The Guinness Partnership Limited (202214534)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214534

The Guinness Partnership Limited

6 October 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:
   1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. On 1 March 2021, the landlord undertook an inspection of the resident’s property. It found that the front door was poorly fitted and needed to be replaced. On 7 July 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She raised various repair issues, most of which were not included in her complaint to this Service. The resident explained that the landlord had attended three times to undertake repairs to her front door, yet there was still a gap around the frame.
4. The resident chased throughout the summer months of 2021 for a surveyor to inspect her front door. An operative attended in October 2021, and assured the resident that the landlord would raise further repairs. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 11 November 2021. It explained that there had been delays in gaining a second surveyor appointment, and acknowledged that the repairs remained outstanding. It apologised for the poor service, and offered £100 compensation in recognition of the delays.
5. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 November 2021. She complained about the landlord’s lack of communication and did not feel that a sufficient explanation had been provided for the delays to her repairs. She later explained that the repairs were still outstanding.
6. The landlord agreed to escalate the complaint on 21 November 2021, but failed to do so until 5 January 2022. It sent its stage two response on 23 March 2022, apologising for the extensive delays and its poor communication. It also apologised for its poor complaint handling. The landlord explained that it had sent a surveyor to assess the issues at the property on 1 March 2022, finding that the front door needed to be replaced. It assured the resident that an operative would attend on 27 April 2022 to measure for the door renewal. The landlord increased its compensation offer to a total of £250.
7. The resident began chasing for an update to her door renewal in May 2022. On 11 May 2022, the landlord assured the resident that it would not close the complaint until her front door had been renewed.
8. After the resident continued to chase for an update, the landlord contacted her on 27 July 2022. It explained that its new repair team did not feel that the door needed to be replaced. It apologised for providing conflicting information and promised to undertake any necessary repairs to the door.
9. In September the landlord repeated its explanations to the resident. Explaining why it had changed its mind and reiterating that it did not believe the door needed replacement. It said that if she needed repairs to the door she should report them to its repairs team.
10. On 14 September 2022 the landlord raised a new work order for “numerous cracks through the door – External door is draughty.” Further work orders were raised in March 2023 to address the external door being draughty and loose, but these appear to relate to the back door, not the front one.
11. The resident has told this Service that at the time of this report the front door repairs and/or replacement issue remains unresolved. She has said she continues to experience the same problems from the door she previously had.

Assessment

Investigation scope

12. The resident reported a range of different repairs to the landlord at different times. Her complaint to the Ombudsman focused on her concerns about its handling of the problems she had reported about the front door of her home. Accordingly, this report centres on that particular issue.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s front door. 

13. According to the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible to keep the outside and structure of the home in good repair. This includes all outside doors. The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs are general responsive repairs that are not emergencies. The landlord will attend and fix the repair within 28 days. The policy states that the landlord will normally repair rather than replace individual elements. However, where either the repair would be poorer value for money, or ineffective, then it will replace the element. The decision about what to replace and when will be at the landlord’s discretion.
14. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 1 March 2021, and concluded that the front door and doorframe needed to be replaced. Under the landlord’s tenancy agreement stated above, the landlord is obligated to keep the front door in a good standard of repair. Therefore, according to the repair policy (again stated above), the landlord would be expected to assess what works were required, and to attend within 28 days, completing the works in that timeframe if possible. However, four months later on 7 July 2021, the resident complained that the works had not been undertaken to resolve the issue with the door, and the door still had gaps around the frame. This was not reasonable, as the landlord had neglected to fulfil its repair responsibilities within an appropriate length of time.
15. Once the landlord was again made aware that there was an issue with the front door, it would be expected to attend within the above timescales and endeavour to undertake lasting repairs or a renewal to the door. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord attended again until October 2021, which was four months after the resident had complained about the door, and seven months after the surveyor had recommended that the door be replaced. Additionally, although repairs were raised after the landlord’s visit in October 2021 for other repair issues (unrelated to this complaint), the landlord did not re-attend the property for the door issues until 1 March 2022. This was not appropriate.
16. On attendance on 1 March 2022, the landlord’s surveyor again concluded that the door should be replaced. The landlord acted appropriately by relaying this to the resident in its complaint response on 23 March 2022, undertaking to replace the door as part of its complaint remedy.
17. A delay is not always considered a failing, if there is a legitimate reason for the time taken, such as a lack of materials or manpower to complete the work. However, in line with general customer service standards, the landlord would have been expected to continue to communicate with the resident and manage her expectations. It would also be expected to manage the repair effectively, and to provide accurate and consistent information.
18. In this case, the landlord has not provided a suitable explanation for why it was so delayed in returning to undertake works to the resident’s front door. Additionally, the landlord failed to continue to manage the repair, with no evidence provided to show that it was considering the repair throughout this time. The landlord also did not communicate appropriately with the resident throughout this complaint, leaving her to chase for updates on numerous occasions. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repair was not appropriate and was a failing.
19. The landlord acted appropriately in its final complaint response on 23 March 2022, by acknowledging that it had been delayed in undertaking the repairs, and apologising to the resident. It also identified that its initial stage one response had been vague and had failed to address the resident’s concerns properly. The landlord organised further repairs, and assured the resident that the door would be replaced. It again acted appropriately by revising its compensation amount, and offering £250 in recognition of the further issues with its provision of service.
20. Operatives attended on 27 April 2022 to measure the door. However, despite the landlord’s complaint team continuing to assure the resident that the door would be replaced throughout the late spring and early summer of 2022, the landlord’s repair team concluded that the door did not need replacing and closed the repair. This was only relayed to the resident on 27 July 2022, over a year after her initial complaint was raised. This poor communication was not reasonable. As stated above, the landlord should have been communicating with the resident, updating her on any changes to her repairs and managing her expectations.
21. The resident had been reporting problems with the door for a lengthy period. The landlord originally decided that replacing the door was the solution to those problems. It then changed its mind and decided not to replace the door, but has given no indication of doing work or further inspections to resolve the original problems the resident reported and which the replacement was intended to resolve. Rather, it instructed her to report them anew—essentially starting again from scratch. The work jobs raised in September 2022 and March 2023 do not specify whether they were for the front door, and the landlord’s emails suggest the March work was for the back door.
22. The resident has explained that the repairs remain outstanding, and nothing in the evidence provided by the landlord suggests otherwise.
23. In light of the lengthy life of this repair issue, the poor communication and confused decisions after the landlord issued its final complaint response, and the fact that the front door problems still do not appear to have been resolved, the apologies and compensation offered to the resident cannot be said to be proportionate or reasonable. That leaves both the repairs and the complaint unresolved, and is a significant failing.

Complaint handling.

24. The landlord’s complaint policy states that after receiving a complaint, the landlord will respond at stage one of its procedure within 10 working days. Any delays may not exceed a further 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, the landlord will escalate their complaint to stage two. The landlord will then respond within 20 working days. Again, any delays may not exceed a further 10 working days. The policy states that the landlord will ensure that it keeps residents regularly updated with the progress of the complaint, even if there is no new information to provide. This policy is appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
25. The resident complained on 7 July 2021. The landlord acknowledged her complaint, but did not send its stage one response until 11 November 2021, four months later. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 19 November 2021, which the landlord acknowledged on 21 November 2021. However, the landlord failed to actually escalate the complaint internally, finally doing so on 5 January 2022, after multiple contacts from the resident. Despite having already failed to manage the resident’s complaint effectively, the landlord did not respond until 23 March 2022, which was three months after escalation, and four months after the resident initially asked.
26. Again, not all delays are considered a failing. However, as stated in the above policy, the landlord is expected to communicate proactively with the resident throughout the complaint process. In this case, the landlord failed to update the resident, leaving her to chase for a response repeatedly. All of the landlord’s responses were significantly outside its own timescales. The landlord has not offered an explanation for the delays. That was not reasonable, as it caused the process to become needlessly protracted, and stalled attempts at resolution of the resident’s repair issues. The repeated delays indicate a failure in the landlord’s complaint handling processes, which it has shown no evidence of learning from or putting right.

Determination (decision)

27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in regard to:
    1. Its handling of repairs to the resident’s front door.
    2. Its complaint handling.

Orders

28. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £500 compensation, in recognition of the extensive delays in undertaking a lasting solution to her front door. This is inclusive of the £250 already offered as part of its own complaint investigation.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation, in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
    3. Evidence of these payments must be provided to this Service by the four week deadline.
29. Given that the current repair state of the front door is unclear from the evidence provided, but appears to be unresolved, the landlord is ordered to conduct an inspection of the door with the resident within four weeks of this report, and agree with her what problems, if any, remain outstanding and need to be addressed. It must then undertake to complete any agreed work within eight weeks of this report. The decisions about what actions are needed to resolve the problems remain the landlord’s to make, in line with its overall repair and maintenance, and budget obligations.
30. Evidence of the inspection and agreement with the resident must be provided within four weeks of this report, along with the landlord’s plan of action to complete any work identified.
31. Confirmation and evidence that any agreed work has been completed must be provided within eight weeks of this report.