The Guinness Partnership Limited (202119084)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119084

The Guinness Partnership Limited

9 March 2023

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system
2. Response to the resident’s concern about asbestos in the bathroom.
3. Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of replastering costs.
4. Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the TV connection cost.
5. Response to the resident’s concerns about the tenancy and rent charges.
6. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He lives in a one-bedroom flat and has a disability. The tenancy agreement was signed on 20 August 2021 and this Service understands the resident was due to move in on 3 September 2021.
On 1 September 2021 the landlord uncapped the gas and found that the boiler was not working and that this was causing a leak in the living room. The landlord attempted a repair, but this did not resolve the problem. The landlord arranged a survey on 8 September 2021 as a full re-pipe of the system was required; the repair work started on 16 September 2021 and was completed on 23 September 2021.
The resident raised a number of issues with the landlord including:
1. Why it had taken so long for the heating and hot water to be fixed. He explained there had been further problems such as connecting a waste pipe that had not been reconnected; and the contractor had wrongly attached the hot water feed from the bathroom tap to the cold water tap. Due to the lack of heating and hot water, he had had to live with a family member from 3 to 24 September 2021.
2. His complaint submitted on 5 September 2021 via the landlord’s online portal had not been logged as a complaint.
3. He was told he would have a few days rent free to give him some extra time to decorate, but this had not happened.
4. He had concerns about the 2014 asbestos report which said the asbestos in the bathroom should be removed.
5. He had incurred costs for a TV connection and plastering after finding lots of damage underneath the wallpaper.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint on 15 October 2021. It made the following points:
1. It apologised that the resident’s complaint of 5 September 2021 was not logged as a complaint.
2. The resident told its customer liaison officer that he did not have a TV signal and it was explained to him that this could be repaired, but the resident did not want to wait and had already arranged for someone to do the repair. The landlord confirmed it would not be reimbursing him the £120 he paid for this.
3. Its contractor had attended on 5 September 2021 after the resident reported no heating or hot water in the property. There were concerns with the floor tiles containing asbestos, so this needed to be checked. Then on 8 September 2021 a survey took place to re-pipe the system, but this could not be done in full due to the placement of the electrical consumer unit and wiring in the walls. It said the resident was left with hot water, but the heating was not in use until the repair was completed on 23 September 2021. The landlord apologised for any mess due to the repairs.
4. The towel rail would be fitted on 21 October 2021.
5. Although the resident thought he was getting two days rent free, its lettings officer had explained it would only terminate tenancy agreements on a Sunday. His tenancy started on Friday 3 September 2021 and his previous tenancy terminated on Sunday 5 September 2021. The landlord confirmed the rent for the new property would be payable from the date the tenancy started.
6. In respect of the asbestos report, the landlord said it would only remove asbestos from a ceiling if it was damaged, and there was no evidence of damage in this case.
7. It confirmed the replastering of the walls was its responsibility, but it said the resident did not contact it about the damage and so it would not be assisting him with the cost he incurred to have the walls replastered.
8. The landlord apologised for the resident’s overall experience and offered him £60 compensation. It said this was made up of £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused, and £10 for the delay in registering his complaint.
The resident requested his complaint be escalated to the landlord’s second stage of the complaint process on 19 October 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 22 November 2021. It acknowledged the service the resident had received when trying to get the boiler repaired was not good enough. It said its stage one response did not acknowledge the full extent of its failings, as its contractor had let down the resident several times. The landlord offered the resident an additional £60 compensation, bringing the total compensation offer to £120.
The resident did not accept the landlord’s increased compensation offer and asked this Service to investigate his concerns.

Assessment and findings

The handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system

The problem with the boiler was discovered on 1 September 2021 before the resident had fully moved in. It was appropriate that the landlord treated this as an emergency repair, but it was not successful. It then took several days for the repair to begin, and a further week to complete. Though the reason for the delay in starting work was due to the possible asbestos in the floor tiles, which needed to be checked.
The landlord also needed to re-pipe the system, which was a large job and took some time. The consequence of this was that the resident delayed moving into the property, and also had to delay some of the decorating he had arranged and the fitting of the flooring.
The landlord and resident have conflicting views over when the hot water was fixed. The landlord’s records say the hot water was back on from 16 September 2021, but the resident says this was not the case until 23 September 2021. Though even if the hot water was available from 16 September 2021, if the resident had been living in the property, he would have still been without hot water for some time.
Although the repair was completed on 23 September 2021, the resident was then caused further inconvenience because the contractor had failed to connect the waste pipe to the boiler, so it leaked again the following day and had to be reconnected. The contractor also mixed up the hot water feed so that this went to the cold-water tap. Also, the resident had asked the contractors to call him before attending the property so he could ensure he was there, but that did not always happen.
The resident also said that he had to chase the landlord for an update regularly between 1 September 2021 and 14 September 2021, when he was told work would begin in two days’ time. The landlord offered the resident total compensation of £120 to recognise the inconvenience caused when he moved into the property.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
This Service considers that the sum of £120 is adequate redress for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by the boiler problems because it is the equivalent of a rent rebate of £40 a week, which is more than 50% of his rent. This Service considers that this was a reasonable offer which was proportionate to the impact on the resident.

The response to the resident’s concern about asbestos in the bathroom

When the resident moved into the property, he was provided with an asbestos report from 2014. This confirmed that asbestos was present in a number of ceilings in the property. The report said the majority of the ceilings were in good condition. However, for the bathroom ceiling, it said asbestos had been identified that was redundant, in poor condition, or had the potential to be easily damaged. The report recommended that this asbestos be removed.
The landlord says its policy is not to remove asbestos-containing materials if they are not damaged, as it is safe to live in a property with asbestos that has not been disturbed. That is a reasonable approach for areas where the asbestos is in good condition and where there are no recommendations for its removal. It is not clear that this is the case here and the resident’s concerns were therefore justified.
Given the time that has passed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have arranged for an up-to-date inspection of the bathroom ceiling. Its failure to do so in these circumstances is a service failing. An order has been made, below, for such a survey to be carried out now by a contractor with expertise in such matters and for the landlord to comply with any recommendations made.
It is evident that the resident has been caused distress and inconvenience by this issue. It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to recognise this, as well as the time and trouble the resident spent pursuing the matter with the landlord.

The response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of replastering costs

The resident emailed a member of the landlord’s staff directly on 30 August 2021. In that email he said he had stripped the wallpaper and the walls needed to be replastered. He confirmed he had someone doing this for him before he moved into the property four days later, and asked if there was a decorating grant that could contribute towards this.
Although this email was received by the landlord, the resident did not receive a response. The landlord has since confirmed that it is responsible for the walls and would have arranged for them to be replastered if the resident had asked.
Whilst the resident did bring this to the landlord’s attention before he had the work done, he did not do so through the normal channels. The landlord’s repairs policy says it encourages customers to report all repairs through its website or by phone to its customer service centre. It is clear that the resident had already made arrangements to have the walls replastered himself, as this was going to take place over the following few days after he emailed the landlord.
Taking all of this into account, the landlord was not given sufficient opportunity to put right the damage to the walls before this was arranged by the resident. It would therefore not be reasonable to expect the landlord to reimburse the resident’s costs for this.

The response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the TV connection cost

The resident has explained that when he took over the tenancy, he was advised that he would have a TV connection, but he found this was not connected in his property. Again, the resident did not raise this through the landlord’s normal channels for a repair.
However, the resident did advise the landlord’s customer liaison officer of this, although their recollection is that the resident was advised this could be repaired but he did not wish to wait for this and had already arranged the connection. The resident disputes this and says he was not given the option for the landlord to do this.
Given the difference in recollections, it cannot now be established what was discussed. However, the resident makes a reasonable point that he was not living at the property at the time as he was still waiting for the boiler repair to take place, and so was in no rush to have the TV connected.
As the resident and the landlord’s customer liaison officer had a discussion about the TV connection not working before the resident had arranged the connection (and therefore the landlord could have arranged this for the resident), a reasonable outcome would be for the landlord to contribute towards the cost. The landlord would likely have incurred a connection cost if the resident had not arranged it himself, though it is appreciated this would likely be less than the resident paid. In the circumstances, it would be fair for the landlord to reimburse 50% of the cost which is £60.

The response to the resident’s concerns about the tenancy and rent

The tenancy agreement sets out the rent payments due and the timing of these. It says if a tenancy starts on a day other than a Monday, the portion of the weekly payments for the property is due from the resident in respect of the remainder of the week in which his tenancy starts. There is no mention of any rent-free days when transferring from another tenancy.
The resident understood from the lettings officer that he could have two days’ rent-free, though the lettings officer disputes this. However, the resident says that the conversation took place over the phone, and it does not appear that the landlord made any attempt to locate and listen to the call, despite the resident asking it to do so. This was not reasonable, and the landlord has now likely lost the opportunity to do so, given the time that has passed.
The landlord should apologise to the resident for this and pay compensation of £75 to recognise the time and trouble caused to him by pursuing the matter. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy which says that up to £250 can be paid for minor inconvenience having some impact on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint handling policy explains that it will acknowledge a complaint within two working days. It will provide a stage one response within ten working days from receipt of the complaint. Then a stage two response will be provided within 20 working days of a request to escalate the complaint.
The resident raised a complaint about the heating and hot water problems with the landlord via its online portal on 5 September 2021. The landlord accepts this was received, but it did not acknowledge or respond to the complaint until the resident raised his concerns again the following month.
The landlord has apologised for this and offered the resident £10 compensation. However, while this was in line with its compensation policy, it does not adequately reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident and the time taken to pursue matters. Therefore, and taking all the circumstances into consideration, the sum of £75 better reflects the impact on the resident.
Following the landlord’s stage one complaint response, the resident asked to escalate this on 19 October 2021. The stage two response was not sent until 22 November 2021, which was four days outside the 20-working day timescale. However, it is noted that the landlord called the resident on 16 November 2021 to advise that there would be a delay with its response. That was reasonable.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of repairs to the heating and hot water system.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about asbestos in the bathroom.
2. Response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the TV connection cost.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about the tenancy and rent.
4. Complaint handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for the reimbursement of replastering costs.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action:
1. Apologise to the resident for the service failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £250 made up of:
  1. £100 for the worry caused by the landlord’s failure to address his concerns about the asbestos.
  2. £75 for the time and trouble pursuing the rent query.
  3. £75 for the poor complaint handling.
3. Arrange for a survey to be carried out now by a contractor with expertise in asbestos and for the landlord to comply with any recommendations made.
4. Pay the resident £60 towards the cost of his TV connection.
5. Apologise to the resident for not attempting to listen to the call between him and its lettings officer.
The landlord should confirm its compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £120 offered in its complaint handling for the impact on the resident as a result of the problems with the heating and hot water (if this has not already been paid). The finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis of this payment being made.
2. Review the Complaint Handling Code, available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website, to remind itself of the Ombudsman’s expectations in respect of responding to complaints.