The Guinness Partnership Limited (202209709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209709

Guinness Housing Association Limited

23 June 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 resident complains about the time the landlord took to fix his shower and the amount of compensation offered in relation to this.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in November 2021 and the resident moved in in December 2021.
3. The resident and his wife are disabled and require medical equipment. The resident had recently had his foot amputated and a district nurse attended regularly to change his dressings.
4. Shortly after moving into the property, on 18 December 2021, the resident noticed the shower was not working. He reported it to the landlord and the landlord responded as an emergency, attending the same day.
5. The landlord determined the resident would need a new shower. The landlord said in its stage two response that the recommendations were made the next day and the supplier was instructed to provide parts. However, partly due to the festive period, there were delays. The landlord attended again on 24 December and on 10 January 2022 when the issue was fixed.
6. The resident was without a shower for 23 days, including over Christmas. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 February 2022. He said he was unhappy with the landlord offering to move him to a hotel because the hotel was not suitable for his needs and his pet dogs. He was also unhappy with the £100 compensation offered by the landlord, and felt he was entitled to a full months’ rent.
7. The landlord issued its stage one response on 1 March 2022. It said the repair was complex in nature. This and low staffing levels over Christmas contributed to the delay. The landlord said it was not at fault, but appreciated the stress and inconvenience. It apologised and re-offered the £100.
8. The resident appealed the stage one response on 14 March 2022. He said:
   1. The house should not have been given to a disabled person in a ‘non liveable state’.
   2. The shower should have been checked before he moved in.
   3. He felt the landlord had failed to order the part needed before the second visit on 24 December and this was the cause of the delay.
   4. The hotel offered was not suitable for his and his wife’s disabilities and their dogs.
   5. The landlord had breached section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018.
9. The landlord issued its stage two response on 20 March 2022. It reiterated its first decision and added that, ‘your rent is a contractual agreement that has to be paid regardless of the circumstances as you still lived in your home throughout this time. The correct way of issuing monetary redress would be to consider a gesture of goodwill based on our failings and the service you have received – this is in line with our Complaints and Compensation Policy’. The landlord said it was not at fault, but again apologised and offered the £100.
10. The resident contacted this Service. He said he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and still felt he was entitled to the monetary equivalent of one months’ rent.

Assessment and findings

11. The landlord’s repairs policy says that for emergency repairs, it will either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 24 hours of the repair being reported. If it carries out a temporary repair, it will return within a reasonable timeframe to complete the repair. This is likely to be the case if additional materials or components are needed to complete the job.
12. According to the government’s Guide for landlords: Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, landlords must ‘ensure that their properties, including any common parts of the building, are fit for human habitation at the beginning of the tenancy and throughout.’ The Act states that there is an implied agreement between the tenant and landlord at the beginning of the tenancy that the property will be fit for human habitation. This includes an adequate provision of facilities for maintaining good personal hygiene.
13. The landlord took responsibility for the faulty shower and logged it as an emergency. It attended within 24 hours but found there were problems getting the required parts for the repair. It offered the resident temporary accommodation, but this was not suitable. The resident points out that the landlord did not look for any alternative suitable accommodation and this Service has not seen any evidence it did, or that it otherwise took into account the resident’s particular needs. The landlord has also not addressed the resident’s complaint that the shower should have been checked before they moved in. As the resident and his wife had accessibility needs, this has caused detriment to the resident.
14. The landlord has said it was not at fault for the delay in repairing the shower, citing a specific part being required, the repair being complex, and ‘the festive period’ as the reasons for this. The landlord has not provided a repair record, and there are no other records that support its position. While the Ombudsman recognises that sometimes delays are outside of the control of the landlord, without any evidence of this being the case here, a failing is found in the time taken for the landlord to complete the repair.
15. Given the resident’s accessibility needs and the fact he had just had a major operation, the Ombudsman considers the landlord is at fault for not ensuring the resident was with an accessible shower for a 23 day period, which was outside of the time frame set out in its repairs policy, and also not in keeping with the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. The resident could not easily wash following his operation, over the festive period. There is little evidence to support the landlord’s position that it did all that it could to mitigate this. The level of impact the resident and his wife was significant.
16. The landlord has apologised and acknowledged how distressing this must have been for the resident, which went some way to ‘put things right’. The resident has asked for the cash equivalent of a months’ rent as a resolution to the complaint. The landlord offered £100.  The landlord’s guidance on compensation says that it will:
    1. Consider an offer of compensation when it is at fault and an apology or other remedy alone is not sufficient.
    2. Offer compensation based on the detriment caused to the individual or the household by its failure.
17. The guidance also says that, when calculating the compensation amount, it will take into account any distress and inconvenience caused as a result of the service failure. In particular it will consider the detriment caused to the individual or household. It says it will take into account a customer’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities including family life, use of their homes, impact on employment, health, and emotional well-being. In this case there is little indication that the landlord has given due consideration to all of these factors when offering compensation.
18. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance sets out that when a failing is identified that has impacted a resident’s use of their property, an award of compensation equivalent to full or partial rent may be appropriate. In line with this, an order for compensation is made below in light of the impact the loss of the use of the shower had.
19. Given the above, to ‘put things right’ for the resident an order for compensation is made below in light of the impact of the landlord’s failing to repair the shower in good time. The Ombudsman has considered whether compensation based on rent is appropriate. The resident was unable to make full use of their property, namely the shower, for 23 days (three weeks). The Ombudsman considers that a 25% rent rebate is appropriate for three weeks. The calculation is based on the basic weekly rent set out in the tenancy agreement, which is £92.04. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £69.03 (rounded down to £69) plus additional compensation for distress and inconvenience. This additional amount takes into account the resident’s particular circumstances and vulnerabilities, and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available online). 

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the time it took the landlord to fix the resident’s shower and the amount of compensation offered in relation to this.

Orders

21. The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
22. Pay the resident £469 compensation (this is made up of: £69 equivalent to 25% of three weeks’ rent as per the occupancy agreement; and £400 in recognition of distress and inconvenience). If the £100 already offered has been paid then this can be deducted from the amount.

Recommendations

23. The landlord should review its repair record keeping practices, in light of the record keeping issues highlighted in this report.