The Guinness Partnership Limited (202009533)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009533

The Guinness Partnership Limited

13 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident about kitchen doors, a washing machine not being reconnected, a vent, and a request for a repairs list.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a flat in a block. The resident became the tenant of the property via mutual exchange and the tenancy commenced in 2017.
3. The tenancy agreement, the landlord’s responsive repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 confirm the landlord’s obligations to repair the structure of the building. The landlord’s online repairs guidance confirms that its repair responsibilities include kitchen fittings, that it attends emergency repairs such as leaks within 24 hours, and it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 working days.
4. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure in which it aims to respond at each stage within ten working days, although information provided advises this was sometimes extended to 20 working days due to Covid-19.
5. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is limited by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its 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;” while Paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “concern matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.”
6. On 24 January 2020 the Housing Ombudsman determined a previous complaint from the resident about the condition of the property at the start of the tenancy and disrepair. This made a finding of no maladministration and recommended the landlord to “ensure all outstanding repairs are completed within a reasonable timeframe and to then assess whether any compensation is due to the complainant, as detailed in its final response.”
7. A review decision issued on 28 July 2020 restated this finding and made an additional recommendation for the landlord to “ensure that any reports of disrepair made by the resident or identified by the landlord since 24 January 2020 are responded to, that any disrepair identified is addressed within a reasonable timeframe and an assessment is made of whether any compensation is due to the complainant with regard to any delays in completing these repairs.” The information provided advises the landlord has attempted to progress some issues in line with the Ombudsman’s decisions.
8. The complaint which is the subject of this investigation, and which has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, is about two kitchen doors having different colours from each other; a washing machine not being reconnected, which led to a leak; a contractor attending without parts to install a vent; and a request for a list of repairs identified at a surveyor’s visit. This complaint was made on 17 September 2020 and responded to in the landlord’s final response dated 5 November 2020.
9. When contacting this service on 30 November 2020 and after, the resident has raised additional issues to those in the landlord’s final response on 5 November 2020. These include a leak from above reported in December 2020; damp and mould; windows; skirting board; redundant wiring; a panel; plastering; vent and extractor fan installation; and tiles. Additionally, the resident has queried if the Ombudsman can assist in respect to court action the landlord is taking against him for rent arrears. The information provided advises the landlord has raised complaints about a repairs visit on 3 November 2020; disagreement with leaks being from different sources; and ventilation issues. This Service has seen no evidence that these or other complaints have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
10. In accordance with the Scheme, where a complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure or is the subject of legal proceedings, it will not be considered by the Ombudsman. This investigation therefore focuses on the resident’s formal complaint on 17 September 2020, up until the landlord’s final response to this complaint on 5 November 2020. Events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure are referenced for contextual purposes only.

Summary of events

11. On 10 August 2020, the landlord raised a works order to replace a current wall mesh vent with a ‘louvre’ vent. This was raised with a target date of 7 September 2020. Following this, a contractor attended on 21 August 2020, who the resident reported attended without completing the works. On 28 August 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that materials were on order for the vent and it also confirmed contractors would attend on 1 September 2020 to repair a kitchen worktop, damaged due to a recent leak which had been repaired.
12. On 1 September 2020, the resident reported that there was an uncontainable leak after a new unit was fitted in the kitchen. Following this, the landlord’s records advise an out of hours call out was arranged and the resident was advised to turn the water off.
13. On 16 September 2020, the resident complained to the landlord. It was noted that repairs were arranged following a determination from the Housing Ombudsman and he was unhappy with repairs completed.
    1. He complained two new kitchen doors fitted on 1 September 2020 were different colours from each other, despite being informed beforehand they were the same colour. He queried why an attendant surveyor allowed two different doors to be installed and why they left the property before the work was complete.
    2. He complained that after fitting the doors, his washing machine was not reconnected, which resulted in a leak and a call to raise an emergency repair. He queried why the washing machine was not reconnected before the contractor left.
    3. He complained a contractor attended on 21 August 2020 without parts to install a vent, despite their previously attending and knowing what was needed. He queried why the contractor did not have the required parts since this was the same contractor who had attended before.
    4. He requested a list of repairs that a surveyor had noted down at a visit as being outstanding; which the landlord noted were being managed following the previous determination by senior repairs staff, who were the resident’s point of contact for the repairs.
14. The same day, the landlord’s senior repairs staff emailed the resident.
    1. They noted a kitchen door colour difference was not identified at the time but that the surveyor was happy to review the situation.
    2. They noted a washing machine not being reconnected was an oversight and that the operative may have thought the resident would reconnect it.
    3. They noted that the surveyor had agreed to change the vent from a ‘louvre’ vent to a ‘hit and miss’ vent and the contractor who had attended on 21 August 2020 had placed parts on order.
    4. They advised they had requested the surveyor’s repairs list and would provide updates in due course.
    5. They asked the resident to contact them to simplify matters and ensure any outstanding issues were resolved. They also requested to know most convenient weekdays for appointments and, noting recent difficulty by the resident to take a call, the most convenient times to call him.
15. On 29 September 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint.
    1. It advised that the surveyor had not noticed that two doors were a different shade, and they had left the property at the end of their working day.
    2. It explained that it was unable to investigate why the washing machine was not reconnected as the operative was off sick, but it apologised for the issues that this caused.
    3. It advised that the surveyor reported works were identified for a mesh vent to be fitted in a bedroom and for contractors to re-attend “as per a quotation,” which an email had been sent to contractors about.
16. On 17 October 2020, the resident escalated the complaint and on 29 October 2020, the landlord’s senior repairs staff emailed him about issues he mentioned in the escalation request. They noted they were the same issues covered in a letter to the resident in December 2018 which had contained a table for the resident’s approval/agreement (assessed in the Ombudsman’s previous determination). The senior repairs staff summarised each repair’s current position with updates as a basis for further discussion.
17. On 5 November 2020, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint.
    1. It acknowledged and apologised that the previous response did not provide a satisfactory reply.
    2. It acknowledged that correct coloured doors should have been fitted and a surveyor should have stayed until the end of the appointment or informed the resident that they were leaving. It advised it had been agreed a cupboard door would be replaced to a closer colour match.
    3. It acknowledged a contractor should have attended with correct parts and correctly installed a washing machine. It indicated it was unable to explain why failings happened, however it assured the resident that feedback was being used to improve service going forward.
    4. It apologised that a full list of repairs that needed addressing was not provided. It noted that this was since provided by the senior repairs staff and the outstanding repairs formed part of a previous complaint and the previous Ombudsman determination.
    5. It offered £50 for the standard of the stage one response.
18. The Ombudsman notes that information provided advises of repairs attempts and disagreement/confusion over works, such as the extent of works for an extractor fan and necessity for windows works, which led to repairs being prevented/aborted including in October 2020. In November 2020, the landlord arranged appointments at which the resident was informed its senior repairs staff would call for a joint discussion with him and the attendant surveyor, to clear up misunderstanding about works it would do and to provide clarity to the contractor. The information provided advises two appointments were unsuccessful as disagreements arose when contractors attended and the resident departed on both occasions before calls could take place. The information provided advises a November 2020 appointment became the subject of a separate complaint.
19. Following this, the information provided advises that the landlord emailed the resident between December 2020 and February 2021, to request dates and times for a call or a visit to discuss matters, following which it was aimed to schedule any outstanding work. While the resident comments on some matters and raises dissatisfaction with lack of works and lack of explanation for this, this Service sees no evidence to show attempts to cooperate with the landlord’s requests to discuss matters and agree a way forward; and as of 17 May 2021 the landlord advised it had not received a response to enable discussions to proceed. The resident has informed this Service that he had not replied to emails from the landlord or had contact about formal complaints “and will not do so.”
20. The resident contacted this Service to raise dissatisfaction about the landlord’s handling of his repair reports. He raises concern about the landlord’s investigation of a leak and lack of visits in relation to this, as well as issues with damp and mould; windows that did not lock; and skirting board in a hallway and a living room. He queries if this Service can help in court in relation to action the landlord is taking against him for arrears, which he states results from a refusal to pay rent due to a dissatisfaction with living conditions.

Assessment and findings

21. As outlined between Paragraphs 5 and 10, the Ombudsman’s remit is limited by its Scheme, and this Service is unable to consider matters which are the subject of legal proceedings; make any decision in relation to the resident’s arrears; or consider matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, such as the resident’s reports of the recurrence of a leak in December 2020, after a  final response from the landlord in November 2020. Consequently, this investigation’s assessment is limited to the landlord’s final response concerning two kitchen doors having different colours from each other; a washing machine not being reconnected, which led to a leak; a contractor attending without parts to install a vent; and a request for a list of repairs identified at a surveyor’s visit.
22. Following the resident’s reports about two kitchen doors having different colours to each other, the landlord provided explanation behind this occurring, acknowledged the doors should match and agreed to take action to result in a closer match. While such repairs may be generally ‘like for like’ there appears no specific requirement for kitchen repairs to exactly match if they are functional, therefore this appears reasonable. This demonstrates that the landlord was empathetic to the frustration the colour mismatch caused and was customer focused in its response in seeking to maintain the landlord and tenant relationship
23. Following the resident’s reports about a leak from a washing machine not being reconnected, the landlord’s records advise that it arranged for its contractor to attend in a timely manner, apologised that the washing machine was not reconnected, and provided assurance the issue would be used to improve service. This appears reasonable in the circumstances, as the resident did not complain the landlord did not attend in response to leak reports, or complain that the leak caused significant damage.
24. Following the resident’s reports of a contractor attending without parts to install a vent, the landlord acknowledged a contractor should have attended with correct parts, apologised and provided assurance that this issue would also be used to improve service. It is understandable that the circumstances will have caused frustration to the resident, and therefore the landlord’s apology and commitment to improve service appears reasonable.
25. Following the resident’s request for a list of repairs, the landlord appears to have initially provided an incomplete list. However, it subsequently provided a full list and update on each repair, which appears reasonable, and fulfilled the resident’s request in the complaint which completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure.
26. It is not known if all repairs have been completed, including repairs in relation to the complaint to provide closer matching kitchen doors and to install a vent. However, since November 2020 the landlord has clearly attempted to try to arrange appointments with the resident to discuss repairs in detail.
27. In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property, and to deliver any repairs it accepts in a manner which in its opinion meets its repairs obligations. Since there was discrepancy between the contractor’s scope of works and resident expectations at appointments, it appears reasonable for the landlord to have sought to try to discuss matters further, in order to conclusively address any confusion about its repairs obligations and the resident’s own expectations.
28. While the Ombudsman expects a landlord to deliver its repairs obligations or any repairs it commits to, tenant cooperation is expected on any course of action the landlord considers is required in order to progress these. In this case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made reasonable attempts to discuss matters with the resident and agree a way forward, and taking these attempts into consideration, the Ombudsman would not consider it reasonable to attribute any consequent repairs delays to the landlord’s actions or failure to take action.
29. Overall, the landlord’s the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports, acknowledgement of service issues, offer of £50 compensation and confirmation of actions taken to improve service, was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

30. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its response to the resident about kitchen doors, a washing machine not being reconnected, a vent, and a request for a repairs list.

Reasons

31. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord responded appropriately to the issues raised by the resident by acknowledging issues, taking appropriate action and offering £50 compensation.
32. While some repairs in relation to the complaint may be outstanding, there is evidence that the landlord has made reasonable attempts to discuss outstanding repairs with the resident, in order to clarify any confusion about the resident’s expectations and its repairs obligations, and to try to enable any appropriate repairs to be successfully completed.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

33. The landlord to re-offer the compensation of £50, if this has not been paid.
34. The landlord to make one further offer to the resident of a call or visit to discuss any outstanding repairs, and to then take any appropriate action to complete these.