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

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202007002)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007002

Guinness Housing Association Limited

28 May 2021


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 has complained about the way the landlord handled repeated leaks through the kitchen and living room ceilings.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been assessed in this report.

Background

  1. There has been an ongoing issue with leaks affecting the resident’s flat. The resident’s complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service explained there had been leaks since 2008, with particular issues in 2018 and 2019 with no response from the landlord to their reports.
  2. The Housing Ombudsman Service Scheme sets out the complaints we can and cannot consider. One of the factors is that we ask residents to complain to their landlords within 6 months of an issue occurring, and to then contact the Housing Ombudsman within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. This is to ensure any efforts to resolve the dispute are responding to as recent issues as possible, and to help make sure as much information as possible is available.
  3. The resident formally complained in September 2019 therefore the events of 2018 and earlier are important background and all information provided has been reviewed for this assessment. However the focus of this report is on 2019 and onwards based on when the resident decided to make their complaint.
  4. The repair log provided by the landlord lists:
    1. A repair job in January 2017, completed in February 2017, about a leak when it rains.
    2. A repair job about plasterwork damaged by a leak in March 2017, completed in April 2017.
    3. A repair job in May 2018 about a leak when it rains, completed in July 2018.
    4. A roof repair job in August 2019 that was logged as communal and not for the resident’s property, and that remained outstanding as of 25 September 2019.
    5. A repair job in November 2019 about an ‘ongoing leak repair for months,’ completed in December 2019.
    6. A repair job in December 2019 to plasterwork, boxing-in, ceiling and redecoration due to the leak, completed in December 2019.
    7. A similar repair job to the December 2019 works in January 2020, completed in February 2020.
    8. A report that the repaired plasterwork remained wet in March 2020.
  5. The final response was then sent in April 2020. The Housing Ombudsman Service can only investigate issues and incidents that the landlord has already had the chance to respond to through its complaint procedure first. This means any issues or events after the April 2020 final response are outside the jurisdiction of this assessment.
  6. Unfortunately from the landlord’s repair log and the resident’s updates it appears the leak and associated issues have continued. Therefore while this report will assess the reasonableness of the landlord’s responses up to April 2020, based on the information available to it at the time, any dissatisfaction about the landlord’s actions after April 2020 would first need to be responded to through its complaint procedure.
  7. The resident (through a representative) formally complained in September 2019 that:
    1. They had reported the leak in March and June 2019; the water had to be caught in a bucket; and the ceiling was falling in.
    2. The repair request had been ignored.
    3. The resident wanted to arrange the repair themselves at this point and seek compensation.
    4. The landlord was aware the resident was vulnerable and has special needs.
    5. That the landlord had recorded one visit as ‘no access provided’ despite it not telling the resident about the appointment in advance.
  8. During the stage 1 investigation the landlord arranged a roof repair on 20 November 2020. The resident confirmed it appeared to have stopped the leak on 23 November. During this period the landlord’s complaint team regularly had to follow up with other internal teams to find out about the past reports/surveys and to arrange the November repair. The resident also contacted the landlord again to dispute the contractor’s repeated claim they had not complete the repair due to problems gaining access. The landlord’s internal correspondence was also unable to confirm whether repairs earlier in 2019 (March, June/July) had been recorded as having stopped the leak or not. The repair records did note the jobs as complete but with no further information. The resident stated the leak had been ongoing during this period.
  9. The landlord’s internal records state that the stage 1 complaint was closed on the 14 November 2019. This was on the basis that the roof repairs had been agreed and booked in for the 20 November, with internal repairs to follow. There is no written confirmation or telephone note explaining this to the resident on file. The correspondence on the 14 November was a phone call from the resident complaining that the contractor had blamed no access for the delayed repair with the landlord then confirming the repair date. The landlord’s ‘action table’ summarising most of the correspondence continues to list all interactions as part of the ‘stage 1 investigation’ into March 2020. Therefore it does not appear a stage 1 response was provided.
  10. Following the roof repair the complaint team then had to regularly chase other internal teams through December-January for an update about the internal repairs. One internal email stated that the internal repair contractors were waiting for confirmation from the roof contractors the actual roof repair was completed.
  11. The resident chased the matter following no update for ‘several weeks’ to report the roof remained wet in January 2020. There was then a discussion in February between the landlord and resident about how much of the ceiling would be repaired/replaced and then redecorated. The landlord’s notes show the resident confirmed they were happy with the work order at the start of March.
  12. The resident then had to report however that the plaster remained wet (either due to plastering issues or a returned leak). They also asked for clarification about the complaint procedure given the formal complaint email in September 2019.
  13. The resident then reported that the contractors again turned up without an appointment on 10 March. Further roof repairs were then needed on 18 March. The internal repairs were put on hold until the plaster had dried.
  14. The stage 2 response was sent on 3 April 2020. It explained:
    1. It acknowledged the leak had been reported over a year ago.
    2. It found that more than one appointment had been attended without prior notice despite the resident’s recorded vulnerability and request for prior notice.
    3. It noted that more than one roof repair had been required. It explained it was unfortunately not unusual for a leak to require multiple repairs due to the difficulty in diagnosing the cause and/or identify every entry point.
    4. It acknowledged the resident was not kept updated however about what works were completed at each repair.
    5. It explained the internal works would need to wait for the plaster to dry. However it acknowledged no advice or assistance had been given to help with this.
    6. It explained that with the Covid restrictions now in place it would need to wait until non-urgent repairs were allowed before completing the internal repairs.
    7. The landlord offered £300 to acknowledge the failures it had acknowledged. The resident had requested £500. The landlord did not explain its calculation of the £300 offer.

Assessment and findings

Roof repair

  1. It is agreed by both parties that the landlord’s handling of the roof repair was inadequate. In particular:
    1. The incomplete repair job from August 2019.
    2. The lack of records to confirm whether the repairs earlier in 2019 had resolved the leak at that time or not.
    3. The resident reported the ongoing leak in September with the ‘ceiling falling in.’ although the repair policy only categorises leaks that cannot be contained as emergency, it also states the list given is of examples. Given the length of time the leak had been ongoing, and given the reported impact on the property, it is reasonable to consider this a health and safety risk which would make it an emergency repair. There are no records of an inspection, temporary or permanent repair within 24 hours as required by the policy.
    4. The time taken to arrange the internal repairs after the November roof repair was outside the routine repair time.
    5. The resident reported the plaster remained wet in January (and March) 2020, however there does not appear to have been a further inspection or roof repair until March.
    6. The landlord’s contractors blamed the resident for some of the delay due to no access. The resident highlighted how the no access appointment had not been pre-booked and this was not disputed by the landlord or contractor. A later repair was also attended without pro-booking.
    7. The landlord did not provide dehumidifiers or a financial contribution towards drying out the property.
    8. The Housing Ombudsman Service Guidance on Remedies also notes how it is appropriate for the landlord to consider the personal circumstances and vulnerabilities of a resident affected by any service failure when considering compensation or other redress.
  2. The landlord has not explained its offer of £300. Its complaint and compensation policy does not provide a guide on how offers are calculated. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Guidance on Remedies explains:

“Awards of £250 to £700 – Remedies in the range of these amounts may be for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant…

 

  • A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.
  • A complainant being repeatedly passed between staff and / or teams, with no one officer or department taking overall responsibility, or a landlord not taking responsibility for sub-contracted services.
  • Failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments.”
  1. Based on the list of failures above the £300 offered is not sufficient to acknowledge the distress and inconvenienced caused by the handling of the repair. Taking each issue in turn:
    1. The repair from August until November (including the increased severity of the report in September) could be redressed with £250.
    2. The landlord’s internal correspondence that could not confirm the outcome of the earlier repairs could be redressed with £50.
    3. The time taken to arrange the internal repairs could be redressed with £50.
    4. The time taken to respond to the reports of continued wet plaster in January (whether by offering support with drying-out or by arranging an inspection or further roof repair) could be redressed with £100.
    5. The use of unannounced repair visits (compounded by a repeat of the issue following an earlier complaint and with a vulnerable resident) could be redressed with £50.
  2. Therefore an appropriate offer of redress would be £500 for the handling of the repair.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord did not send a stage 1 response to the complaint. This means the landlord did not explain how the formal complaint was under investigation, or how it could be escalated. This information was only provided after the resident sought clarity months after the original formal complaint. This is not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to try and resolve the substantive issue, and to prioritise the actual resolution of complaints. However when the landlord believes a resolution has been achieved it needs to confirm this with the resident so that the resident has the opportunity to confirm whether that is the case or not.
  3. Furthermore the resident specifically raised compensation in their stage 2 request. The landlord responded with a lower figure but did not explain how this figure had been reached. It is appropriate for compensation offers to be based on policies, procedures, and the landlord’s obligations and not to be derived through discussion or negotiation. However in the interest of effective dispute resolution, when a resident has stated the compensation they believe appropriate it is reasonable to expect the landlord to explain its calculation. Otherwise it is more than likely the complaint will simply continue.

Determination (decision)

  1. I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service:
    1. There was service failure in the way the landlord handled the reports of the leaks through the kitchen and living room ceilings.
    2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took too long to arrange roof and internal repairs. It did not keep the resident up to date. While the landlord acknowledged its repair service was inadequate, the offer of compensation was not sufficient given the detail or context of the complaint.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint was not explained to the resident. This means the handling was not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code. Furthermore the response was overdue, and the final response did not explain the compensation calculation. Given the resident had specifically raised compensation the lack of an explanation about the landlord’s calculation meant it was unlikely to help resolve the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. As a result of the determination above the landlord has been ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. Pay the resident an additional £300. This figure is comprised of:
      1. £200 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the roof repair.
      2. £100 to acknowledge the inconvenience caused by its handling of the formal complaint.
  2. The order for compensation is in addition to the £300 already offered by the landlord.
  3. I would also like to recommend that:
    1. The landlord ensure it has a clear understanding of the current repair situation at the resident’s home, including both an update from its contractor and from the resident (or their representative). If the resident is unhappy with the handling of the repairs (whether to the roof or internally) between April 2020 and now, then the landlord should also respond to any concerns through its formal complaint procedure.