The Guinness Partnership Limited (202102462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102462

The Guinness Partnership Limited

14 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about her roof.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy and lives alone in a first floor flat in an estate owned by the landlord. There is no property above the resident.
The resident previously had an uncontainable leak from her ceiling through her light fitting and reported this in April 2020. The landlord arranged and completed a repair in June 2020.
On 28 April 2021, the resident reported a further uncontainable leak through the same ceiling light fitting as in April 2020. She raised a complaint the following day stating she had the same issue the previous year and the landlord must not have completed the job properly. She said her floor covering was “ruined” and she should not have to pay to have this replaced. Contractor 1 working on behalf of the landlord completed a temporary repair of the roof on 7 May 2021.
On 11 May 2021, the resident reported the leak had resumed through her ceiling light fitting. The landlord told her on 20 May 2021 it was waiting for a quote from Contractor 2 to complete a complex repair. On 7 and 13 July 2021 the landlord attempted to arrange a suitable date for the end of July 2021 on behalf of Contractor 2. On 23 July 2021, the resident arranged time off from work for the repair to take place on 30 July 2021. However, the landlord found through the resident the purchase order had been cancelled by Contractor 2 and raised the repair again on 26 July 2021. It did not complete a repair appointment on 30 July 2021.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 11 August 2021 apologising for the delay in doing so. It stated the following to the resident:
1. It had marked the repair in 2020 as resolved and could not confirm if the resident’s current leak was linked or if there was evidence of poor workmanship.
2. It agreed there was a delay in completing the repair and Contractor 2 had attempted to complete this on 25 May 2021, but was unable to access the resident’s property. It had failed to contact the resident following this and due to the delay over arranging a suitable repair appointment had cancelled the purchase order. It transferred the responsibility for completion of the repair to Contractor 3 who it said had greater availability and would contact the resident.
3. Once it had completed the repair and it was watertight it would complete internal repairs to the property. It offered the resident £120 as a gesture of goodwill.
On 14 September 2021, the landlord informed the resident it was waiting to approve a quote from Contractor 3 and would contact her when it had an update. It completed the repair to the roof on 13 October 2021.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 October 2021 stating she did not accept its gesture of goodwill. She asked the landlord if it had completed the repair as she had been on holiday, and it said it would chase up the repair and get back to her. On 3 November 2021, the landlord confirmed the repair was complete and offered her a further gesture of goodwill payment of £25 taking the total to £145. The resident rejected this telling the landlord she wished to escalate her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
A landlord surveyor attended at the resident’s property on 9 December 2021 and reported minor defects to her laminate flooring, her hallway light needed to be replaced and the scaffolding used to complete the roof repair needed to be removed. The landlord replaced the light fitting on 13 December 2021.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 13 December 2021 stating the following:
1. The resident should claim through her content’s insurance for damage to her laminate flooring.
2. It had replaced her hallway light on 9 December 2021 and was awaiting a date for the removal of the scaffolding but would update her by 23 December 2021. (It was later taken down by 5 January 2022).
3. It increased its gesture of goodwill payment to £225, £125 for stress and inconvenience, £50 for missed appointments and poor communication and £50 for the delay in providing its complaint response.
4. It said the resident told it she would decline any resolution as she only wanted to escalate her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
In raising her complaint to this Service, the resident said it was the second time she had a roof leak, and she had no light in her hallway for almost a year. She also said she wanted the landlord to repair her flooring as the landlord’s delay caused the damage. She also believed the compensation offered by the landlord did not recognise the stress and inconvenience she had suffered.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report about her roof.

The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on negligence nor the causation of, or liability for, damage to property. This would be more usually dealt with either as an insurance claim or through the courts. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to its policies, procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the roof in the property and must keep in working order electric wiring, including sockets and switches. It confirms the resident is responsible for insuring the contents of her home and her own belongings.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy classes an emergency repair as a flood or leak that cannot be contained or causes a risk of electric shock. It confirms when there is an emergency repair reported it will conduct a full or temporary repair within 24 hours, making the situation safe. If a temporary repair is completed it says it will return within a reasonable period to complete the repair, aiming to complete it at the first visit. Where this is not possible it will provide the resident of an explanation why and what it will do next.
The Responsive Repairs Policy goes on to say it will try to arrange a date and time for repair when issue is reported or as soon as practical after. It says it will contact the resident as far in advance as possible if it needs to change an appointment and will always communicate clearly. It expects contractors working on its behalf to keep their appointment and if they are changed to advise the resident in good time.

Link between the two leaks

The leak in the resident’s roof in April 2020 is linked to the leak on 28 April 2021 in that the resident reported the leak affected the same area of the property, the hallway ceiling light. There were no further reports of issues with the roof made by the resident between June 2020, when the landlord completed a repair to the roof, and 28 April 2021 when she reported the new leak. Significant time therefore elapsed between the landlord’s repair of the leak of April 2020 and the new report of a leak a year later.
This Service has seen evidence the resident raised a complaint (June 2020) about the leak in the roof in April 2020, but it is not clear if this completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman’s remit requires complaints to both complete a landlord’s complaints process and be raised to the Ombudsman in a reasonable timeframe. As such the resident’s complaint about the April 2020 leak will not be assessed here. However, the initial leak is relevant to the complaint under investigation in the context of the resident’s report about the April 2021 being linked to it.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 11 August 2021 stated it could not confirm with any degree of accuracy whether the two leaks were related but did not offer further substantial explanation as to why it did not think this was the case. There is no evidence the landlord obtained a suitably qualified opinion on whether the previous leak was related to the new leak. This would have been reasonable in the circumstances as it would have provided clarity and reassurance to the landlord’s position.
The Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise to decide whether the two leaks were linked. The time that elapsed between the two issues was significant, however. As such the landlord’s position presents as reasonable and the insurance process it signposted the resident towards also provided her with the option of getting the landlord’s position assessed.

Delays to fixing roof and poor communication.

This Service has seen evidence that the landlord raised an order to make the roof safe on 28 April 2021. The report was correctly determined by the landlord to be an emergency repair under its Responsive Repairs Policy. However, it failed to inform the resident it would be attending to complete the (temporary) repair on 7 May 2021. The landlord apologised for this failure on 11 May 2021.
The completion of the temporary repair on 7 May 2021 failed to adhere to the landlord’s timescale of completing a temporary or full repair within 24 hours. The resident called the landlord on 10 May 2021, and it was not certain of the repair outcome and attempted to clarify this. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 11 May 2021 Contractor 1 had only completed a temporary fix. Following this the landlord failed to explain to the resident why it had only completed a temporary repair rather than fully resolve the issue, until she raised this with the landlord on 20 May 2021.
On 11 May 2021, the resident reported the leak had resumed in her property following the temporary repair completed on 7 May 2021. This Service can find no evidence the landlord treated this new report as an emergency, despite it fitting its definition of one in its Responsive Repairs Policy as the leak on 28 April 2021 was.
In its stage one complaint response of 11 August 2021 the landlord stated Contractor 2 attempted to visit the property to complete a repair on 25 May 2021 but was unable to gain access to the property. The records held by the landlord and evidence provided to this Service do not suggest the landlord informed the resident of this appointment or that Contractor 2 did attend on 25 May 2021.
The landlord acted appropriately in obtaining a quote for the roof repair from Contractor 2 by 25 May 2021. Contractor 2 was required to confirm the date of works to the resident but there is no evidence that it did so until the landlord confirmed the date on their behalf on 1 July 2021.
There was a breakdown in communication between the landlord and Contractor 2 between 1 July and 26 July 2021. On the 7 July 2021, the landlord offered a repair date of 30 July 2021 and following discussion the resident confirmed she had booked this date off work. On 26 July 2021, the resident chased the repair with the landlord, and they advised her to contact Contractor 2 to arrange a date. Contractor 2 informed her on the same date they had already cancelled the work order for the repair. She in turn informed the landlord of this who said they would raise the work order again.
The landlord responded appropriately in acknowledging the breakdown in communications with Contractor 2 in its reply of 11 August 2021 and transferring the repair to a new contractor. It informed the resident on 14 September 2021 it would contact her with an update. Following this it approved a quote from Contractor 3, and they completed the repair to the roof on 13 October 2021.
The landlord failed to update the resident that it had approved the quote from Contractor 3, or it had completed the repair to the roof, and she called to chase this on 25 October 2021. It advised her it would need to confirm this and get back to her and was not able to do so until 3 November 2021, by which time the repair was complete. It would be expected that had the landlord had comprehensive notes on the status of the repair it would have been able to confirm the outcome during the call of 25 October 2021 and not have to obtain further information and confirm this to the resident on 3 November 2021. This caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to her in having to chase this up.
It failed to update the resident on either of these steps and she called to chase the repair on 25 October 2021. The landlord confirmed it she only found this information when she called to chase the repair on 25 October 2021, by which time the repair to the roof had been completed.
The resident reported on 11 May 2021 the leak was still present in the property. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the temporary fix had not done enough to temporarily resolve the issue. The property was affected by the leak and was at further risk of leaking following the failed temporary fix. On 13 October 2021, the landlord completed the repair to the roof. This meant the leak was present in the resident’s property for a total of 155 days. However, scaffolding remained at the property following this and the resident was dissatisfied the landlord had not removed this.
The landlord told the resident on 23 December 2021 it was not certain when its contractor would remove the scaffolding. It believed but was not certain it completed by 5 January 2022. The scaffolding remained at the property for 84 days following completion of the roof repair and caused further inconvenience to the resident and further delay in her obtaining a full resolution to the roof repair issue.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord should have treated the further reported leak in the roof on 11 May 2021 as an emergency and prioritised it. It should have explained to the resident what further action it would take after the failed temporary repair and should have effectively managed the permanent repair to completion in a much quicker timescale. In this regard it failed to meet its Responsive Repairs Policy of returning within a reasonable period to complete the repair.
The delay in completing the permanent repair to the resident’s roof between 11 May and 13 October 2021 was due to a number of contributing factors including, poor record keeping, the requirement to utilise a further contractor and the requirement to use scaffolding. The landlord’s poor communication with Contractor 2 also had a significant impact. It is expected a landlord and contractor have a symbiotic relationship, the poor communication between the two delayed the repairs, added to the resident’s distress as she did not know what was happening and she was often required to chase progress herself, whilst attempting to manage the ongoing leak in her property.
The landlord failed to act in accordance with its Responsive Repairs Policy throughout as specified below:
1. It did not explain to the resident why it could not complete the repair on 7 May 2021 and the resident had to chase the explanation to this, receiving it on 20 May 2021.
2. Its contractor failed to advise the resident of the appointment on 7 May 2021 and had no further contact with her between 25 May and 1 July 2021.
3. It failed to effectively manage its relationship with its contractor.
4. It did not treat the further report of the leak in the roof on 7 May 2021 as an emergency and did not complete the repair within a reasonable period when it was aware the temporary repair had failed.
5. It communicated poorly with the resident poorly throughout.
6. It failed to maintain accurate records.
The landlord’s failures highlighted above were responsible for causing distress and inconvenience to the resident. There was a breakdown in the relationship between the landlord and resident which affected her confidence the landlord would promptly support and resolve issues she had reported.

Hallway light issue

The resident reported on 28 April 2021 the leak was coming through her hallway light, rendering it unusable and unsafe to have in use. In her correspondence with this Service the resident said she did not have use of the light for ‘almost a year’ and her hallway was in darkness.
The tenancy agreement states the landlord must keep in working order electric wiring but the roof leak through the light was a mitigating factor to repairing the light. The landlord confirmed in its stage one complaint response once the roof repair was complete and watertight it would complete internal repairs as necessary, which included the repair to the hallway light. However, this Service can find no evidence the landlord provided or considered providing temporary lighting to the resident in her hallway between 28 April 2022 and the date it repaired the light on 9 December 2021. This was unreasonable and failed to consider the responsibility of the landlord in ensuring the resident was living in a safe environment.
The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states it will repair issues that are not an emergency repair, such as the resident’s hallway light, within 28 calendar days. It was able to repair the light from 14 October 2021, the day after it repaired the roof, but did not complete the repair to the light until 9 December 2021. This was the equivalent to 56 calendar days, doubling the time its policy said it would complete the repair. This caused prolonged inconvenience to the resident, forcing her to use an unsafe space which did not have any form of lighting.

Reimbursement for flooring

The resident has provided evidence to this Service that she purchased new flooring at a total cost of £302.59 on 15 April 2022 which was prior to her reporting the leak to her roof on 28 April 2022. As established previously in this report this Service cannot investigate the complaint and any subsequent damage caused by the leak in April 2020 under paragraph’s 42 (a) and 42 (b) of the Scheme.
On 28 April 2021, the resident said in her complaint, the leak which started the same day had caused damage to her flooring. She believed she should not have to pay for new flooring as the new leak was because of poor workmanship from the previous roof repair in June 2021.
In its stage one response of 11 August 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the damage to her flooring. It confirmed to her that once it had repaired the roof and made it watertight it would complete any internal repairs as needed.
Once the repair to the roof was complete on 13 October 2021 a surveyor working for the landlord attended at the property on 9 December 2021. They found that there were minor defects to the flooring and correctly advised the resident she should claim for the damage to her flooring on her content’s insurance. The landlord reconfirmed this in their stage two complaint response on 13 December 2021.
The landlord was delayed in investigating the damage to the resident’s flooring between 13 October and 9 December 2021, which was not in accordance with its agreement of 11 August 2021 that it would complete any necessary repairs as soon as it had repaired the roof. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s approach in signposting the resident to her content’s insurance was reasonable in the circumstances as it had investigated the issue and provided prompt and appropriate signposting for where the resident could proceed if she disagreed with the landlord’s position. Its Compensation Policy confirms it encourages residents to take out contents insurance to cover belongings against flooding or accidental damage.

Decant from property.

On 13 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to asked to be moved from the property whilst the issue with her roof was resolved. This Service is not able to conclude whether a decant was required, but we would expect to see a landlord clarify its position in response to such a request.
This Service can find no evidence in the landlord’s policies about why a landlord may choose to decant a resident, only a compensation policy for when it does decant a resident. Moreover, this Service can see no further evidence the landlord considered moving the resident at any point and it failed to address this point with her. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to respond to the resident’s point about being moved as she had legitimate concerns about when the landlord would repair the roof, which it had determined was an emergency repair.

Record keeping

As mentioned previously in this report there have been a number of issues with the landlord’s record keeping as summarised below:
1. The landlord was not certain of the repair outcome when the resident called it on 10 May 2021 and the resident was the one who confirmed the outcome to the landlord the following day.
2. Despite the landlord’s response that Contractor 2 attempted to visit the property to complete a repair on 25 May 2021, this Service can find no evidence of this.
3. Although it had completed the repair to the resident’s roof on 13 October 2021, the landlord was not able to confirm this when the resident asked if it was complete on 25 October 2021. It did not confirm this until 3 November 2021.
4. The landlord told the resident on 23 December 2021 it was not certain when its contractor would remove scaffolding and only believed it had been removed by 5 January 2022.
The landlord’s failure in keeping accurate records meant it was not aware of the outcome at each stage of the roof repair and could not proactively inform the resident as a result. The resident had to chase the progress of the roof repair on 10 May and 13 October 2021 and removal of scaffolding on 23 December 2021, which caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to her. The lack of information available to the landlord damaged the communication between it and the resident and affected her confidence that it would provide an accurate response in a timely manner.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report confirms good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.

Level of compensation

The final amount of compensation offered by the landlord was £225 broken down as £125 for stress and inconvenience, £50 for missed appointments and poor communication and £50 for delay in providing a complaint response. This falls within the amount of ‘Up to £250’ in its Compensation Policy, where it has resolved an issue within a reasonable time with minor impact on the resident.
The delay in completing the full roof repair between 11 May and 13 October 2021 was considerable and caused more than a ‘minor impact’ to the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s request to be moved, its delay in repairing the hallway light or providing temporary lighting and its delay in assessing the reports of damage to her flooring. It also failed to acknowledge the inconvenience she suffered in chasing the repair and managing the leak in her home.
This Service finds the total compensation offered by the landlord as insufficient. It failed to recognise:
1. The time and trouble suffered by the resident in chasing the repair.
2. The time the resident was without lighting or an alternative in her hallway and its delay in investigating and repairing this.
3. Its poor communications and failure to manage its contractors.
4. The extent of the detriment caused to the resident by the delay in repairing the leak in her roof and the inconvenience in managing this in her home.
5. It failed to acknowledge or respond to her request to be moved.
6. The delay in assessing and providing a response regarding the report of damage to her flooring.
The Ombudsman finds the compensation offered by the landlord should have been within the ‘£250 to £700’ range in its Compensation Policy. This is because the issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in moderate inconvenience to the resident. Due to the number of issues detailed above, the Ombudsman has awarded £700 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where maladministration has occurred over a protracted period with significant impact to the resident’s household.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaints Policy states it will acknowledge complaints in two working days and keep a complainant regularly updated on the progress of their complaint, even if it has no new information to provide. It aims to resolve a complaint at the earliest opportunity in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, of 10 working days for a stage one complaint and 20 working days for a stage two complaint.
The Complaints Policy also states any remedy in resolving a complaint will reflect the extent of the failures and the level of detriment caused. It says it will offer a goodwill gesture when it is at fault, an apology or other remedy is not sufficient, and it recognises any shortcoming.
The resident raised her stage one complaint on 29 April 2021 and the landlord acknowledged it on 18 June 2021. It stated its response may be delayed due to COVID-19 and it would reply in 20 working days. The landlord was delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint, but its management of the resident’s expectations was reasonable given the impact of COVID-19 at the time.
Following the complaint acknowledgement of 18 June 2021, the resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord on 1 July 2021 and asked to speak with a manager as she said she was not receiving good service. On 13 July 2021 she told the landlord she was unhappy as it had not replied to her complaint. This Service can find no evidence the landlord contacted the resident about either matter and was unreasonable in causing further inconvenience and a breakdown in the relationship between the resident and landlord.
Despite the landlord’s Complaint’s Policy stating it will keep in touch with a complainant once a complaint is made, this Service can find little evidence of that with much of the contact being made by the resident to chase a response. This caused significant inconvenience to the resident and affected her confidence that she would receive a reply.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 11 August 2021, equivalent to 73 working days. This was an unreasonable delay and exceeded the additional time of 20 working days it allowed itself because of the pandemic, breaking the expectations it had earlier set with the resident. It was also not in line with its policy of resolving a complaint at the earliest opportunity.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 October 2021 and received a response on 13 December 2021, equivalent to 36 working days. This exceeded the timescale of 20 working days in its Complaint’s Policy. This also was not in line with its policy of resolving a complaint at the earliest opportunity. However, it must be noted the landlord stated in its stage two response it would learn from the resident’s complaint and review its complaint escalation process to ensure there were no further delays. This was reasonable as it understood the root of the issue and enacted its Complaints Policy in informing its policy development and service improvement.
The stage two complaint response offered compensation of £50 for its delay in providing its complaint responses. This was insufficient in recognising the total delay experienced by the resident which over both responses totalled 109 working days.
In its stage two response the landlord responded to most points raised by the resident and was a clear attempt to put things right for the resident. However, both its stage one and two complaint responses failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about being moved into temporary accommodation or not paying her rent. This was unreasonable as it was a serious point of concern for the resident.
A landlords complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaints policy in its stage one and two complaint response time and its communication with the resident. A determination of Service Failure has therefore been determined. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £150 compensation has been ordered.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about her roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall carry out the following orders:
1. Pay the resident a total of £850 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £700 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays and inappropriate handling of her reports about her roof.
  2. £150 caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and the unreasonable complaint handling.
  3. The above amount to include any compensation already paid by the landlord during the complaints process.
2. Conduct a review of its repairs record keeping processes and procedures in light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s KIM report. The landlord is to provide this service with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to take as a result.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.