The Guinness Partnership Limited (202119068)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119068

The Guinness Partnership Limited

11 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:

1. The landlord’s decision not to compensate the resident for damage to his hallway carpet, following a flood.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2.     The resident became an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 12 August 2020.

3.     The resident complained to the landlord about its decision not to compensate him following a flood into the property, which resulted in irreparable damage to his newly fitted hallway carpet, costing £230. He was of the view that the landlord should make the payment because the drains outside of the property had become overfilled, causing the flood.  He later added that he had discovered the property was “liable to flooding”, having found out it had flooded five years prior and felt the landlord should have advised him of this.

4.     In response to the complaint, the landlord declined to compensate the resident for damage to the carpet, explaining that it was an “act of God” that had caused the flood, for which it was not responsible.  It found that no reports had been made of a blocked drain and advised that the matter was one for the resident’s home contents insurer, which it said it recommended him to obtain at the property sign-up stage. 

5.     The landlord acknowledged failed call-backs and a delayed response to the complaint, however, for which it offered £100 compensation, comprised of £80 and £20 respectively.

6.     The resident had not taken out home contents insurance, stating that he was never advised of this and wouldn’t take out home contents insurance anyway. He remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to compensate him for the damaged carpet and the level of compensation offered, because it does not meet the cost of the carpet.

 

Assessment and findings

Decision not to compensate the resident for flood damage to the hallway carpet

7.     Once on notice, a landlord is obliged to carry out the repairs it is responsible for in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and in law.  Responsibility for repairs encompasses the structure and exterior of the building and included unblocking of the drain located outside of the property, should it have become blocked and reported as such by the resident. There is no evidence of the resident having reported a blockage and without being ‘on notice’, the landlord was not responsible for attending to inspect – and where appropriate – clear it.  

8.     The landlord is not responsible for unforeseeable ‘acts of God’, such as floods, which has occurred through no fault of its own and there is no evidence of fault on the part of the landlord, for the flood occurring.  The landlord has said that for this reason, it advises residents to take out their own home contents insurance.  This is supported by its ‘Compensation Policy’ which states at paragraph 17, that it “…encourage[s] customers to take out contents insurance to cover belongings and decorations against, loss, fire, flood, or accidental damage.”

9.     The same policy further states that the landlord may consider compensation for “quantifiable loss and damage” where there has been a service failure on its part, but it will not pay compensation where “…the damage or loss was caused by circumstances beyond [its] control e.g., through storm damage or flooding”.

10. Whilst the resident does not recall being advised to take out home contents insurance, and this cannot be ascertained, either way, it is clearly set out in the landlord’s policy. It also is standard practice; a landlord is not responsible for flood damage and this is irrespective of whether the landlord explicitly set this out to the resident at the time of tenancy sign-up.

11. In terms of the resident’s dissatisfaction that the landlord did not advise him that the property was “liable to flooding” having purportedly discovered that it had flooded five years earlier, there is no evidence of the property being “liable to flooding”, even if it had flooded five years prior. Furthermore, to investigate historic floods at the property which occurred prior to the resident living there, is beyond the scope of this investigation. This is because the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate the situation that occurred with the resident’s property flooding and how the landlord responded to his request to be compensated for the damaged carpet and its subsequent handling of the complaint.

12. Documentation provided to this Service indicates that the flood into the property occurred due to what the landlord referred to in a telephone call to the resident as “an act of God”, specifically, “adverse weather” and it was therefore not its responsibility to compensate for. Specifically, the surveyor’s report dated 21 July 2021, confirms that the drain was clear, although even if it had not been, the flood would not have been the fault of the landlord, as explained above.

13. It is deeply unfortunate that the resident’s new hallway carpet was ruined by the flood, which is confirmed by the surveyor’s report.  It is understandable that the resident would feel upset about this and would like compensating for the loss.  However, the landlord is not obliged to compensate for the damage, as described above.

Complaints handling

14. Complaints handling not only concerns how a landlord responded to the complaint at its formal complaint stages but includes how the landlord communicated and managed expectations throughout the entirety of the reported dissatisfaction and complaint. 

15. The landlord identified six occasions on which it failed to return a call to the resident, having advised him it would do so. This was an undoubtedly frustrating and stressful experience for the resident; having been told he would receive a telephone call; he had a reasonable expectation that this would happen and it did not on multiple occasions. 

16. Sometimes things go wrong due to human error or process failures, for example, and this provides an opportunity for a landlord to learn from its mistakes and take steps to help prevent a recurrence.  Six occasions of the same mistake, however, was unacceptable and does not indicate learning on the landlord’s part.  In its stage one response to the complaint, the landlord indicated learning, although did not specify what had gone wrong or why, what it had learned and or action it had taken to ensure the same thing did not happen again.

17. Responding to a complaint is an opportunity for a landlord to put things right, which is not only about an offer of compensation (where appropriate or reasonable) but about an apology and explanation of what went wrong and information as to how it would prevent a further repeat of a mistake.  This demonstrates a landlord has taken matters seriously and goes towards redress and rebuilding of trust and the landlord-tenant relationship.  The landlord did not sufficiently do this, with an apology and statement that learning would happen, not going far enough.

18. Turning to the landlord’s response times in respect of the complaint, its response was delayed at stage two of the complaints procedures.  The response was not issued in accordance with its own timescales as set out in its ‘Complaints Policy’, specifically, within 20 working days at stage two, but instead, around six weeks after the escalation request was received.  There was no explanation for the delay at stage two, although £20 compensation was offered in recognition of this, as well as £80 for the service failures relating to failed call-backs.

19. The landlord’s ‘Compensation Policy’ sets out circumstances where the it may offer compensation, including as a “goodwill gesture” where there has been a service failure on its part and where there has been “distress and inconvenience”.  Guidance amounts are suggested, including up to £250 where “The issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household”.

20. Whilst the policy states “up to £250” and does not specify a minimum amount, the £20 for the delayed response falls below the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies around compensation and redress. Specifically, the guidance states a recommended amount of £50 to £250 where there has been service failure with some impact to the complainant, which can include where there has been a failure to meet service standards, for instance.  The offer of £20 falls below this threshold.

21. Turning to the £80 offered for service failure in respect of returning the calls, this was reasonable, as it fell within the landlord’s guidance as well as within the Ombudsman’s with a minimum guideline of £50.  It is unclear how the landlord quite arrived at the figure of £80 for six failures, however, thereby missing an opportunity to explain this.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its decision not to compensate the resident for flood damage to the hallway carpet.

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

24. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £150 compensation, as follows:

1. If not already done so, the £100 compensation offered at stage two of the complaints process, comprised of £80 in recognition of the failings identified in respect of its six failed call-backs and £20 in recognition of the delay to its complaints responses.
2. A further £50 compensation comprising an additional £30 towards the delayed complaints response and £20 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused.