The Guinness Partnership Limited (202115799)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115799

The Guinness Partnership Limited

23 May 2022


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 handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Poor workmanship with regards to repairs in her bathroom.
    2. Damp and mould in her bathroom.
    3. Damage caused to the bathroom fan and flooding of the bathroom floor.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. As a part of her complaint to this Service, the resident raised that she had damp and mould in her property as well as mentioning concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom fan and flooding to the bathroom floor . The Ombudsman cannot consider this issue under our rules. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s [landlord’s] complaints procedure unless if there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not acted within a reasonable timescale.
  3. As these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the landlord, this is not something on which this Service can adjudicate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these aspects of the complaint before the Ombudsman can consider them. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get these matters resolved. If the resident remains dissatisfied once she has received the landlord’s final response to her complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation as a separate complaint at that stage.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on 2 September 2021 to complete repairs in the resident’s bathroom, specifically to replace the resident’s toilet and to replace the boxing which surrounds the toilet. On 7 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to request a post-inspection visit as the work completed was ‘shocking’ and not completed to the standard expected.
  3. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 27 September 2021. The resident stated that the the boxing-in looked ‘unfinished’, contractors had scratched surfaces and the toilet fitted was too small, in comparison to the previous toilet. The resident requested compensation, for the landlord to put the work right and for someone to attend to review the work.
  4. In the resident’s escalation request she stated that, the new toilet was ‘substandard’ in comparison to the previous, as it was not the same size, meaning that the flooring no longer fit. The resident stated she would like a replacement toilet and a new £40 toilet seat to remedy the complaint.
  5. The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 19 November 2021. The landlord stated it had investigated the repairs and photos the resident had provided, and concluded that the repairs were completed to an acceptable standard. However, upon speaking to its surveyor, it agreed to reattend the property and complete work to install skirting boards and remove the ‘trim’ to improve the overall look of the repair. It also explained that the wooden ‘boxing’ around the toilet was rotten so it had replaced this with a plastic alternative to ensure it lasted longer and became easier to manage. The landlord assured the resident that the compensation offers of £25 for poor workmanship and a £25 decorating voucher, still stood and it would increase it by an additional £20 in light of delays to the complaint response, meaning the total compensation offered was £70.
  6. In the resident’s referral to this Service, she raised a number of concerns including:
    1. The landlord ‘backtracked’ on comments and compensation in the stage one complaint response;
    2. Not enough compensation to cover the cost of a decorator making good the décor in the bathroom;
    3. The previously wooden ‘boxing-in’ being replaced with a plastic ‘boxing-in’;
    4. The replacement toilet being smaller than her previous toilet;
    5. The new toilet seat being ‘cheap’;
    6. The bathroom being ‘un–liveable’; and
    7. The resident felt that the repairs had been handled poorly, which led to stress. The resident has no trust that the landlord will repair to a good standard in future.
  1. As an outcome the resident has requested for:
    1. Offer a replacement soft-close toilet seat of her choice;
    2. Replacement skirting boards; and
    3. Increased compensation for decorators to attend, loss of enjoyment and length of time taken to resolve the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that it would normally repair an issue in the first instance rather than arranging a replacement. However, where either the repair would be poorer value for money or ineffective, it will replace the element. The decision about what to replace, when to replace it and what the landlord will replace it with, will be made at the landlord’s discretion.
  2. The repair policy also states that residents are responsible for decorating and maintaining decorative order within their homes. However, where the landlord has completed a repair and that repair has resulted in damage to existing décor, or an obvious and significant contrast between the repaired area and the existing décor, it will make good that area and decorate it. The nature and extent of decoration will be solely at the landlord’s discretion.

Assessment

  1. The resident complained to the landlord that the replacement toilet it had installed, was smaller than the previous toilet. The landlord’s policy states that the decision about what to replace, when to replace it and what it will replace items with, will be made at the landlord’s discretion. This means that the landlord maintains the discretion to choose what toilet the resident gets as a replacement. It is not always possible for a landlord to source a toilet or other item which is exactly the same size as the previous one and therefore, it may be necessary to choose the closest match it has available from suppliers. Therefore, the landlord has acted within its policy obligations, as it has replaced the toilet with a reasonable alternative and used its discretion in deciding what model to use as a replacement.
  2. The resident raised with the landlord that due to the toilet being too small, it had left gaps between her flooring and caused damage to her decoration. The landlord acknowledged that this had occurred and, in an attempt, to resolve the complaint, the landlord offered to reattend the property and fit skirting board to improve the look of the bathroom. This was a reasonable attempt from the landlord to resolve the complaint. As explained above, it was not obliged to fit the same size of toilet but it took appropriate steps to minimise the effect this had on the resident.
  3. The resident also stated that the landlord had not provided her with a soft-close toilet seat. However, this was offered to the resident at stage one and two of the landlord’s complaint procedure. In her referral to this Service, the resident stated she would like to choose her own toilet seat or one similar. The landlord denied this request and it was reasonable in doing so as it was complying with its repair policy which states that when damage to existing décor has occurred it will make good that area, however, the nature of the decoration will be solely at its discretion. Therefore, the landlord is not obliged to allow the resident to choose her own toilet seat provided it provides a toilet seat which is suitable for the toilet.
  4. the resident was also dissatisfied with the replacement ‘boxing-in’ around the toilet as it had been replaced with plastic instead of wood which she said had led to the bathroom having excess moisture. The landlord informed the resident that it had made this change to ensure that the ‘boxing-in’ was easier to deal with and more durable. This was reasonable as the landlord holds the discretion to repair the ‘boxing-in’ with whatever it deems to be appropriate, provided it carries out a safe, lasting repair. The landlord also provided an explanation as to why it had to replace the wood and why it had replaced this with plastic – due to the wood rotting. Therefore, the landlord acted within its discretion as per its repair policy.  As explained above, if the resident has ongoing concerns about damp and mould in the bathroom, she can raise this to the landlord as a separate complaint.
  5. The resident has stated to this Service that this damage had made the bathroom ‘unliveable’, however it appears from the available evidence that this was not expressed to the landlord as part of the formal complaint. When a resident reports to a landlord that they believe that the property is ‘unliveable’, the landlord would be expected to attend the property and complete an investigation. Due to this not being reported to the landlord, it did not have an opportunity to investigate the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s contractors attended the bathroom as part of the repairs and did not record that the bathroom was ‘unliveable’ at any point. After reviewing the evidence provided to this Service, there is no evidence to suggest that the bathroom was ‘unliveable’ as the resident still had full usage of amenities in her property.
  6. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation and £25 decorating voucher so that she would be able to paint the damaged areas of the wall in the bathroom. The resident was not happy with this compensation as she informed that landlord that it would not be enough to pay for a decorator to attend the property. She explained that she would need to hire a decorator as she would be unable to decorate the bathroom herself due to health conditions. Whilst this Service appreciates that the resident has health conditions which would mean she could not carry out decoration herself, it is not the landlord’s obligation to pay in excess of its compensation policy, to facilitate professional decorators to attend. Therefore, the landlord offered a reasonable amount of compensation to the resident for the damage to the décor in the bathroom.
  7. The resident also stated she felt that the landlord had ‘gone back’ on its offers in its stage one complaint response. In the stage one response the landlord offered financial compensation of £25 for poor workmanship and a £25 decorating voucher. In its stage two response, the landlord offered a ‘full and final’ compensation offer of £70. This means that the £70 offer included the £25 acknowledgement of poor workmanship, £25 decorating voucher and an additional £20 compensation for delays in complaint handling, totalling £70. This was fully explained to the resident in the stage two complaint response. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord has withdrawn any offer of redress to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about bathroom repairs satisfactorily.