Guinness Housing Association Limited (202100589)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100589

Guinness Housing Association Limited

27 October 2021

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 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 concerns the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to his carpets, following a leak.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. The landlord’s records for 4 July 2020 note that “Bathroom sink is leaking from pipes behind, had to turn water off to stop water coming out.”
4. The records for 7 July 2020 state “Please make safe leak from bathroom to hallway. Customer advised was meant to have been isolated on Saturday, but ceiling is bulging and looks unsafe.”
5. The records do not indicate if the 7 July 2020 leak was a continuation of the one reported on 4 July, or if it was a new leak. They also do not indicate what action the landlord took in response to them.
6. A note dated 28 July 2020 states that the resident called the landlord and reported that he had “raised an emergency job 07.07.2020...this was attended but has caused damage to ceiling and saturated carpets below.” The note also states that this had been an ongoing issue, and that the resident had called on several occasions, including 8 and 9 July, to raise a complaint. The resident asked whether his complaint had been logged. The landlord’s officer noted that “I have informed him that it has not. I have now logged the complaint and raised this on behalf of customer. He did not want a service failure logging as he is seeking legal advice.”
7. The landlord’s internal communication, dated 14 December 2020, states that it inspected the resident’s property “for poor workmanship following plastering works to [the] hallway ceiling”. It found that wallpaper was ripped in multiple areas, and that there were water marks “down the walls”. Following this visit the landlord recommended that remedial works be carried out to the wallpaper, and redecoration of the hallway, stairs and landing areas.
8. On 23 December 2020, the landlord confirmed that the above works were scheduled to be carried out on 5, 6, and 7 January 2021.
9. The landlord’s internal notes show that the resident chased it for complaint updates on 14 January, 9 and 10 February 2021.
10. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 27 January 2021, to assess whether any further works were required. It noted that the walls and ceiling were “freshly decorated”, however, the resident advised that the carpet was damaged and the “underlay was rotten”. The landlord advised that due to the type of underlay, this could not be possible, and offered to arrange a professional clean, which the resident refused. He advised that he was looking for compensation and that he intended to take legal action.
11. Landlord internal communication, dated 15 February 2021, noted that it had “clarified that any damage was corrected, and decor sorted”, and that no damage to the resident’s carpets was identified.
12. The landlord contacted the resident via telephone on 18 February 2021 to discuss his complaint. The landlord’s notes state that the landlord said it had attended the resident’s property on two occasions, apologised that it could not provide him with his desired outcome, and declined to uphold the complaint. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated.
13. The landlord’s internal notes, dated 22 February 2021, state that the resident asked it to provide new carpeting, and that he did not wish to submit a contents insurance claim for damage to his carpet because he felt the damage could have been prevented “if the first leak had been fixed properly [the] first time”, as, he said, the second leak wouldn’t have occurred.
14. On 11 March 2021, the landlord conducted a further visit at the resident’s property. The landlord could not identify any damage to the resident’s carpet, or any “damp/rotting” smell emanating from it. The landlord offered to arrange a professional cleaning of the carpet as a gesture of goodwill.
15. The landlord rang the resident on 17 March 2021 about his escalation request. The resident confirmed that his complaint “was in relation to the carpet and that he believed the felt [was] rotten”. The landlord followed this up with another call on 23 March 2021, during which it advised that its stage two investigation had determined that the first stage response was sound, and it would only offer to arrange a professional clean of the carpet, as a goodwill gesture.
16. On 26 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It advised that it was the resident’s responsibility to ensure he had contents insurance, and to submit a claim in the event of such damages. Its offer to arrange for his carpet to be cleaned was still available. It referred him to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

17. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that it is the resident’s responsibility to “keep the interior of the premises in good and clean condition and to decorate all internal parts of the premises as frequently as is necessary to keep them in good decorative order”.
18. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that residents are responsible for “decorating and maintaining decorative order within their homes”. However, the landlord would consider undertaking decorative works in instances where these are needed due to damage caused by repair works undertaken by it, or if there was a “significant contrast between the repaired area and the existing decor”. Additionally, it is noted that “the nature and extent of decoration [would] be solely at [its] discretion”.

The landlord’s Response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to his carpets, following a leak.

19. None of the evidence provided for this investigation indicates that the leaks experienced by the resident were the result of any specific action or inaction by the landlord. Because of that, provided it responded to the report of the second leak (when the carpet is reported to have been damaged) in the relevant timeframe and took appropriate steps to resolve it, there would be no reason for the landlord to think that it should compensate the resident. However, no clear records of the landlord’s actions around the two leaks have been provided. It is therefore not possible to say if the landlord responded in good time, and took appropriate actions. It is also not possible to robustly assess the resident’s concern that the work to resolve the 4 July 2020 leak was insufficient to prevent the subsequent leak three days later. In most circumstances, this would be considered poor record keeping, at the very least, by the landlord.
20. The resident confirmed to the landlord that it attended on 7 July 2020, and, it appears from his comments, resolved the problem. The damage he experienced in his home resulted from that second leak.
21. The landlord’s records make clear that there is no dispute about there being significant decorative damage from the leak, and that it undertook to remedy that, to an extent. The actions taken by the landlord in this regard were arguably more than it was obliged to do, because there was no evidence either showing it had or had not contributed to the leak, and internal decorating is specified by the tenancy agreement to be the resident’s responsibility.
22. The leaks reportedly caused damage to the resident’s carpet in the hallway. As a result, the resident asked the landlord to either replace the damaged carpet or compensate him, because he believed that the damage could have been prevented, had the landlord repaired the first water leak in a more efficient manner. There is no doubt that the leaks would have caused inconvenience and frustration to the resident, and his view that he should be compensated for the effect on his home (such as the carpet) is understandable. After all, there is no evidence that he caused the leaks. Likewise, none of the evidence provided indicates that the leaks were the result of any clear action or inaction by the landlord.
23. The landlord is within its right to rely and act upon the recommendations provided by its qualified staff when deciding the repairs to be undertaken.
24. As previously stated in this report, the exact dates of when the water leaks occurred, the resident lodged the stage one formal complaint, or the exact actions taken by the landlord to deal with the leaks were not confirmed to this Service. However, based on the information provided, it is made clear that the landlord attended the resident’s property on 27 January and 11 March 2021 solely to assess the condition of the carpet, and determine whether further action was needed. This was reasonable of the landlord because it agreed to investigate the issue on two occasions and offered to arrange a professional carpet cleaning, despite this not falling within its responsibilities. It was also reasonable because, despite the visits, the landlord had not been able to corroborate the resident’s reports of damage to his flooring or carpets, in the manner he had reported.
25. Overall, the lack of evidence about the leak and the landlord’s handling of them would usually be a matter of concerns, because without that information this investigation could not reliably assess the landlord’s actions. However, after the leak was resolved the landlord undertook reasonable and fair actions to both assist with redecorating some parts of the property, and inspecting the flooring and carpets the resident said had also been damaged. Its operatives views were that there was no meaningful damage to the flooring. The landlord was entitled to rely on the views of its staff and contractors, and so, in the absence of clear indications of damage, its decision not to compensate for the floorings was reasonable, regardless of how it handled the actual leaks.

The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy

26. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. At the first stage, the landlord would discuss the complaint with the resident, in an attempt to find a solution beneficial for both parties, and it aims to resolve these within ten working days. Whereas at the second stage, the landlord would review the data and issue a final resolution within ten working days.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

27. Following the leaks, in July 2020, the resident requested to lodge a formal complaint, during a telephone conversation at the end of July. However, it appears from the landlord’s records that while the complaint was logged, it did not proceed because the resident asked not to, as he was going to seek legal advice.
28. It is not clear from the records when the resident asked the landlord to take up his complaint again, but he chased the landlord for a complaint update towards the end of 2020. On 18 February 2021, the resident and the landlord spoke, during which the landlord informed him it would not uphold his complaint. This appears to have been the landlord’s formal complaint response, as no written copy has been provided. While the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy does not stipulate that a formal complaint response would be provided in writing, it does state that it would record resident’s complaints and aim to respond within ten working days. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint at this stage was unreasonable because:

1. There are no records confirming the date the stage one complaint was received, which led to this Service being unable to determine whether the timeframe of ten working days was adhered to.
2. The landlord failed to issue a written stage one complaint response, which, as per the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, is contrary to good practice.

29. Furthermore, it is noted that the resident requested for his formal complaint to be escalated to the second stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 18 February 2021, and the landlord issued a formal stage two complaint response on 26 March 2021, which did not meet the response timeframe of ten working days stipulated in the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy.
30. To conclude, this Service appreciates the landlord’s efforts to handle and resolve the resident’s complaint however, there is clear evidence of service failure on its behalf because it failed to record vital information, such as the date the resident’s complaint was formally logged, to issue a written stage one complaint response, and to comply to its complaints and compensation policy by not adhering to the response timeframe of ten working days.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to his carpets, following a leak.
32. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

33. The landlord assessed the resident’s carpet on two occasions and could not identify any damage. It’s decision not to compensate for damage was therefore reasonable. However, the landlord failed to record important information, issue a written stage one complaint response, and adhere to its set response timeframe for the second stage complaint response, demonstrating poor complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

34. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £125 for the inconvenience caused by its handling of his complaint.
35. The compensation has been decided in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is to be paid to the resident, in full, within four weeks from this determination.

Recommendation

36. It is recommended that the landlord review its training needs in relation to complaint handling, which should include consideration of this Service’s remedies guidance at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/corporate-information/policies/dispute-resolution/policy-on-remedies/, and the completion of our free online dispute resolution training for landlords at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/e-learning/, if this has not been done recently.