The Guinness Partnership Limited (202344563)

Background

1. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. There is a large bay window in the living room. The resident has reported concerns with the window dating back to 2019.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of window repairs.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Landlord’s handling of window repairs

6. The landlord’s oversight of the repairs and communication with the resident with has been poor. This has resulted in extensive delays, with the issue still unresolved.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord’s overall complaint handling was reasonable, however there were missed opportunities to escalate the complaint to stage 2 at an earlier date. The landlord also did not offer adequate compensation until 8 months after the stage 2 response.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

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.

What we did not consider

8. We acknowledge the resident has reported issues with the window dating back to 2019. But there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until 11 September 2023. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. While we can consider the landlord’s handling from February 2022 onwards, there is no evidence of window issues being raised between February 2022 and February 2023. Therefore, this investigation will start on 26 February 2023 (when the resident re-reported window issues) to 10 December 2024 (when the landlord sent a follow-up complaint letter), a period of 21.5 months.

9. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the resident’s home, which includes the outside walls, windows, internal walls and skirting boards.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
11. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will:
    1. Ensure the fabric of its homes is protected from deterioration and damage resulting from damp.
    2. Treat residents reporting damp and mould with empathy and respect and will not prejudge the reason for any issue.
    3. Take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way where they result from issues that require repair.
12. The landlord’s repair log showed a repair raised on 24 February 2023 that the living room window frame was rotten, warped or damaged. The landlord attended promptly on 27 February 2023 and passed the repair to a sub-contractor. However, there was no further action, which was a failing.
13. The repair log showed another window repair raised on 24 July 2023. The repair log alsonoted no follow-on job had been raised from the previous visit 5 months earlier. The landlord visited promptly on 27 July 2023 to inspect the window. But no evidence has been provided to confirm the inspection outcome. Following the visit, no further action was taken, which was another failing.
14. The landlord’s contact records show the resident called the landlord to chase window repairs on 22 and 29 August 2023. The lack of action led to the formal complaint on 11 September 2023. After the resident complained, the landlord used its complaints process to try and put things right. It raised another work order to investigate the window frames on 28 September 2023. While this was reasonable, it was 2 weeks after the complaint was raised, which was a further delay.
15. The landlord attended as arranged on 28 September 2023 in line with its routine repairs policy. It noted:
    1. “There were no rotten windows or damp.
    2. The problem was exposed [expanding] foam around the window unit which absorbs water creating dampness in the property.
    3. Big scale silicone should eradicate the problem.”

This was contradictory as it said there was no damp, but there was dampness in the property. However, follow-on work was raised arranged for 2 October 2023, which was positive, and showed the landlord was acting.

16. The landlord attended on 2 October 2023 and noted:
    1. “There were no rotten windows and metal window [frames] were installed.
    2. The problem was condensation and all window vents except one were closed.”

It was unclear whether this was a repair appointment or a damp and mould surveyor visit. However, this was contradictory to the findings of the appointment 4 days earlier. There was also no evidence any window repairs were completed, which was a failing.

17. The landlord attended again on 2 November 2023, a month later. Again, there was no evidence to confirm if any repairs were completed. The repair log noted a damp and mould sub-contractor should visit. But after the visit, there was no evidence any action was taken for over 2 months, which was a further failing. This led the resident to call the landlord on 11 January 2024 chasing the repair, which caused her inconvenience. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection on 18 January 2024, a week later. However, there was no evidence a separate work order was raised for the window repairs. This was a missed opportunity.
18. The repair log showed the landlord:
    1. Booked a damp and mould inspection for 6 February 2024, but this was cancelled as a duplicate work order (possibly of the visit on 2 October 2023).
    2. Raised repairs on 6 February 2024 to carry out a minor repair to the windows, but these were cancelled. The repair log said this was because it was “just condensation.”
    3. Raised repairs on 22 February 2024 to reseal the windows from outside. A contractor was due to attend on 5 March 2024, in line with the routine repairs policy, however, the appointment did not go ahead.

The landlord noted the repairs were re-booked for 16 April 2024. This was 6 weeks later, which was another delay.

19. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 April 2024 and said it would try and bring the repairs scheduled for 16 April 2024 forward. This was reasonable given the resident had reported the issue 14 months earlier. No evidence has been provided to confirm what happened with the appointment scheduled for 16 April 2024. However, the resident said she was told a specialist window contractor was needed. The evidence showed the resident called on 20 and 26 April 2024 chasing updates after no repairs were completed. The landlord’s poor communication and lack of repairs oversight exacerbated the resident’s frustration, which was unreasonable.
20. The landlord raised another window repair on 7 August 2024 after the resident chased. The landlord attended on 22 August 2024 to inspect the window. It returned on 5 September 2024 and completed repairs to the outside of the living room window. This was 18 months after the resident had first reported the issue which a significant delay.
21. The evidence showed the landlord’s handling of the window repairs has been poor and has contributed to long delays. The landlord:
    1. Visited on 27 February 2023 but failed to follow-up with the resident or sub-contractor.
    2. Visited on 27 July 2023 but took no further action.
    3. Visited on 2 October 2023 but did not complete any window repairs.
    4. Visited on 2 November 2023 but:
       1. Did not complete any repairs.
       2. Said a damp surveyor was required but took no further action.
    5. Raised, but then cancelled, a damp and mould inspection around January 2024.
    6. Raised, but then cancelled, window repairs scheduled for 6 February 2024.
    7. Scheduled repairs for 5 March 2024 but did not complete any window repairs.
    8. Raised repairs for 16 April 2024 but did not complete any window repairs.
    9. Took no action between 16 April 2024 and 7 August 2024.

The lack of action and delays added up to over 18.5 months to complete a window repair (February 2023 to September 2024). This was a significant delay.

22. Another factor in the repair delays was multiple instances of communication failures between parties, and no one taking responsibility for the repair. The resident has had to chase on multiple occasions for the windows to be inspected and repairs to be completed. The landlord (as the body in a contractual agreement with the resident) is ultimately responsible for the repair, regardless of whether it outsources work to contractors. With that in mind, the landlord should have done more to follow up with both the resident and its contractors rather than leaving it to the resident to chase for updates, which was a failing.
23. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the window repairs has been poor. The landlord repeatedly failed to provide a service, properly put things right, or learn from outcomes. It has also failed to follow its damp and mould policy or provide any evidence a proper investigation of the windows/water ingress issue was completed. Therefore, the circumstances for a Severe Maladministration decision apply. However, the landlord has offered £775 compensation (£600 for the time, trouble, inconvenience, and a further £175 for poor communication). The offers of redress made during, and after, the complaints process show the landlord took some steps to put things right. We have therefore found maladministration instead. We have ordered an additional £750 compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord must also go out and inspect the window. It was unclear if the £300 offered on 10 December 2024 has been paid to the resident. A recommendation has been made for this.

24. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code says:
    1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response sent within 20 working days of the complaint being acknowledged. Any extension must be no more than 20 working days.
    3. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident.
25. The landlord sent its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses in line with policy. The complaint responses also acknowledged the failings, had learnt from the complaints, and tried to put things right. These were all positive steps.
26. The evidence showed the resident called the landlord on 15 January 2024 in relation to the complaint and said the work had not been completed. She chased again on 1 February 2024. These were missed opportunities for the landlord to escalate the complaint, which were failings.
27. The landlord also said it would call the resident in the stage 2 response. The evidence showed it did call; however, it was unclear whether the resident was spoken to and there are no records of the call outcome.
28. The landlord offered £75 compensation for its complaint handling overall. However, £50 of this was offered after the end of the landlord’s complaints procedure. Therefore, we cannot say there was reasonable redress. There was therefore service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order of an additional £50 is made in recognition of the delays making an adequate compensation offer to put things right. A recommendation has been made in relation to the £50 offered on 10 December 2024. As it was unclear whether this has been paid to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. There landlord’s record keeping has been poor. There was no evidence of:
    1. Survey findings from 27 July 2023
    2. The original complaint on 11 September 2023
    3. The repair raised/work carried out on 2 October 2023
    4. The repair raised/work carried out 2 November 2023.
    5. The outcome of the appointment scheduled for 16 April 2024.

The landlord’s repair records could have been clearer in this case. The landlord could consider how to improve its record keeping. This might help to inform its complaints team when responding to complaints.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communication with the resident has been poor. Better communication in relation to the repairs may have mitigated the resident’s evident disappointment with its handling of the situation and better managed her expectations.