The Guinness Partnership Limited (202127330)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127330

The Guinness Partnership Limited

25 August 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 offer of compensation in relation to issues and delays with bathroom repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant of the landlord, submitted her formal complaint on 6 July 2019, in which she outlined several issues regarding repairs to her bathroom. These issues included work that the resident believed to have not been completed to an adequate standard, and communication issues that prolonged the length of time that it took to complete the repairs.
3. The landlord attempted to arrange appointments to complete the repairs, but the resident did not want the contractors to attend unless she was present. Due to work commitments, the resident requested that the work be done on a Saturday. The landlord attempted to arrange this, but the contractor did not work on weekends. In January 2020, the resident booked time off work for the repairs to be arranged and completed, but the contractor cancelled the appointment.
4. Following this, government lockdowns due to the pandemic caused further delay in the repair being organised. Once restrictions were lifted, the work was scheduled for 13 July 2020. The resident confirmed on 27 July 2020 that the work to the bathroom had been completed to a good standard. The landlord then confirmed that it would now look to make an offer of compensation. There was a significant delay in the landlord issuing its final response, and it was given on 16 November 2021, in which it awarded £750 to the resident. This was broken down to: £250 for delays to repairs, £100 for time and trouble in pursuing the complaint, £100 for poor communication, £100 for stress and inconvenience, and £250 for complaint handling delays.
5. The resident made clear to this Service, that she did not feel the level of compensation fairly reflected the impact that the contractor’s handling of repairs, and the landlord’s handling of her complaint had on her. The resident wanted the landlord to pay the £750 it had offered, along with a further £440 for the days that she took off work for the missed appointments, and an additional £3,745.60 for the landlord allowing the situation to escalate.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

6. Section 33 of the landlord’s Complaints Policy states that in regard to a stage one complaint, the landlord ‘Within 10 working days from the receipt of the complaint [the landlord] will provide [the resident] with [its] decision on whether [the resident’s] complaint is upheld or not’.
7. Section 37 of the landlord’s Complaints Policy states that ‘Within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint, [the landlord] will provide [the resident] with [its] decision on whether [the resident’s] complaint is upheld or not, and if it is upheld what action is proposed to address it. If there is a good reason [the landlord] may take longer than this, but [the landlord] will explain this to the [resident], but it will not exceed a further 10 working days. [The landlord] will provide an explanation and a date by then the stage two response should be received’.
8. Section 21 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that ‘[The landlord does not] pay compensation for loss of earnings. Whilst repair works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to customers, [the resident’s] occupancy agreements will require [the resident] to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed’.
9. Section 22 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that ‘If missed appointments are part of a series of failures, [the landlord] will take this into account as part of any compensation for a Service failure’.
10. Section 35 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that payments on £700+ are reasonable for instances in which ‘The issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience having a significant impact on the [resident] or household which is likely to [have] caused longer-term distress’.

The landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to issues and delays with bathroom repairs

11. It was not disputed by the landlord that there were issues regarding work to the resident’s bathroom, which included the replacement of the resident’s bath, and the re-painting of the bathroom ceiling. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays and issues, and acknowledged this in its offer of compensation to the resident. It noted that it offered £250 in regard to the ‘delays to repairs’, which was part of a total of £750 overall compensation. As there was no dispute that its response to the bathroom repairs was not up to standard, this this investigation looks at how the landlord responded to these issues, and whether its response, and the compensation offered was reasonable.
12. The resident, in her formal complaint (6 July 2019), raised concerns regarding the contractor’s handling of repairs to her bathroom. She said that much of the work had not been done due to missed appointments, and contractors arriving who were either unqualified, or did not have the correct information to carry out the work. Additionally, the resident had taken time out of work for the repairs to be made.
13. The landlord acknowledged that the repairs had not been handled to the required standard. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord stated that ‘[The resident’s] repairs were initially handled poorly, and the subsequent visits contributed to [the resident’s] frustration as [the resident] had to take time out of work’. The landlord’s stage one complaint response noted that it was ‘unable to clearly understand why [the contractor] didn’t send a plasterer to carry out repairs to the ceiling’. Additionally, the landlord also noted in its stage one response that an order to replace the bath was raised by the landlord’s surveyor; however, the surveyor had failed to notify the contractor that boxing had to be removed in order to gain access to the bath. This meant that when the contractor attended to carry out the work, it had not been allocated the correct amount of time, further lengthening the delay.
14. It is important for the landlord to ensure that the contractor has the correct information in order to carry out the necessary repairs. Failure to give the correct information leads to situations like this in which the contractor attending was unprepared for the job that needed doing. Had the surveyor made clear to the contractor that boxing needed removing, the correct amount of time would have been allocated to the job, allowing the contractor to remove the boxing and replace the bath. Failure to do so caused further unnecessary delay in the issue being resolved. Additionally, providing the correct information regarding a repair, ensures that the correct staff are sent who are able to fulfil the repair obligation.
15. The landlord stated that it could not ‘clearly understand why’ a plasterer was not sent to the property. However, it is the landlord’s duty to understand why, and to seek this information in order to resolve this and ensure that it does not repeat this error in the future. Although it was the contractor that sent the wrong member of staff to carry out the work, the landlord ultimately holds all responsibility for the repair.
16. There were also communication issues that caused further delay in the repair being resolved. For example, the resident had to chase responses to some emails which necessitated unnecessary involvement in resolving the issue. In one instance, the landlord, as part of a late response, advised the resident that it thought it had responded to her, when in fact it had not. Additionally, this type of error could have conveyed to the resident that her complaint was not being taken seriously enough. It is important that the landlord maintains clear and consistent communication with the resident following a repair request or complaint.
17. Whilst there were failings on the landlord’s part in ensuring that works were completed, it did acknowledge and accept that it had fallen short of expectations.
18. Although there were failings by the landlord, there were factors that contributed to the delay of the repair that were outside of the landlord’s control. For example, the COVID restrictions that were brought into place during early 2020. The initial restrictions began in March 2020, which caused the landlord’s non-urgent repairs to be placed on hold. The restrictions were only eased in June 2020, at which point, the landlord began to re-open its non-urgent repair responsibilities. On 2 July 2020, the resident confirmed that the landlord had booked the repair for 13 July 2020.
19. Another delay that was outside of the landlord’s control was that following the initial poorly handled work, the resident felt too uncomfortable to have the contractor attend her property without her being present. Therefore, she requested that any work was booked for a weekend so that she could be there. Whilst it is understandable that the resident wanted to be present for any work carried out within her home, the contractor did not carry out repairs on weekends, and was not contracted to do so. Nonetheless, it is clear from the correspondence that the landlord did attempt to arrange for the contractor to attend on a Saturday, as requested by the resident.
20. By doing this, the landlord went above and beyond its strict repair obligations, as asking the contractor to act outside of its contractual obligations is not something that the landlord would be expected to do. By attempting this, the landlord showed a commitment to attempting to maintain a positive landlord/tenant relationship. It showed that it had put the resident’s concerns at the forefront of its attempt to resolve the situation.
21. Additionally, once it was confirmed by the contractor that it would not carry out the work on weekends, the landlord offered to have a member of staff and/or the contractor’s contract manager present in order to oversee the repairs, to ensure that it was done to a good standard. Again, this showed that the landlord had attempted to address the resident’s concerns regarding the quality of work when she was not present to oversee it herself. It was also a reasonable and appropriate thing for the landlord to offer given that the work was unable to be completed on weekends.
22. The resident noted that she had booked time off for the repairs to be completed, yet the contractors had either cancelled the appointment (for example 27 January where the contractors cancelled on the day), or as mentioned above, the contractors arrived with incorrect information, meaning that the work could not be done that day. The resident stated that these had wasted days away from work, and mentioned to this Service that she wanted £440 compensation for the days in which she took time off work for the contractors’ appointments.
23. Whilst a contractor failing to carry out an appointment is indeed poor service, the landlord cannot be held responsible for the fact that the resident needed a month’s notice to re-book time off work, in order to be present for the repair. The landlord had offered reasonable and alternative options by offering to have a member of staff present to oversee the work. Therefore, whilst it can be held responsible for the contractor failing to carry out an appointment, it is not the fault of the landlord that further delay manifested due to the resident needing to book time off.
24. Additionally, whilst it is understandably frustrating that repairs were not completed on days taken off from work, it should be mentioned that the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that it does not compensate for loss of earnings. As stated in section 21 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy, ‘[The landlord does not] pay compensation for loss of earnings. Whilst repair works will inevitably cause some inconvenience to customers, [the resident’s] occupancy agreements will require [the resident] to give access for repairs to be carried out as needed’.
25. However, whilst this is the case, it is still expected of the landlord to pay compensation for the inconvenience caused by the missed appointments, although this would not generally be linked to loss of earnings. Section 22 of the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that ‘If missed appointments are part of a series of failures, [the landlord] will take this into account as part of any compensation for a Service failure’. In similar cases, the general compensation offered for a missed appointment is between £10 and £15 per appointment. It is reasonable to assume that the compensation for the missed appointments would have been covered under the £250 for the ‘delays to repairs’.
26. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was ‘repeated failures to reply to letters and phone calls’, and ‘failure to meet service standards for action and responses but where the failure had no significant impact’, a payment of £250 would be reasonable. Therefore, when the delays from COVID restrictions, and the resident’s assertion to have the work completed on a weekend rather than a weekday are considered, the landlord’s offer of £250 for ‘delays to repairs’ is reasonable and appropriate. Additionally, the award of £100 for poor communication was also reasonable, given the extent of which the resident had to chase responses up to this point. However, the landlord should have made it clearer to the resident in its breakdown of compensation, that the missed appointments were included in the calculation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

27. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 July 2019. The landlord’s complaints policy states that in regard to a stage one complaint, the landlord ‘Within 10 working days from the receipt of the complaint [the landlord] will provide [the resident] with [its] decision on whether [the resident’s] complaint is upheld or not’. However, there is no evidence that shows the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, or gave a date in which it would respond.
28. The landlord’s stage one complaint response was given on 2 August 2019. This was almost one month after the receipt of the complaint, and significantly more than the ten working days from the receipt of the complaint. Additionally, the landlord did not advise the resident that it would be taking longer to respond. Whilst the length of delay was not severe, the landlord would still be expected to notify the resident that it needed more time in order to investigate and respond to her complaint. The complaint response itself however was reasonable. It outlined the resident’s concerns, and referenced the questions she had asked word for word, and gave a response to each of the resident’s questions.
29. However, the main failure is in regard to the final complaint response. Although it is not specified, it is reasonable to assume that the resident’s stage two escalation request was an email sent to the landlord on 18 August 2019. This is due to the clear dissatisfaction with the landlord’s formal stage one response exhibited by the resident in the email, and therefore should have been taken as an escalation request. Although the landlord did escalate the complaint, there was no confirmation of escalation, or acknowledgement.
30. The landlord’s complaints policy states that ‘Within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint, [the landlord] will provide [the resident] with [its] decision on whether [the resident’s] complaint is upheld or not, and if it is upheld what action is proposed to address it. If there is a good reason [the landlord] may take longer than this, but [the landlord] will explain this to the [resident], but it will not exceed a further 10 working days. [The landlord] will provide an explanation and a date by then the stage two response should be received’.
31. From correspondence provided, the landlord showed an unwillingness to progress the complaint until an appointment for repair had been arranged and completed. As shown in an email to the resident dates 18 November 2019, the landlord stated ‘Unless [the landlord arranged] an appointment there isn’t any way [the landlord] can progress the complaint’. It also said that it would not offer compensation until the complaint had been ‘completely resolved’.
32. This was not appropriate, and not in line with either the landlord’s or this Service’s complaint handling policies. The landlord should have adhered to the timeframes outlined in its complaints policy. Additionally, due to unforeseen issues regarding COVID, this approach meant that the resident was left waiting for a final response for much longer than she should have been. This unfairly delayed the point in which the resident could raise the complaint to this Service, and therefore postponing the resolution of her complaint. Even so, once the repair had been completed, the final response was not issued until 16 November 2021. This was more than two years after the resident had raised her initial complaint, and roughly 16 months after the repair had been completed.
33. Following the completion of the repair in July 2020, the landlord informed the resident on 31 July 2020 that it would look to make an offer of compensation. This was chased multiple times by the resident, who several times per month, asked either for an update from the landlord, or for the landlord to respond to her emails. The landlord explained that the delay was due to a shortage of staff, which had stretched the workload. Whilst at times this may be reasonable, a delay of this length is not justified by a lack of staff and high workload. Additionally, as per complaint policies, the landlord should have given the resident a date in which she could expect the final response, and offered compensation for the inconvenience caused by the long delay.
34. Failure to give the resident a timeframe in which she could expect a final response, was a failure to manage the resident’s expectations. Managing the resident’s expectations is an important part of a landlord’s complaint handling strategy, as not only does it keep the resident informed, but it can also improve the landlord/tenant relationship by sowing the resident that the landlord was active in pursuing a resolution to the resident’s complaint.
35. Once issued, the landlord’s final response included an offer of £250 in recognition of the complaint handling failures, and £100 for time and trouble. This Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests that for instances in which there were ‘significant failures to follow procedure, escalate the matter, or signpost [the resident]’, payments of £250 to £700 are reasonable. The landlord’s overall offer of £350 for complaint handling failures was reasonable, in line with its own policies and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

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, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the bathroom repairs and the landlord’s complaint handling.