The Guinness Partnership Limited (202212916)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212916

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 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

1. The complaint is about;
   1. The landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is aware that the resident experiences poor mental health.
3. The property is a top floor flat within a block. On 27 July 2021, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about an ongoing roof leak that started in December 2020. The resident advised that water was coming through his ceiling, and he did not feel that the landlord was taking the repairs seriously. The landlord inspected the property on 13 August 2021 and the resident was subsequently placed in temporary accommodation to allow the landlord to complete the required repairs.
4. During his stay in temporary accommodation, the landlord offered to supply the resident with meals. Due to issues with the accommodation provider, the resident was not supplied with meals on various occasions and the landlord subsequently offered the resident £852 compensation. This Service is aware that the resident moved between several hotels during his decant.
5. On 30 November 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response to the resident. It apologised for the delayed response and repairs. It acknowledged that while it was aware of the required repairs to the roof since December 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic and associated national lockdowns meant that the landlord had a backlog of responsive repairs. The landlord stated that the major repairs were complete, and as the property was habitable, the resident’s temporary accommodation had ended. The landlord acknowledged that there were outstanding internal repairs required to the resident’s property, but he was able to reside in the property whilst the work was being completed.
6. The landlord offered to replace the resident’s damaged white goods and bed. It also advised that it would offer further compensation as a goodwill gesture but stated that it would be discussed in the resident’s stage two complaint response. Representatives of the resident raised their concerns to the landlord regarding the resident returning to his property while there were outstanding repairs. However, the landlord advised that temporary accommodation was provided in emergency situations, and as the outstanding works were mainly decoration, the resident was able to return to the property.
7. The resident returned to his property on 30 November 2021; 11 months after the initial report of the leak.
8. On 23 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response to the resident. It confirmed that outstanding works had been completed but acknowledged that the repairs had taken longer than necessary. It apologised for the negative experience endured by the resident due to the leak, and the subsequent decant, and offered £350 compensation with the following breakdown;
   1. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays.
   2. £100 for the time and trouble pursuing his complaint and delayed stage two response.
9. The resident informed this Service that he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, as he does not believe that the compensation offered reflects the significant distress and inconvenience that the prolonged leak and subsequent damage to his belongings caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope

10. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme expects that complaints will be raised and escalated by residents within reasonable timescales, normally within 6 months of the matters arising. The reason for this is that the closer in time the complaint is raised to the act or omission by the landlord, the more likely there is to be a resolution, as well as evidence for it and the Ombudsman to investigate.
11. The landlord and resident have both informed this Service that the leak in the roof was raised in December 2020. It was reasonable for the resident to have an expectation that the work would subsequently be carried out, without further chasing from him, and that there might be some delay because of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns and restrictions. There is evidence that several repairs were raised by the landlord concerning the roof leak, albeit it inevitably went unresolved.
12. The resident should not have had to make a complaint in order for the landlord to carry out the roof repairs first identified in December 2020. Furthermore, the resident raised his complaint 7 months after the issue was first raised due to the cumulative damage caused to his property as a result of the leak, which would not have occurred if the leak had been resolved in a timely manner. Subsequently, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the leak in the resident’s property from when the issue was first raised in December 2020. It will examine whether the landlord followed its policies, treated the resident fairly, and whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
13. The resident has expressed that the leak caused damage to his personal belongings, namely clothing, that amounted to approximately £1,000. The resident stated that he wished to be compensated for the financial loss. After carefully considering all the evidence, however, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, this Service has concluded that this element of the complaint will not investigated. This is because the Scheme says that this Service will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.” This means it is not within this Service’s authority or expertise to award damages in the way an insurance procedure or court might.
14. Furthermore, the resident brought his claim regarding damaged clothing to the landlord’s attention on 1 September 2022; over 6 months after the landlord issued its stage two response. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, this Service cannot investigate matters that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

Landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.

15. As set out in the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs in relation to leaks. Section 11 of the Act also implies that the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property.
16. The landlord’s responsive repair’s policy distinguishes between emergency and routine repairs, the former being an ‘immediate health and safety risk”. Under this policy, routine repairs are to be completed within 28 days. The Ombudsman understands that, where specialist assessment and works are required, this timeframe is not always possible. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to act proactively, not cause unreasonable delays, and keep the resident informed of any delays.
17. The landlord has acknowledged that it was aware of the roof leaking from December 2020, but has not explained the extent of the leak. This Service is aware that the landlord had raised several repairs for the matter, which appear to have been contracted to external parties, but are unaware if any repairs were attempted between December 2020 and July 2021, when the resident raised his complaint with the landlord.
18. On receiving a report of a leaking roof, the landlord should have carried out an inspection in good time, established the root cause and an appropriate course of action, be it repair or replace, and undertaken the necessary works to resolve the issue.  However, this Service is aware that second and third lockdowns were imposed in the UK on 5 November 2020 and 7 January 2021, respectively. It is reasonable to expect these factors to have had an impact on the landlord’s ability to provide its usual service and subsequently cause non-emergency repairs to be delayed.
19. Following the resident’s complaint on 27 July 2021, the landlord undertook an inspection of the resident’s property on 13 August 2021. It was established that the property was not habitable due to the damage caused by the roof leak, and the resident was placed in temporary accommodation. Given the need to decant the resident from his home, it is reasonable to suggest that the cumulative damage caused by the long standing leak was significant and would have caused the resident notable distress and inconvenience. However, it is positive that the landlord recognised that a decant was required following its inspection.
20. While specific dates are not explicitly clear from the evidence provided, this Service has been able to establish that the resident was in temporary accommodation between 14 August 2021 and 30 November 2021; a period of 109 days. During this time, the landlord had advised the resident that repairs had been undertaken to the roof and he was required to return to his home. However, the resident reported that he had returned to check the properties condition and the walls were still damp and caused him breathing difficulties. The evidence supplied by the landlord to support this investigation is limited; it has not provided a repairs log, nor has it provided any further inspection reports beyond the one undertaken on 13 August 2021. As a result of this, this Service cannot conclusively determine what repairs were undertaken, when they were completed and why the resident’s property remained uninhabitable for a significant period of time. This is a failing of the landlord and a recommendation will be made to suggest that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes.
21. Nevertheless, what is clear is that the property was unhabitable, and the residents decant was extended on several occasions. The resident should not have been advised to return to his property without inspections taking place by the landlord. The evidence indicates that the resident returned to his property on several occasions and found that he was unable to return due to outstanding works. This evidenced a distinct lack of effective communication and a thorough investigation by the landlord to ensure that the repairs had been completed to a satisfactory standard, and all ongoing issues had been resolved to allow the resident to return to his property. This exacerbates the frustration caused to the resident. While a necessary measure, the resident being decanted from his home was a significant upheaval and inconvenience that negatively impacted his family life as well as having a detrimental effect on his mental wellbeing. Being told incorrect information by the landlord caused the resident considerable distress. Despite the resident requesting a breakdown of repairs in that time, the landlord failed to provide it and there is little evidence of effective communication between the landlord and resident concerning the repairs and the associated timeframes to complete them. This would inevitably undermine trust in the landlord-tenant relationship.
22. The resident returned to live in his property on 30 November 2021; 11 months after the initial report of a leak in the roof. This is significantly beyond the 28-day timeframe expected for non-emergency repairs to be resolved. Despite reasonably taking into consideration the impact of COVID-19 and the guidelines imposed on landlord’s surrounding undertaking repairs, the delay in resolving the repair was wholly unreasonable and a significant failing of the landlord.
23. The landlord effectively repairing the roof leak was triggered by the resident’s complaint and subsequent decant from his property. This Service does not expect that such measures need to be taken in order for the landlord to address a long standing, ongoing problem.
24. According to the landlord’s compensation policy, where a water leak causes loss or damage to personal possessions, the landlord will only be responsible for paying compensation if it was at fault. Whether the leak comes from inside the resident’s home, from another property or from another part of the building, it would not pay compensation unless it had done something or failed to do something that caused the leak. It is expected that customers will have their own household insurance to cover this type of loss or damage.
25. The resident reported that belongings such as white goods had been damaged as a result of the leak. The landlord assisted the resident significantly while decanted from his property by way of financial support with energy and general living costs, as well as replacing the resident’s bed, wardrobe and fridge. The resident has expressed that items were not replaced like for like and he is dissatisfied with what the landlord had supplied. The landlord directed the resident to his own insurance provider but took positive action to provide the resident with practical solutions during a time of financial hardship. The landlord was not obliged to provide like for like items and the resident was able to pursue receiving different items through an insurance claim.
26. In its stage two response, the landlord recognised that the repairs to resolve the leak took longer than necessary and apologised. It acknowledged that the resident had dealt with the leak for 11 months, which caused him stress and inconvenience. As a remedy for the stress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays, the landlord offered compensation. The landlord stated this was in addition to the £852 compensation already offered. This Service is aware that the £852 compensation was offered in recognition of failures associated with the residents decant and meals not being provided as agreed. It was not for distress and inconvenience.
27. For distress and inconvenience, the resident was offered £250 compensation. This offer was insufficient. There is no denying how inconvenient the ongoing leak would have been for the resident and his family, exacerbated by the disruption caused to the resident’s home and family life due to being in temporary accommodation for a significant period of time. The resident made it explicitly clear to the landlord that the matters were having a detrimental impact on his mental wellbeing. However, this was not sufficiently considered by the landlord.
28. Overall, the landlord failed to resolve the leak in the resident’s property promptly, resulting in the resident experiencing ongoing and prolonged distress, inconvenience and significant frustration. Consideration of the resident’s general experience, worsened by the landlord’s handling of the complaint (which this Service has discussed in more detail below) has led the Ombudsman to conclude that there was maladministration.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

29. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to resident’s and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement. A landlord’s failure to adhere to the code and the complaint process procedures contained within does not allow for justified accountability and could damage relationships with its residents.
30. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. The policy outlines that a complaint must not be escalated to stage two until it has been responded to a stage one.
31. The resident raised an initial complaint on 27 July 2021. Despite being advised of the landlord’s 10-day response time, the landlord did not provide the resident with a stage one response until 30 November 2021; 91 working days after the resident raised his complaint. This is significantly beyond the 10 working day timescale expected and a failing of the landlord.
32. The CHC clearly outlines the expectations of landlords during the complaints process. At stage one, landlords must respond to residents in writing and amongst other things, confirm the details of any remedy offered to put things right.
33. In its stage one response, the landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint was upheld, and a goodwill gesture compensation payment would be reasonable. However, it failed to offer the compensation at stage one and advised that the offer would be discussed in detail in its stage two response. As it failed to offer the compensation at stage one, the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest possible opportunity. Had it done so, the resident may not have felt it necessary, or taken the time and trouble to escalate his complaint to stage two. This was a service failure.
34. The landlord advised on 30 November 2021 that the resident would receive a stage two response in 20 working days. Under its policy, the landlord ought to have provided its stage 2 response no later than 29 December 2021. However, the landlord did not provide its stage two response until 23 February 2022; 59 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. As with its stage one response, this timescale significantly exceeds those outlined within the CHC and the landlord’s complaints policy. Furthermore, the landlord did not explain why the response was delayed, nor did it apologise.
35. There is no good reason for the landlord’s failure to communicate with the resident prior to the initial deadline elapsing at both stage one and stage two. Had it done so, it would have been able to manage the resident’s expectations and agree a more practical deadline. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the delayed response at stage two. It failed to acknowledge or provide any redress for its failing at stage one. Taking into consideration the significant delays experienced by the resident, this is not proportionate redress, nor does it address the full failings of the landlord.
36. Although the landlord apologised to the resident and awarded compensation for its complaint-handling failures, this was not sufficient to reflect the impact the delay had on him. The landlord failed to follow its complaint process causing distress and frustration for the resident and prolonging the complaints process. Overall, there were significant failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint and this Service has reached a finding of maladministration.

Determination

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of it’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

39. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £1000 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £350 as offered to the resident previously, if this has not already been paid.
    2. £500 for the identified failures with the landlord’s handling of a leak in the resident’s property.
    3. £150 for the further failings with the landlord’s complaints handling identified by this investigation.
40. The landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its complaint handling in this case and implement the necessary remedial action to ensure it complies with the Complaint Handling Code going forward. The outcome of this review must be shared with the Ombudsman.
41. The landlord is expected to comply with the above orders and provide this Service with evidence of having done so, within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

42. This Service recommends that the landlord carries out a review of its record keeping practices and implements the necessary remedial action to ensure that it keeps robust repair records going forward.