The Guinness Partnership Limited (202104280)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104280

The Guinness Partnership Limited

21 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The kitchen replacement works.
2. The resident’s reports of damaged flooring.
3. The resident’s request for a kitchen extension.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy on a 2-bedroom house owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 20 March 2008. The resident was diagnosed with hereditary motor and sensory neuropathy.
The resident contacted the landlord in September 2019 and asked that the landlord “invest” in his property by extending the kitchen. ‘Separately and coincidentally’, as part of a planned maintenance program, the landlord advised the resident in October 2019 that it would refit the resident’s kitchen. The new kitchen installation started a week later and was completed 6 days after that. On 1 November 2019, the resident reported defects with the layout and installation of the new kitchen, some of which were:
1. Only 2 wall cabinets were fitted; the base units were small, which left the worktop sticking out and gaps between the units.
2. Missing handles and faulty cabinet doors.
3. The rewiring of electricity left exposed holes in the wall, which meant the decorator could not do his job.
4. The plastering to the rear door area was “very poor”.
5. There were not enough plugs. The fridge was connected to an extension lead from another room, and the washer’s plug was on the opposite side.
6. The back door did not close properly.
7. Damage to the resident’s flooring in the hallway and living room.
Meanwhile, on 8 November 2019, the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a kitchen extension. The landlord’s Head of Asset Maintenance had “confirmed the landlord’s intention to invest in the property by carrying out renovation work. Precisely what renovation will take place and when depends on several factors, primarily the outcome of surveys to dictate what work is feasible. Increasing the size of the kitchen is a priority, irrespective of whether a new one has recently been fitted. It is recognised that the space is limited in the kitchen area”.
In December 2019, the resident asked the landlord to find an interim solution for the kitchen it installed in October 2019. The landlord responded on 17 December 2019 and said: “As you know, we are looking to invest in your property with the expectation that the current kitchen layout and size will not be long-term”. It said if there were defects with the new installation it would require an opportunity to rectify it. The landlord drew new plans for the replacement kitchen in January 2020, and completed the remedial works in February 2020. Later that month, the resident emailed the landlord and thanked it for a job well done. He said he was satisfied with the work, although he raised concerns about the quality and longevity of the new kitchen.
There is a gap in the evidence, partially due to the Covid 19 pandemic. The resident complained to the landlord in April 2021 and said:
1. There was still outstanding work in the kitchen that the landlord had failed to address.
2. During the installation, operatives had damaged the resident’s flooring which the landlord failed to replace.
3. The landlord had failed to inform him whether it intended to carry out the extension work. The landlord had advised that it could take up to 12 months to find out the outcome of the surveyor’s report. 24 months had passed, and he still did not know the landlord’s plans. He said if the extension would go ahead, then it would not be necessary to remediate the kitchen. If the extension would not go ahead, he wanted to know why not so he could challenge the landlord’s decision.
4. He requested compensation for the kitchen’s installation and the damage to his flooring.
The landlord formally responded to the resident on 10 November 2021. It said it had agreed to carry out the remaining remedial works when operatives came to refit the resident’s bathroom, which was also up for renewal. However, that was delayed for other reasons. Due to the length of time, the landlord would send a surveyor to the resident’s home to agree on the outstanding repairs. It also offered £50 in compensation due to the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
The resident responded on 19 November 2021 and said he was in disbelief that after 20 months and 2 inspections, the landlord’s solution was to carry out another inspection. He asked the landlord to explain why no actions were taken after the previous 2 inspections. He also said the landlord had overlooked the other parts of the complaint he “urgently needed resolving”.
The landlord responded with its final response letter on 20 June 2022 and said that during its stage 2 review, it had found several areas where it failed to meet the resident’s expectations. It said the resident’s complaint regarding the quality of the kitchen had closed without any meaningful action being taken, and the issues the resident had raised were not rectified. It said it had now raised the outstanding repairs in the resident’s kitchen. To put this right, the landlord offered £250 in compensation, made out of:
1. £125 for delays in completing repairs.
2. £50 as an apology for poor communication.
3. £50 for distress and inconvenience.
4. £25 for the delay in stage 2.
The resident escalated his complaint to this service on 21 July 2022. He said the landlord had resolved some of the repairs; however, some were still outstanding. All the other issues of the complaint had not been addressed. To resolve the complaint, the resident would like this service to find severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of each aspect of the complaint and award him compensation accordingly.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, putting things right, and learning from outcomes. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If a failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord took enough action to ‘put things right’ and learn from the outcome.

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement works

The landlord’s repair policy says it aims to complete jobs right the first time. Where this is not possible, it would communicate clearly with the resident, explaining why the repair cannot be completed, what it intends to do and when. The policy says: “We will not normally replace all kitchen cupboard doors because one cupboard door needs replacing. However, we will seek to make a reasonable match with existing items wherever possible”.
In this case, the landlord booked 6 days to complete the installation of the resident’s kitchen. From the evidence available to this service, the kitchen was not completed at this time. The landlord has not disputed the resident’s long list of defects, some of which were summarised in paragraph 3 of this report. It took the landlord 4 months to complete the job, which was in February 2020. This was not appropriate.
The landlord redesigned the resident’s kitchen in January 2020. It is unclear why it was necessary to wait 2 months before commissioning the new plans for the works. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have the new design ready earlier so that work could have started at the earliest opportunity as soon as it could book the operatives. The landlord failed to demonstrate a sense of urgency here, which was not appropriate.
The landlord failed to communicate clearly with the resident. It did not provide an explanation for why the installation was not completed as planned, nor did it communicate what it intended to do to rectify the situation and when it would do so. This was not appropriate.
Furthermore, during the internal complaint process, the landlord was also not clear on what went wrong with the installation. Similarly, during the course of this investigation, the landlord could not sufficiently explain to this service why it took 4 months to complete the resident’s kitchen and why it did not install it right the first time. This was not appropriate.
Although the resident wrote to the landlord in February 2020 and expressed his satisfaction with the completed installation, according to the evidence, there were still outstanding issues with the kitchen. In September 2021, the landlord noted internally that these were: “a coat of paint to the kitchen and basement doors and the replacement of a 500mm base unit door”. This list was not conclusive. This service understands some of these repairs were still outstanding while some had been completed as late as October 2023. The extended delay in completing the work was not appropriate.
It is noted that some of the resident’s handles and cabinet doors do not match the original design of October 2019. However, as this was in line with the landlord’s repair policy, there was no obligation on the landlord to replace these. It is recognised that this does not cause significant detriment to the resident.
Overall, it took 4 months for the landlord to address the defects in the resident’s kitchen. During this time, the resident’s fridge was connected to an extension cable via a different room. There were visible holes in the walls, and as the resident informed the landlord in November 2019, due to an insufficient number of cupboards in the kitchen, his kitchen items were stored in his lounge, which caused distress and inconvenience. The length of time it took to complete the work was not appropriate. However, this was then compounded by the fact that the initial 4-month period fell over Christmas and New Year, which aggravated the experience for the resident and hindered the resident’s enjoyment of his home. This was not appropriate. This service understands that there are still outstanding jobs to complete within the resident’s kitchen, such as painting the woodwork and skirting board. This was not appropriate.
Therefore, there was a failure by the landlord, which had an adverse effect and caused detriment to the resident. In line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord was obliged to put it right for the resident and to learn from the outcome.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it would award up to £250 when “the issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household”. The landlord’s overall compensation offer was £250. For the failure it identified regarding the replacement kitchen, the landlord offered £125. It also offered £100 overall for the distress, inconvenience and for its communications. Considering the resident’s loss of enjoyment from his home for 4 months, over Christmas and New Year, and the length of time it has taken to complete the job, the amount offered by the landlord does not compensate the resident sufficiently.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it would award between £200-£700 when “an issue took a long time to resolve which resulted in moderate inconvenience having a demonstrable impact on the resident. For example, when there was a failure to act in accordance with its own policies over a period, e.g. not addressing repairs”. An order of redress has been made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
A further order has been made below for the landlord to agree on an action plan with the resident to address all outstanding repairs in the resident’s kitchen. The plan must include dates for the completion, which must be adhered to.
A further order has been made below for the landlord to identify learning from the case and consider what action it would need to take to ensure the failure identified in this report does not reoccur.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged flooring

In this case, the resident fitted his own flooring before the conversation about the kitchen extension had begun. On 20 February 2020, following the installation of the replacement kitchen, the landlord carried out a post-work inspection. The surveyor noted the resident’s concerns about “the lack of flooring protection when the contractor came back to complete the work”. The surveyor documented the damage to the flooring. Yet in April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident and said: “I am afraid I cannot give you any further updates about flooring or compensation for it due to it being allegedly damaged; you have not sent any evidence for this”. This was not appropriate.
The landlord eventually accepted responsibility for damaging the resident’s flooring; however, this took about 2 years of the resident’s sustained pursuit. This service understands that the flooring replacement is now being delayed due to the landlord’s bathroom upgrade. This was partially due to the resident’s request as he raised concerns that the new flooring might get damaged during the bathroom replacement.
The damage to the resident’s flooring caused distress and inconvenience and expended time and effort as the resident had to chase the landlord for its responses and wait further for it to take steps to put it right. The damaged flooring replacement has been outstanding since 2020 and amounts to maladministration by the landlord.
The landlord’s compensation offer did not specify the compensation amount specifically in relation to the resident’s flooring. However, the landlord did offer £100 for the distress and inconvenience and for its communication. Considering that it took the landlord 2 years to accept responsibility for the flooring when it already recorded the damage on completion of the works, the sum of £100 does not fully remedy the adverse effect on the resident. An order has been made below in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which says it would award between £200-£700 for instances where “there were repeated failures to deal with all aspects of a resident’s complaint which led to a considerable delay in the resolution”.
A further order has been made below for the landlord to include in its action plan the replacement of the resident’s flooring.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen extension

The resident’s request for the landlord to “invest” in his property by extending the kitchen was not based on the resident’s medical needs. The request was in relation to the landlord’s future investment plans. The landlord was under no obligation to invest in the property by extending the kitchen.
Nevertheless, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations in 2019 when it said that increasing the size of the kitchen was a “priority”. The landlord then reaffirmed its decision and further raised the resident’s expectations as it said to the resident shortly after the kitchen installation in October 2019: “As you know, we are looking to invest in your property with the expectation that the current kitchen layout and size will not be long-term”. The landlord said the decision depended on its surveyor’s assessment. It sent the surveyor to inspect the property, but then it failed to communicate the outcome of the surveyor’s report. This was not appropriate.
The tenant had repeatedly requested the landlord to be transparent about its intentions since any decision made by the landlord would also impact the tenant’s housing decisions. The landlord had written to various departments internally to take charge of this aspect of the tenant’s complaint. However, there was a lack of internal engagement even though the complaint had been escalated internally. As a result, the tenant has not received a response to this part of the complaint since 2019. The landlord’s failure to communicate clearly and in a timely manner further exacerbated the frustration of the tenant. This service considered the evidence carefully and found that the landlord had not provided a formal response to the resident outlining its decision regarding the extension which was not appropriate.
The landlord’s complaint policy says: ‘distress’ can include:
1. Stress, frustration, and uncertainty.
2. Raising expectations, for example: “when our actions resulted in the customer reasonably believing that something would or would not happen”.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s distress as defined in its own policy. This was exacerbated by years of chasing the landlord to communicate its decision and explain the reason for it. The resident raised expectations were based on affirmative statements by the landlord. Moreover, apart from raised expectations and disappointment, the resident was encouraged to accept the replacement kitchen as the landlord said the current kitchen’s layout and size would not be long-term. The prolonged uncertainty and lack of clarity had damaged the landlord and resident relationship. This was not appropriate.
Although the landlord was under no obligation to carry out extension works in the resident’s home, the landlord was obliged to respond to the resident’s complaint in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord failed to address this part of the resident’s complaint, which was not appropriate.
Therefore, there were failures by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident, causing distress and inconvenience. An order has been made below for the landlord to put it right for the resident. A further order has been made for the landlord to identify learning from the outcome.
To put it right, the landlord must write to the resident with its final decision on the resident’s extension request. If it will carry out the extension, the work must be incorporated into the action plan outlined below. If the landlord will not carry out an extension, the landlord must set out its position clearly and evidence it against the surveyor’s report carried out in 2019.
Additionally, according to the landlord’s compensation policy, financial redress is also appropriate in this case. As explained above, the landlord offered £100 in compensation for the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, as this issue has been ongoing since September 2019, the landlord failed to resolve it within a reasonable time. The landlord’s compensation policy says it would award between £200-£700 “where there was a considerable service failure but no permanent impact on the customer. For example, when no one is taking responsibility for the situation and a customer is repeatedly being passed between teams or staff”. A further order has been made below to put it right for the resident.
A further order has been made below for the landlord to identify learning from this aspect of the complaint and consider what action it would need to take to ensure the failure identified in this report does not reoccur.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

As the landlord acknowledged in its final response letter, the resident’s previous complaint in 2020 was closed incorrectly, “without meaningful action”. The resident approached this service in May 2021 for advice. This service, in turn, approached the landlord, and subsequently, the new complaint was opened on 1 July 2021. The resident’s journey was already exasperated before this complaint even began its journey through the landlord’s internal process.
The purpose of the complaint process is to help resolve disputes at the earliest opportunity. Against a target of 10 working days, the stage 1 response took 95 working days, which was not appropriate. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 22 December 2021. Against a target of 20 working days, the landlord’s response was issued after 122 working days. This was not appropriate.
Although the landlord sent a couple of holding letters, these did not cover the entire period of delays. Additionally, the resident had to chase the landlord to respond to all aspects of the complaint, which the landlord had repeatedly failed to address. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint further frustrated the resident’s dissatisfaction and magnified his distress, which was not appropriate.
The resident has put a lot of time and effort into progressing the complaint to this service. Evidently, the number of emails sent to the landlord and the comprehensive nature of these emails demonstrated the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Therefore, the failure by the landlord adversely affected the resident, and it is appropriate that the landlord put it right. The landlord offered the resident £50 in compensation for the delay in its stage 1 response. It offered the resident £25 in compensation for the delay in its stage 2 response. This was not a sufficient redress. The landlord’s compensation policy says it would award between £200-£700 for “instances where a resident repeatedly had to chase for responses to the point of an unreasonable amount of involvement because of repeated failures to engage with the complaint”. An order has been made below to put this right for the resident.
Finally, as it is unclear whether the landlord identified any learning, a further order has been made below to address this, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the kitchen replacement works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen extension.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £1,300, broken down as follows:
1. £550 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the kitchen replacement works.
2. £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damaged flooring.
3. £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen extension.
4. £250 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
5. If the landlord already paid the £50 it offered in stage 1 and the £250 it offered in stage 2, these could be taken off the total sum ordered in this report.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must form an action plan in agreement with the residents, including dates for completion (to be adhered to). The action plan must include:
1. All outstanding repairs in the resident’s kitchen with the completion date for each repair.
2. Replacement of the resident’s flooring. The landlord must discuss with the resident whether his health condition restricted his ability to move furniture around the property to facilitate the installation of the replacement flooring, in which case the landlord would have to organise for its operatives to do this.
3. The resident’s kitchen extension. If the landlord decides not to proceed with the extension, it must write to the resident with its final decision. It must set out its position clearly and evidence it according to the surveyor report it carried out in 2019.