Guinness Housing Association Limited (202103874)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103874

Guinness Housing Association Limited

19 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s reports of a draught and cold temperatures at the property.
2. response to the resident’s concerns about outstanding repairs including the installation of child safety locks on the windows, the kitchen floor and the windows belonging to the storeroom below the property.
3. communication and response to the resident’s formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there may be some reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, complaint b, as detailed above falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
It is noted that during the course of her complaint, the resident raised concerns about outstanding repairs at the property including locks to the windows in the second bedroom and the relaying of the kitchen floor. The resident also queried repairs to the windows of the storeroom below the property. The landlord did not investigate these concerns as part of the resident’s complaint. As such, these matters have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and the landlord’s handling of these repairs cannot be investigated as part of this complaint.
However, given that the resident did bring these matters to the landlord’s attention when she made her formal complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate them. The Ombudsman has addressed this within the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling, and has made orders relating to this accordingly.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property, which she has occupied with her young son since April 2019. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a listed crescent of houses. The room below the resident’s son’s bedroom is an empty, unheated storage room.
On 31 October 2020, the resident raised a repair with the landlord and reported that there was a draught coming through the window of her son’s bedroom. The resident chased the matter on 6 November as she had not received a response from the landlord.
On 20 November, the resident called the landlord and requested a call back in relation to her outstanding report. A further call was made on 30 November, and the resident informed the call handler that she was still waiting for the issue to be resolved.
An inspection of the property took place at the beginning on 2 December. The resident says that during this visit, she informed her Customer Liaison Officer (CLO) about a draught coming up through the floor in addition to through the window. She says that he agreed to raise several repair jobs so that the problem could be resolved.
On 16 December, the resident chased the landlord to query when the jobs would be taking place; however, the member of staff with whom she spoke was unable to provide her with any further information.
The resident called the landlord again on 22 December as she had not received a response or further communication from the landlord. During the call, the resident explained that she had been chasing the matter but had not received any call backs. She explained that her son was unable to occupy his bedroom due to the cold and draught, and that no progress had been made since her initial report. During the call, the resident advised that she would raise a formal complaint if nobody got back to her with further details about the repair(s).
The CLO also emailed the resident on 22 December and advised that he had visited the storerooms under the second bedroom, and that he would be compiling a request on two possible options. The first option was to install insulation between the ceiling of the storeroom and the floorboards within the property. The second was to use a small trickle electric heater as both rooms had an electric supply. In his email, the CLO added that he could see that the storerooms created a “cold void” under the bedroom. However, he was unsure of what the outcome of his proposals would be given that they fell “slightly outside of the normal repairs service remit”.
On 24 December, the resident informed the landlord that she would wait until the end of the day to receive contact from a manager; but that she would raise a complaint if no such contact was received. The resident subsequently raised her complaint on 29 December, informing the landlord that her concerns were in relation to the outstanding repairs to the bedroom flooring and the failed call backs in relation to the matter.
On 4 January 2021, the landlord’s records show that a member of staff asked if the resident could be called by named members of staff to discuss the issues and the follow-up. However, it is not clear from the records what transpired following this.
By 12 January, the landlord reached the decision that there was nothing that could be done to resolve the problem the resident had reported. It was considered that the insulation appeared “fine” in both the bedroom and the storeroom and that the situation would have to be monitored. The outcome was communicated to the resident on the same day; however, she was unhappy with the outcome. She expressed concern that the insulation needed to be checked and that the draught could be felt despite the carpet she had installed. The resident added that the CLO had raised other jobs during his attendance, but these also remained outstanding.
Further conversation took place between the landlord and resident on 15 January, and it confirmed that it would not be upgrading the insulation. However, it advised that it would look into the jobs that had been raised by the CLO. The resident remained unhappy; and further discussion took place between landlord staff. The CLO advised that if the room was unusable, then they could inspect the floor within the bedroom to see whether additional insulation would be needed between the joists. However, this would involve the resident lifting the whole carpet, so that the inspection could take place.
The landlord’s records show that on 18 January, landlord staff queried whether a new radiator would alleviate the problem the resident had reported. The landlord’s notes show that the resident had advised that the room only heated up to 9 degrees during the evening, which made the room difficult to occupy. It was added that under the bedroom was a “cold void”, which was impacting the heating capacity too.
On 25 January, the landlord confirmed that it would not be upgrading the insulation within the property and advised the resident that it would be closing the complaint. However, there was some discussion around a goodwill gesture given the service failures that had occurred since the resident reported the matter. The resident was unhappy and did not agree that the insulation would be an “improvement”. She asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord confirmed that the complaint would be escalated, and that any goodwill gesture would be deciding on by the reviewing manager.
On 29 January, one of the landlord’s engineers assessed the radiator within the second bedroom. The resident has advised that the original engineer did not attend, but by chance she spotted another engineer who was visiting a nearby property and he agreed to have a look. The resident has advised that the engineer informed her that the then existing heater was not sufficient, and that it should also be moved to the centre of the room.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident’s complaint on 5 February. Within this, it said:
1. The case had been fully reviewed and while it had arranged for further action to take place, the complaint had not been upheld.
2. In reaching its conclusion, it had taken into account that:
  1. A surveyor had visited the property and rooms underneath. The photographs had been reviewed and they show a fully plastered ceiling through which it did not consider that draughts could pass.
  2. The surveyor had made it clear that insulating the floor would represent an improvement and not a repair.
  3. The resident’s tenancy agreement placed a requirement on it to keep the property in good repair; however, there was no requirement to make improvements.
  4. An in-date Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) was provided in the resident’s welcome pack, and this showed a rating of 57/D (government advice suggests that a rating below 35/F is likely to be considered “excess cold”). The EPC assessment was explicit in assuming there was no insulation to the floor; and it also advise that insulating the floor would only increase the rating by 2 points.
  5. Its heating contractor had recently visited the resident and suggested that a larger radiator could be installed in the second bedroom. This work had been authorised and was scheduled to take place on 8 February.
3. It had proposed to take the following actions:
  1. The heating contractor would fit the new radiator. Once the new radiator was installed, it asked if the resident could check whether it was capable of increasing the room to around 18 degrees. If it could achieve this temperature, then the resident should consider leaving the heating on for longer. However, it was not capable, then the resident should get in touch.
  2. The maintenance contractor would fit draught strips to the window and overhaul as necessary. The landlord advised that they would be in touch to make an appointment.
  3. The surveyor would visit again on 6 February to determine the extent of the draught and to attempt to identify its source – as it did not consider this to be the storage rooms below. The landlord added that based on what the surveyor found, it could find a solution to reduce or eliminate the draft.
A job was raised for 8 February; however, the landlord’s contractor failed to attend. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day and advised that the contractor did not turn up, and did not contact her to advise that they would have to reschedule. The resident asked the landlord if someone could attend later the same day; however, she was informed that it would not be possible as the job was “non-urgent” and the contractor was “very busy”.
The job was rebooked for 10 February. On the same day, the resident raised concerns with the landlord that the stage two response did not address many of the other aspects of her complaint. The landlord agreed to look into this further following a further call from the resident on 15 February. The resident chased the matter on 8 March, and following further discussion the landlord wrote to the resident on 12 March. In its letter, it said:
1. It had looked through the response which had been provided at stage one. In doing so, it noted that the member of staff who handled the complaint at that stage had “attempted to discuss a gesture of good will for the failures” the resident had mentioned in her complaint. However, the member of staff felt that the resident mainly just wished to escalate her complaint, and so an offer was not made.
2. It spoke with the member of staff who issued the stage two response and he said that when he spoke with the resident, she advised that she was unhappy that nothing would be done in the second bedroom to rectify the draught. The landlord said that on this basis, the member of staff only investigated this aspect of the complaint.
3. While the resident had received a stage two response, it did not mean that it would not consider a good will gesture. It acknowledged that there had been failures and that the lack of communication meant that the resident had to chase matters herself – resulting in the formal complaint.
4. This was not the level of service it expected its customers to receive, and it was sorry. In recognition of the inconvenience and stress the resident was caused, it wished to offer her £200. It added that this could be credited to her rent account, or paid to her bank account; and this was its final response regarding the matter.

Events after the final response

A further inspection of the property took place on 3 March. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that during this, the surveyor informed her that the second bedroom was “significantly colder” and that the windows were draughty. She says that some discussion surrounding secondary glazing took place, and that the surveyor also inspected the bathroom floor. The resident says that the surveyor informed her that he would forward his recommendations to the relevant department and let her know the outcome.
The resident chased the matter on 1 April using the landlord’s live chat service online. During the chat, the resident advised that the window strips and the overhaul had yet to take place, but that the surveyor had also made some further recommendations and she was hoping to know what the outcome was.
Further communication took place between the landlord and the resident. On 18 May, the resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the matter. The resident continued to chase the outstanding works that were mentioned in the stage two response. On 7 June, the resident confirmed that the window strips had been affixed; however, the operatives who attended were not aware of the overhaul they were required to do. On 10 June, the landlord subsequently confirmed that the job would be completed on 17 June.
During a conversation with this Service on 17 June, the resident confirmed:
1. The new radiator had provided some improvement, but that it was difficult to tell given that the heating had not been on.
2. The landlord had previously applied the draught strips, but it had not been done again since the final response.
3. While the surveyor came to the property in March, there was no follow-up. The resident advised that the surveyor had discussed secondary glazing, but this was “dismissed” by the landlord.
4. She would like the landlord to arrange for secondary glazing and further insulation, as per the surveyor’s recommendations.

Assessment and findings

Response to the reports of draught and cold temperatures

The landlord’s obligation under the tenancy agreement, as detailed above, is to repair and keep in proper working order any installations it provides for heating. There is no obligation on the landlord under the tenancy agreement to install further insulation at a property.
When responding to the resident’s concerns about the temperatures within the room and the formal complaint, the landlord appropriately explained that installing further insulation would constitute an improvement and not a repair. While it is noted that the resident has concerns about how the landlord reached some its conclusions in relation to the storerooms and the “cold void”, the landlord was correct in informing her that it was not obliged to install insulation under the terms of the tenancy agreement. It is also noted that the surveyor who attended the property also informed the resident that while he was putting forward some recommendations, he could not say what the outcome would be given that the things he had identified fell outside of the usual repairs service.
However, when responding to the complaint, the landlord explained that it would be taking some further action to try to address the problems the resident had reported. This included installing a new, larger, radiator. This was a reasonable response, given that the then existing radiator was not in a state of disrepair. The resident has advised that it is not yet known whether the new radiator has improved the temperatures within the room. The landlord resident should report back to the landlord if it appears that the room is unable to achieve a temperature of 18 degrees, as per the landlord’s stage two letter of 5 February 2021.
The landlord’s stage two response also detailed that it would be arranging for draught strips to be affixed to the windows, and for them to be overhauled. While it was reasonable for the landlord to take such action, it is noted that actions in relation to the windows were initially identified in December 2020; however, no action was taken to progress this until the resident made her formal complaint. There is an entry in the landlord’s records on 25 January 2021 which reads that the contractor had confirmed that the order to overhaul the windows and supply and fit draught stripping was complete. This appears to be an error – as the landlord had detailed that this work would be scheduled when it wrote to the resident on 5 February.
The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the works order that was raised on 17 December 2020. In relation to the windows, this detailed that an overhaul was required as follows – “overhaul timber sash window; renew staff and parting beds; take out sashes; rehang on new sash cords; ease; adjust sashes; remove; refit or renew ironmongery; renew putty; mastic; touch up”.
While the landlord had advised that it would be in touch to schedule an appointment with the resident, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which shows that it was proactive in doing so. On 1 April, the resident informed the landlord via its live chat that the job in relation to the window strips and overhaul was yet to be completed. By 7 June, the resident advised that while the draught strips had been fitted, the contractor who attended was unaware of the overhaul, and what this required. It is not clear if any actions have been taken in relation to the overhaul since the 7 June. However, the evidence clearly shows that it is the resident who has reminded the landlord of the outstanding jobs with a view to ensuring that they are complete. This is inappropriate as the landlord should take responsibility for monitoring jobs which it has identified and raised. The landlord’s failure to do so has resulted in further inconvenience to the resident.

Communication and the handling of the formal complaint

The resident has raised concerns about the lack of communication she has received from the landlord; and that the response to her complaint did not address all of the issues she raised.
When the landlord wrote to the resident on 12 March, it acknowledged that the level of service the resident had received was below what it would expect. The landlord noted that as a result of its failing, the resident had to chase matters regularly after her initial report in November 2019. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider compensating the resident for the inconvenience that she had been caused; and the amount which was offered was proportionate in relation to the events that had occurred up until that time.
However, the resident has still had to chase repairs since March 2021, demonstrating that the landlord had not learnt from the mistakes that had been highlighted by the resident’s complaint, and had not taken any steps to ensure that the resident was not further inconvenienced. It would be reasonable for the landlord to compensate the resident further in the circumstances.
The resident has also informed this Service that the landlord’s complaint responses failed to address the points she had raised when making her complaint. This included her concern that no action was being taken in relation to her kitchen floor, and that the windows in her son’s bedroom needed to have safety locks. The resident has provided a log of the calls that took place with the landlord. During a call 12 February 2021, the resident says that she tried to raise the issue of the other outstanding works at the property, but the member of staff did not want to listen to her.
The landlord’s log for 8 January 2021 shows that the resident had informed staff that she was concerned about outstanding repairs – including the lifting and relaying of the kitchen floor. It is not clear why this was not addressed at either stage one or two of the landlord’s complaints procedure. That it was not was a failing in the complaint handling. The Ombudsman has not seen a reference to the locks for the windows; however, given that the landlord agreed to consider the complaint further after the response of 5 February was issued, it would have been appropriate to speak with the resident and ensure that all of her concerns had been noted so that they could be investigated and responded to. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to try to resolve the complaint, and to rebuild the relationship with the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a draught and cold temperatures at the property.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s communication and handling of the formal complaint.

Reasons

When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, it appropriately explained that its duty under the tenancy agreement was to carry out repairs to the existing fittings within the property. To install insulation would therefore constitute an improvement – and it is not obliged to carry out improvements within the property. The landlord identified some things that it thought may improve the condition within the second bedroom such as installing a new, larger radiator and to apply draught strips to the windows. It was reasonable for the landlord to explore these methods.
However, a member of staff had raised a job in relation to the draught strips and an overhaul to the windows in December 2020, and the landlord delayed in carrying this out. The landlord has failed to provide an explanation for the delay, and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence which shows that the overhaul is now complete.
The resident raised specific concerns about the level of service she received. The landlord issued a further stage two response on to acknowledge that the service had been below that which it strives to provide. This, together with the goodwill offer, was appropriate in the circumstances. However, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that the level of service the resident was provided with did not improve; and furthermore, the landlord had failed to address all of the issues that the resident raised as part of her formal complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident a total of £400 comprised of:
  1. The £200 offered at the end of its complaints process, if not previously accepted.
  2. £50 for further failings in communication and complaint handling identified by this investigation.
  3. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the delay in overhauling the windows in the second bedroom.
3. Contact the resident to obtain details of her complaint in relation to the window locks and kitchen flooring. The landlord should ask the resident what matters she considers are unresolved and investigate the complaint in line with its complaints policy.
4. Confirm to the Ombudsman if the job to overhaul the windows is complete. If not, the landlord should:
  1. Arrange for this to be completed within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
  2. Write to the resident and this service with details of the appointment, and once the job is complete.
  3. Consider making a further compensation payment to reflect the time between this determination and the completion of the job.

Recommendations

Within twelve weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should review its service standards and consider how its communication with residents, in relation to repairs, may be improved. The details or outcome of any review should be forwarded to this Service.