The Guinness Partnership Limited (202209462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209462

The Guinness Partnership Limited

16 November 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 property;
2. response to the resident’s reports regarding staff conduct;
3. communication and complaint handling, including the level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. She has lived in the property, a 4-bedroom end-terrace house, since 2014. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household, although the resident has informed it that one or more of her children have additional needs.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out the repair responsibilities of the landlord and tenant. It confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside and structure of the property, including external and internal walls, garages, and necessary outside painting and decorating. The tenant is responsible for telling the landlord promptly about any repair that is its responsibility to remedy. The repairs policy divides repairs into 2 categories: emergency, which it will complete or make safe within 24 hours, and routine, which it will complete within 28 days (and sooner if it can). Both the repairs policy and the landlord’s damp and mould policy state that the landlord aims to provide homes that are “safe and secure, warm and dry, where everything works” and “where our customers are proud to live”.
The landlord expects its contractors to comply with its code of conduct, which includes: keeping appointments – or, if it is necessary to change them, advising customers of this in good time; carrying an ID card; working efficiently and tidily; treating customers’ homes with respect; being polite; and clearing up after themselves.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It will then provide a response at stage 1 (‘investigation and resolution’) within 10 working days, and at stage 2 (‘escalation’) within 20 working days. Any extensions to these timeframes will be explained to the complainant and will not exceed a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy distinguishes between compensation, which it defines as “a payment of a sum of money in recognition of loss or detriment”, and a gesture of goodwill, defined as “a discretionary financial or other gesture given to recognise a shortcoming in the way we have delivered our service” and designed to “maintain good relations between [the landlord] and a customer”. It will offer compensation when it is at fault and an apology or other remedy is not sufficient, or a goodwill gesture when it is not at fault. When calculating compensation, the landlord considers whether the level of inconvenience caused was minor (awards of up to £250), moderate (£250 to £700) or significant (over £700).

Summary of events

On 23 December 2020 the resident reported issues with damp and mould in the property. The landlord raised jobs for the mould to be treated, an extractor fan in the bathroom to be replaced, and the gable wall of the property to be repointed and sealed (including checking of the insulation to see if it was wet). On 4 January 2021 the landlord assessed the repairs and concluded that they would take 12 days for 1 operative to complete. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 January 2021 as she believed an operative was due to attend her property that day, but nobody had arrived. The landlord found no record of this. The resident chased the repairs again on 28 January 2021 and 4 February 2021, explaining that her home was cold and draughty. The landlord advised that only essential work was being carried out due to the Covid-19 lockdown in force at the time, and the resident’s repairs were considered non-essential.
On 12 March 2021 the landlord raised a job for the resident’s flat garage roof to be renewed and cladding to the wall above the garage to be checked for holes and leaks.
On 31 March 2021 the resident again contacted the landlord as she believed it had not kept an appointment to repoint her brickwork. It informed her that the appointment had been moved to 6 April 2021. On 6 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord at 9.22am to say that nobody had arrived for what she understood to be an all-day job.
The landlord’s operative attended the property to complete the brickwork repairs on the afternoon of 6 April 2021 and on 7 April 2021. The resident was unhappy that the operative used her electricity supply to power their tools, which resulted in the fuse blowing, and asked the landlord to reimburse her for the electricity used. After enquiring internally, it advised that it would not reimburse her but that it would explore the possibility of its operative using battery-powered tools or a generator in future. On 13 April 2021 the resident informed the landlord that the operative had left “big holes” in the brickwork which rain was running into. The operative reattended and continued work on 16 April 2021, but left mid-morning after their generator ran out.
On 26 April 2021 the landlord logged a complaint from the resident, which its records indicate that it may have received on 8 April 2021. The landlord’s summary of the resident’s complaint stated that:
1. She wanted to complain about the way her repairs had been handled.
2. The repairs should have been completed at the end of January 2021, but remained outstanding.
3. She had received no callbacks, despite making approximately 10 requests.
4. She waited all day for an operative to attend on 31 March 2021, but they did not show up. When she spoke to the repairs team about this, they also did not return her call.
5. The landlord then changed the appointment without notifying her.
6. On 6 April 2021, a further appointment was missed and her request for a callback was ignored. An operative who was due to arrive by 11am did not arrive until 12-12.30pm. When they arrived, they did not have a job reference number and did not know what the job involved. They stayed for around 20 minutes, left at 1pm, returned at 1.40pm, left again at 2pm, returned at 2.15pm, did some work, then left at about 3.30pm.
7. The operative returned at 8am on 7 April 2021 but left at 9am. The resident went out at 10am. When she returned at 11am, the operative did not tell her that they had blown her electrics, which annoyed her. The operative left at 3.30pm and left her back gate open.
8. She wanted to be reimbursed for the electricity used to power the operative’s tools.
9. The scaffolding had been up for over a week and was a “huge inconvenience”, as the poles obstructed access for her child’s motorbike and her bins.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day (26 April 2021), noting that “due to the impacts of Covid-19 it may take us a little longer than the usual timescales to handle your case”. It said that it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
On 27 April 2021 the resident contacted the landlord regarding missed callback requests. On 5 May 2021 she contacted it again to request a date for the repointing repair. She noted that scaffolding had been put up at her property and her children, who had special needs, were struggling with this and swinging on the metal poles. She also repeated her previous concern that rain was entering her property through holes in the brickwork. On 7 May 2021 she asked the landlord to take the scaffolding down and put it back up before a rearranged repair appointment on 10 June 2021. Having received no response, the resident chased the landlord on 12 May 2021. The landlord discussed the request to remove the scaffolding with its contractor and advised that, while it would not remove the scaffolding only to put it back up, it could put some fencing around it to prevent the children from climbing on it. The resident was unhappy with this and explained that the scaffolding was blocking access for her elder child’s motorbike, which they used to travel to college. She also said the mesh was dangling off, causing a health and safety hazard, and the planks and poles were insecure. In response, the landlord brought the repair forward to 18-20 May 2021.
On 18 May 2021 the resident contacted the landlord about its operative’s behaviour at her property. She said they had been working for short periods then going away and leaving her back gate wide open, including for an hour when they sat in their van. This meant that the resident’s pet rabbit, which was free to roam her garden, was at risk of escaping. The operative then left at 3pm without saying where they had gone. On 19 May 2021 an internal note by the landlord stated that its operative’s behaviour had been addressed and the resident “should see an improvement now”. On 20 May 2021 the landlord called the resident at her request, and she asked for a list of jobs that it had raised. It sent this to her on 25 May 2021.
On 28 May 2021 the resident asked the landlord when its operative would be returning, as they had attended the previous day but had not completed the repair. She said the operative had again left her gate open, had not notified her when they would be gone, and was “always sat in [their] van”. The landlord made internal enquiries and also informed the resident of the date for a different repair. On 1 June 2021 the resident told the landlord she was angry and stressed as its operative had attended her property unannounced and had woken her by banging. The landlord said it had been unaware that the operative would be attending that day; they had attended as another repair had been cancelled. It advised that the resident’s repair was being prioritised in the event of any cancellations, and otherwise could not be scheduled until July 2021. The resident repeated her request for the scaffolding to be taken down until nearer the time of the repair, and the landlord again declined.
On 2 June 2021 the landlord’s repairs manager contacted the resident to arrange a visit. The purpose of the visit was to go through the outstanding works with the resident and assess how long they would take. The landlord subsequently attended the property to carry out repairs on 7 June 2021. The resident contacted the landlord the same day to say that she was unhappy with its communication in relation to the repairs. On 11 and 12 June 2021, the resident was expecting the landlord’s operative to carry out further repairs, but they were off sick and she was unable to contact the repairs manager as they were on leave. The operative was later signed off work and the landlord informed the resident of this on 22 June 2021.
The landlord attended the property to complete repairs on 23 June 2021 and 1 July 2021. On both occasions, the resident was informed of the appointments by the landlord’s complaints officer the day before. The second appointment was attended by a different operative to the one the landlord said would attend.
On 2 July 2021 the resident was expecting the operative who had attended the previous day to return, but they did not. The brickwork repairs were later completed on 19 July 2021 and the scaffolding was taken down on 20 July 2021. However, the resident was unhappy with the quality of the work and with the fact that operatives had left “loads of bags of rubbish” in her front garden. The landlord completed a post-inspection on 21 July 2021 and failed the repairs on the grounds of “poor workmanship”. The post-inspection report noted that there were holes in the pointing and mess left, and that “snagging” was required.
The landlord communicated the outcome of its stage 1 complaint investigation to the resident verbally on 23 July 2021. It then provided a written stage 1 response on 30 July 2021, after the resident had already requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The stage 1 response stated that:
1. After the resident reported her dissatisfaction with its operative’s behaviour on at least 3 occasions, its repairs manager had conversations with relevant staff in order to improve the service received. They found that the operative had been having some issues outside of work which contributed to their behaviour. It believed the operative’s behaviour improved before they went off sick. It was sorry that this resulted in a negative experience for the resident’s family.
2. Its operative had attended the resident’s property without a generator as the landlord had assumed they would be able to use her electricity supply to power their tools. Following the incident with a blown fuse, the landlord provided the operative with a generator and/or battery-operated tools in order to minimise the chance of recurrence.
3. On some occasions when it attended the resident’s property to carry out the repairs she reported in December 2020, it was unable to complete the work due to the weather conditions. As the repairs were assessed as requiring 12 working days, they would take 2.5 working weeks to complete if it was able to maintain a solid block of work.
4. It had faced an increased workload following the start of the Covid-19 pandemic and was unable to accommodate a 2.5-week block for the resident’s repairs. Instead it had to schedule days in on an ad hoc basis. This caused delays, and the repair was finished on 19 July 2021. It accepted that the situation created “a lot of uncertainty” for the resident, as appointments were not always scheduled in advance.
5. It had reviewed its records and found 7 official callback requests by the resident that were not actioned by its repairs team and manager. It could also see that several other unofficial callback requests were not actioned.
6. The resident asked for the scaffolding to be removed as it was blocking her pathway, and as a result she had to provide transport to her child in order for them to attend college. She also questioned how safe the scaffolding was. It had denied the request for removal of the scaffolding but had provided the option to fence it off.
7. It apologised for the issues the resident had experienced, and offered £400 as a gesture of goodwill to acknowledge the delayed repairs, lack of communication, failed callbacks, and inconvenience caused. It also offered £20 in compensation for an extension lead and back box that its operative damaged. The resident accepted this offer on 23 July 2021 and the payment was processed.
8. It had arranged a post-inspection in order to address the resident’s concerns about the standard of workmanship. Its surveyor had highlighted “a few issues with the repair” during the post-inspection and would be liaising with its repairs team in order to put these right.
9. When it spoke to the resident earlier that day (30 July 2021), she advised that since she had not yet received the goodwill payment and following further consideration of the findings, she would like to escalate her complaint to stage 2. An independent manager would therefore review her complaint, along with its stage 1 investigation, and would aim to provide an outcome within 20 working days.
On 24 September 2021 the resident phoned the landlord 3 times in relation to a plastering repair that was due to be completed that day. She said she had received a text at 10am saying the operative was on their way, but they did not arrive and she had lost her wages for the day. She also referred to a previous missed appointment on 20 September 2021. The landlord rebooked the repair for 19 October 2021. It addressed this matter as part of a separate stage 1 complaint, which was not subsequently escalated to stage 2 or to this Service, on 27 October 2021. In its complaint response it told the resident that it had given feedback to its repairs team to ensure that appointments were kept, callbacks returned, and regular updates provided when promised.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2021 to say that scaffolding had been put up at her property, but without ladders or a safety net. She also said it had been there for 2 weeks and nobody had started work or given her a start date. The landlord liaised with the resident regarding her separate complaint on 11 and 12 November 2021. On 23 November 2021 an internal email by the landlord noted that its contractor had started work and had booked in further works with the resident. The email said that there was an issue with the pointing to the external walls and it had requested quotes to render the walls; however, the rendering would need to wait until the new year as it required dry, warm weather. In the interim, the landlord had arranged to check the level of wall insulation in the property and whether it needed replacing.
On 14 and 28 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about her ongoing complaint. The landlord’s complaints officer spoke to the resident on 28 and/or 29 March 2022, and subsequently made internal enquiries regarding the repairs. Following further contact from the resident between 4 and 8 April 2022, the landlord visited the property to assess the works that remained outstanding. It then discussed the works internally between 11 and 14 April 2022. It noted that the cavity wall insulation had been removed and refilled, and that outstanding works included rendering, thermal boarding of the garage, and any associated work relating to scaffolding and ‘making good’.
The resident again requested an update on 18 April 2022, and the landlord informed her on 21 April 2022 that it had asked its contractors to contact her with dates for the rendering and garage works. When the contractor called the resident, they said they had been instructed to render only the gable wall, whereas the resident had been under the impression that her front and back walls would also be rendered. The resident raised this with the landlord, which discussed the rendering internally between 27 April 2022 and 22 June 2022. It initially maintained that only the gable wall would be rendered, and this was completed in early June 2022. However, following a visit to the property on 21 June 2022, it agreed to approve the front and back walls for rendering.
On 29 April 2022 a number of repairs were due to be completed at the property, but were postponed until June 2022 due to operative sickness. On 17 May 2022 the landlord’s contractor completed the garage works. On 7 June 2022 the resident raised a number of issues with the rendering that had recently been completed, namely: her television cable had been rendered over and she was unable to move it; a copper bathroom pipe had also been cemented over; the contractors had left a large bag of cement behind and “messed up her front garden”; and the scaffolding was still up, with no removal date provided. On 9 June 2022, after the scaffolding had been taken down, the resident sent the landlord photos of the rendering, which she described as “blotchy”. She said several neighbours had commented on how bad it looked, which she found “very embarrassing”.
On 23 June 2022 the landlord told the resident it would update her following a meeting with its contractor, but did not do so. On 24 June 2022 the contractor attended the property to assess and measure the cladding, but the resident had not been informed of their visit in advance. An internal email by the landlord on 26 June 2022 noted that there had been some confusion between its contractors as to which of them would carry out which repairs. On 27 June 2022 the landlord again did not call the resident as it said it would, and this was escalated internally by the complaints team. The landlord’s contractor provided a quote for the rendering and cladding works on 18 July 2022, but its commercial department requested a second quote, and this was obtained on 25 July 2022.
During the landlord’s visit with its contractor on 25 July 2022 (to obtain a second quote), the resident overheard a conversation between the landlord’s officer and the contractor. They appeared to be saying that the back wall did not need to be rendered. The resident told the landlord she was angry as she felt it had lied and could not be trusted. Internal correspondence by the landlord on 27 July 2022 noted that it would paint the rendered gable wall, but would not render the back and front walls; that it would ask its contractor to assess the roof tiles; that rather than replacing all of the cladding, it would replace only a warped section under a window; and that it had not found any mould behind the resident’s kitchen units.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 29 July 2022, stating that:
1. At stage 1, it concluded that the circumstances giving rise to the resident’s complaint had caused uncertainty and that she had been conflicting information about what repairs were required. It had also found that its communication had been poor and there had been unreasonable delays. It had apologised for its poor service and offered £420 to put things right. It was satisfied that its stage 1 responder had “worked diligently to achieve an outcome that at the time was appropriate”.
2. When reviewing the complaint at stage 2, it had discussed the situation with the resident at length, liaised with its staff and contractors, and considered the available information.
3. It reiterated its apology for its operative’s unsatisfactory conduct. It was satisfied that it had taken the resident’s feedback on board and that she had been appropriately compensated for this. At stage 1, it had divulged too much information relating to its operative’s personal circumstances, but this was done in good faith in order to provide the resident with context and an explanation.
4. After inspecting the mould in the resident’s garage and the subsequent spread into other rooms on 5 March 2021, it agreed to reinsulate the garage and make good the walls. However, despite initially telling the resident that the garage walls would be plastered after they were thermal boarded, it later advised that it would not do this as the garage was not a habitable room and so it was not required to plaster it. It accepted that the resident’s expectations were unfairly raised by its surveyor, and apologised for the frustration caused.
5. It replaced the plasterboard ceiling on 23 June 2021 and compensated the resident £500 for items damaged by mould, which had been made worse by the garage issues. It reinsulated the cavity walls in February 2022 and installed new thermal boards on the garage walls in May 2022. It accepted that this was over a year after the resident first reported the issue.
6. After it filled some holes and sealed the cladding at the front of the property in November 2020, the resident continued to experience issues with damp penetrating the cladding. It inspected this in December 2020, but due to government lockdowns, there was a 6-month delay before it visited again in relation to this. It refitted some of the cladding on 16 June 2021, but the resident said this did not resolve the problem. Since then 3 of its contractors had inspected the cladding and given different accounts of what was required. It had now decided to repair only the warped section of cladding beneath the front window, as this was the area that required attention and the rest of it did not raise any concerns. Its contractor was in the process of submitting a quote for this work and would provide a date and timeframe for completion the following week.
7. In the 11 months since the resident escalated her complaint, she had been visited by “many different contractors, repairs managers and inspectors”, and despite this it had taken an unreasonable amount of time to agree a plan of action for the cladding repairs and put things right.
8. The resident had also been visited at least 12 times between January and July 2021 in connection with her gable wall repairs. It had taken this into consideration in its stage 1 response. When the repointing repairs were eventually carried out, the work was poorly executed and it agreed to render the wall due to the level of workmanship. It was satisfied that the compensation offered at stage 1 reflected its handling of the repairs at the time and how long the scaffolding had to stay up.
9. Following escalation to stage 2, it was a further 11 months before the rendering was completed in June 2022. In the preceding months the resident had several visits by its surveyors, managers and 2 different contractors. This meant that although the gable wall issues were made worse by its contractor and further works were clearly required, the resident had to “pursue the matter consistently” in order for the works to be completed.
10. When its contractor completed the work, they failed to seal the render and the resident raised a number of concerns. The contractor’s decision to render over the resident’s television cable was made “in good faith cosmetically” as the cable had been loose. As the original contractor could not return, its other contractor provided a quote for sealing off the rendered wall and did not recommend rendering the other walls. It had therefore decided that only the gable wall would remain rendered, and it would carry out remedial repairs to the other walls where necessary. It could see that its change of direction had adversely affected the resident and contributed to the recent delays and inconvenience she suffered, and it was very sorry for this.
11. After the resident reported damp in her kitchen, it visited to inspect this on 12 July 2022. It found that the kitchen did not require damp repairs, but suspected that damp may be penetrating from the roof. Its contractor visited the previous week and confirmed that a tile was missing from the roof, meaning that moisture was able to get in. The contractor would be returning to replace the tile, and it was confident that this would resolve any damp issues.
12. Its communication had been a particular issue for the resident, and a number of failures had been identified during its stage 2 review. There were occasions when the resident was not contacted back by its repairs team, managers and contractors, which was unacceptable. Its difficulties in sourcing contractors meant that the resident was not always kept updated or visited as promised, which caused her to be confused and frustrated.
13. It had taken 3 months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1. Its stage 2 investigation was led by different officers at different times and was open for a year, which was “completely unacceptable”. It extended its sincere apologies for the poor experience the resident had had and the frustration she had felt. It upheld her complaint.
14. Taking account of the above and to acknowledge the poor service the resident had received, it offered a further £600 (in addition to the £420 it paid at stage 1 and the £500 for mould damaged items). This comprised:
  1. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its repair delays since July 2021;
  2. £150 for its broken promises, including lack of callbacks, not carrying out agreed actions and not contacting the resident when agreed;
  3. £100 for the time and trouble she had spent pursuing the matter;
  4. £100 for its complaint handling delays.
15. The resident’s complaint had highlighted how it could do better in managing customers’ expectations and providing the correct information. Lessons learned would be shared following the completion of the complaint.
16. Its contractor would contact the resident the following week in relation to sealing of the gable wall render, repair of the cladding, replacement of the roof tile, and any remedial brickwork repairs.

Post complaint

In December 2022 an additional £150 was offered to acknowledge delays in completing the work due to weather conditions.
On 22 June 2023, following contact from this Service, the landlord wrote to the resident. It stated that:
1. During the process of gathering information for the Ombudsman, it found that its offer of compensation at stage 2 did not take into consideration the further delays the resident had experienced and the poor communication she had received when she tried to obtain an update on the outstanding repairs.
2. It was sorry for the impact these delays and communication issues had had on her. It accepted that the service she received was poor and it needed to do better.
3. It offered a further payment of £300, comprising:
  1. £200 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its repair delays;
  2. £50 for its poor communication since the closure of the stage 2 complaint.
4. Since its complaint investigation it had made changes to its complaints service in order to improve complainants’ experience. It had revised its complaints and compensation policies, provided training and guidance to its complaint handlers, and developed training for all its staff on delivering an effective service and handling complaints. The failures it had found had been shared with relevant managers, and it intended to use the resident’s complaint as a learning exercise to prevent those failures from recurring.
The resident told the landlord she did not feel its offer of £300 reflected “everything she had had to put up with”, including the impact on her mental health. She asked it to revise its offer to £500, and it agreed to this.
On 26 June 2023 the landlord attended the property to complete the outstanding cladding and rendering repairs. The resident informed this Service the same day that she was no longer happy with the £500, as the issue had been going on since the previous year and there were still things the landlord had not done.
The landlord advised that it offered the resident a further £150 for the delays and inconvenience caused when it had to put a hold on repairs to the cladding due to poor weather.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. More recent matters that were not addressed as part of the resident’s complaint, such as removal of mud from her front garden and cracked plaster to an inside wall, have therefore not been considered as part of this investigation. The resident may choose to make a separate complaint to the landlord in respect of these matters, which she may then refer to this Service if she is dissatisfied with its response.

Repairs to the property

Brickwork and rendering

The landlord’s approach to the brickwork repairs was confused and inconsistent. An issue with water ingress through holes in the brickwork was reported by the resident in December 2020 (with the landlord also referring, in its stage 2 complaint response, to having previously filled holes in the brickwork and/or cladding in November 2020). Following a number of missed appointments, initial repairs were carried out over 3 months later in April 2021. While some delays to non-essential repairs due to Covid-19 and weather conditions were understandable, a delay of more than 3 times the maximum usual timeframe for repairs was excessive, particularly since the landlord had not yet assessed the extent of the ingress and whether the insulation had been affected. Its rationale for assessing the repairs as non-essential was therefore unclear, and if it had satisfied itself on this point, this was not documented.
After the landlord was unable to finish the repairs in April 2021, the resident told it there were “big holes” in the brickwork through which rain was entering the property. The landlord should have reassessed at this stage whether the repairs were non-essential. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord faced a number of challenges in progressing the repairs, including a backlog of work following the recent lockdown, operative sickness and availability, the resident’s preference for operatives to use a generator, and occasional access issues. However, it did not manage the resident’s case efficiently and created additional work for itself by missing callback requests, visiting multiple times to scope the works, visiting without notice, and attending without adequate preparation or instruction.
The fact that the landlord erected scaffolding at the property in April 2021 indicated that it intended to complete the brickwork repairs imminently, and in fact it was able to bring some rearranged works forward after the resident said her family was being inconvenienced by the scaffold poles. It was reasonable for the landlord to decline to dismantle and re-erect the scaffolding, and instead to offer to fence it off in order to prevent the resident’s children from climbing on it. While it should have investigated the resident’s concerns about insecure planks and dangling mesh, the overall length of time that the scaffolding was in place (around 3 months) was not excessive, given that work was completed at intervals throughout this period and the scaffolding was removed the day after the repairs were completed in July 2021. The landlord also accommodated the resident’s request for the scaffolding not to be in place throughout the school summer holidays.
The landlord could not have foreseen that its operative would complete the repointing works to a poor standard, and once the resident reported this, it took effective action by carrying out a post-inspection and raising further works. However, it is unclear whether the post-inspection would have taken place (or taken place so quickly) if the resident had not raised concerns. By this time, communication between the resident and the landlord’s repairs team appeared to have broken down, and the post-inspection was arranged only through the resident’s contact with the complaints team. It was appropriate for the landlord to agree to render the resident’s gable wall in view of the substandard repointing work, provided it was satisfied that the repointing was functionally fit for purpose. However, it did so on the understanding that this was a largely cosmetic solution.
When the landlord’s contractor completed the gable wall rendering, the landlord was dismissive of the resident’s concerns that they had rendered over her television cable, left the rendered section unsealed, and left a mess in her garden. The landlord’s code of conduct, with which its contractors must comply, is clear that operatives should work tidily and clear up after themselves. While the landlord may have been confident that the mess would be cleared and the cable had been rendered over “in good faith”, it did not acknowledge the departure from its policy or propose a solution in respect of the cable. It also did not immediately provide reassurance that any mess would be removed or tidied, despite having confirmed with its contractor that collection of a bag of cement would be “no problem”. The landlord delayed for at least 2 months in sealing the rendered wall, and for a further 11 months in painting it to disguise a “blotchy” finish. Not only was this further delay unacceptable, it risked compromising the efficacy of its third attempt to prevent water ingress through the brickwork.
Over the year following the gable wall rendering, the landlord caused considerable distress and uncertainty to the resident by changing its position as to whether it would render her remaining walls. Initially (according to the resident) its surveyor led her to believe that it would render all the walls; its service manager later refused to render the front and back walls, without having inspected the walls in question; the same service manager then visited and agreed to render the front and back walls; and finally, following a further visit with its contractor, it once more refused to render the non-gable walls. Its final decision at stage 2 appeared to be based on the contractor’s opinion that the rendering was not necessary. There still remains lack of clarity regarding whether the rendering of the wall will cause the property to sweat which would impact the ventilation inside the home, potentially causing an issue with condensation and mould growth as advised by the service manager. In the Ombudsman’s view, given that the landlord’s aim was evidently to provide a property that the resident could feel proud to live in, and that the resident had already reported similar issues with the other walls, the landlord should have arranged a further independent survey in order to establish whether the walls can be rendered. An order has therefore been made for the front and back walls to be independently surveyed, and if so, for all walls to be finished to an acceptable and consistent standard.

Cladding

The landlord first became aware of an ongoing issue with damp penetrating the cladding at the front of the property in December 2020. Its repair logs show that this followed a previous cladding repair reported by the resident in July 2020 and completed in November 2020. It did not raise a works order to “check cladding for holes and leaks” until March 2021, with no explanation for the delay other than the Covid-19 pandemic. This was unsatisfactory. The resident contacted the landlord in April 2021 to dispute its assessment that the cladding was “fine”, and in June 2021 it replaced some of the cladding. However, the resident reported that this did not fix the issue with water ingress. The next reference to cladding in the landlord’s records was not until April 2022, when internal emails noted that it had no plans for further replacement of cladding. Subsequent correspondence indicated that its contractor had been due to inspect the cladding when repointing/rendering works were carried out, but following reallocation of these works to a different contractor, the cladding checks were apparently missed.
The landlord’s approach to resolving the issue was therefore confused, with the same contractor visiting twice to measure the cladding. This caused understandable frustration to the resident. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that it had delayed for 6 months in visiting in relation to the cladding repair; that its 3 contractors had given different accounts of what works were required; and that the resident had been visited by “many different contractors, repairs managers and inspectors”, despite which it had taken “an unreasonable amount of time to agree a plan to address the issues”. As with the rendering works, the landlord initially agreed to carry out larger scale works but later said it would repair only the warped section of cladding. While this final decision was reasonable, it took a disproportionate amount of time to reach, and the resident’s expectations were unfairly raised in the process. The eventual delay of 30 months in completing the repairs, together with the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused to the resident, was unacceptable.

Damp and mould

The resident told the landlord in February 2021 that her home was cold and draughty, and in March 2021 mould was found to have spread from the integral garage into other rooms. The landlord initially agreed to plaster the garage walls after reinsulating them, but later said it would not plaster the walls as the garage was not a habitable room. This decision was reasonable and consistent with usual practice. However, as with the brickwork and cladding repairs discussed above, it was the landlord’s delays and indecision that were unsatisfactory. While the replacement of a plasterboard ceiling in June 2021 took place within an acceptable timeframe, the delay of a year in reinsulating the walls and of 15 months in installing thermal boarding was excessive. It was appropriate in the circumstances for the landlord to compensate the resident for damage to her belongings, and this is discussed in more detail below.
The landlord addressed more recent issues with damp in the resident’s kitchen in its stage 2 complaint response. While this was not part of the resident’s original complaint, it had discretion to consider this related matter as part of its response, and as such the Ombudsman can consider its handling of the issue. The landlord acted appropriately and promptly (within 2 months) by carrying out a thorough investigation, which involved removal of the kitchen units. Its investigation led it to identify the cause of the damp as a missing roof tile, which it swiftly made arrangements to replace. It is noted that 2 tiles were replaced: the first with a like-for-like tile and the second with a ventilator ridge tile. While these events took place between June and August 2022, at a time when the landlord was mindful of scrutiny and had had a chance to reduce its backlog, it is encouraging that this repair was progressed in a timely and efficient way. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was appropriate for the landlord to decline to carry out a full replacement of the resident’s kitchen, although it could have been more transparent about its decision making (eg by explaining that it had considered less intrusive repairs to improve the appearance of the room, such as replacement of individual units and drawer fronts) and it would have been helpful for it to tell the resident when her kitchen was due for renewal.

Summary

Overall, while the landlord did a number of things well, its continual changing of decisions and its 30-month delay in completing the substantive repairs has resulted in a finding of severe maladministration. While it acknowledged and apologised for its failures, the level of redress offered at stage 2 was insufficient.
Because the landlord has already demonstrated learning from the resident’s case, no orders have been made in relation to staff training.

Staff conduct

When the resident first reported issues with the behaviour of the landlord’s operative, the landlord responded appropriately and proportionately by speaking to the operative in question. The landlord’s policies do not refer to arrangements for use of electricity when carrying out repairs in tenants’ homes, and it was reasonable for it to assume that its operative would be able to use the resident’s supply. When the resident objected to this, the landlord demonstrated flexibility by exploring alternative options such as battery-powered tools and use of a generator. Since it went on to provide a generator for use during a subsequent appointment, these were obviously genuine efforts to find a mutually agreeable solution and progress the repairs. As the estimated cost of the additional electricity used on 7 April 2021 was negligible (around 25p), it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to reimburse the resident for this.
The landlord again acted appropriately by apologising to the resident for things its operative got wrong, such as disregarding her request for her gate to be kept closed, leaving without explanation, and failing to notify her when their actions resulted in a fuse blowing. When some issues recurred, there is evidence that the landlord took an incremental approach by speaking to relevant managers and investigating the cause of the behaviour. While the landlord provided an inappropriate level of detail about the operative’s personal circumstances in its stage 1 response, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it did so in an effort to be transparent with the resident and provide an explanation for what occurred. It also acknowledged its error in its stage 2 response.
Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its operative’s behaviour by acknowledging that the behaviour was unacceptable, apologising for it, taking steps to prevent recurrence, and paying the resident £20 for her damaged back box and extension lead.

Communication and complaint handling

Communication

The communication of the landlord’s repairs team with the resident was poor. By its own admission, it repeatedly failed to return callback requests and to keep the resident updated, provided conflicting information, changed its plan of action, missed appointments, and attended without notice. These failures continued even after the landlord said it had put measures in place to prevent recurrence in October 2021. The frequency of the communication issues was such that the resident understandably described herself as feeling “angry”, “stressed” and “fed up”, and came to expect that her requests for updates would be ignored.
By contrast, the communication of the landlord’s complaints team was excellent, particularly at stage 2. The officer who ultimately responded to the stage 2 complaint was tenacious and demonstrated exceptional customer service skills by replying promptly to the resident’s emails over an extended period of time, explaining decisions, showing empathy, and challenging delays and inconsistent information from other teams. This was recognised by the resident in her contact with this Service, when she said “my complaints [person] tried their best to get a resolution but they were messed about too”.

Complaint handling

Despite the skill and efforts of the complaints team, the resident’s complaint was unacceptably delayed. While it was reasonable for the landlord to tell the resident it needed more time to respond due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it should have kept to its extended stage 1 timeframe of 20 working days. At the very least, if it was unable to meet this deadline, it should have informed the resident of this at the earliest opportunity and provided a revised response date. The 3-month delay in providing a stage 1 response was excessive. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord may have wished to complete certain repairs before it issued its response, but this Service’s complaint handling code states that complaint responses must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when outstanding actions to address the issue are completed. In actuality, various repairs remained outstanding at the time of the stage 1 response, and many aspects of the eventual response could have been provided weeks earlier.
The landlord’s decision to communicate its stage 1 outcome to the resident verbally, then to accept an escalation request before it had provided its written stage 1 response, was confusing. There is little evidence that it attempted to understand the reasons for the resident’s continued dissatisfaction or to negotiate a mutually acceptable resolution (such as increased compensation, or specific repair commitments) before issuing the written response. The stage 1 letter was therefore treated as a formality, produced in the knowledge that the resident would be unhappy with it, rather than a meaningful attempt to put things right.
The landlord said it aimed to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request (on 30 July 2021). However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any contact between the landlord and resident until nearly 2 months later (24 September 2021), and this was in relation to a different matter. There was then very limited correspondence between October 2021 and April 2022, with the resident’s specific request for an update in relation to her complaint in November 2021 going unanswered. Although the Ombudsman understands the resident asked the landlord not to pay her compensation until the repairs had been completed, this did not justify delaying its stage 2 response; it could have provided the response and included a commitment to review the compensation following completion of the repairs.
While the stage 2 responder’s contact with the resident from April 2022 onwards was exemplary, as discussed above, this officer became the resident’s main point of contact in relation to all aspects of her complaint. Though it was good practice for a single point of contact to be provided, and this went a long way towards addressing the communication issues, the complaints officer lacked the technical expertise to discuss the repairs in detail. They also lacked the authority to make decisions relating to repairs. The landlord should have assigned the resident a single point of contact proactively, rather than by default, and should have appointed someone with appropriate seniority and technical knowledge. The complaints officer’s consistently prompt replies and apologies no doubt gave the resident some reassurance, but ultimately the 12-month delay in responding to the stage 2 complaint far exceeded what the Ombudsman would expect. The delay had the effect of prolonging the resident’s uncertainty, and denied her the option of escalating the complaint to this Service at a time when key repair-related decisions had not yet been made.

Level of compensation

At stage 1, the landlord offered the resident £400 as a goodwill gesture and £20 in compensation. According to its compensation policy, this implied that it was not at fault for the things included in its award of £400. These included delays in repairs, lack of communication, failed callbacks and inconvenience, all of which the landlord had accepted responsibility and apologised for. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the £400 should have been presented as compensation – ie “a payment in recognition of loss or detriment” – rather than a goodwill gesture. In order to demonstrate openness, the landlord should also have provided a breakdown, making it clear how much money had been awarded for each element. Its failure to do so made it difficult to assess the level of award, which overall was consistent with its tariff for ‘moderate inconvenience’, but which accounted for multiple failures. Furthermore, there was no indication that the £400 included delays in complaint handling.
It is noted that the landlord separately paid the resident £500 for her possessions that had been damaged by mould. Limited information relating to this, including the date of payment and method of calculation, has been made available for examination. Based on the information provided, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord exercised appropriate discretion in making this payment, as such damage would ordinarily be covered by a contents insurance policy (if held) but the landlord recognised its role in the mould spreading within the property.
At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident an additional £600 and provided a comprehensive breakdown for this. It was appropriate for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and the time and trouble she expended in pursuing aspects of her complaint, to be individually recognised. It was also positive that a distinct award was made for complaint handling, although the amount was consistent with ‘minor inconvenience’ (according to the landlord’s compensation policy) or service failure (according to this Service’s remedies guidance). Moreover, the fact that the total award of £600 did not fall into the landlord’s category for ‘significant inconvenience’ (over £700) indicated that the landlord did not appreciate the full extent and impact of its failure since July 2021.
Finally, the landlord made a further offer of compensation 11 months later, after the resident’s complaint had been accepted for investigation by the Ombudsman. While it is generally appropriate for landlords to keep compensation and other forms of redress under review while a substantive complaint issue (such as repairs) remains unresolved, it is not in the spirit of this Service’s dispute resolution principles and complaint handling code for a landlord to make such an offer at the end of a long process with the anticipated effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further. There is no indication that the further offer would have been made if the resident had not referred her complaint to this Service. However, it is noted that the landlord made this offer following its own review and in an attempt to remedy the relationship with the resident.
The error in calculation (with an overall award of £300 but a breakdown adding up to £250), together with the landlord’s immediate agreement to increase its offer to £500 and further offer of £150, was suggestive of a disorganised and reflexive approach. While the total award of £1,650 (plus £520 for damaged items) was not unreasonable, further awards have been made in recognition of elements not adequately or demonstrably considered by the landlord.

Summary

Taking all of the above into account, while the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were thorough and its stage 2 complaints officer’s dedication was commendable, its failures in communication and approach to compensation have resulted in an overall finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its communication and complaint handling, including the level of compensation offered.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports regarding staff conduct.

Reasons

The landlord delayed for 30 months in completing repairs to the brickwork and cladding at the property. The initial brickwork repairs were of an unacceptable standard. The repairs were characterised by missed or duplicated appointments, poor communication and organisation, and conflicting information. This caused significant frustration and distress to the resident, who had to take unpaid time off work for appointments, and prolonged the length of time that she and her children were living with damp and mould in their home. The level of redress offered by the landlord at stage 2 was insufficient.
The landlord handled the resident’s reports relating to its operative’s behaviour in an appropriate and solution-focused way. It took prompt and proportionate action to address the issues, apologised for its failures, and reimbursed the resident for items it had damaged. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, these measures constituted redress that resolved this aspect of the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
The landlord took 3 months to respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 and 12 months at stage 2. It accepted an escalation request before providing its stage 1 response. While its previously poor communication improved at stage 2, its complaints officer was not an appropriate point of contact in relation to the repairs. No breakdown was provided for the landlord’s initial offer of compensation, and this was incorrectly presented as a goodwill gesture. While subsequent offers of compensation were accompanied by a breakdown and the eventual overall level of compensation was appropriate, the final offer appeared to be a reaction to an information request by this Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report, providing evidence of compliance:
1. Reiterate its apology to the resident for its delays in carrying out repairs and failures in communication and complaint handling. The apology should be provided in writing by a senior member of staff.
2. Pay the resident £2,000 (with the £1,650 already paid to the resident to be deducted from this, meaning that the difference of £350 is now due). This is separate to the £520 paid for damaged items, and comprises:
  1. £1,000 for its delays in carrying out repairs;
  1. £600 for its failures in communication and complaint handling;
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her household;
  3. £200 for the time and trouble she invested in pursuing her repairs and complaint, including time relating to missed appointments.
3. The resident will obtain a surveyor of her choosing to give a second opinion regarding the rendering works, and the landlord will cover the cost. The landlord has asked for 3 quotes from RICS approved surveyors for it to choose from. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to adhere to the recommendations provided following the survey report. The Ombudsman also expects the survey to be completed within 4 weeks from the time the surveyor is agreed by both parties. If the resident would like the landlord to instruct its own independent surveyor, this should be communicated to the landlord. This Service should be updated with any delays that arise.
4. The landlord is asked to inspect the resident’s garage, with the resident present, to confirm that the repairs to the garage – particularly the ceiling – were completed correctly. If they were not completed, the landlord should consider an additional £300 compensation with regards to this aspect.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its internal guidance and/or training for staff in relation to works requiring electricity. In particular, it should consider notifying or consulting with residents before using their utilities, clarifying the circumstances in which it will provide a generator, and the health and safety implications of using residents’ electrical appliances and equipment (such as extension leads) which may not have been PAT tested.
In addition to the learning exercise already completed, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the resident’s case in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021) and follow-up report (February 2023).