The Guinness Partnership Limited (202307352)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307352

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 May 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:
1. investigation of the resident’s reports about vibration noise;
2. complaints handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since October 2004. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a flat within a block of flats. The resident resides at the property with her sister. The resident’s mother resides in a different flat within the same block. The landlord was aware that both the resident and her sister were affected by mental and physical health concerns throughout the period of the complaint.
In or around November 2022, the resident reported concerns about vibration noises in her property. These noises were loudest late at night. She described the noises as low mechanical engine noises.
At this time, the resident was experiencing issues with antisocial behaviour (ASB) coming from her neighbour. It was thought that the noises may be coming from her neighbour’s property. In January 2023, the landlord opened an ASB case and set out an action plan. This included the resident taking recordings through a noise app and the landlord discussing the concerns with the neighbour.
The landlord arranged a visit with the neighbour in early February 2023. It inspected the property for any source of the noise but determined that the noise was not coming from the neighbour’s property. It also warned the neighbour about further communications with the resident. The landlord subsequently closed the ASB case but opened a separate case regarding the ongoing vibration noises.
Around this time, the landlord attended the resident’s property. The landlord’s operative noted they could hear a buzzing noise, as described by the resident. On or around 15 February 2023, the landlord inspected the communal electrical cupboard but determined this was not the cause of the vibrations.
In April 2023, the resident sought an update about how the landlord planned to address the issue. She also expressed concerns about how the issue was causing her and her sister considerable anxiety and was so severe in their bedrooms that they were sleeping in the living area. The resident repeated these concerns in all her communications throughout the period of the complaint and noted that her sister had been hospitalised for panic attacks, which she attributed to the distress caused by the ongoing noise.
Following discussions between the parties, concerns were raised that the noise may be coming from the property above the resident’s. The landlord sought access to this property, but this was declined by the upstairs neighbour. On 10 May 2023, the resident expressed her concerns about the ongoing delays to a resolution; however, this was not logged as a formal complaint at this time. The landlord assured her it was seeking access to the upstairs neighbour’s property and would force access if necessary.
The landlord inspected the upstairs neighbour’s property on 25 May 2023; however, its operative concluded that the noise was not coming from this property. It is evident from the landlord’s internal communications that it discussed how to proceed, but it is not evident that any further updates were given to the resident at this time.
The resident made a formal complaint on 26 June 2023. It is evident that the resident’s mother also made a complaint at this time about the same issue, but that the landlord declined to investigate. The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s mother is pursuing a separate complaint in relation to this decision.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 19 July 2023, which included the following:
1. It provided a detailed breakdown of the history of the complaint and the communication between the parties.
2. It noted that tracking down the noise had been difficult due to no other residents in the building reporting any issues.
3. It noted that, having ruled out ASB causing the noise, it had spoken with its gas engineers, who also ruled out the gas pipes being the cause of the noise.
4. It also noted that it had arranged for a plumber to inspect the property, but that they had not detected any noise from the pipework. It also inspected the satellite system but ruled this out as a cause of the noise.
5. Following a further inspection of both the resident’s and her mother’s property in June 2023, the landlord determined the ventilation system may be the cause of the noise. It advised that an inspection of the ventilation system would take place on 25 July 2023.
6. It recognised the ongoing impact the issues were having on the health of the resident and her sister. It also identified several occasions where it failed to provide timely updates or call the resident back when requested. It therefore offered £50 compensation for its poor communication and £25 for the delays to its stage one response.
Following the ventilation system inspection on 25 July 2023, the resident requested an update; however, it is not evident this was provided. She therefore requested an escalation of her complaint on 31 July 2023.
It is evident from the landlord’s internal communications that there was a potential issue with ventilation motors in the base of the building, which required further inspections. However, it is not evident that any further inspections were arranged at this time.
On 13 August 2023, the landlord advised that its stage two response would be delayed until 11 September 2023. Around this time, the resident also made an application on the housing register for a new property.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 11 September 2023, which included the following:
1. It noted that its ventilation system inspection had been inconclusive.
2. It noted that it was “unsure about how we can proceed this further.” It also noted that, while it detected a low hum during the day, it was unable to witness the issue during the night, which was when the resident had reported the noise was at its worst. It concluded that it had thoroughly inspected the noise and found no defects.
3. It noted that it had discussed the possibility of a management move but that the resident would prefer to stay in the property as she was close to her mother. It also advised that, having discussed the matter with its housing team, the resident would not meet the criteria for a management move.
4. It reiterated its acknowledgement that its communication had been poor and increased its offer of compensation to £75 for poor communication and £50 for the delays to its complaint responses.
Following the stage two response, the resident engaged legal representatives to pursue the issue. In October 2023, the resident’s legal representative requested copies of the inspection reports and made an FOI request. The resident has advised this service that the documents provided did not include a report relating to the ventilation system.
After the resident had referred the complaint to this service, the landlord provided a follow up communication on 12 April 2024, which included the following:
1. It reiterated its apologies for poor communication and delayed complaint responses.
2. It noted that following the inspection of the ventilation system, it did not have any records of the outcome of this inspection. It noted, however, that a recommendation had been made for a further inspection. It advised that this had been arranged for 2 May 2024.
3. It increased its offer of compensation to £700 for the resident’s time and trouble in pursuing the case, £100 for its poor communication, and £100 for its poor complaints handling. It also advised that it had identified further training for its complaint handling staff.
The resident has advised this service that the issues remain ongoing and that she remains unhappy with the landlord’s inspections and communication. She has advised that she has priority A banding for a permanent move, but that this is likely to take some time. She has further advised that she wants the issue solved in the meantime.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has raised concerns about how the issues she reported and the landlord’s subsequent service delivery may have impacted her and her sister’s health.
The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination that the actions or omissions of a landlord have had a causal impact on a person’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate through an insurance claim or by a court. Should the resident wish to pursue a claim relating to the impact on her and her sister’s health, she has the option to seek legal advice.
The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account any general distress and inconvenience that the landlord’s service delivery may have caused. The Ombudsman has also considered how the landlord took into consideration any vulnerabilities.
The resident has advised that the noise issues and the related inspections are ongoing. She has also expressed concerns about the landlord’s current actions and communication. Given that events presently occurring have not been responded to as part of a formal complaint response by the landlord, these issues are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme. If the resident remains concerned about these events, she should seek to raise a new formal complaint in the first instance.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will aim to provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint and a stage two response within 15 working days of an escalation.
The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it will aim to fix routine repairs within 28 calendar days. Where it cannot complete a repair the first time, it will communicate clearly and explain what it intends to do next.
The landlord operates an ASB policy. The policy notes that it will agree an action plan with residents and keep them informed about the steps taken.

Vibration noise

It is not disputed that when the resident initially began hearing the vibration noises, it was considered that the cause of the noise was potentially ASB. She reported to the landlord that her neighbour was using drugs and causing disruption in the communal area, and so could be the cause of the noise. Upon receiving these reports, the landlord appropriately opened an ASB case. It asked the resident to record the noises using a noise app and also keep diary entries of any noise. It also explained that it would discuss the reports with the neighbour. This was an appropriate action plan which was in line with its policy.
It is evident that the landlord reviewed the submissions from the resident but was unable to hear the noise. As the resident explained, this was because the noise was a vibration rather than an audible noise. The landlord also made an unannounced visit to the neighbour’s property in order to inspect inside without giving them the opportunity to remove any cause of the noise. The landlord subsequently determined that the neighbour was not the cause of the noise and appropriately kept the resident informed of the outcome. Regarding the other issues with ASB, the landlord gave the neighbour a warning, and the neighbour resolved not to interact with the resident in the future. The landlord appropriately explained its actions to the resident, who agreed that the ASB case could be closed. While the cause of the noise was not ASB, it was reasonable for the landlord to explore this possibility, and it did so in a timely manner in accordance with its policies.
Similarly, when it was later speculated that the noise may be coming from the neighbour above, the landlord again appropriately set out the action it would take, namely, to complete an inspection of the neighbour’s property. However, on this occasion, there was a delay caused by issues with access. The landlord appropriately reassured the resident that it would continue to seek access and take escalated action if necessary. While this delayed the landlord’s ability to exclude the neighbour from being the cause of the noise, this delay was beyond the landlord’s control, and its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
Given that ASB was not the cause of the noise, the landlord appropriately opened a case with its repairs team. The Ombudsman understands that finding the cause of an issue can take multiple inspections and involve specialist equipment or personnel. While this may delay a resolution, such a delay would not necessarily be unreasonable. However, where such delays occur, the Ombudsman expects a high level of communication to explain what action is being taken and when, along with updates about the outcomes of any inspections.
As part of its investigations into the possible cause of the noise, the landlord inspected the plumbing, gas, electrical cupboard, and satellite wiring. The landlord provided an update about the outcomes of these inspections in its stage one response. However, at the time of the inspections, it is not evident that it gave clear and concise updates to the resident about what it was inspecting, when the inspections would take place, or the outcomes of the inspections. This led the resident to have to expend time and effort chasing updates.
Additionally, while it may have been reasonable for these inspections to have taken time due to the need for experts, it is not evident that the landlord explained any delays to the resident or justified why any delays were occurring. This would have left the resident unclear about why inspections were taking so long. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord acknowledged these failings in its stage one response, which was appropriate. Its subsequent offer of compensation is addressed below.
In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately advised the resident about the next steps to its investigation, namely, the inspection of the ventilation system. It also appropriately advised the date this would occur. While it is evident this inspection went ahead, the landlord failed to keep the resident updated about the outcome. This again meant she had to expend time and trouble chasing answers and escalating her complaint.
It is evident from the landlord’s communications following the inspection of the ventilation system that it was aware further inspections were needed. In particular, it discussed the need to obtain structural plans from the developer and the difficulties this presented. However, it is not evident that it kept the resident informed about the outcome of its inspections or its proposed next steps. This was contrary to the requirements of its repairs policy.
By the time of its stage two response, the landlord had made no further reference to the need for more inspections. Its stage two response instead made it clear it was “unsure about how we can proceed this further.” Further to this, the landlord later acknowledged that it lost all records from the inspection, resulting in no further action being taken. This admission did not come until around six months after its stage two response. However, a full and thorough stage two investigation should have identified this at the time the response was given. This demonstrates a clear failing in the landlord’s record keeping and complaint investigation.
Its position that it was unclear how to proceed would have been deeply unsatisfying for the resident. While it may be the case that it considered there were no further inspections it could complete as part of a proportional investigation, this was not made explicitly clear. Further, if that was the landlord’s position, it should have also explored why it was not proportionate to inspect further. This could include evidence as to why it considered the property to be habitable for the resident, despite the noise. However, no such position was given. It also noted that it had not witnessed the noise late at night but did not give a clear explanation as to why it would not be possible to arrange for a witness at this time. This left the resident with an expectation that further action would be taken, but she was left without any clear action plan, despite her repeated requests.
Additionally, if the landlord had resolved to take no further action, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it should have explored what other options were available. It is clear that there were discussions around a management move and also that the resident was on the housing register. However, there were no offers of support with this process from the landlord. This would have left the resident feeling unsupported.
In most of the resident’s communications, she provided detailed information about how the noise was impacting both her and her sister’s health. She explained how they could not sleep in their bedrooms and also how her sister had been hospitalised due to anxiety, which she attributed to the noise. Given this information, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take this into consideration when providing its service. However, it is not evident that it sought to expediate its inspections or discuss what support it could offer at any time. Despite having acknowledged the impact the issues were having in its stage one response, it is also not evident that its service delivery subsequently improved or that any offers of support were forthcoming. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it was taking the issues seriously and doing all it could to support her.
Following its stage two response, the resident repeatedly made requests through her legal representatives for the outcomes of the landlord’s earlier inspections and for its intentions moving forward. However, it took until April 2024 for it to provide an updated position. This was some nine months after the inspection of the ventilation system. This was also after the resident had referred the complaint to this service. As noted above, it was only at this point that the landlord discovered an outstanding inspection, which it should have reasonably identified in its stage two investigation. Additionally, throughout this period, the resident continued to report the impact the noise was having without any offers of support from the landlord. While it was appropriate that it resolved to carry out further inspections, the unreasonable delay would have caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident.
In summary, there were some appropriate inspections initially completed by the landlord, including inspections of neighbouring properties and various other installations in the building. However, it failed to keep the resident adequately informed about these inspections, which led her to repeatedly expend time and trouble chasing updates. The landlord also failed to provide adequate support or otherwise outline the resident’s options given the distress and vulnerabilities she had reported. Finally, it failed to progress inspections in relation to the ventilation system, despite multiple opportunities to recognise this was outstanding.
In its formal responses and in its communication from April 2024, the landlord made offers of compensation to reflect the failings it had identified. Regarding the offer made in April 2024, while the Ombudsman encourages landlords to review their complaint handling, it should not take a complaint to this service for it to do so. The landlord acknowledged it had only made the offer following its preparation of evidence for this service. This offer of compensation was outside of the landlord’s independent complaint response and will therefore not be considered as part of this investigation.
Prior to its offer in April 2024, the landlord made an offer of £75 in relation to its poor communication throughout the period of the complaint. While it was appropriate that it had recognised some level of service failure and that it had made an attempt to remedy it, this offer was not proportionate to the impact caused to the resident.
Given the failings identified above, a finding of maladministration has been made. An order for £1,300 compensation has been made, being £250 for the landlord’s poor communication and record keeping, £250 for the resident’s time and trouble, and £800 for the unreasonable delay to the arrangement for a further inspection of the ventilation system (this is made up of £100 for each month the arrangements were unreasonably delayed, allowing for an initial month in line with the landlord’s repairs policy).
Given that the issues remain ongoing, an order has also been made for the landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and clarify what action it is currently taking and when this will take place. It must also commit to providing an outcome of any inspections. It must also clarify what interim support it can offer in relation to the resident’s vulnerabilities or otherwise provide its position on why it does not consider any support to be necessary.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes the wording from this service’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code), which states that a complaint can include an expression of dissatisfaction, however made. As part of her discussions with the landlord in May 2023, the resident raised a number of concerns which she wanted the landlord to address. The landlord did not, however, raise a formal complaint at this time. While the resident did not explicitly state she wanted a stage one response, this was nevertheless a missed opportunity for the landlord to have been proactive in opening a formal complaint.
Once the resident raised a formal complaint on 26 June 2023, the landlord should have responded within 10 working days, as per its policy. It ultimately did not provide its stage one response until 19 July 2023, which was beyond this timeframe. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this delay and apologised. It also made an offer of compensation to recognise the inconvenience this had caused.
Following the resident’s escalation request on 31 July 2023, the landlord should have provided its stage two response within 15 working days. However, on 13 August 2023, it advised that its response would be delayed. While this delay would have been frustrating for the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord proactively informed her of the delay and provided a new date for its response. The landlord met this date for its subsequent response and once again apologised for the delay. It once again made an offer of compensation.
In its communication from April 2024, the landlord increased its overall offer of compensation to £100 for its complaints handling failures. It also appropriately identified relevant training for its staff, in line with this service’s complaint handling principle to learn from outcomes. While the offers made in that communication relating to the substantive complaint have not been considered, the Ombudsman notes that complaints handling was not an issue specifically raised by the resident in her referral to this service. Rather, it is an issue that the Ombudsman has identified as requiring investigation. Therefore, the landlord’s further assessment of its complaints handling was not because of a complaint referred to this service, but something it had itself identified. Its offer has therefore been considered as part of this investigation.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its offer of £100 compensation was reflective of the impact caused to the resident and amounted to reasonable redress for the delays identified. A recommendation has been made that the landlord reiterate this offer if it is yet to have been accepted.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its investigation of the resident’s reports about vibration noise.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,300, for its failures relating to its investigation of the resident’s reports about vibration noise.
This replaces the landlord’s previous offers. This amount (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offers) must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must write to the resident and include the following:
1. It must clarify what action it is currently taking and when this will take place.
2. It must commit to providing an outcome of any inspections.
3. It must clarify what interim support it can offer in relation to the resident’s vulnerabilities or otherwise provide its position on why it does not consider any support to be necessary.

Recommendations

The landlord is to reiterate its offer of £100 compensation in relation to its poor complaints handling if this is yet to have been accepted.