The Guinness Partnership Limited (202315404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315404

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of no heating or hot water at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a 1-bedroom flat under an assured tenancy agreement. The landlord records that the resident has vulnerabilities in terms of Autism and difficulty reading and writing.
The resident complained to the landlord on 6 July 2023 that there had been no hot water and heating in his property since he moved in in February 2020. He said that, although he had reported this in February 2020 and that the landlord attended at the time, the issue had not been resolved.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 August 2023. In this, it said:
1. Though it acknowledged that the resident’s complaint dated back to February 2020 it was not going to consider events longer than 6 months ago in line with its complaints policy.
2. The lack of heating and hot water was due to a fault with the ground loop. The landlord described this as a complex repair which had taken longer than expected to resolve. The landlord stated that the resident had previously been provided with temporary heaters and £100 to cover additional heating costs in recognition of this.
3. The landlord accepted that, though aspects of the repairs were outside of its control, it should have repaired this sooner. It also acknowledged that its response to the resident’s complaint had been delayed
4. It offered the resident £175 as a remedy, consisting of:
  1. £100 for the delays in the repairs
  2. £75 for its complaint handling
  3. It also stated it would consider paying for the additional electricity costs for heating the property if the resident provided evidence of this
The resident escalated his complaint on 4 October 2023. He reiterated there had been a lack of heating and hot water since February 2020. He said this had not been resolved and the landlord had not communicated with him about this. He also stated that the contractor who attended on 25 August 2023 told him that the only option was to replace the ground loop, which the landlord would not do because of the cost. The resident told the landlord he was making a disrepair claim against it and his solicitor had issued a letter of claim on 6 October 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 October 2023. In this it stated:
1. The resident had reported issues with his heating and hot water in 2020 up until 19 November 2020, which it sent its contractor to address. The landlord said it did not receive any further reports about lack of heating or hot water until 6 July 2023. The landlord reiterated its policy is not to investigate events which occurred more than 6 months before the complaint but had reviewed its communication with the resident since the start of the tenancy and did not consider there was a failure in how it communicated with him.
2. The landlord advised the remaining issue to resolve was with the communal ground loop, which is managed by a different organisation and is not the landlord’s responsibility to repair. The landlord stated that due to the ongoing delays in resolving this, it has requested an independent auditor to identify if there is an alternative solution to restore heating to the property.
3. As a remedy the landlord offered the resident £220 consisting of:
  1. £100 for the delays in the repairs
  2. £75 for its complaint handling
  3. £25 for a delay in providing further temporary heaters
  4. £10 for not responding to the concern about lack of communication before July 2023 in its stage 1 response
  5. £10 for any inaccurate information given by its contractor about why the ground loop was not being replaced
The landlord records that on 27 February 2024, it installed an alternative electric heating system in the property due to ongoing problems with repairing the ground loop. The resident has confirmed that there is now heating and hot water in the property.
On 3 April 2024 the landlord agreed to a settlement for a disrepair claim for it to pay £7,500 in damages and £1,500 in costs. The resident told us that on advice from his solicitor, he agreed to this but was still unhappy as he considered he should not have had to pay any of the rent from February 2020 to February 2024 as he considered the property was uninhabitable.
The resident also told us that he did not consider the landlord had appropriately considered his vulnerabilities when handling his complaint. On 14 June 2024, before our investigation began, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging that it did not discuss reasonable adjustments with him as part of the complaints process when he disclosed his vulnerabilities to it. It offered him a further £500 as a remedy for this and that it would review its process of recording vulnerabilities and implementing reasonable adjustments.

Assessment and findings

Scope

Under paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), we may not consider events that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period. The current version of the Scheme, which came into effect on 1 April 2024, defines a ‘reasonable period’ as normally being within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident told us that, though he does not remember complaining to the landlord formally before July 2023, he and his support worker had made complaints about the lack of heating and hot water at the property to his housing officer before this. However, we have not seen evidence of this, and the landlord told us it has no record of receiving these complaints. Therefore, whilst the historical incidents provide contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation focuses on events from July 2022 onward, which is 12 months prior to the formal complaint being made.
In addition, as part of his complaint to us the resident told us the lack of hot water and heating adversely affected his physical and mental health. He advised us he is looking into making a personal injury claim against the landlord and his claim has not been brought before the courts yet.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of medico-legal reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This will be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation as the courts can make legally binding decisions. If the resident wishes to pursue the impact on her health further, he should seek independent legal advice. The Ombudsman’s investigation of and decision on this complaint will not take any view on the merits of any personal injury claim.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord which contributed to other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of reports of no heating and hot water

The landlord’s responsive repair policy categorises repairs as either emergency or routine:
1. for emergency repairs, which include a loss of heating or hot water in winter, the landlord will complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the property safe within 24 hours. Following a temporary repair the policy says the landlord will return within a reasonable timescale to complete the repair
2. for routine repairs the landlord aims to fix these within 28 calendar days
The landlord’s disrepair policy says that when it receives a disrepair claim it will:
1. aim to resolve disrepair issues as soon as possible including using alternative dispute resolution methods where appropriate
2. where appropriate, instruct an expert to inspect the property for evidence of disrepair
3. where required, undertake an agreed schedule of works to remedy disrepair within a reasonable period of time
4. once repairs have been completed it will consider settlement, including financial settlement, to resolve a claim
In deciding on what is a suitable remedy to put right a complaint, our approach is to consider whether any remedy is fair in the individual circumstances of the complaint.
From the available records the landlord contacted its contractor on the same day as the complaint on 6 July 2023. The contractor informed the landlord the previous issues with heating in the property had been identified as relating to the communal ground loop. The contractor said the issue had been referred to the organisation that manages the building but there was no evidence it had acted on this.
On 20 July 2023, the landlord records that it attended to fix the reported fault of the resident’s electric shower not working. This was appropriate as this repair took place within the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy. Though the repair request was reported as ‘complete’ due to a lack of adequate records it is not clear if this repair resolved the resident’s complaint about lack of access to hot water.
On 31 July 2023 the landlord decided that, though repairs of the ground loop were the responsibility of the property management company for the building, it would have to take further action to resolve the lack of heating and hot water.
From the available evidence the landlord took the following action to address the repair request:
1. According to both the resident’s and landlord’s account of events, the landlord attended on 25 August 2023 but was not successful at resolving the issue. There are no records of this work. The attendance was within the timescales set out in the landlord’s repair policy. However, due to a lack of adequate records it is not known what work was carried out or what further action was planned, which is a failing
2. On 6 October 2023, following the resident’s disrepair claim, the landlord arranged for a third-party auditor to assess what repairs were required. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s disrepair policy. It also arranged for additional temporary heaters (and vouchers to cover additional electricity costs) to be provided whilst the repair was outstanding.
3. On 31 October 2023 the third-party auditor inspected the appliances at the property which identified missing insulation from the ground loop. The auditor said they considered the lack of heating at the property was unlikely to be an issue with the ground loop as other residents have not reported a similar issue. The auditor suggested a gas-qualified engineer inspect the heat pump.
4. On 8 November 2023 the local authority issued an improvement order to the landlord due to excess cold in the property. It required the landlord to investigate and repair or replace the heating system. It required the landlord to start work on this by 12 December 2023 and complete this in 8 weeks (i.e. 6 February 2024).
5. On 27 November 2023 an engineer inspected the heat pump and concluded the fault was with the ground loop. The engineer activated the emergency back up immersion but emphasised this was a temporary solution to provide heating and hot water until the ground loop was fixed. The engineer recorded that the hot water reached 50°C and they showed the resident how to use the back up system. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was an appropriate temporary repair until the heating system at the property could be replaced or fixed. However, this temporary repair was not done within a reasonable timescale as the landlord had accepted responsibility for taking further action 119 calendar days before this repair took place.
6. On 15 February 2024 the landlord attended the property with representatives from the local authority. The landlord records:
  1. hot running water was working
  2. central heating at the property was still not working though temporary heating and compensation have been provided
  3. due to ongoing difficulties in getting the communal ground loop fixed it was planning to replace this with a direct electric heating system
7. On 27 February 2024 the landlord installed electric heating at the property. Its inspection found that all outlets were working for heating and hot water and there was no disruption to the temperature or flow over 5 minutes.
In total it took the landlord 236 calendar days to fully resolve the lack of heating and hot water following the resident’s complaint on 6 July 2023, which is significantly outside of the timescales in its repairs policy.
We recognise, as a mitigating factor, that the repair was complicated by the landlord not having responsibility for the ground loop or the ability to repair or replace this directly. We also note that action was taken to provide temporary solutions for the lack of heating and hot water to limit the impact on the resident. Overall, though, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there were failings by the landlord in its handling of this. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is also not clear whether the landlord informed the resident (or his solicitor) about scheduled works to remedy the disrepair as it should have done in line with its disrepair policy.
The landlord’s stage 2 response offered £135 as compensation for the issues related to the repairs. We acknowledge the resident’s solicitor had issued a letter of claim for disrepair before the complaints process had been completed and the landlord needed to respond to this. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion as the landlord later offered a rent refund to the resident to settle the disrepair claim it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have included in its stage 2 offer of compensation if it considered this was fair to put things right. Its decision not to do this was unreasonable and likely added to the costs it paid as part of the settlement.
Following the completion of the repair the landlord contacted the resident’s solicitor to discuss a potential financial settlement for the disrepair claim, this was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s disrepair policy. As set out previously, on 3 April 2024 the landlord and resident agreed a settlement of £7,500 damages and £1,500 for costs.
The landlord told us it calculated the £7,500 damages on the basis of a 35% rent refund from the start of the resident’s tenancy in February 2020 until February 2024. The landlord stated though there had been no contact from the resident between November 2020 and July 2023 it acknowledged that issues with a lack of heating and hot water had been ongoing prior to the formal complaint.
Calculating this based on the average social and affordable rents across the Northwest for the last 4 years (as published by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government) shows that a 35% rent refund for this period would total £5,694.23. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord has offered compensation which is appropriate. Had the Ombudsman considered the case, it is likely we would have awarded compensation in the region of between the average rent for four years at 35% and the settlement figure less legal costs. As such, the settlement figure is similar to an award that would have been made by this service.
Having considered the available evidence the Ombudsman finds that there was reasonable redress in its handling of the repairs to the heating and hot water. The landlord fairly considered the overall impact its actions had the resident when deciding on a remedy, rather than limiting this to the time after the formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged its failure to resolve the repairs to the heating and hot water, followed good dispute resolution principles once the disrepair claim was made and when there were delays in resolving the disrepair took action to mitigate the impact this had on the resident. The landlord should note, however, that had it offered the compensation via its complaint procedure – it is likely there would not have been any legal costs.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 response within 10 working days of it being logged. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord’s reasonable adjustments policy states there is no prescribed list of reasonable adjustments and it will depend on an individual’s needs. It says it should discuss the requirements with the person concerned and seek an agreement on what is reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident’s initially complained on 6 July 2023 through his support worker. From the available records, the landlord contacted the resident’s support worker during stage 1 to update them on the progress of the complaint.
The landlord noted from its conversation with the resident’s support worker on 31 July 2023 that she disclosed that the resident had a mental health condition, but no further information was given.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 August 2023, 34 working days after the initial complaint. This was a failing by the landlord as this was not consistent with its complaint policy.
The resident requested an escalation of the complaint on 2 October 2023. The landlord phoned him to acknowledge the escalation and discuss the complaint on 4 October 2023. When the disrepair claim was issued on 6 October 2023 the resident told the landlord it wanted all information about the repairs to go through his solicitor.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 30 October 2023, 20 working days after the resident’s escalation. This was appropriate as it was consistent with the landlord’s complaints policy.
The landlord reflected in its stage 2 response on the delay in providing the stage 1 response. It said it had not provided enough detail in response to the resident’s concerns and the impact this had on him. It recognised where it had failed, apologised and provided a remedy of £85 for these parts of the complaint.
As set out previously following the stage 2 response the landlord stated that the resident contacted it to say he did not consider that the landlord had acknowledged his vulnerabilities or offered support. The resident told us that, due to his condition, he finds it difficult to process verbal information and wanted the landlord to contact him by email to allow him to consider his response. He stated that his support worker informed the landlord of this at the start of his tenancy, but the landlord did not respect this request.
From the available records we have not seen evidence that the landlord had been informed the resident only wanted to be contacted by email. This is not recorded by the landlord in the resident’s known vulnerabilities. We have also not seen that the resident requested any specific reasonable adjustments that he needed the landlord to make following the stage 2 response. However, when the resident disclosed that he felt he needed further support it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have asked him what adjustments it could have made at that point.
In its further response of 14 June 2024, the landlord recognised that it should have discussed the resident’s needs further and if he required reasonable adjustments. The landlord offered the resident £500 and outlined that it would review its process for recording vulnerabilities and reasonable adjustments. The landlord told us that following this letter it attempted to arrange a visit with the resident to discuss his needs and what he would want from the landlord as support but he declined this. It stated that it has updated its records with the resident’s known needs and remains in contact with his support worker.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress by the landlord for the failings in its complaint handling which appropriately recognised the impact this had on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of reports of no heating and hot water at the property
2. Reasonable redress by the landlord in its complaint handling

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the compensation of £585 for its complaint handling if it has not already done so.
The landlord should contact the resident, or his support worker, to arrange further discussion about how the landlord can support him in a way that suits his communication needs. The landlord should record any vulnerabilities or reasonable adjustments raised by the resident and consider these in line with its reasonable adjustment policy.
The landlord is recommended to self-assess against the recommendations from the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.