The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202218161)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218161

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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The void works and the resident’s reports of repair issues upon moving into the property. 
    2. The boiler repair issues.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat with her child. As both the resident and her partner have corresponded with the landlord and the Service regarding the complaint, for clarity, both will be referred to as the resident.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 8 November 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the property condition following moving in and that the repairs were not completed within the void process. She raised the following issues:
    1. Poor decoration in the kitchen.
    2. No skirting underneath the kitchen units.
    3. The kitchen electric socket was not screwed in correctly and the living room socket was causing sparks.
    4. No hole to plumb the washing machine.
    5. The boiler was beyond repair and there was no heating in the property. The seal was also broken which could cause a carbon monoxide leak.
    6. The hot and cold taps were plumbed the opposite way.  
    7. There were cracked, asbestos floor tiles in the living room.
    8. The living room window was cracked and was a security issue.
    9. Staples were left in the stairs, the stairs creaked, and the landing flooring was uneven.
    10. The bedroom door did not close and needed shaving down.
    11. There were wires hanging at the exterior of the property which prevented her from opening the windows.
    12. She had not been issued a key to enter the building and had to rely on her neighbour’s or leave during trade hours. She also did not have a key for the communal bin shed.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 November 2021. It said:
    1. The resident was responsible for internal decorations. It would only decorate in the void period if the walls were damaged or unhygienic.
    2. The kickboard under the kitchen unit should have been fitted before it was signed off. An appointment was booked for 26 November 2021.
    3. The double electric socket may have been missed when the new kitchen and tiles were fitted. An appointment was booked for 9 December 2021.
    4. It does not drill holes when a new kitchen is fitted as the washing machine pipe can normally be fed under the draining board or behind the plinths. If that was not possible, the resident should contact it to arrange an appointment.
    5. It caps the gas when a property is in the void period, and it carries out the necessary safety checks when the resident moves in.
    6. On 5 November 2021 it identified that the test nipple on the meter was split and referred the repair to the gas distributer, that was responsible for the meter. It offered temporary heaters, which the resident declined. It reattended on 8 November 2021 and found the heat exchanger seal had split. The heating and hot water was reinstated on 16 November 2021 and an additional part was fitted on 19 November 2021.
    7. It incorrectly advised the resident that the boiler would be replaced.
    8. It was unable to check the tap feeds during the void period as the boiler was capped. It would be repaired on 9 December 2021.
    9. No faults were found during electrical testing. The issues raised by the resident would be repaired on 9 December 2021.
    10. The contractor had removed the previous tenants flooring, but, as they are not trained to deal with or recognise asbestos, no further action was taken. A specialist asbestos contractor would contact her to arrange an appointment.
    11. It had provided feedback to the contractors that the property should not have been signed off while the broken window repair was outstanding.
    12. The staples in the stairs were not to its standard and should have been removed.
    13. It had not identified noise from the stairs or uneven flooring in the void process, which could be due to the age of the property. A repair was booked for 25 November 2021.
    14. It had not identified the issues with the bedroom door in the void process. An appointment would be attended on 26 November 2021.
    15. It had raised a repair for the external wires with a TV aerial specialist and would contact her to arrange an appointment.
    16. She had now been provided with a key and no key was required to access the bin storage.
    17. It sent her Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) and gas safety certificates.
    18. The resident is responsible for broadband wires, and it did not have records that any wiring was removed in the void process.
    19. The resident had reported additional repairs including the toilet leak, front door, and a leak beneath the floorboards. It had arranged the necessary repair appointments.
    20. It apologised that the resident had not been notified of appointments. It offered £75 compensation for the misadvise provided and the stress and inconvenience caused, and £100 for the delay in providing heating and hot water. It also asked the resident to provide receipts for the heaters so it could reimburse her.
  4. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 29 November 2021.
    1. She did not think the decoration works should have been signed off.
    2. She thought it was unreasonable for her to be responsible for making an access point to plumb the washing machine.
    3. The landlord’s contractor had broken the test nipple. She was advised an appointment would be completed the next day but was not attended.
    4. 2 engineers had condemned the boiler, so she thought it should be replaced.
    5. She asked for the recommendations made in the EICR to be completed.
    6. She disputed that the landlord’s contractors were not trained to identify asbestos and a survey identified it on 24 September 2021.
    7. She had reported the broken window several times from 19 August 2021.
    8. She had not been contacted to arrange an appointment for the wires.
    9. She requested a copy of the void inspection report.
    10. She did not think the compensation offered by the landlord was sufficient. She requested compensation for her increased electricity bill due to the electric heaters.
  5. The landlord issued its final response on 4 May 2022.
    1. It reiterated its stage 1 response regarding the decoration works, washing machine, double electrical socket, broken window, staircase, bedroom door, keys, and broadband wire.
    2. It acknowledged that its contractor broke the test nipple while uncapping the boiler but reiterated that it was not responsible for repairs to the meter so had contacted the gas distributor.
    3. A contractor attended on 21 December 2021 and noted “no kickboards are required as the base units are floating units with no legs”, so no further work was required.
    4. It apologised for the unannounced appointment to repair the tap feeds.
    5. It said it was not obliged to carry out recommendations made in the electrical test report and the issues had no safety implications.
    6. It recognised it failed to complete repairs before she moved in and appreciated the stress caused. It had provided feedback and training to prevent a recurrence of the issue. It also apologised for the delayed stage 2 response, which was due to increased demand.
    7. It offered £100 compensation for delays in repairs, £100 for poor communication and failed promises, £100 for stress and inconvenience, and £100 for time and trouble pursuing the complaint due to delays.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to the Service, she said she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the repairs. She said the property was extremely cold and she had to spend additional money on electric heaters. She wanted compensation for the disruption, time to complete repairs, stress and inconvenience, and money spent on electrical heaters. She also wanted the landlord to replace the boiler.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the void works and the resident’s reports of repair issues upon moving into the property

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property and any installations it provides for heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas, and electricity. Its responsive repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be made safe within 24 hours and routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days. The policy states exposed or damaged asbestos is considered an emergency repair.
  2. The landlord has not provided any evidence of policies, procedures, or best practice relating to its voids process or its lettable standard. This would typically include a void inspection outlining the property condition and details of any required repairs to meet its repair standards that would need to be completed and signed off prior to reletting the property. Nonetheless, it provided an empty homes handover form which stated the property had been prepared to the landlords “Standard Re-Let charter” and was left in a clean state. It is evident that extensive repairs were completed prior to the resident moving in, including a kitchen and bathroom replacement.
  3. The landlord has provided repair records, but it is unclear in all instances when the repairs were completed. As such the Service has relied on the completion dates the landlord provided within its complaint responses, which the resident does not appear to have disputed. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. 
  4. The resident moved into the property on 2 November 2021 and reported the living room window was cracked. It was appropriate that the landlord raised an emergency repair to make it safe the same day, to ensure the property was secure. The resident reported it was then replaced on 18 November 2021, which was within the landlord’s repair timeframe. However, it is of concern that the window was not repaired within the void period, particularly as the resident said she reported it several times from 19 August 2021 during property visits. It is noted that the Service has not seen evidence to confirm the reports. As it failed to complete the repairs prior to the resident moving in, she felt the property was unsecure until the window was replaced.
  5. The resident subsequently raised numerous additional repair issues in her complaint on 8 November 2021, including issues with the taps, plumbing, electrical sockets, bedroom door, external wires, decoration, skirting under the kitchen units, staircase, and floorboards. While not all the repairs significantly impacted the resident’s use of the property, such as the kickboard and the taps, it is of particular concern that the landlord had not identified the sparking electrical socket or staples in the stairs within the void process as the issues presented a health and safety risk. The landlord should have completed the repairs during the void period, prior to the resident moving in. Nonetheless, it was reasonable that upon notification of the issues, the landlord completed most of the works by 3 December 2021, which was within its 28-calendar day repair timeframe.
  6. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord carried out works to ensure the resident could plumb the washing machine. It is understood that the landlord explained that it does not normally drill holes when it installs a new kitchen as there is usually an access point under the draining board or behind the plinths. When the resident notified it that such options were not available, the landlord should have sought to resolve the issue as soon as possible to ensure the resident had access to washing facilities. The landlord should confirm whether it has completed the works to ensure the resident is able to plumb the washing machine and consider awarding additional compensation if there were further delays.
  7. As the landlord failed to resolve the repair issues within the voids process, the resident was caused disruption due to the appointments and time and effort pursuing the repairs. It was positive to note that the landlord sought to group together repairs to limit the disruption caused by reducing the number of appointments required. Nonetheless, from the records provided it seems there were 7 appointments between 2 November 2021 and 9 December 2021, which would have caused significant disruption and inconvenience to the resident, particularly as she had just moved in. The resident also reported that the contractor attended to repair the taps without notifying her of the appointment, causing additional disruption.
  8. The landlord determined that it would not complete works to the decoration of the property. This was in line with its responsive repair policy which states that residents are responsible for decorating the property and it will only repair existing decoration if it is damaged by a repair it has completed. The landlord confirmed in its response it would only complete works if the decoration was damaged in the voids work or unhygienic. The decision was therefore reasonable as it was in line with its repair policy. 
  9. On 23 November 2021 the resident reported suspected asbestos in the cracked living room tiles. The Health and Safety Executive confirms that if asbestos materials are in good condition, and in a place where they are unlikely to be disturbed, then they should not cause any harm. It is only when the materials are damaged or disturbed, that asbestos can become a concern.
  10. The landlord said that the contractors removed the previous tenant’s flooring but were not trained to identify asbestos, so no further action was taken. It recognised the cracked floor tiles should have been removed prior to moving in. The landlord’s repair records show that an asbestos survey was completed on 28 September 2021; however, the Service has not been provided with a copy, so it is unclear if the landlord was aware of the issue at that stage. Regardless, the landlord should have ensured suitably qualified contractors attended to identify and resolve the issue prior to the resident moving in, as it presented a health and safety risk.
  11. Overall, it is evident that the landlord failed to identify and resolve all the repair issues within the voids period. Several of the repair issues presented possible health and safety risks, including the asbestos, broken window, electrical issues, and staples in the stairs. As a result, the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the outstanding works and time and effort pursuing the issues. She was also unable to enjoy the property when she moved in due to the ongoing repair issues.
  12. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, landlords are expected to be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. It was reasonable that the landlord demonstrated it learned from the complaint and took steps to prevent a recurrence of the issue as it provided additional training and feedback to its contractors that the property should not have been signed off while the repairs were outstanding.
  13. The landlord offered £300 compensation for the delays in completing the repairs, its poor communication, and stress and inconvenience. The compensation was offered both for its failings in handling the void repair works and the boiler repairs. The compensation offered was not proportionate to the identified failings and the significant impact on the resident. As such, in place of the compensation already offered, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £450 compensation for its failings. 

The landlord’s handling of the boiler repair

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping installations for heating in proper working order. Its responsive repairs policy considers a loss of heating and hot water during winter as an emergency repair, which will be made safe within 24 hours. The landlord’s gas management policy states it will cap the gas after 24 hours of the property being void, and it will not complete works to the property prior to the gas being capped. It was therefore in line with the landlord’s policy that the gas was capped during the void period and the resident was advised to book an appointment to uncap and complete safety checks to the boiler when she moved in.
  2. On 5 November 2021 a contractor attended to complete the gas safety certificate but the “test nipple snapped” so the meter was capped. It is understood that this would have caused significant inconvenience, particularly due to the impact of the cold temperatures during winter on the resident’s baby. As the issue was an unforeseen circumstance, the landlord did not have the opportunity to resolve it within the void period, so it was required to resolve the matter in line with its responsive repairs policy. The landlord acted appropriately by promptly referring the matter to the gas distributor to complete the meter repair, as it fell within their remit of responsibility. It was also reasonable that it offered temporary heaters, which the resident declined. It is unclear when the test nipple was repaired by the gas distributor, and thus, when the landlord would have reassumed the repair responsibility.
  3. The resident said the landlord’s contractor advised they would reattend on 6 November 2021, which was a Saturday, to complete the repair. While the Service does not doubt the conversation, we have not been provided with contemporaneous evidence to confirm the appointment was scheduled or that the landlord was notified. The landlord’s contractor reattended on 8 November 2021, which was the next working day, and identified further repairs were needed. It appears the gas distributer had completed the repairs to the test nipple and the landlord reassumed responsibility for the repairs at this stage. As the resident had a total loss of heating and hot water, there should have been clearer communication between the landlord and the resident to confirm when the test nipple was repaired by the distributer so the landlord could arrange an emergency follow-on repair to reinstate use of the boiler.
  4. The heating and hot water was reinstated on 16 November 2021. It is unclear why it took 8 days to complete the repairs from when it identified the issue. The repair should have been handled as an emergency in line with the landlord’s policy, as the resident was without heating and hot water. The landlord did not provide any updates on the progress of the works or reasons for the delay. An additional part was required, and the repair was completed in full on 19 November 2021.
  5. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to repair, rather than replace, the boiler. The landlord’s responsive repair policy states it “will normally repair rather than replace” and it will complete a replacement if “the repair would be poorer value for money or ineffective”, but the decision would be at its discretion. It is also important to note that social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to allocate funding appropriately to provide the best service to all residents.
  6. In this case, the resident stated the contractor told her the boiler would be replaced, so it is understandable that this set her expectations a replacement was required. However, the landlord completed the necessary repairs, and there is no evidence that there have been any further boiler repair issues, indicating the repairs were successful. It was therefore reasonable for it to decide a replacement was not currently required. Nonetheless, if there are further repair issues in the future, and repairs do not provide a full and lasting fix, the landlord should reassess its decision regarding whether a replacement is required.
  7. The landlord has not acknowledged that it failed to handle the repair as an emergency in line with its repairs policy, or the impact on the resident due to the 2-week period without heating and hot water. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, £300 compensation is warranted as the landlord has not acknowledged all failings identified within this report or offered proportionate compensation.
  8. The resident has also requested reimbursement for additional electricity costs due to using temporary heaters. In accordance with the Service’s remedies guidance, we consider “evidenced financial loss incurred as a direct result of the maladministration”. In this case, the resident would not have incurred additional electricity costs if the landlord had repaired the boiler in line with its repair timeframe. The landlord should therefore request evidence of the additional costs due to the heaters and provide compensation for any additional costs incurred. It is recognised the landlord offered reimbursement for the cost of the electric heaters, which the resident declined at the time. The landlord should confirm whether this is still her current position.

Complaint handling

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, it should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it cannot meet the timeframes, it will explain to the resident and not exceed a further 10 working days.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 8 November 2021 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 November 2021, which was within 11 working days. The resident then escalated her complaint on 29 November 2021 and the landlord did not issue its response until 4 May 2022, thus exceeding its response timeframe by 87 working days, which was a significant delay. Although the landlord apologised for the delay on 26 January 2022, it did not provide any reasons or an expected timeframe to manage the resident’s expectations.
  3. It is recognised that the landlord informally responded to the resident’s concerns raised within her escalation on 1 December 2021, which may have somewhat mitigated the impact of its delayed final response. However, ultimately, it should have formally responded within its response timeframe, and as it failed to it caused the resident additional time and effort pursuing the complaint. It also delayed the resident’s referral rights to the Service and the resident had specifically requested a formal response to do so.
  4. In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered £100 compensation for its delayed complaint response. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of £100 are appropriate when the failing is minimal and for a short duration of time. As such, in this case the compensation is not sufficient, and the landlord is ordered to pay an additional £100.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the complaint about the void works and the resident’s reports of repair issues upon moving into the property. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the complaint about the boiler repair issues.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the way the landlord handled the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In place of the compensation previously awarded the landlord is ordered to pay the resident:
    1. £450 for its failings in handling the void works and the resident’s reports of repair issues upon moving into the property. 
    2. £300 for its failings in handling the boiler repair issues.
    3. £200 for its complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord should provide evidence that it has completed any required works to ensure that the resident is able to plumb the washing machine. It should consider awarding additional compensation if there were further delays.
  3. The landlord should write to the resident and request evidence of the additional costs she incurred due to use of electric heaters and reimburse her. It should also confirm whether the resident wants to be reimbursed for the cost of the electric heaters.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping practices to ensure it keeps clear records relating to void works and repairs.