The Guinness Partnership Limited (202214004)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214004

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 January 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 handling of repairs needed in the resident’s property, and the resident’s request for a rent adjustment in view of this.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident’s tenancy was due to start on 9 June 2021. On 10 June 2021, the resident raised concerns about the state of the property, including the flooring being a hazard. An inspection took place on 17 June 2021 and found that the flooring was a health and safety hazard. The landlord agreed to adjust the resident’s rent until the flooring had been completed the following week, and the resident continued his stay at his previous accommodation. In addition, it raised works for the outstanding repairs and offered the resident £150 in B&Q vouchers for the decoration of the property. The flooring works were completed on 3 July 2021.
4. On 9 July 2021, the resident raised follow on repairs which included; further works to the flooring, electrical sockets which were not working and a broken toilet overflow. He received no response and chased the works again on 31 August 2021. The landlord raised an inspection for 3 September 2021. The contractor who attended reported that further flooring repairs needed to be completed, but it was “not a health and safety concern”. The resident requested for the rent adjustment to continue until the flooring repairs had been completed, as he stated that this is what the landlord previously agreed to do. The landlord informed the resident that the flooring had been completed on 3 July 2021, and he was liable for the rent from that date as the follow-on works were not a health and safety hazard. During September 2021, the resident continued to dispute the rent, and chased the outstanding repairs. The flooring repairs were then completed on 4 October 2021, whilst the other repairs were completed by 18 November 2021.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 12 November 2021 about the state of the property prior to moving in. In addition, he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision not to extend the rent adjustment until the follow-on flooring repairs had been completed on 4 October 2021, as he believed that this is what the landlord had agreed to do. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had stated the property was okay to move in to on 30 June 2021, but works were not completed until 3 July 2021 and were of a poor standard.
6. In the landlord’s final response on 26 May 2022, it apologised for the stress and inconvenience the resident had experienced as a result of the delays in its repairs service. It acknowledged that there had been failings in its handling of the repairs and the associated complaint which had resulted in delays. It agreed that the wording it had used in an email to the resident could have been potentially misleading but stated that the work had been completed on 3 July 2021 and following this, the flooring was not a health and safety hazard. It stated that it had made it clear to the resident that he was liable for the rent following this date, and therefore would not extend the rent adjustment. It informed the resident that it had learnt from its mistakes and had received training from the Housing Ombudsman Service which has helped it to improve its service and that it had provided feedback to the relevant departments. In view of its failings, it offered the resident £500 which was made up of:
   1. £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairs at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy,
   2. £200 for any confusion in relation to the rent adjustment due to the flooring issues,
   3. £50 for poor communication and;
   4. £50 for the delay in providing a stage one complaint and the lack of communication when the complaint had been raised initially.
7. The resident escalated his complaint to this Service on 30 September 2022, as he was unhappy that he had been unable to move furniture into the property for six months, and suffered from stress and anxiety as he was threatened with eviction due to withholding the rent. The resident is seeking a rent adjustment from the beginning of his tenancy in June 2021, until 4 October 2022 when the follow-on flooring repairs were completed. In addition, he is seeking compensation for the time he spent trying to resolve the issue, and the resulting anxiety.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

8. The resident has informed this Service that he was dissatisfied with the landlord threatening him with eviction due to withholding the rent and that this had led to him suffering from stress and anxiety. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

Policies and Procedures

9. The Tenancy Agreement states that residents are responsible for paying rent, and that not doing so is grounds for possession.
10. The Tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the floors in the property. The Landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours, and routine repairs should be completed within 28 days.
11. The compensation policy states that £250 to 700 compensation is appropriate in cases where an issue has taken a long time to resolve, and resulted in moderate inconvenience which had a demonstratable impact on the resident.
12. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a stage one response should be sent within 10 working days, and a stage two response should be sent within 20 working days.

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs needed in the resident’s property, and the resident’s request for a rent adjustment in view of this.

13. In this case, the landlord acknowledged that there were failings on its behalf throughout its handling of the repairs and the resident’s complaint, which were exacerbated due to its poor communication. In addition, it acknowledged that the wording it used “once the flooring in the property has been completed next week, we will do a rent adjustment from the date you signed up to the date the flooring was finished so you are not charged rent for this period.” had the potential to be misleading.
14. 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.
15. In view of the failings it had acknowledged, the landlord attempted to put things right by offering the resident £500 compensation. In addition, the landlord showed some learning as it provided the resident with information on recent training it had completed with the Housing Ombudsman and that it recognised the importance of explaining failures clearly and responding to complaints appropriately. Furthermore, it stated that feedback had been provided to the relevant teams, who had also been told to review its processes to ensure a similar situation did not occur in the future.
16. The landlord’s offer of compensation was in line with its compensation guidance and the Remedies Guidance provided by this Service, which states that compensation of £100 to £600 is appropriate in cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. As such, the compensation offer was reasonable when considering all of the factors of the case.
17. The landlord acknowledged that its initial wording in relation to the rent adjustment had the potential to be misleading, which it provided compensation for. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident had understood the wording differently, it did not mean that the landlord was obligated to meet the resident’s expectations based on that. This Service acknowledges that the landlord has provided feedback to the relevant department about this. However, it is recommended that the landlord considers providing further staff training on communicating with residents, to ensure expectations are appropriately managed.
18. Following the flooring repairs which were completed on 3 July 2021, the landlord’s qualified staff had reported that the property was in a safe condition. A landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified staff, and therefore it was reasonable that it believed the issue was resolved. In addition, the resident moved in to the property following the repairs, at which point, he would have been expected to pay rent in line with the tenancy agreement.
19. In addition, on 8 July 2021, the landlord completed the rent adjustment for the resident from his tenancy start date until the repairs had been completed as it had agreed to do. This was within a reasonable timeframe, and is evidence that the landlord had understood that it had impacted the resident and had attempted to provide a remedy for this.
20. Nevertheless, the landlord acknowledged that there were follow on repairs which were raised by the resident on 9 July 2021, but that there were delays in it recognising these repairs until 31 August 2021. The flooring repairs were then completed on 4 October 2021 and all other repairs were resolved by 18 November 2021. The landlord appropriately recognised that this was a failing on its behalf, and it reflected this in its offer of compensation and apology. This was reasonable when considering that the repairs had taken 94 working days to complete from the date they had initially been raised, rather than within the 28-day timeframe as listed in the landlord’s repairs policy.
21. The landlord stated that due to the follow-on repairs not being classed as a health and safety hazard, it would not be adjusting the rent any further. In addition, the resident was living in the property at this time. The landlord would therefore not be obligated to reimburse any further rent and, in view of the delays, it had provided a reasonable level of redress which was in line with its policies and the remedies guidance provided by this Service. Furthermore, the landlord had not informed the resident that he was unable to move furniture in to the property. The property had been deemed safe by its qualified staff, and as such, the landlord was not responsible for the resident’s decision not to furnish the room.
22. Additionally, the landlord had appropriately recognised that its poor communication exacerbated the impact on the resident throughout both its complaint and repairs process. The landlord had initially closed the resident’s complaint in July 2021 due to a lack of contact. The landlord recognised that this was inconvenient for the resident and that it should have tried to communicate with the resident using an alternative method to prevent this.
23. Following the complaint being raised again on 12 November 2021, the resident received no response. He chased the complaint on 17 February 2022, and the landlord informed the resident it had not received the previous complaint. It acknowledged the complaint on 18 February 2022 and provided a stage one response on 17 March 2022. Once the landlord had received the complaint, it responded within 20 working days which was ten working days outside of the appropriate timeframe as listed in its complaints policy. However, it acted appropriately by apologising for this delay, and it provided compensation in view of it. The resident escalated his complaint on 4 May 2022, and the landlord provided the stage two response on 26 May 2022. This was a total of 17 working days and was in line with the appropriate timeframe for a stage two response as per its complaints policy.
24. Overall, it is clear that there have been failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the associated complaint raised by the resident. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the resident had experienced distress and inconvenience due to this, the landlord had acknowledged its failings and taken steps to put things right. It also showed how it would learn from the resident’s complaint to avoid similar situations in the future. Moreover, it provided £500 compensation in view of its failings throughout this process, which was in line with its compensation policy and the remedies guidance provided by this Service. Therefore, in the opinion of this Service, the landlord has provided redress which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

25. 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 satisfactorily.

Recommendations

26. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £500 compensation previously offered, if it has not already done so, within four weeks of the date of this letter. The compensation is made up of:
    1. £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the delays in repairs at the beginning of the resident’s tenancy,
    2. £200 for any confusion in relation to the rent adjustment due to the flooring issues,
    3. £50 for poor communication and;
    4. £50 for the delay in providing a stage one complaint and the lack of communication when the complaint had been raised initially.
27. It is recommended that the landlord provides further staff training on communicating with residents, to ensure it is appropriately managing a resident’s expectations.