The Guinness Partnership Limited (202214038)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214038

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 June 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak.

Scope of investigation

2. The resident has said that the landlord did not consider her subsequent stay in hospital caused by the effects of the leak. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to draw a direct link between any action or lack of action by the landlord and any subsequent detriment to the resident’s health. If the resident considers that her health has been affected by the landlord’s handling of the leak, this matter is more appropriate for consideration through legal action or a personal injury insurance claim. The resident may wish to consider obtaining independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this.

Background

3. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and occupies a flat (the property) with a neighbouring property above hers. At the time of the complaint, the resident was aged 70 years old.
4. On 25 April 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that she was experiencing a leak into her bathroom ceiling from the property above. It attended the repair within 24 hours but was not able to gain access to the property above to investigate the leak. On 8 June 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the leak continued. It gained access to the neighbour’s property the next day and repaired the leak.
5. The resident reported to the landlord on 20 June 2022 that she had sustained damage to her ceiling from the leak; after an asbestos survey, this was removed on 18 July 2022 and the ceiling was repaired on 15 September 2022.
6. The resident subsequently raised a stage one complaint through the Ombudsman on 30 September 2022 about the landlord’s handling of the leak. She wanted it to repair decorations damaged by the leak and compensation for the length of time it took for the repairs to be resolved.
7. The landlord’s stage one response on 12 October 2022 acknowledged that it had not followed up the initial report of the leak by gaining access to the neighbour’s property. It also acknowledged that it had not raised follow-up repairs for her ceiling until 12 July 2022 and that it altered an appointment on 22 June 2022 without informing the resident. It offered compensation of £25 for poor communication, £75 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience, and re-offered her £50 in decoration vouchers, which it had offered her on completion of the ceiling repairs.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 21 October 2022, saying that the compensation the landlord offered was insufficient and did not consider a stay in hospital she experienced as a result of the leak. The landlord issued its final response to her on 2 November 2022 which offered her £100 compensation for its delays in completing the repairs, in addition to the compensation it previously offered her.
9. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 23 November 2022 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, highlighting that it had not considered the effect on her health.

Assessment and findings

10. The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the “internal walls floors ceilings”. This agreement also confirms that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the interior of the property in good decorative order. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be made safe within 24 hours and routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
11. There were failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the leak. It reasonably attended the resident’s report of the leak on 25 April 2022 as an emergency; however, it was unreasonable that it did not make any further attempts to access the upstairs property after its initial unsuccessful attempt.
12. When the resident reported to the landlord on 8 June 2022 that the leak reoccurred, it noted “leak coming from flat above… ceiling looks like it’s going to fall down”. It was again reasonable that the landlord attended the upstairs property as an emergency, gaining access a day later, to repair the leak. However, it was unreasonable that it did not address the damage from the leak in the resident’s property, particularly given that she had reported that the ceiling appeared to be collapsing. This should have been considered as an emergency repair in its own right, given the potential hazard to the resident and her potential vulnerability due to her age.
13. When the resident reported to the landlord on 20 June 2022 that her bathroom ceiling required repair following the leak, it attempted to attend on 22 June 2022. It acknowledged, in its stage one response, that it had rescheduled this to the morning of 22 June 2022 from the afternoon without informing the resident, leading to the appointment being unsuccessful. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
14. The landlord acknowledged, in its stage one response, that it had not raised follow on works, identified on 23 June 2022, until 12 July 2022. There was no explanation of why this occurred; this was therefore an unreasonable delay. There was evidence of the resident rescheduling an appointment for 22 July 2022 to 15 September 2022 to repair the ceiling. The landlord’s records on 7 October 2022 noted that this date had been the first available date at the time. It was not disputed that the resident’s expectations were managed regarding the expected completion date of the repair.
15. The two months taken by the landlord between 12 July and 15 September 2022 to complete the repair was in excess of the timeframe specified in its responsive repairs policy, above. However, the Ombudsman recognises that repairs may exceed a landlord’s standard timeframes when specialist equipment or parts are required. Considering that an asbestos survey and removal of the asbestos-containing ceiling was required before the ceiling could be replaced, and the resident had been made aware of the date for completion of the repair, this timeframe was reasonable.
16. The landlord acknowledged its failings, in its complaint responses, and offered the resident £250 compensation in total, comprised of:
    1. £50 decoration vouchers.
    2. £25 for its poor communication, in its stage one response.
    3. £75 for distress and inconvenience, in its stage one response.
    4. £100 for its delay in resolving the repairs, offered in its final response.
17. While it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its failures and offer redress to the resident, its offer did not fully consider all the circumstances of the case. The landlord’s compensation policy states that “where a water leak causes loss or damage to personal possessions [the landlord] will only be responsible for paying compensation if we are at fault… we will not pay compensation unless we have done something or failed to do something that caused the leak”.
18. The landlord acknowledged that it did not follow up on the resident’s original report of the leak, on 26 April 2022, to make efforts to gain access to the property which was leaking in hers. Considering the compensation policy above, it failed to consider this in its response to the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged decorations. The landlord’s failure to follow up the original report led to the leak persisting, requiring the resident to report the matter again after experiencing the leak entering her property again. Therefore, the landlord’s failure to act promptly allowed the leak to continue; while it may not have directly caused the leak, its inactivity allowed the leak to persist.
19. Consequently, the landlord should have assessed the level of damage caused to the resident’s decorations by its failure to act and compensated her accordingly, or facilitated an insurance claim on its liability insurance. It was inappropriate for it to direct her to her own home contents insurers under the circumstances. While it did acknowledge and offer compensation for its delay in remedying the leak, it did not specifically acknowledge that this may have led to avoidable further damage to the resident’s property and decorations. This was unreasonable and led to further expenditure of time and trouble for the resident, and distress and inconvenience, in pursuing the matter.
20. Therefore, the compensation the landlord offered to the resident was insufficient as it did not fully address the detriment caused to her by all the failures exhibited. The landlord should therefore pay £350 compensation to the resident; this is inclusive of the compensation it has already offered. It should also contact the resident with a view to providing her with redress for the damage to her decorations, in accordance with its compensation policy, or direct her to its insurers.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of a leak.

Orders

22. Within four weeks, the landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident £350 compensation; this is inclusive of the £50 voucher and £200 compensation it already offered.
    2. Liaise with the resident to assess the damage caused to her decorations by the landlord’s failure to act, and provide appropriate redress to her in accordance with its compensation policy, or refer her to its insurer.
    3. Confirm to the Ombudsman what steps it will take to ensure that repair reports are followed up promptly to ensure outstanding repairs are resolved within a reasonable timeframe.