The Guinness Partnership Limited (202103612)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103612

The Guinness Partnership Limited

21 February 2022

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’s report of a leak at the property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property. The property is a two bedroomed maisonette in a low-rise block. The lease start date was 31 January 2017.
3. Although we have not been given the date that the resident originally contacted the landlord, its records show that on 10 May 2021 it sent out a surveyor, at the resident’s request, to inspect the property following a leak in the bathroom. The surveyor’s report stated that the areas that were inspected were the bathroom, a bedroom and the hallway. It noted a leaking toilet/service valve, which had been made safe by the resident’s plumber, as well as noting damage that had been caused by the leak to the bedroom wall, hallway wall, flooring and inside the hallway storage cupboard. The report also included photographs of all the areas inspected.
4. The resident contacted this Service on 13 May 2021. She explained that she had contacted the landlord about the leak and that the landlord had not sent a formal complaint response. Instead, it had told her that under the terms of her lease, the responsibility of internal repairs lies with the leaseholder. She explained that she disagreed with this as she, and other residents had had the same issue previously, and that two plumbers who had attended the property had said that it was a problem with the original installation. She stated that she believed a copper service valve should have been used rather than a plastic one. She said she was also concerned about the risk of the leak affecting her electricity cupboard.
5. This Service contacted the landlord on 13 May 2021. We asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
6. The landlord acknowledged the email on 14 May 2021 and opened a formal complaint the same day.
7. The landlord’s records show that during a telephone call on resident on 17 May 2021 the resident expressed concern about the damp issue that the bathroom leak had caused. She also asked for the results of the surveyor’s inspection from 10 May 2021.
8. The same records show that the landlord called the resident on 19 May 2021 to advise her that the surveyor had not found any structural damage to the property. Accordingly, as the leak was internal, per the leasehold agreement the leak and the associated damage was the resident’s responsibility. The resident disputed this, saying that as she had had a previous valve leak in 2019, in the ensuite bathroom, the problem lay in the wrong materials being used and poor workmanship. She explained that she believed that copper valves should have been used rather than plastic ones. She also said that other residents in the block had experienced the same issue.
9. The landlord’s records show that the person investigating the complaint checked with other internal departments to see if other residents had reported the same issue with the valves. No reports had been received. It was also noted that the developer had looked into the issue in 2019 when the resident had reported the same problem with the other toilet in her property.
10. The landlord issued its stage one response on 28 May 2021. It said that the surveyor had not found any evidence of structural damage to the property and as the leak was internal, the resident was responsible for the repairs, as set out in her lease. It also explained that the surveyor had confirmed the plastic valves used met the relevant quality standards.
11. On 24 June 2021, following contact by the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord to escalate the complaint as the resident felt no adequate action had been taken to address the repairs, or to provide an alternative resolution, and she was unhappy with the length of time it was taking to resolve the matter.
12. The landlord issued its stage two response on 28 August 2021. It apologised for the delay which it said it had outlined to the resident on 5 August was due to “the annual leave of senior colleagues who wanted to review the points that [the resident] had raised”. It also referred to a telephone conversation with the resident on 26 July 2021, following which it had taken into account the points she had raised. The complaint, and the points the resident had raised, had been discussed with senior members of the development team.
13. The landlord explained that the findings in the stage one complaint response were correct. That “the cause of the leak was confirmed by [the] surveyor as being due to a faulty inlet valve on the WC. The bathroom fittings used comply with British quality standards. Under the terms of the Lease, this is the leaseholder’s responsibility to repair or replace. [The] surveyor found no evidence of structural defects leading to damage.” The landlord concluded by explaining how the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
14. On 1 October 2021 the resident explained to this Service that the reason she was still dissatisfied was that “Since contacting [the landlord] this year about the official complaint no one has visited the property to inspect the issues, nor have they been in contact with the other residents that have also suffered the same leaking issues from poor materials/workmanship.” She also stated that she believed it was a health and safety issue for all of the residents of the block and that it was “crucial that an independent investigation be conducted as soon as possible”.

Assessment and findings

15. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states “We expect our customers to treat their homes, and carry out repairs and maintenance, in accordance with the responsibilities set out in their tenancy or lease agreement. We will not normally undertake repairs which, under the tenancy or lease agreement, are the customer’s responsibility…”
16. One of the agreed terms of the resident’s lease is “to repair and keep the premises in good and substantial repair and condition “
17. Appendix 3 of the lease agreement which contains key information for shared owners states that “Although initially the property is not owned outright, the Leaseholder does have the responsibilities of a full owner. This means, for example, that the leaseholder will be obliged to pay 100% of the outgoings relating to the property and to keep the property in good and substantial repair and condition.
18. It is not disputed that the leak occurred within the resident’s property. In accordance with the lease the resident is responsible for repairs inside her home. The landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident that she was responsible for repairs inside the property.
19. The resident explained to the landlord her belief about the type of valve used in her pipes, and that that was the cause of the leaks she had experienced. Provided that the relevant pipework is considered to be inside the resident’s property, nothing in the lease indicates that the resident’s repair responsibility might be contingent on the type of components used. Nonetheless, the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns on the issue, explaining how the components complied with the relevant standards. Overall, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its surveyor, who had found no structural defects, or issues with the plastic valves.
20. The resident told the landlord that other residents in the block had experienced similar issues. Although the landlord did not specifically address this issue in either complaint response, the evidence shows that the landlord did consider this point and checked with other departments whether there had been similar reports from other residents. It found none. Although the resident has raised concerns with this Service that no residents had been contacted, the landlord’s response of checking internally whether there had been other reports (rather than proactively contacting all residents) was reasonable as the landlord relies on residents to raise any repair concerns with it.
21. The resident advised this Service that nobody had been to the property to inspect the issues since she had raised the official complaint. However, the complaint was raised on 14 May 2021 so it was reasonable for the landlord to use the results of the surveyor’s report from 10 May 2021 rather than visiting the property again, as the report had been made just four days before the complaint.
22. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at stage two it will let the resident “know the final outcome within 20 working days”. Therefore, in line with its complaint timeframes, the landlord’s stage two response should have been issued by 22 July 2021. It was delayed until 28 August. However, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 26 July 2021 and 5 August 2021 and explained the reason for the delay.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

24. The landlord acted reasonably by investigating the resident’s reports and considering whether there were any underlying structural defects responsible for the leak. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its surveyor, when the surveyor found that there were no underlying structural defects. The landlord acted appropriately when it advised the resident that, as detailed in her lease agreement the repairs were her responsibility.