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

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202210275)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210275

Guinness Housing Association Limited

28 July 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s ceilings, and its subsequent compensation offer.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. Her son has vulnerabilities, which the landlord became aware of during this the events of this complaint.
  2. The resident reported on 16 September 2021 problems with her ceilings. The landlord inspected on 25 January 2022 and also undertook an asbestos survey. It found that while there were no urgent repairs required, some areas were damaged and needed to be repaired. This was to the landing and one of the bedroom’s ceilings. The resident chased up on the results of the asbestos survey throughout the next few months, without receiving a meaningful response from the landlord.
  3. The resident has stated that she attempted to make several complaints through the summer of 2022. She complained again on 7 September 2022, stating that the landlord had failed to respond to her earlier complaints. She was dissatisfied with the delays to repairs to her ceilings, and the landlord’s lack of communication. The landlord responded on 21 September 2022. It acknowledged that there had been unreasonable delays. It also acknowledged that the resident had followed up on the repairs, and the landlord had failed to provide updates in a timely manner. The landlord explained that it could not find a record of the resident’s previous complaints and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It raised works to remove the bedroom ceiling, and repair some of the others for 27 September 2022. It also offered £300 compensation to the resident, in recognition of her frustration and inconvenience. It promised to learn from its mistakes by feeding back to the relevant teams.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and escalated her complaint on 26 September 2022. She felt that more of the property’s ceilings should be removed. She also reiterated that she had made previous complaints without receiving a reply. She asked for the appointment to be cancelled, as she had not had enough notice and wanted full removal of any affected ceilings, rather than surface repairs. She later stated in October 2022 that she would like to be decanted while the works were taking place, due to her son’s vulnerabilities.
  5. The landlord sought advice from its contractor on the scope of the works. It visited on 16 November 2022 to undertake an assessment, concluding that both the landing ceiling, and the bedroom ceiling needed to be replaced, while other ceilings needed to be repaired. It reassured the resident that there were no immediate health and safety concerns.
  6. After intervention from this Service, the landlord sent its final complaint response on 17 November 2022. It apologised for the further delay to the resident’s repairs, and for the delay in escalating her complaint. It explained that it had changed its contractor and this had caused delays to its service. The landlord assured the resident that the works would be completed by the end of January 2023. It increased its compensation to £570. However, the landlord experienced further delays in establishing its repair service. It eventually attended on 18 April 2023, but was unable to gain access to the property. The resident stated that she had not been given enough prior warning of the appointment. Additionally, she was unhappy that the landlord had not decanted her and her family during the works.
  7. The landlord has stated that it arranged works to remove and reinstate the landing and bedroom ceilings, and to repair the kitchen ceiling for 26 to 28 June 2023. It confirmed on 27 July that the works had been completed, and that it had offered further compensation of £500 to the resident to reflect the additional delays. It provided a decant for the resident for the works period.

Assessment

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s ceilings, and its subsequent compensation offer.

  1. According to the landlord’s repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for the outside and structure of the property. This includes all internal walls, floors and ceilings. The policy states that a responsive repair is work carried out in response to a report of a necessary repair. It rectifies and makes good, a component, installation or part of the property for which the landlord is responsible, when it is faulty or needs repairing. Additionally, the policy states that routine repairs are those which are not emergencies. The landlord aims to fix these issues within 28 days. The policy dictates that asbestos can be considered an emergency, when it has become damaged or exposed. Emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours.
  2. After the resident reported that her ceilings were damaged on 16 September 2021, the landlord would have been expected to respond to her reports and attend within its repair timescales. Due to an administrative error, the landlord was delayed in raising an inspection for this issue, attending on 25 January 2022. This was four months after the resident reported the issue, and three months outside of the landlord’s repair timescales stated above.
  3. Once the landlord attended in January 2022, its surveyor found that the ceilings contained asbestos. It concluded that although the damage was low-risk, two of the ceilings needed works to keep them maintained. However, despite the resident chasing for an update throughout the next few months, the landlord did not raise any follow on works until 12 September 2022. A delay does not always constitute a failing, provided that the landlord can evidence an appropriate reason for the time period. In-line with general customer service standards, the landlord would also be expected to continue to manage the repairs and communicate with the resident to manage her expectations. However, in this case the landlord failed to raise both the survey and follow on works due to administrative errors. It also failed to follow up on the resident’s requests for the works, and neglected to communicate appropriately with her throughout this period. This was not appropriate and is a failing in the circumstances.
  4. The landlord arranged for one of the bedroom ceilings to be removed and for further repairs to be undertaken on 27 September 2022. However, this was cancelled by the resident, as she felt that the other damaged ceilings needed to be removed. Additionally, she stated that she was unable to move the furniture from the bedroom, due to various vulnerabilities. To act in line with its obligations set out in the repair policy, the landlord is expected to repair and maintain the resident’s ceilings. Providing that the landlord is following qualified recommendations, it has no obligation to undertake more in-depth works than necessary. It was entitled to remove one of the ceilings and repair the others as it had been advised to do so by the asbestos report.
  5. The landlord began changing its repair service at the end of 2022, bringing its repairs in house. It acted appropriately by explaining in its final response in November 2022, that the resident’s repairs would be delayed until the end of January 2023. This delay was not unreasonable, as the landlord communicated with the resident and managed her expectations. Additionally, the landlord ensured that the ceilings did not pose a health and safety risk during its inspection in November 2022. This was communicated to the resident. The landlord assured the resident that it would update her with a schedule of works by the end of November 2022.
  6. However, the landlord did not update the resident. It also experienced further delays and did not manage to complete the works within the stated time. This was due to issues in establishing its inhouse repairs service. It is evidently not possible for a landlord to undertake repairs if it does not have the operatives to do so, however the landlord again failed to communicate properly with the resident. It also neglected to update her on the progress of her works, and failed to inform of the further delays. This was not appropriate and is a failing in the circumstances.
  7. The landlord re-raised the works on 21 March 2023, for the contractors to remove the ceilings on 18 April 2023. This was over a year and half after the resident reported the issue, and three months after the landlord’s target for the works of January 2023. The resident has stated that she was informed of the repair appointment on 17 April 2022, less than 24 hours before the works commenced. General service standards would dictate that the landlord should give the resident at least 24 hours’ notice of works to their properties. In this case, the works were particularly intrusive, and the resident had previously stated in September 2022 that she struggled to remove furniture from room to room in preparation, due to her vulnerabilities. It was not reasonable for the landlord to have neglected to give the resident reasonable notice of her works commencing.
  8. The resident was also dissatisfied that the landlord had not arranged for herself and her family to be decanted during the works. She had first stated in October 2022 that she would need to be moved from the property while the works commenced. This was due her son having sensory issues that would be severally impacted by intrusive works. Under the landlord’s decant policy, the landlord will find temporary rehousing solutions for residents if they are required to move home as a result of repair or maintenance work. The landlord may need to arrange temporary rehousing in situations where there is no immediate emergency, but repairs are required and it’s not safe to do the repairs while the resident is in the property. This may occur when there are major structural repairs, plastering work in multiple rooms or when asbestos needs to be removed where access restrictions cannot otherwise be accommodated.
  9. The landlord has stated that it normally would not decant a family in these circumstances, as it could arrange for the follow on works to be completed the day after the removal of the ceilings. However, the landlord’s repair policy states that the landlord can use its discretion to provide services that are in addition to its statutory or contractual commitments. While the landlord was not required by its policy to decant the resident, it was required to consider her request and conclude the best course of action. It would then be expected to communicate this clearly to the resident. Despite the resident stating repeatedly that she needed to be decanted, the landlord failed to properly consider her request, or explain its decision to the resident. This was not appropriate, as its lack of a clear decision caused confusion for the resident.
  10. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint responses by acknowledging that it had made errors in raising the resident’s repairs, which had resulted in delays, and in its communication with her. It apologised and explained that it would ensure that it would work on staff training to prevent a re-occurrence of the same issues. It arranged for the works to be completed and again acted appropriately by offering a total of £570 compensation to the resident. This was in recognition of the delays to her repairs, the landlord’s poor communication, her distress and inconvenience and time and trouble in pursing the complaint.
  11. The landlord confirmed to this Service in mid-July 2023 that the resident had been decanted and the repairs were now complete. That was approximately five months later than it promised in its final complaint response. It wrote to the resident acknowledging and explaining the further delay. It apologised, explained specifically how it intended to improve its repair and complaint services and offered her a further £500 compensation. Taken at face value, these actions were appropriate and reasonable, demonstrating that the landlord was aware of the long-running nature of the repairs and the impacts on the resident and her family.
  12. It is good practice for a landlord to closely monitor any work promised in one of its complaint responses to ensure the work is completed, and to address and remedy any further problems that arise. It is imperative that a landlord takes such oversight actions with any ongoing repair issues, regardless of whether a complaint has been made, or whether a tenant has approached the Ombudsman. In this particular case, the landlord’s acknowledgements of its service failings, its explanations and apologies were appropriate remedies. The full compensation it offered of £1070 is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for complaints involving significant delays and impact on a tenant. Accordingly, the landlord provided reasonable remedies to the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

  1. According to the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord should respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord should then send its final response within 20 working days.
  2. The resident has stated that she made several complaints prior to September 2022, however the landlord has no record of them. No evidence of them has been seen in this investigation, so a conclusion cannot be reached on whether the landlord received them or not.
  3. The resident complained again on 7 September 2022, with the landlord responding within the above timescales on 21 September 2022. However, after the resident escalated her complaint on 26 September 2022, the landlord did not respond due to an administrative error. It was asked by this Service to acknowledge the complaint, and it responded on 17 November 2022. This was approximately six weeks after she escalated her complaint and about three weeks after it should have responded. While not all delays constitute a failing, the landlord’s complaints system failed to pick up her escalation, due to administrative errors. This was clearly a failing in its complaint handling.
  4. In its final complaint response the landlord explained again that it could not find evidence of the resident’s earlier complaints. It acknowledged that its response to the escalated complaint had been delayed, and explained why that had happened. It apologised, explained how it intended to improve its procedures to avoid such failings again, and offered £70 compensation. The landlord will be expected to show evidence in any future complaints that it has indeed improved its processes, but nonetheless, these were proportionate and relevant remedies, in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about its:
    1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s ceilings, and its subsequent compensation offer.
    2. Complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should now pay the full £1070 compensation it has offered to the resident. The findings in this investigation were partly based on that compensation being paid.