The Guinness Partnership Limited (202407351)

Background

1. The resident reported an issue with his under-cabinetkitchen lights on 20 March 2024. The landlord attended and found the bulbs needed replacing. It said it would arrange to do this. During asecond visit the landlord told the resident that it would not be replacing the bulbs as this was his responsibility. The resident disagreed, saying the landlord had replaced bulbs for him before. He felt the service was poor, the issue caused inconvenience, and the repair should have been treated as a priority, so he made a formal complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a repair to kitchen lights.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord has offered the resident reasonable redress for its handling of a repair to kitchen lights.

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

Reasons

4. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that minor repairs, including replacement of light bulbs, are the resident’s responsibility. Therefore, if the landlord had understood the issue to be bulb‑related, it should not have raised a repair or arranged a contractor visit. The repair log of 20 March 2024 describes “light fittings are damaged,” which would reasonably justify sending a contractor if this reflected what the resident reported.
5. The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that routine, non‑emergency repairs should be completed within 28 days. In this case, treating the issue as a routine repair was appropriate because the main light remained operational and the affected fittings were supplementary rather than essential. The landlord met the 28‑day target, as it first attended on 5 April 2024, which was 16 days after the resident reported the issue. The policy also requires the landlord to explain when parts need to be ordered and to advise when it plans to return if a repair cannot be completed during the initial visit. The landlord complied with this requirement by arranging a follow‑up appointment with the resident. Its records show that it ordered the bulbs on 10 April 2024.
6. Once the first visit established that only the bulbs needed replacing, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident that this was his responsibility, as per the tenancy agreement. Instead, the landlord booked a follow‑up appointment for 10 May 2024 to replace the bulbs. As acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord’s operative removed and took a working bulb from the resident on this visit, which they failed to return. The landlord reasonably offered the resident £10 compensation for this in its stage 2 complaint response.
7. The resident was unhappy with the follow‑up appointment, set for 10 May 2024. He contacted the landlord on 5 April 2024 through its web‑chat service to request an earlier date and raised a formal complaint at the same time. He said the adviser did not give him the customer service manager’s name and only offered solutions after he asked to make a complaint. The chat transcripts show that the landlord responded to his questions, provided a manager’s name, and offered an alternative solution before the resident mentioned making a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that its advisor had provided some inaccurate information and apologised for this, which was reasonable.
8. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 April 2024. The landlord did not uphold the complaint but moved the appointment forward to 18 April 2024 after a cancellation. By this point, the landlord already knew the bulbs needed replacing. However, it again failed to tell the resident that replacing bulbs was his responsibility. This was a missed opportunity to manage his expectations and resolve the issue sooner.
9. On the second visit on 18 April 2024, the contractor told the resident that the landlord was not responsible for replacing bulbs and closed the repair. When the resident contacted the landlord again, it booked another visit for 26 April 2024. A second contractor attended and gave the same advice about bulb responsibility. The resident reported the issue again later that day, and the repair logs again described the job as “light fittings are damaged.” By this point, the landlord already knew from earlier visits and from its stage 1 response that the problem related to bulbs, not to damaged fittings. Despite this, it continued to raise new repair jobs. This showed a lack of scrutiny and consideration of its own repair records.
10. In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s concerns about the operatives. The resident had raised concerns that the operative who attended on the second visit only carried out a visual inspection. The landlord explained that the operatives who attended on 5 April 2024 had already identified that the fault was due to light bulbs. On 18 April 2024, the operative, in line with procedure, advised the resident to replace the bulbs. The repair logs would also show, from the previous visit, that the light bulbs needed to be replaced, so it was not reasonable to expect the operative to carry out a further inspection of the fittings or the wiring on the second visit. The landlord took a reasonable approach to this issue, and nothing in the evidence contradicts its position.
11. The landlord also acknowledged failings in its communication. It confirmed that the resident’s callback request of 26 April 2024 was not returned. Although the request was allocated to a Service Manager, the call was not made because the matter had been discussed internally and it was assumed the information would be passed on to the resident. The landlord accepted that this was not the correct procedure and that the callback should have been completed. It also acknowledged that the resident emailed on 29 April 2024 but did not receive a response until 7 May 2024, which fell outside its 48‑hour target for email responses. As a result, the landlord upheld this aspect of the complaint.
12. The resident was unhappy that he had to take time off work to be available for the appointments on 18 April 2024 and 26 April 2024. The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response and explained that no repair was completed during those visits because the operatives correctly identified that it was not responsible for replacing the bulbs. The landlord noted that the inconvenience arose because its operative did not identify this at the first visit, which led the resident to take unnecessary time off work. The landlord said that it does not compensate for loss of earnings, this is reflected in its compensation policy. However, the landlord appropriately included an amount for ‘wasted appointments’ as part of its stage 2 response’s offer of compensation.
13. The landlord’s compensation policy allows awards of up to £250 for issues resolved within a reasonable time that cause minor inconvenience. The resident asked for £75 at stage 1 and £200 at stage 2. In response, the landlord offered £205 to reflect the inconvenience caused by repeated visits, delays, and the failings it identified, and a further £10 for a delay in acknowledging his stage 2 complaint. This approach aligns with both the landlord’s policy and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which suggests this level of compensation where failings have had an adverse effect on a resident with no permanent impact. The compensation offered was reasonable and proportionate to the detriment caused and relatively brief duration of the failings.
14. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it had provided internal feedback to the operative that attended the first visit and staff members whose communication with the resident it had identified failings in. This was appropriately in keeping with our dispute resolution principle to learn from the complaint.
15. In summary, the landlord acknowledged the failings in its handling of the repair, took learning to prevent repeat incidents and made the resident a reasonable offer of compensation. Due to this, we find that it has made a reasonable offer of redress.

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.