey of the external drains. It would provide her with an update about the next steps once it had the result of the survey.
  13. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 28 January 2024 to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint. She said she had not received any further update on the drain survey, any compensation or a refund for money she had paid for her key fobs. She added that she was dissatisfied with having to pay a £350 excess for the water leak from the flat above.
  14. On 2 June 2024, the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that all the smells had gone “following the repair of the collapsed drain”. The landlord contacted her on 7 June 2024 to offer her an additional £175 compensation for its poor communication and its “failed promises”.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

  1. The resident’s lease states that the leaseholder is responsible for the repair of “the Premises”. This includes internal walls and ceilings. The landlord is responsible for repair, redecoration and renewal of the common areas of the building.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it has 2 categories of repair; emergency and routine. It will attend emergency repairs at a resident’s home within 24 hours to make the situation safe and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. It states that it aims to complete repairs at the first visit. However, where that is not possible, it will communicate clearly with the resident to explain why the repair cannot be completed immediately, what it intends to do and what should happen next, including when it will return to complete the repair. The timescales for completion of emergency or routine communal repairs are the same.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy has two stages. It will provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be investigated by an independent manager within the organisation who will aim to respond within 20 working days. If the landlord needs to take longer to respond, it will explain this to the resident and the deadline will not exceed a further 10 working days, unless agreed by both parties.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary compensation payments depending on the level of inconvenience caused by a failure in service and the impact on the resident. Payments of up to £250 are made for minor inconvenience, £250 to £700 for moderate inconvenience and over £700 where there has been significant impact on the resident.
  5. The landlord’s estate and neighbourhood management policy states that the landlord will:
    1. Keep its estates and neighbourhoods clean, safe, secure and well-maintained;
    2. Inspect its estates on a regular basis to check the quality of the services it provides, identify any maintenance issues and remedy any health and safety concerns;
    3. Provide the agreed services reliably to all residents. It will, where appropriate, work with residents and provide additional services to address a specific issue or improve the neighbourhood.

The policy also states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and pruning of trees in communal gardens, or on land that it owns.

  1. With regard to inspections, the same policy states that the landlord’s play areas are inspected on a monthly basis and estate inspections are conducted on at least a quarterly basis. The landlord will publish the dates and times of the estate inspections in advance and will encourage residents to accompany it during the inspection or to take the opportunity to discuss any issues with i

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has expressed concern about having to pay the excess when claiming via the landlord’s building insurance for internal damage within her property. While the resident’s concerns about this are acknowledged, this is not a matter that has been considered as part of this investigation. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction prior to the involvement of this Service. It is acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about the internal damage within her property during the course of the complaints process, and was given information about claiming via the landlord’s buildings insurance. However, her specific concerns about paying the excess were not put to the landlord. As such, the resident should now raise this directly with the landlord and ask for the matter to be progressed as a formal complaint, if required. If the resident remains unhappy, she may refer the matter to this Service as a new complaint.

Reports of a smell coming from the resident’s sink and washing machine

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges how unpleasant it must have been for the resident to live in a property that was affected by an unpleasant smell from the drains for a long period of time. The records show that the resident first reported the matter on 20 July 2023. However, it is not clear when the landlord had completed the repair. The only indication the matter had been resolved is from an email the resident had sent to the landlord on 2 June 2024, confirming the smells had gone from her flat. The evidence therefore suggests it took over a year for the landlord to fix the problem.
  2. During this period, there is no indication the landlord made sufficient efforts to provide the resident with regular updates, provide estimated completion dates or to keep her informed at any point. The evidence shows the resident was consistently left to contact the landlord herself for up-to-date information, sometimes without getting a response. This suggests she made significant efforts to progress the outstanding repair, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. The landlord’s poor communication and failure to provide regular updates would have added to the resident’s uncertainty over when the works to the drains would go ahead.
  3. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving some issues, such as problems with a drainage system is not always straightforward and it can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. It is accepted that this can cause delays. However, where a process of elimination is required, the Ombudsman would expect to see that an action plan developed by the landlord, which is overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity and a prompt remedy is then implemented. There is no record to show that the landlord had adopted such an approach.
  4. The evidence shows that it was not until 15 November 2023 that the drainage contractor had carried out its initial inspection of the drains in the resident’s building. This was around 4 months after the resident had first reported the smell. It is unclear why there was a delay. In addition, there is evidence the landlord had already been made aware of the issue, and that other properties had also reported it. Given this, it is unclear why the contractor could not have attended sooner. The landlord has given no explanation for the delay, or why it had cancelled the appointments on 20 July and 18 August 2023. The time taken for the landlord to arrange for its contractor to carry out its initial visit was overly protracted. That the landlord could not demonstrate that it had taken reasonable steps to arrange for a timelier inspection was a failing.
  5. The landlord gave the resident conflicting information regarding its actions to investigate the smell from the drains. In its response to the MP, it stated that it had attended on 20 July 2023 but found no blockages. However, its stage 1 response stated it had made an emergency appointment for the drainage contractor to attend but that this had been cancelled. Similarly, its letter to the MP said that it had attended again on 18 August 20233 but found no issues, whereas its stage 1 response advised that an appointment had been made for that date but did not go ahead. The reason for the conflicting information is unclear. However, the landlord should ensure that it is keeping and maintaining a clear audit trail of any investigations and their outcomes to ensure that it can relay accurate information to a resident, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman. The conflicting information which was provided to the resident would have caused understandable confusion, and loss of confidence in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  6. There is no evidence the landlord had sufficiently kept in touch with its contractor about the repair. It would have been appropriate for it to have kept in regular contact to ensure reasonable efforts were being made to progress the works as quickly as possible, and that the resident was updated accordingly. Its failure to do so is evidenced when the landlord informed the resident the contractor would require access on 15 November 2023. It later transpired that there was no need for it to enter her property. Neither the landlord nor the contractor had contacted the resident inform her in advance or to later explain why it had not attended. On another occasion the landlord had made an appointment for its contractor to visit the resident on 18 August 2023. However, records show it inspected the neighbouring block instead. Similarly, the contractor had made no effort to give the resident advance notice of this and the landlord failed to provide any explanation for the non-attendance. The poor communication between the landlord and its contractor meant the resident was subject to inconvenience and the frustration of losing 2 days of annual leave.
  7. While the works may have been contracted out, the landlord remained responsible for their completion and should reasonably have continued to monitor the situation. That it failed to do so demonstrates poor contract monitoring and poor oversight of repairs by the landlord. The excessive delay in carrying out an inspection, together with the landlord’s poor communication, contract monitoring and record keeping would have contributed in the unreasonably protracted repair handling.
  8. The landlord’s compensation policy pays between £250 and £700 for issues that took a long time to resolve and which resulted in moderate inconvenience and a demonstrable impact on the resident. The landlord offered the resident £200 compensation for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the drainage repair. Following completion of the repair, it then offered her an additional £175 for further delays, poor communication and “failed promises” following conclusion of the complaints process. This makes a total offer of £375 compensation, which is proportionate in the circumstances and broadly in line with its compensation policy for failings that have had a demonstrable impact on the resident. In addition, its stage 2 response gave details of how it would embed the learning from the complaint to prevent reoccurrence of the same issues. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Damage caused by a leak from a neighbouring property

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by a leak from a neighbouring property, and the resulting damage. The evidence shows that the landlord appropriately made enquiries about whether the residents in the upstairs flat were tenants or leaseholders. It also correctly advised the resident that she was responsible for the damage within her home, as a leaseholder and that she could make a claim via its buildings insurance policy and provided information to her on how to do this. The records show that the landlord took reasonable steps to respond to the resident’s concerns about the damage caused to her flat by a leak from the upstairs property. The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused by the leak.

Request for new key fobs

  1. The records show that the resident asked the landlord for new key fobs on 6 July 2023 and that it had provided them on 18 December 2023, around 6 months later. It is evident the landlord’s communication during this time was poor and that it had failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the time it would take for the fobs to be ready. It is acknowledged that the landlord was experiencing technical problems with its fob system, and internal correspondence shows it had been making efforts to resolve this. It is also evident the landlord had explained the technical issues to the resident, which was appropriate. That there were delays in providing new fobs due to technical issues was beyond the landlord’s control.
  2. However, there is no indication the landlord had made efforts to keep the resident informed, or to provide any updates to reassure her the matter was in hand. As a result, the resident felt she had no choice but to repeatedly contact the landlord for news about the new key fobs, which she had paid for in advance. Furthermore, the landlord had also provided misleading information about when they would be ready. In its response to the resident’s MP on 8 September 2023, it stated that the fobs were ready and would be delivered “in a few days”. However, in its stage 1 response of 28 September 2023, it apologised for the delay in providing the fobs but failed to provide any kind of update, despite the fact it had previously advised the resident they were ready. This would have caused understandable confusion and frustration.
  3. It is noted that the resident wrote to the landlord on 8 November 2023 to say that 4 months had passed and she had not received the new key fobs. She suggested that the landlord reimburse her for the payment she had made or to provide a replacement fob. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer to reimburse her at an early stage, when it was aware technical issues were causing delays. She could then have made arrangements to pay once they were ready. Furthermore, it is unclear why the landlord had not offered to provide a replacement fob and why it was left for the resident to request one. This would have demonstrated that the landlord was taking a customer focused approach.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for the delay in providing the new keys fobs. The landlord’s compensation policy makes payments up to £250 where the issue was resolved within a reasonable time and resulted in minor inconvenience, and some impact on the resident. The Ombudsman feels the landlord’s offer does not sufficiently recognise the failures identified and impact on the resident. The time it took for the landlord to provide the new key fobs was excessive. Although the technical issues were beyond its control, the landlord failed to provide sufficient updates or to manage the resident’s expectations and failed to provide her with a replacement fob in the meantime. This would have exacerbated the frustration and inconvenience caused, and amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman will order further redress to put things right.  

Grounds maintenance and communal cleaning

  1. The landlord has provided a copy of a grounds maintenance inspection report from 25 April 2023. The inspection found that the grounds were of an acceptable condition overall. However, the report stated that the external bin store area was “unclean, with excessive levels of litter or debris”. It noted that the area required some improvement before the next visit. It added that numerous requests had been made for the removal of large dumped items and, that this continued to be an issue, and that replacement bin store doors were required. The landlord has not provided any evidence of further inspections following this one. It is therefore not possible to ascertain whether it had rectified this issue prior to the following inspection.
  2. Furthermore, it is unclear whether the landlord had published the dates and times of the inspections in advance. There is nothing to indicate it had given prior notice to the resident so she had the opportunity to discuss her concerns during the inspection. Given the resident had been regularly raising concerns about the level and quality of the grounds maintenance, it would have been appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to have encouraged her to accompany it during its inspections. It could have used its stage 1 complaint response as an opportunity to remind her of the commitment it makes in its Estate and Neighbourhood Management Policy to work with residents to ensure it “keeps its estates and neighbourhoods clean, safe, secure and well-maintained”.  That it had departed from this was a failure.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately, following concerns by the resident that there was “no garden maintenance”, by instructing its contractor to attend the site and address the issues she had raised. There is evidence that the contractor attended the site on 1 November 2023 to remove weeds and litter, trim hedges and maintain the shrubs and flower beds. It has provided a copy of a service report, with photographs to evidence it had completed this work. It was also reasonable that the landlord told the resident in its stage 2 response that it had instructed its contractor to continue addressing those issues during its following visits. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord considers providing the resident with copies of its grounds maintenance inspection reports in order to reassure her it was completing the works, and doing so to an expected standard.
  4. Following reports by the resident of a tree overhanging her parking space, the landlord told her in its stage 2 response that it did “not treat trees unless they are dead, diseased, or dying”. This was incorrect advice. The landlord’s estate and neighbourhood management policy states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and pruning of trees in communal gardens, or on land that it owns. There is evidence from internal correspondence that the landlord had originally intended to arrange for a tree survey. The Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord carries out a survey and, following this, completes any recommended tree pruning in line with its policy.
  5. When the resident raised concerns about the condition of the children’s playground and possible safety issues, the landlord acted correctly when it sought to establish who was responsible for maintaining it. When it had established that it was the landlord’s responsibility, it appropriately advised the resident that it inspected the area monthly, This was in line with its estate and neighbourhood management policy. The landlord has not provided copies of inspection reports for the playground. However, it advised the resident in its stage 2 response that the recent inspection did not identify any issues that required immediate attention but that that it would arrange for the area to undergo some weeding and pruning. This was a reasonable and proportionate response. Again, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that it shares the relevant inspection reports with the resident to assure her the area is safe and was being regularly monitored.
  6. The landlord has provided evidence that it carried out weekly cleaning of the internal communal areas, along with photographs of the work it had carried out during its visits. This is in line with its policy, which states that the cleaning of the landlord’s internal communal areas take place at “regular intervals”. When the resident reported, on 24 November 2023, that there was debris outside her door and smears on the lift mirror, it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for an additional cleaning visit to address this and for the work to then be inspected by a manager. The landlord was correct to advise that the standard of work would be closely monitored.
  7. Furthermore, it was also appropriate that, when the resident raised concerns about the communal area not being vacuum cleaned due to broken plug sockets, the landlord arranged for an electrician to attend. Although we do not dispute the resident’s report of what a cleaner had told her, we are unable without any supporting evidence to corroborate that cleaners had not been vacuuming. However, cleaners should report any issues that are preventing them from carrying out their cleaning duties as soon as possible and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation that the landlord instructs its cleaning contractor to emphasise this to its staff. As advised above, the landlord should provide the resident with copies of its monthly inspection reports to reassure her it is monitoring the standard of communal cleaning and it should also invite her to accompany it during the inspections, in line with its policy.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
  2. The evidence that was provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to resident.  Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
  3. The landlord’s records give little indication of whether regular grounds maintenance or cleaning inspections took place. It only provided one report of a grounds maintenance inspection, even though these were meant to be completed on a quarterly basis. Similarly, communal cleaning inspections are meant to be carried out monthly. However, the landlord has not provided any documentation to demonstrate the landlord had carried out those inspections.
  4. Although the landlord did provide repair logs, they are unclear and do not specify when repairs had been completed. The only way of identifying any information that pertains to contractor visits and completion dates is through internal correspondence and the contacts the landlord made to the resident. There does not appear to be any system in place where repairs data is shared between the landlord and its contractor, which can be accessed if any queries are raised or if the landlord needs to check on the progress of works. The lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the lack of updates to the resident, the incorrect information provided in responses, the failure to meet agreed timescales and the protracted delays in resolving the outstanding issues.
  5. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a smell coming from her sink and washing machine.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damage caused by a leak from a neighbouring property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for new key fobs.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance and communal cleaning.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

  1. The landlord had to carry out extensive investigations of the building’s drainage system to find the cause of the unpleasant smell. However, the excessive delay in carrying out an initial inspection and its poor communication with the resident was a failing. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses and offered reasonable redress.
  2. The landlord provided the resident with the correct advice in response to her report of damage caused by a leak from the upstairs property.
  3. The landlord experienced technical problems programming new key fobs, which caused a delay in providing them to the resident. However, it failed to adequately update the resident or manage her expectations, and provided her with conflicting information.
  4. The landlord has demonstrated that it was carrying out regular grounds maintenance and communal cleaning. However, it did not consider trying to encourage the resident to accompany her during inspections, which was a departure from its policy. In addition, contrary to its policy, it wrongly advised the resident it did not carry out tree maintenance.
  5. The landlord has not demonstrated that it makes or stores adequate records of inspections, repairs or monitoring of its contractors, which would have contributed to its poor communication with the resident and incorrect response to her queries.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £830, calculated as follows:
      1. £375 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the drainage repair, if it has not already paid this.
      2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the resident’s request for new key fobs.
      3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to properly follow its estate and neighbourhood management policy.
      4. The £30 the landlord had offered for missed appointments.
      5. The £25 the landlord had offered for giving inaccurate information.
    2. This replaces the landlords offer of £530. Any monies the landlord has already paid in compensation should be deducted from the total ordered by the Ombudsman.
    3. Provide the resident with an apology from a senior manager in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.
    4. Contact the resident to discuss ways in which she is able to contribute to the monitoring of grounds maintenance and communal cleaning in her building in line with its policies and procedures. The landlord to provide evidence that it has done this.
  2. Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to carry out a tree survey of the grounds and complete any works recommended following the inspection. The landlord to provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has done this.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord to consider providing the resident with copies of its grounds maintenance, playground maintenance and communal cleaning inspection reports.
  2. The landlord to ask its cleaning contractor to remind its staff to report any issues that are preventing them from carrying out their cleaning duties as soon as possible so they are quickly rectified.