The Guinness Partnership Limited (202122181)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122181

The Guinness Partnership Limited

26 April 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 handling of:
1. The replacement of the windows in the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s concerns about new issues with the back door of her property.
3. The resident’s reports of the windows in her property being in poor condition.
4. The associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

The replacement of the windows in the resident’s property, and the resident’s concerns about issues with the back door of her property.

Windows

The resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s complaints procedure in August 2022. In December 2022, the landlord agreed to replace the windows in the resident’s property, it stated that the replacement would be completed in February 2023. The resident has informed this Service on 19 April 2023 that the living room window was not replaced until April 2023, and the other windows in the property were not replaced. In addition, she stated that the windows that were not replaced are still allowing draughts to enter the property.
Although these issues may be linked to the previous complaint considered, the landlord has not yet been able to investigate or respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the actual replacement of the windows. Therefore, the resident would need to raise a new complaint with the landlord, relating to the replacement and the issues she has explained she is experiencing from her bedroom and kitchen windows since August 2022, when the complaint considered in this report exhausted the landlord’s formal complaints process.
This is in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.

New issues with the back door

Within the complaint being considered in this report, the resident had raised concerns about the back door of the property allowing draughts to enter the property, and that rain water was able to enter through the bottom of the door. The landlord responded to these concerns within its stage two response issued in August 2022. It stated that the issue had been resolved in April 2022, and that following that date, no further reports had been received.
When the resident contacted this Service on 20 April 2023 she explained that she was experiencing new issues with the back door, including: water sitting in the brick work, which took a long time to dry out, and that she believes the door is misaligned. While this may be linked to previous repairs, the landlord has not had the opportunity to investigate or respond to these concerns.
Therefore, in line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, these aspects will also not be considered in this report. The resident would need to raise a new complaint with the landlord, relating to these concerns, which she can escalate to the Ombudsman once it has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom semi-detached property.
Throughout 2020, the landlord installed crack monitors at the resident’s property, and continued to monitor it for movement. On each occasion, the landlord’s operatives reported that there had been no change.
In February 2020, the resident reported that despite previous repairs, the windows in the property had moved again, and were allowing draughts to enter the property. In August 2020, the landlord added additional ‘‘anti-jemmying bolts’’ to the windows, further away from the hinges, as it believed this may resolve the issue. The landlord inspected the property in November 2020, and on 26 November 2020, it raised works to reseal the windows and overhaul the bedroom windows. These works were marked as completed on 5 January 2021. It completed a further inspection in April 2021, and identified further works which needed to be in completed. It also continued to monitor the crack monitors installed previously, and again found no evidence of property movement.
Throughout 2021, the landlord completed works to the windows on several occasions, such as in May 2021 when it raked out old sealant and replaced it, and on 17 November 2021, when it filled in a gap in the window panel.
Following the resident informing the landlord that her ongoing disrepair case was no longer being processed, a stage one complaint was raised on 20 January 2022. She stated that the windows had been poorly fitted, with loose seals and movement. She informed the landlord that she believed this was due to the location the property had been built on. She stated that it was not normal for a property to need window replacements so regularly, nor the number of repairs, and added that neighbouring properties were also experience the same issues.
On 28 January 2022, the landlord applied further sealant to the windows, but the resident reported on 3 February 2022 that draughts from the windows were still impacting her. In March 2022, the landlord replaced the plastic window tensioners with metal ones, and raised an appointment for a surveyor to inspect the property.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 2 March 2022. It apologised for the delays in its complaint handling, and stated that a contractor would contact the resident directly to make an appointment for repairs to take place. It apologised for its failures, and offered the resident £80 compensation made up of: £30 for delays in resolving the repair, and the resulting stress and inconvenience; £30 for poor communication and £20 for poor complaint handling. It also said that it would provide further training to its repair team.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 March 2022. She stated that windows in the property were still in poor condition and continued to move even after expanding foam had been applied. She was unhappy with the level of workmanship and the delays in the landlord completing the repair, and stated that the draughts were impacting her health due to cold temperature of the main rooms in the property. She added that this had resulted in increased energy usage and that she was unable to regulate the temperature properly.
On 24 March 2022, the landlord’s surveyor reported that metal friction stays had been fitted to the living room window, and it was now working better. However, it reported that the resident was still concerned about draughts. The landlord raised further works for the window trims to be removed, and any missing foam filled in, which was completed in May 2022.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 2 August 2022. It acknowledged that its stage one response was not adequate. It stated that following an inspection on 9 May 2022, works had been raised to realign the windows, which had been completed on 4 July 2022. On 27 July 2022, an engineer removed and refitted the window trim, and resealed windows. It added that if the resident could provide evidence of increased energy usage from the previous two years for comparison, it would also consider this. It apologised for the delay in completing works, and within its complaint handling and increased its compensation offer to £500, made up of: £250 for repair delays; £150 for poor communication and £100 for poor complaint handling.
The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She stated that she had been unable to use the downstairs of her property due to the draughts, and was seeking for the landlord to rectify the windows.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has provided this Service with copies of doctor’s letters which explain how the situation has impacted her mental and physical health. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the resident’s living conditions and the deterioration of her health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice may need to be sought.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to structural elements of the resident’s home, which includes windows frames, window catches and window sills.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it categorises repairs as either ‘emergency’ or ‘routine’. It explains that it considers emergency works to be where there is an immediate health and safety risk, whilst it considers routine repairs to be those that are not emergencies. It also states that emergency repairs would be completed within 24 hours, and routine repairs would be completed within 28 days.

The resident’s reports of the windows in her property being in poor condition.

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs needed to the windows of the property. Therefore, when the resident reported in March 2020 that the windows in her property had moved and were allowing draughts to enter the property, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inspect the property and assess whether any works were needed.
As the resident had raised concerns that the window had moved, it was appropriate for the landlord to install and monitor crack monitors at her property. On each occasion, the landlord’s operatives reported that there had been no change.
From the evidence provided, the landlord raised the repairs to the windows as ‘appointable’ repair. Although there is no timeframe or description given for an appointable repair in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, the repairs information on its website states that if the repair is not an emergency, then it would aim to resolve it within 28 days. When considering this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to complete the repairs within 28 days.
In this case, the resident reported to the landlord on 20 May 2020 that, although the window had been fixed previously, it had moved again and was letting in a draught. In the landlord’s stage two response, it confirmed that the issue had been resolved on 27 July 2022, when an engineer removed and refitted the window time, and resealed the window.
While the repairs process did take significantly longer than the 28 working day timeframe as listed in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve issues such as draughts, as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some cases, different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord as the landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified staff and contractors when deciding what works to undertake.
It is not disputed that during this time, there were delays in the landlord’s service. Following the resident’s reports in February 2020 and March 2020, there was a significant delay caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which resulted in the landlord cancelling works at the time, with the aim to re-raise them at a later date. Nonetheless, the delays did impact the resident, and resulted in distress and inconvenience due to her concerns about the draughts. While this Service understands there were restrictions in place at the time, the landlord would have been expected to inform the resident of the delay, and explain the next steps to her. However, from the evidence provided, the landlord does not appear to have communicated effectively with the resident during this time.
Between August 2020 and November 2021, the landlord attended on several occasions, including in May 2021, August 2021 and 17 November 2021, where it carried out works such as raking out old sealant, applying new sealant, and filling in gaps in the windows. The above works were all completed within the appropriate 28 working day timeframe from when they were raised. Although the resident was unhappy with the number of repairs needed to the windows, the landlord had taken her concerns seriously, raised the necessary works and completed the works in line with its obligations.
In January 2022, further sealant was applied, which the resident informed the landlord had helped, but had not fully resolved the draughts. There were periods where the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations appropriately as following these works, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update throughout February 2022. This is evidence of poor communication on the landlord’s behalf, which impacted the resident as she spent time and trouble chasing the matter. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs relating to communication with residents, to ensure it is appropriately managing its residents expectations.
The landlord attended the property on several occasions throughout 2022, following further reports from the resident. On each occasion, it completed works within the appropriate timeframe listed in its repairs policy, including on 21 February 2022, when a surveyor inspected the property and raised works to replace plastic window tensioners with metal ones. It completed these works by 15 March 2022 and then raised further works on 20 July 2022, which were completed by 27 July 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend to each issue in line with its obligations. Furthermore, it had completed works based on the advice from its qualified staff and surveyors, which it was entitled to do.
It is not disputed that the landlord’s operatives attended on several occasions and attempted a series of different repairs to try and resolve the draughts for the resident. Although the landlord recognised that this may have been frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable for it to attempt to repair the windows, especially when considering that social landlords have a limited budget for repairs and that the windows had been replaced already. This is also in line with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy which states that it will normally repair rather than replace individual elements.
While the landlord had attended to the majority of the works within the appropriate timeframe, the resident had raised concerns about the structural integrity of the property, as she believed that the window issues were caused by movement of the property. Although it is clear that the landlord had taken some steps to address the resident’s concerns throughout the repairs process, it failed to address these concerns within its complaint responses. In addition, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about the particularly cold temperatures she experienced in the property due to the draughts, which she stated were sometimes as low as eight degrees Celsius.
The resident had also raised concerns about how the window issues had impacted her energy costs. The landlord attempted to investigate this, but informed the resident in March 2022, that it would need a more detailed energy usage for evidence of the increased costs. The landlord has informed the resident in its stage two complaint response, that if she was able to provide the evidence, it would consider this. This was reasonable as the landlord would not be obligated to provide compensation for any additional energy usage without sufficient evidence. In view of this, it is recommended that the landlord reviews any evidence the resident submits relating to her energy usage, and considers whether any further compensation would be appropriate.
The landlord did not dispute that there were delays in its service that impacted the resident, and that, at times, its communication had been poor. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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.
In this case, the landlord had acted fairly by acknowledging its mistakes. It attempted to put things right by offering the resident £400 compensation (£250 for repair delays and £150 for poor communication).
The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance and as such the Ombudsman considers the amount offered proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. In addition, it showed some learning as it committed to providing feedback to its relevant teams, and providing further staff training to its repairs team.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one complaint response will be issued within ten working days, and a stage two complaint response will be issued within 20 working days.
Following the resident informing the landlord that her disrepair case was no longer in process due to a lack of legal aid, it raised a stage one complaint on 20 January 2022. It issued its stage one complaint response on 2 March 2022. This was a total of 29 working days, which exceeded the appropriate timeframe listed in the landlord’s complaint handling policy. In addition, this Service had to request the response from the landlord. This shows poor complaint handling on the landlord’s behalf, which impacted the resident as she spent time and trouble chasing the complaint, and requesting assistance from this Service.
The resident escalated her complaint on 4 March 2022, and the landlord issued its stage two response on 2 August 2022. This was a total of 103 working days, and therefore significantly exceeded the appropriate 20 working day timeframe as listed in the landlord’s complaints policy.
However, on 5 April 2022, the resident asked the landlord to delay providing a response until she had been able to provide a doctors letter. On 4 May 2022, the resident chased the complaint, the landlord stated that it had not yet received any additional evidence from her, but would now finalise the complaint. Although this Service does not question the resident’s request for the landlord to wait before providing a response, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to be held accountable for the delay.
Nevertheless, there was a further delay between 4 May 2022, and 2 August 2022 when the stage two response was issued. In the stage two response, the landlord stated that this delay was due to increased workloads at the time, but recognised that this was not reasonable.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, 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.
In this case, the landlord acted fairly by apologising, and tried to put things right by offering her £100 compensation for its complaint handling delays. This compensation award is also in line with the remedies guidance provided by this Service, and is proportionate to the delays experienced by the resident.
For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. However, it is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to complaint handling, to ensure that its staff is issuing complaint responses in line with its complaints policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 (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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the windows in her property being in poor condition, satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (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 the landlord’s handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord do the following within the next four weeks:
1. Pay the resident the £500 compensation offered previously, if it has not yet been paid, as this was the basis for the Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress.
2. Review its staff’s training needs relating to communication with residents, to ensure it is appropriately managing its residents expectations.
3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to complaint handling, to ensure that its staff is issuing complaint responses in line with its complaints policy.