The Guinness Partnership Limited (202218443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218443

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 February 2024

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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damage to a window blind and sofa.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the property, which is a one-bedroom flat, since 9 March 2015. The landlord’s records show that the resident has a vision impairment.
3. The landlord’s contractor wrote to the resident on 31 August 2022 to advise that window refurbishments would start at the property on 5 September 2022. The letter said that curtains and blinds should be removed from the windows and that any furniture should be moved away from the vicinity of the windows.
4. The resident telephoned the landlord on 13 September 2022. She said that she was unhappy with the work carried out on her windows. She said that workmen had got paint on her sofa and it would not come out and they had also taken her blinds down and now they did not work. A member of staff was asked to call the resident back.
5. Following contact from the resident this Service contacted the landlord on 17 November 2022 and asked for a complaint to be logged. The complaint said that the resident was not happy with the standard of workmanship on the windows and that there were ongoing issues with a damaged blind and sofa.
6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 November 2022 and asked for photographs of the damaged items.
7. On 22 November 2022 the contractor wrote to the resident and explained that it would not usually remove and replace blinds whilst work was being carried out. On this occasion it was something that the workmen did as a goodwill gesture for the resident because she asked them to. The contractor had taken the broken bedroom blind and spoken to the manufacturer who had informed it that the broken part could not be replaced because due to its age, the blind was obsolete. The site manager had tried to purchase the part for the blind but could not source it. The contractor said that the broken part was a wheel that pulled the blind cord up which was likely to be caused by wear and tear and not by removal of the blind. The paint on the sofa was water based and therefore washable. It was the resident’s responsibility to remove any items in the vicinity of the work. The contractor said there was “no evidence that the alleged damage was caused by the contractor”.
8. The resident telephoned the landlord on 29 November 2022 to ask for an update on her complaint.
9. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 November 2022. It did not answer the resident’s complaint about the faulty workmanship following the window refurbishment. Instead, it gave an update on a window latch repair that the resident had reported on 22 October 2022. It said that it was the resident’s responsibility to move or cover items whilst work was carried out and that the landlord could not be held responsible if engineers moved them. It apologised if this was not made clear to the resident at the time and said that feedback had been given to the contractor to make sure that this was explained to residents in future.
10. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process on 4 December 2022. The resident explained that she had complained about the window refurbishment not the window latch repair. She said that a senior member of the contractors’ staff had admitted that the window refurbishment was not up to standard when they visited her property in September 2022.
11. In the stage 2 complaints response, dated 12 January 2023, the landlord apologised for the lack of communication the resident had received throughout the stage 2 process. It said that it had checked with the contractors and there was no record of there being an issue with the window refurbishment following a visit in September. The landlord said that water-based paint had been used which could be washed off the resident’s sofa. It also said that it was the resident’s responsibility to move any items prior to work being carried out. It said that it had also been the resident’s responsibility to remove the blind and that there was no evidence that the contractor had caused the damage to the blind. It said that although the complaint had not been upheld, it would offer £30 compensation to acknowledge the lack of communication during the stage 2 complaints process.
12. On 21 August 2023 the landlord carried out a review of historical complaints investigations. It told the resident that while it was satisfied that the response dated 12 January 2023 was correct, it would offer as a goodwill gesture, to cover the cost of a replacement blind. It asked the resident to provide a quotation or receipt of proof of purchase so that the cost could be reimbursed. The resident informed this service in February 2024 that she had not received any reimbursement, but this service is not aware if the receipt or proof of purchase was provided.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This Service does not determine liability for damages or award damages in the way that a court might and therefore we are unable to determine liability for the damage to the resident’s belongings or order compensation for these issues.
14. The Ombudsman will however consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for reimbursement due to damaged belongings and whether this was handled reasonably and in line with its own policy and procedures.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of damage to a window blind and sofa.

15. The landlord’s compensation policy says that it encourages customers to take out contents insurance to cover belongings and decoration against accidental damage. It also says that it will not offer compensation when a claim is being dealt with by its insurers.
16. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord advised the resident to claim on her own insurance or on the landlord’s insurance. The resident has also told this Service that she cannot recall this advice being given to her. This was a failing on the landlord’s part. This caused the resident extra time and trouble because the issue may have been resolved sooner if the landlord had signposted her correctly straight away.
17. Overall, this constitutes a service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaint handling

18. The landlord’s complaints policy says “a customer does not have to use the word “complaint” for it to be treated as such. However, on occasion, either our employees or our customers may not be sure of the position. If, as an employee you are unclear whether a customer wishes to complain, please ask them to clarify”. An example given in the policy of an issue that customers may complain about is “unsatisfactory quality of service”.
19. There is evidence that the resident complained to the landlord by telephone on 13 September 2022. It was clear that this was a complaint about the ongoing work to the windows and the damage to her blind and sofa. The landlord did not log this as a complaint and therefore did not follow its own procedure which was a failing.
20. The landlord also said it would call the resident back regarding the complaint but this Service has seen no evidence that it did. This was a communications failure by the landlord. The above failings cost the resident extra time and trouble. The complaint was not logged by the landlord so she had to contact this Service for assistance with logging the complaint.
21. The landlord’s complaints policy says, “we will ensure that the customer is given an opportunity to set out their position and to make any comments before a final decision is made”. The landlord’s stage 1 response addressed the wrong window repair. This showed poor communication by the landlord and a failure to follow its own policy. It should have contacted the resident after this Service made the complaint on behalf of the resident to make sure that it understood exactly what the resident was complaining about. This failure cost the resident further time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
22. The resident complained that the refurbishment of the windows was not up to standard. As part of the complaints investigation the landlord should have inspected the windows to establish if any further remedial work was required. The landlord did not do this which was a failing on its part. Instead, the landlord focussed its investigations on whether the contractor had said that the workmanship was poor following inspection. This was a missed opportunity to rectify any problems with the windows and to respond to the complaint fully. This cost the resident further inconvenience and time and trouble because she had to escalate the complaint to this Service.
23. Overall, the above failings constitute maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of the residents reports of damage to a window blind and sofa.
25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

26. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
27. Pay the resident directly a total of £300 in compensation. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. This is broken down as follows:
    1. £200 for time and trouble progressing the complaint.
    2. £100 for inconvenience.
28. Arrange to inspect the windows in the property and order any necessary works.
29. Investigate why the resident has not been reimbursed for the cost of the blind as promised. Contact the resident and make sure that reimbursement is made.
30. Ensure that all relevant staff are briefed about signposting residents to make insurance claims where necessary.
31. The landlord must provide proof of compliance with these orders within the deadline.