The Guinness Partnership Limited (202405990)

Background

1. The resident has since moved from the property. She complained that the garden was unlevel and requested adaptations to make this safe for her and her child, who are both vulnerable. She also complained about the handling of porch and tap repairs and that the windows and kitchen had not been replaced, despite being told this was required.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of an unlevel garden and requests to make this level.
   2. Reports that windows caused damp and mould and needed replacement.
   3. Request for a kitchen replacement.
   4. Reports that the porch needed re-pointing.
   5. Reports of a leaking kitchen tap.
   6. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an unlevel garden and requests to make this level.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that windows caused damp and mould and needed replacement.
   3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking kitchen tap.
   4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s associated complaint.
4. There was no maladministration in:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a kitchen replacement.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the porch needed re-pointing.

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

Summary of reasons

The reports of an unlevel garden and requests to make this level

5. The landlord’s response and compensation reasonably remedies issues with its handling and impact evident. It is not evident that it was obligated to level the garden in the way the resident wanted on the evidence available and without further supporting information. It is reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy for more specific or costly adaptations to be supported by occupational assessments and disabled facilities grants.

The reports that windows caused damp and mould and needed replacement

6. The landlord’s response and compensation reasonably remedies issues with its handling of the windows and impact evident. It is not evident they were identified to need replacement.

The request for a kitchen replacement

7. The landlord responded reasonably about the kitchen. It is not evident this was identified to need replacement.

The reports that the porch needed re-pointing

8. The landlord responded reasonably about the porch pointing and it is not evident that it failed to do any identified repairs.

The reports of a leaking tap

9. The landlord’s response and compensation reasonably remedies issues with handling of the leaking tap and impact evident.

Complaint handling

10. The landlord’s response and compensation reasonably remedies issues with its complaint handling and impact evident.

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.

11. The resident complained that her garden was unlevel and unsuitable for her and her child, who both have vulnerabilities and mobility issues. She said the unlevel garden had led to her and her child experiencing falls.
12. The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord in February 2023 to request for the garden to be levelled with mud, concrete and sand. A manager was asked to approve this and they said such works were the resident’s responsibility. It is unclear if this was communicated to the resident.
13. The resident then contacted on 23 October 2023, there was an inspection on 25 October 2023, and works were submitted for approval to a manager and declined. It is unclear if this was communicated to the resident.
14. The resident contacted again on 30 October 2023 and was told works had been referred to a contractor. She chased on 8 and 16 November 2023 and a manager inspected on 21 November 2023. It is understood that a contractor then quoted £9,000 to do works in line with what the resident wanted. This was referred internally on 12 December 2023 and internally chased on 5 January 2024.
15. The resident then complained on 30 January 2024 and said her child had fallen. The landlord completed a report and internally discussed issues, including with a health and safety team. They said the garden was not that unlevel to warrant the cost of levelling the garden, but works to make areas of the patio safe were agreed. The landlord attempted to progress these and subsequently completed works in July 2024, after which the resident raised concerns these made no difference to her and her child’s safety.
16. The landlord acknowledged issues handling the resident’s requests to level the garden and awarded compensation. It noted her and her child’s vulnerabilities and its adaptations policy, and proposed a solution which it said would level the garden and remove risk. It said it was reasonable to refuse works the resident wanted as these were improvements and not adaptations. It said it could consider the issues further if she obtained an occupational therapist report.
17. We understand the resident’s concerns about the unlevel garden and how she was seeking for her and her child to have a garden that met their needs and was safe for both of them. However, it is not in our authority or expertise to definitively decide whether the landlord should have levelled the garden how she was seeking. We can consider whether the landlord responded reasonably and in line with the law and relevant policies.
18. The resident’s main complaint was clearly her desire for the garden to be levelled in a way that she felt met her and her child’s mobility needs. The landlord has obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider reasonable adjustments. When considering what is ‘reasonable,’ a social landlord may take costs into account.
19. The landlord’s own adaptations policy reflects this and expects adaptations that cost over £1,500 to be supported by occupational therapist assessments and funded by a disabled facilities grant, if residents are unable to fund them. It is evident that works would have cost £9,000 and so exceeded £1,500.
20. The landlord’s advice to obtain an occupational therapist report therefore reasonably reflected its obligations and the resident’s options, if she wanted further consideration to be given to levelling the garden.
21. The resident had concerns that the landlord’s solution did not meet her and her child’s needs, which were understandable. However, the landlord showed it reasonably considered these on the available evidence. It is not evident that it was provided an occupational therapist report to consider any specific recommendations by a qualified professional in respect to the garden.
22. Moving on to the service the resident experienced, the landlord acted in a reasonable and timely way after the resident’s report of her child’s fall, and took this seriously. However, it is unclear if it always communicated effectively after the resident’s reports. This includes when she contacted the landlord in February 2023 and 23 October 2023, which were earlier than it acknowledged.
23. The landlord was therefore appropriate to acknowledge, apologise and compensate for issues with communication and delays. While it did not acknowledge all the times the resident contacted, the compensation it awarded was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for the issues and the impact evident.

24. The evidence shows that the resident reported damp and mould in March 2023 and the landlord did not get access when it attended. The landlord then raised a repair for damp and mould in December 2023 and it treated mould 2 days later.
25. The evidence shows that the resident reported windows in March 2023. On 20 March 2023 an operative identified that works were required for a blown window, window resistors, and seals. The resident has not disputed that this was not completed until 13 June 2023.
26. The resident raised various other window repairs in May 2023, September 2023, October 2023 and December 2023. These related to handles, frames and draughts. It is understood she also wanted ventilation to be added to the windows to help with damp and mould issues, as she was concerned about opening the windows fully for reasons related to her child’s safety.
27. The resident then complained. She said that window seals kept falling out, operatives had said this would keep happening as the windows were over 30 years old, and operatives had said they could not do anything as new windows were needed. The landlord acknowledged it had delayed in completing window repairs and awarded compensation to recognise delays resolving damp and mould issues. It noted the resident requested new windows but said it would not do this if repair were possible. However it said it would arrange an inspection.
28. The evidence shows that the landlord later raised works in July 2024 to overhaul the windows. These were completed in late September 2024, after the resident chased and the landlord told her it was not aware windows works were outstanding. The landlord subsequently provided a further response in January 2025. This acknowledged that its communication could have been better, acknowledged that it had failed to offer further compensation, and awarded an additional £300.
29. The resident’s main complaint was her desire for the windows to be replaced. It is not in our expertise to say when components such as windows should be replaced. The landlord is obligated to ensure properties are reasonably modern. According to guidance, windows need replacement every 40 years. The landlord says the windows will be eligible to be assessed for replacement from 2028 onwards, which it may have been helpful to tell the resident. However, while the resident says operatives said the windows required replacement, this is not evident from reports. It is therefore not clear there has been a significant failure to replace the windows.
30. Moving on to the service the resident experienced, the landlord completed repairs in line with its policies for most repairs. However, the June and September 2024 works were delayed. The length of time it took for the September 2024 works also did not reasonably reflect the landlord’s commitments in its April 2024 response, and these required some chasing from the resident.
31. The landlord was therefore appropriate to acknowledge, apologise and compensate for issues with these. While delayed, the compensation it awarded was in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for the issues and the impact evident.

32. The resident complained in her escalation that she was due a new kitchen as her current one was falling apart. The landlord responded that an inspection found it to be in overall good condition. It said it would not replace it if it could be repaired. It invited the resident to provide further information about a previous promise to replace it.
33. It is not in our expertise to say when components such as a kitchen should be replaced. The landlord is obligated to ensure properties are reasonably modern. According to guidance, kitchens need replacement every 30 years, but landlords may have some discretion about this dependent on a kitchen’s condition.
34. The landlord says the kitchen has reached a stage where it may be due for renewal but it has not yet been included in a programme. It says this was being reviewed annually. It may have been helpful for the landlord to tell the resident this, or arrange a survey by its planned works team to confirm its position. This is something we may have recommended if the resident was still living in the property. However, it is not evident that significant issues were reported or identified in respect to the kitchen. It is therefore not clear there was a significant failure to replace the kitchen.

35. The evidence shows that on 20 November 2023, after an inspection, the landlord raised a repair to repoint the front of the property and a side of the porch. This was done on 30 January 2024, and the resident complained the same day. She raised concern that only one side of the porch had been done, and that this could lead to damp and mould issues. The landlord arranged a further inspection around the time of the resident’s 20 February 2024 escalation, did some works on 20 March 2024, and scheduled follow up works for 17 April 2024 which it completed.
36. The landlord generally responded reasonably to the complaint. The resident complained that only 1 side of the porch was done on 30 January 2024, but this reflected the repair that was raised after the November 2023 inspection. The landlord’s further works on 20 March and 17 April 2024 shows it took action in a reasonable time, after the resident raised concerns that more pointing works were needed.
37. We do note that the completion of the initial works on 30 January 2024 exceeded the policy timeframe for routine repairs. However, this was not the focus of the resident’s complaint, and it is not evident the delay had a significant impact.

38. The evidence shows that the resident reported a leaking tap in November and December 2023, and operatives attended and noted they completed the repairs. The resident then complained the tap was still leaking and that operatives said it needed to be replaced. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for delays resolving the issue and confirmed it had scheduled works to replace the tap on 10 April 2024. This was missed and the repair was completed on 25 April 2024.
39. The landlord generally responded reasonably to the complaint. It attended in a timely manner to do repairs for the resident’s initial reports. It will have been frustrating that the issue continued, but it is reasonable for a landlord to attempt repairs before considering replacement, and it is not evident that operatives recommended replacement of the tap. The landlord shows it took appropriate action to replace the tap after the resident complained the issue continued.
40. We do note that the works to replace the tap on 25 April 2024 exceeded the policy timeframe for routine repairs. However, the landlord’s apology and compensation reasonably remedies this, taking into account the landlord’s policy and our remedies guidance for the issue and the impact evident.

41. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It then aims to provide a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1, and within 20 working days at stage 2. It is unclear that the landlord sent formal acknowledgements in line with this but it spoke to the resident soon after her complaint and escalation. It also provided formal responses at both stages within the timescales set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code. However, it failed to address some issues until its stage 2 response. It also failed to effectively meet stage 2 commitments for the windows in a timely manner.
42. In its April 2024 stage 2 response and its further January 2025 response, the landlord has been positive to acknowledge, apologise and compensate for issues with its complaint handling, While this would have been expected to be earlier, its apology and compensation overall reasonably remedies the issues with its complaint handling, taking into account its compensation policy and our remedies guidance for the issues and impact evident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

43. The landlord’s record keeping was generally reasonable. However, a common theme of the resident’s complaint is her being told things not captured in its records. The landlord could reflect on how it can try to ensure that its staff and contractors maintain accurate records.
44. It could also reflect on whether it could use its records more effectively during complaints about replacements. It could reflect on using these as an opportunity to update residents about when components such as kitchens and windows may be due for renewal, to help manage their expectations.

Communication

45. The landlord has acknowledged issues with its communication. It could reflect on how it communicates internally to ensure that resident queries are addressed in a timely way. It is evident that internal communication was sometimes not effective, such as when staff sought internal review of a garden quote in December 2023 and January 2024.