The Guinness Partnership Limited (202120574)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120574

The Guinness Partnership Limited

18 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:
1. Response to the report that the gas supply had been capped since the resident moved in.
2. Communication in relation to the consent given for the resident’s dog to live in the property.
3. Administration of the rent and service charge account.
4. Response to the repairs reported to the flooring and the roof insulation in the property.
5. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

In June 2015 the landlord, who owned the full share of the property at the time, carried out a gas check on the property which was void. During the visit, the gas supply was capped. The property remained void until it was sold as a shared ownership property to the resident in 2019.
The resident has been a shared owner of the property, a two bedroom flat since 17 December 2019. The resident owns a 40% share of the property and remaining 60% is owned by the landlord.
The resident pays rent on the remaining 60% share of the property. He also pays service charges to the landlord for the services it is required to provide in accordance with the lease agreement.
The resident is disabled and suffers from severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). His complaint has been brought to this Service by his father, who this report will refer to as ‘the representative’.
In October 2020, the resident notified the landlord that he did not have a gas supply in the property since he moved in. The landlord advised him at the time that as he was a homeowner, he would need to arrange for his own contractor to attend and uncap the gas supply. The resident advised that they did not have key to the meter cupboard and was advised to request one from the landlord.
Around December 2020, the resident was notified that they were due a refund of £254.14 in service charges they had paid for the year 2019/2020, following an adjustment to his service charge account. He requested the refund from the landlord shortly after. The refund was deposited to the resident’s account on 29 January 2021 however, he contacted the landlord for the refund again on 11 February 2021 and said he had not received this.
On 21 February 2021, the representative submitted a complaint to the landlord about:
1. The lack of a gas supply to the property since the resident moved in. He advised that the resident could not cook or use the central heating in the property as a result. The representative asked that the landlord whether there should have been a gas supply when the resident moved in and if it would take responsibility to reinstate the supply. The representative also asked the landlord to consider compensation for the excess electricity that the resident had paid for as a result of there being no gas supply to the property.
2. The communication from the landlord regarding consent for the resident’s dog to live in the property. The representative said that the resident was granted permission to have the dog before he purchased the property but had since been told that his dog was not allowed to live in the property.
3. The resident not receiving the refund they requested of (service charges) they had overpaid.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 February 2021 and advised that due to the impact of Covid 19 there may be a delay in it providing a complaint response. It advised that it aimed to provide a response within 20 working days. Thereafter, the complaints officer made internal enquiries with the relevant teams for responses to the issues raised in the complaint.
The representative wrote to the landlord again on 3 and 4 March 2021 regarding a letter the resident received on 19 February 2021. The letter stated that the rent and estimated service charge combined for the upcoming year (1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022) would be £270.28 per week. The representative questioned why the level of rent and service charge had increased from approximately £2000 a year to over £1000 a month. The resident also contacted the landlord on 4 March 2021, with concerns about the increase in the rent and service charge stated in
On 4 and 5 March 2021, the landlord emailed and spoke with the resident. It confirmed to him that the rent and service charge letter it sent on 19 February 2021 was incorrect and that the charges stipulated were monthly and not weekly as the letter had stated. It apologised for the error.
Between 9 and 30 March 2021, the complaints officer was in contact with the representative and asked him to provide the following documents to assist with the complaint investigation:
1. Supporting documentation to show the costs the resident incurred as a result of having no gas supply.
2. Details about who provided the consent for the resident’s dog to live in the property.
3. Clarification on what the overpaid fees mentioned in the complaint, were related to.
The representative provided a copy of the consent given for the resident’s dog on 11 March 2021 and agreed to send the electricity bills to demonstrate the costs the resident incurred at a later date.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord followed up with the representative to ask if they had the remaining information they requested for the investigation. The following day, the landlord placed the complaint on hold, as it was still waiting for the remainder of the requested information from the representative.
On 6 April 2021, the representative clarified that the complaint about the refund of the overpayment, referred to a ‘credit advice’ the resident had, which this Service understands was the refund of overpaid service charge the resident requested in December 2020. He said that the resident was told the payment had been made to his bank account but he had not received this. The representative also informed the landlord in their email, that the property had major cracking to the walls and the floor. The landlord requested images of the cracks.
Between 14 and 29 April 2021, the complaints team made enquiries with internal teams for information regarding the property gas supply and the refund the resident was due. The team also requested clarification from the rent and service charge team about why there had been a significant increase in the level of rent and service charge compared to the year before, as confirmed by the letter to the resident dated 19 February 2021. The complaints team received confirmation that a safety check was completed in June 2015 but as the property was sold, it was the resident’s responsibility as the homeowner to get the supply reconnected. The rent and service charge team confirmed the refund requested in December 2020, was paid to the resident on 29 January 2021. The team also explained that the reason for the increase in the rent and service charge, was due to a discount not being applied to the service charge amount.
On 29 April 2021, the representative provided the landlord with a video showing the cracks in the floor. He also provided a copy of the gas safety certificate the resident had been given dated 16 October 2019. On receipt, the landlord sent the copy of the gas certificate to the relevant team and asked for clarification on the landlord’s position on reconnecting the supply. The complaints officer also forwarded the video showing the cracked floor and asked for a surveyor to inspect this.
The gas team responded and reiterated that it was the resident’s responsibility as a leaseholder to source a gas contractor to uncap the gas supply. For the reported crack in the flooring, the surveyor agreed to inspect this on 24 June 2021.
In May 2021, the complaints officer remained in contact with the representative regarding the complaint whilst they were liaising with the rent and service charge team regarding the application of the discount to the resident’s service charge account so that charges could be reduced accordingly. On 13 May 2021, the team confirmed that the discount to the service charge had been applied and that it had written to the resident to confirm that it revised the incorrect service charge amount stated on the letter in February 2021. The team also updated its system to reflect the correct service charge amount.
On 11 June 2021, the landlord emailed the representative with an update on its position regarding the matters of the complaint. They explained that the landlord still had an obligation to complete the gas check while it was empty as it was still the landlord and this was why the resident had a certificate dated during the period it was void. In addition, the complaints team confirmed that the total monthly rent and service charge was now £160.75 following the application of the discount to the service charge account.
The inspection of the flooring took place on 24 June 2021. Following this, the surveyor raised work for the following and an appointment for the repair was booked for 5 August 2021:
1. Replacement of a section of the damaged kitchen and hallway flooring and the renewal of the kitchen floor covering. The surveyor noted that the resident would need to remove the carpet from the hallway so the floor could be accessed.

The appointment for the above work was booked for 5 August 2021. However, the resident was unable to provide access on the day and the work was later raised again in October 2021.

On 2 July 2021, the complaints officer called the representative and agreed to provide a further update on matters the following week. The representative emailed the landlord on 7 July 2021 and said that the issue with the gas supply needed to be resolved as a priority and asked the landlord to confirm whether it was willing to arrange for the gas supply to be uncapped. The landlord responded reiterating the advice that it would need to be arranged by the resident. The landlord also confirmed that the resident’s rent account had been looked at and there were currently arrears.
The representative responded on 9 July 2021 and advised that they would review the rent account once the landlord confirmed what reductions it would apply after all of the rent issues the resident had. They advised that they would be referring the matter of the gas supply to their solicitor as they believed the supply should have been in place when the property was purchased and that they considered the gas safety certificate, dated 16 October 2019, to be false. The representative asked the landlord to review compensation for the issues the resident experienced with his electricity bills and the incorrect rent and service charge letter that the landlord sent in February 2021.
The landlord responded to the representative on the same day and agreed to review the matter of the rent issue and offer a gesture of goodwill the following week. The landlord acknowledged that mistakes had been made, with regard to the rent and service charge letter and it apologised for this. It clarified that the goodwill would not be direct compensation for losses. It noted that if the resident or the representative had been impacted financially as a result of the landlord’s failings, then evidence would need to be provided so that it could address this as a separate payment.
The landlord provided an update on 15 July 2021, that they had been unable to review the relevant details so that it could propose an offer of compensation. It agreed to get in touch the following week. The representative responded on the same day and requested a copy of the surveyor’s report from the inspection of the property on 24 June 2021. The representative said that they wanted to speak with the surveyor about the roof, as his father (the resident’s grandfather) looked into the roof space and saw that there was no insulation. The landlord sent the representative the report and the surveyor’s contact details. The surveyor subsequently arranged another visit to inspect the loft. During the visit, they found no insulation and therefore raised an order on 17 August 2021 for insulation to be installed. The work to install the insulation was carried out on 10 September 2021.
Between 20 July and 2 August 2021, the landlord asked if the representative could provide the correspondence to show that that the resident was told that their dog could not live in the property. The representative confirmed on 30 July 2021, that they could not find the letter but he recalled that it stated that dogs were not allowed on any premises without exception. The representative advised that the resident had since tried to get the gas uncapped, but when the contractor arrived, they could not access the internal meter cupboard. The representative noted that the resident never received a welcome pack when they moved in, or keys to the meter cupboard. They asked for the resident to be supplied with the key.
The landlord responded on 4 August 2021 and confirmed that the gas meter was located externally to the side of the building and could be accessed with a standard meter key which most contractors are expected to have. Between 8 and 11 August 2021, the parties remained in contact regarding the access to the gas meter. The Customer Liaison Officer attended on 17 August 2021 and posted a key for the internal meter cupboard to the resident. The Customer Liaison reported back to the complaints officer, that the gas meters were located externally.
The complaints team remained in contact with the representative between 19 and 27 August 2021.The complaints team asked that the representative send any additional information they had in relation to any other matters of the complaint, so that this could be reviewed when assessing the compensation. The landlord explained it could not identify any service failures in its investigation regarding the matters with the consent for the resident’s dog and the gas meter. The landlord advised that it would need evidence of errors on its part, in order to take these into consideration in its assessment of the compensation. The landlord accepted that the matter regarding the incorrect rent and service chargeletter, sent in February 2021, was in fact an error on the landlord’s part.
The representative explained that the evidence of the landlord’s error with the gas supply, was demonstrated by the gas safety certificate, which they said stated that all appliances had been tested and inspected (during the period the gas was capped). He explained that to test appliances when there is no gas supply is impossible. He explained that the resident was not given a welcome pack or meter key. He noted that the resident had still not been given a welcome pack. The representative did not find it acceptable that the resident was able to move in without the supply of gas.
Regarding the matter of the dog, the representative said that the landlord did not have evidence of the consent on its own records and had to ask him to provide this. The representative explained that they could not provide utility bills the landlord requested as the gas was still not connected. However, they noted that it was obvious, the use of a portable heater would be more costly and noted that the landlord should, therefore, offer goodwill for this. The representative also noted that while the issues with the flooring and insulation were not originally raised in the complaint, the existence of these issues indicated the landlord was not providing a quality service. In addition, he advised that the lack of insulation was not compliant with building regulations but also contributed to heat loss through the roof.
Between 11 and 15 October 2021, the landlord updated the representative to advise that it was compiling its response to the complaint. It apologised for the delay in doing so.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 October 2021 and said that:
1. The resident was responsible for uncapping the gas supply. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint as it did not have the responsibility to reconnect the gas. It explained that given this, it was not responsible for any additional energy costs as a result of there being no gas in the property.
2. In relation to the complaint about the refund of overpaid fees, it confirmed that the monies owed had been refunded to the resident.
3. After the submission of the complaint, another issue was raised about the letter that was sent to the resident in February 2021, which stated that his rent and service charge would be £270.28 per week, which was a significant increase in comparison to what the resident was paying before the letter was sent. The landlord confirmed that it agreed to look into this after the representative raised their concern and said that it found from its rent and service charge team, that a mistake had been made with the account. The landlord confirmed that the correct rent and service charge amount per month would be £160.75.
4. It recognised that the letter sent in February 2021, caused the resident and the representative stress and angst and it apologised for the error. It confirmed that it had since received confirmation that the resident’s rent account was up to date. It offered £50 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the incorrect letter being sent regarding the rent and service charge amount.
5. The resident was allowed the dog in the property and it did not have evidence to show that the resident was told otherwise either verbally or in writing. The landlord acknowledged that it had asked the representative to provide the evidence of consent but said that it was not provided anything to show that this consent was in doubt. The landlord noted that it was not suggesting that a conversation did not take place where the consent was contradicted but, without any evidence of this, it could not consider compensation for this.
6. It offered £50 for the delay in providing the outcome to the complaint.
The representative escalated the complaint on 25 October 2021. They said that issues had been missing from the complaint response, particularly:
1. The matter of the letter sent to the resident in February 2021, indicating that the rent and service charge was significantly increasing.
2. The repair to the flooring and the lack of insulation in the roof. The representative questioned how the property was signed off without there being any insulation and said that no consideration had been given to the cost of heating the property.
3. In addition, the representative questioned how they had been given a gas safety certificate for appliances being tested when there was no gas in the property.
The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 6 December 2021. It:
1. Upheld its position regarding the responsibility for the reinstatement of the gas supply to the property. It explained in response to the representative’s question about the authenticity of the gas certificate, that the certificate stated that no work was carried out as the gas meter was capped.
2. Explained that the flooring and loft repairs were not raised in the stage one complaint therefore, it could not include this in the outcome of the complaint or offer compensation in relation to these issues. It acknowledged that the stage one complaint officer took steps to have these issues looked at but said that they did this so the representative would not have to arrange this themselves. However, it provided an update on the repairs and said that the floor repair still needed to be completed and the target date had been extended as it was unable to gain access since the appointment on 5 August 2021. It said that the loft installation was done on 10 September 2021 and that it had seen evidence that the works completed but sent its contractor back out to check that the works was completed satisfactorily.
3. Said that the issue raised about the resident not receiving a welcome pack was not raised in the initial complaint therefore, it could not investigate the issue. However, it said that feedback was provided to the homeownership team that they ensure that going forward, they provided welcome packs in a timely matter to those who need them.
4. The landlord apologised for the delay in it providing its stage two response. It advised that it found the offer of £100 as a gesture of goodwill in the stage one response was a reasonable offer, for the service failure found. In recognition of the delay in providing the stage two response, it offered an additional £50 to that offered at stage one, making the total offer of compensation £150.
The representative referred the complaint to this Service on 11 February 2022. They confirmed that the resident remained dissatisfied with the response and the level of compensation the landlord had offered. To resolve the complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and offer compensation for his energy bills, disruption and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Lease agreement, relevant policies and guidance

The lease agreement between the parties confirms that the leaseholder is to repair, maintain and keep in full working order, all gas appliances within the premises (which includes the service media within and exclusively serving the property) and at least every 12 months, arrange and pay for the inspection, repair and maintenance of gas appliances by a suitably qualified engineer.
The guidance provided by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) confirms that if you have a shared ownership lease that it is longer than seven years, you will have the responsibility for gas safety as a homeowner. The housing company with who you hold a share with, does not have landlord duties under the Gas Safety (Installation and Use) Regulations 1998.
The lease agreement confirms that the landlord has a responsibility for the maintenance and repair of the structural parts of the building and the roof.

The landlord’s response to the report of a lack of gas supply to the property.

The evidence within the records the landlord provided, show that the resident first raised concerns about the lack of a gas supply to the property, in October 2020. At the time, he was informed that it would be his responsibility to arrange for the gas supply to be reconnected as he was now the owner of the property. The landlord maintained this position in its response to the complaint.
The landlord’s response is in accordance with the lease, which confirms that the resident has the responsibility for the service media within and exclusively serving the property, that is, any wires, cables, pipes and other media for the supply of gas, electricity, water, and telecommunications. This would, therefore, include the gas meter.
The representative has questioned whether the gas supply should have been uncapped at the point the resident moved in. There is no obligation for the landlord to have uncapped the gas prior to the sale of the property.
Prior to the sale of the property, the landlord had an obligation for the maintenance and repair of the gas supply, including the gas safety check. It capped the gas in June 2015, as the property was void. This is common for landlords to do and is good practice in gas safety. The gas supply remained capped and the gas certificate dated October 2019, confirmed that the gas meter was capped during the visit and there is no evidence that any work was carried out during that visit. The certificate from the visit, was provided by the landlord to the resident during the sales process and therefore, the information that the gas meter was capped was available during the sales process.
The landlord also appropriately answered the representative’s query regarding the validity of the gas safety certificate presented at the point of sale. The certificate confirms that the gas meter was capped when the check was carried out, which reflected the status of the gas supply to the property at the point of sale.
The landlord’s position that it would not consider compensation for the resident’s electricity usage as a result of the gas being capped was appropriate. It was not responsible for the reinstatement of the gas supply and there is evidence that it provided the resident the correct advice when he raised concern about this in October 2020.
The resident lived without a gas supply to the property for an extensive period of time and this would have undoubtedly contributed to his distress. However, the gas certificate the landlord provided, dated October 2019, confirmed that the gas meter was capped when the check was carried out and the lease confirms the resident’s responsibility to repair and maintain the supply of gas to the property.

Communication regarding the consent for the resident’s dog to live in the property.

Before purchasing their share of the property, the resident submitted a pet consent form and was given consent by the landlord for his dog to live in the property, on the 11 December 2019, prior to the start of the lease.
The landlord was made aware when the complaint was submitted in February 2021, that the resident had been told that they could not have their dog in the property and that hearing this understandably caused him distress. This is particularly the case as the resident’s dog is a PTSD dog and therefore is there to assist with the resident’s recovery from PTSD.
However, no evidence was provided to the landlord to demonstrate that it withdrew its consent. Given the absence of the evidence to show that the landlord withdrew the consent, the landlord’s decision to not uphold this aspect of the complaint was reasonable.
The landlord appropriately explained its position on this and confirmed that it was not dismissing what the resident had said happened, but the lack of evidence to show this happened, meant that it could not justify that there was a service failure on its partfor it to consider compensation.

The administration of the resident’s rent and service charge account.

The initial complaint raised in February 2021, was regarding a refund of overpaid service charges that the resident requested in December 2020. The landlord’s records confirm that the payment was made to the resident on 29 January 2021. The landlord in its stage one response to the complaint confirmed that the refund was made to the resident and the representative has not disputed this. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the refund the resident requested in December 2020 was paid to the resident.
Following the submission of the complaint on 21 February 2021, the substantive issue with the landlord’s administration of the rent and service charge account related to the letter the resident received dated 19 February 2021. The letter indicated a significant increase in the level of rent and service charge the resident was expected to pay weekly, between 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022.
The representative raised the concern about the letter to the landlord on 3 and 4 March 2021.The contact records from the landlord, show that on the same dates, the resident also raised concerns about the level of charges stipulated in the letter.
In the email the landlord sent the resident on 4 March 2021, it informed him that the charge was monthly and not weekly, as the letter had stated. However, the landlord failed to realise at that point, that as well as the schedule of payments being incorrect, the amount of the service charge stated on the letter was also incorrect.
The rent and service charges team confirmed on 29 April 2021, that the level of the service charges was incorrect due to a discount not being applied to the service charge account. On realising this, the landlord explained this to the representative and the discount was eventually applied on 13 May 2021, which reduced the level of service charge the resident was to pay.
It was appropriate that the landlord recognised the error in the level of the service charge stated in the letter sent in February 2021, confirmed this was an error to the resident and revised the service charges accordingly. But it did not take this action within a reasonable period of time of the concern being raised on 3 and 4 March 2021. It took a total of two months for the landlord to realise the error with the level of the service charge, apply the discount and confirm the revised service charge amount to the resident.
In the response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged the error made in the letter sent to the resident in February 2021 and it confirmed the revised level of the monthly rent and service charge following the application of the discount. This in addition to its offer of £50 for the error was appropriate. This is because it took steps to put the error right and the compensation was in recognition of the impact the error had on the resident.

The landlord’s response to the repairs reported to the flooring and the loft insulation.

The repairs reported for the crack in the flooring and the roof insulation were not raised in the complaint submission to the landlord on 21 February 2021. However, while in correspondence with the complaints team, the representative raised these issues to the complaint officer in April and July 2021 respectively.
The landlord understood from the video provided by the representative, that the crack reported could be a structural issue which is something it would be its responsibility to address in accordance with the lease. The roof insulation would also be the responsibility of the landlord.
The complaints team took appropriate steps after the concerns were raised about the repairs. After the report was made about the crack to the flooring, it promptly instructed a survey, shared the results of the survey to the representative on request and when the issue of the loft insulation was identified in July 2021, the surveyor took steps to look into this.
Overall, the landlord demonstrated proactiveness in arranging for the repairs to be looked into when they were raised in April and July 2021.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one, it aims to provide a response within 10 working days. At stage two, it aims to provide a response within 20 working days.
After receipt of the stage one complaint, the landlord provided an acknowledgement, within four working days. Within this, it explained the reason why its response would be 20 working days, which was appropriate as the timeframe outside of its published complaint timeframe for stage one complaints.
The landlord did not adhere to the 20 working timeframe it provided to issue the stage one response and it did not issue the complaint response until eight months later.
The landlord therefore took a significant amount of time to provide the response to the complaint, which it recognised and apologised for in its response.
Whilst the response to the stage one complaint was considerably delayed, throughout the eight month period, the landlord maintained regular contact with the representative, sought information from the representative and internal staff to assist with the investigationand kept the representative updated on the progress of its investigation. The Ombudsman expects that landlord’s keep residents regularly updated and informed even where there is no new information to provide.
Furthermore, the complaints officer at stage one, was proactive in addressing the additional matters the representative raised after the complaint was submitted. Specifically, the matter raised about the crack in the flooring and the roof insulation. The officer took a resolution focused approach and took steps to ensure that these issues were looked into at the earliest opportunity by the landlord. It kept the representative informed of the actions they had taken in relation to the additional matters and was responsive to the follow up queries the representative had.
However, the landlord did not make it clear to the representative that the repair issues they had raised would not be a part of the complaint investigation and would be addressed separately. The result of this is that the representative’s expectations on what would form part of the landlord’s stage one investigation, were not effectively managed from the outset. The representative subsequently complained at stage two, that the landlord failed to include the repair issues as part of the complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that where a customer raises additional complaints during the investigation, it will be incorporated into its response, if it is relevant. The exception to this is if the complaint has already been investigated and it has provided a response, or the additional complaints would cause an unreasonable delay. In these cases, the landlord states that it will log a new complaint.
In this case, the landlord explained at stage two why it did not consider the repair issues within its investigation and it offered an update on the repairs. However, it did not take into consideration the confusion caused as a result of it not explaining at an earlier stage, that the repair issues would not be considered within the complaint. Given this, it is considered that there was a service failure in its complaint handling and an order of £50 compensation has been made in recognition of this below.
At stage two, the landlord’s response was also delayed and was responded to 11 working days outside of its timeframe.
The landlord offered £100 in total, in recognition of the delay in providing its complaint responses. The amount offered was proportionate to the delay, as throughout the process, the landlord apologised for the delay and maintained consistent communication with the representative, including providing answers to various aspects of the complaint in the period there was a delay.
The landlord also provided clear responses to the points the representative raised in their stage two complaints about the authenticity of the gas certificate and it confirmed that the stage one response addressed the incorrect rent and service charge letter, dated 19 February 2021.
While this Service finds that the redress offered for the delay in the response to the complaint was proportionate, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to ensure that it in future, it provides complaint responses when the answer to the complaint is known. The reason being, that it was evident in this case, that the landlord had responses to the various issues raised in the complaint, months before it issued the formal stage one response. Therefore, it had the opportunity to provide the complaint response sooner than it did.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the report about the lack of a gas supply.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication regarding the consent for the resident’s dog to live in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the administration of the resident’s rent and service charge account, satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the report about the repairs to the floor and the roof insulation.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s position that the resident is responsible for uncapping the gas supply is in accordance with the terms of the resident’s lease.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with advice which conflicted the consent they were given for their dog to live in the property.
The landlord has provided evidence that the refund the resident requested in December 2020, was issued in January 2021. It reconfirmed this in its complaint response. In addition, the landlord has offered compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the error in the rent and service charge letter sent on 19 February 2021. It also took steps to rectify the error, which resulted in the service charge being adjusted accordingly.
When the repairs were reported to the landlord in April and July 2021, the landlord took steps to ensure that these repairs were investigated within a reasonable timeframe so that repairs required could be identified.
The landlord has recognised that there was a delay in its response to the complaint and has offered compensation for this. It also explained why the repairs were not considered in its complaint investigation. However, the finding of service failure is because the landlord did not acknowledge that it failed to inform the representative at an earlier stage, that these matters were being addressed separately outside of the complaints process.

Orders

It is ordered that within four weeks of this report, the landlord is to pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the service failure found in its complaint handling.
Once the payment has been made, the landlord is to provide confirmation of this to this Service.

Recommendations

If the landlord has not already done so, it is to arrange for the payment of £150 offered in its complaint response to the resident, within four weeks of this report. If the payment has already been made, the landlord is to provide confirmation of this to this Service.
In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord should ensure that its complaint responses are sent when the answer to the complaint is known and within a maximum of 20 working days where an extension is required, not when the outstanding actions required to address the issue, are completed.