Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202112838)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112838

The Guinness Partnership Limited

26 May 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 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 the resident’s reports about the condition of her boiler when she moved into her property after a mutual exchange.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord who moved into her property on 14 June 2021 via a mutual exchange.
  2. On 24 June 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord regarding the condition of her boiler. She reported that the boiler needed repairs and that, due to this, she had no access to heating or hot water at her property. The resident was dissatisfied that she had been permitted by the landlord to sign a tenancy to move into the property, despite the boiler there being faulty, and she stated that she would not have moved in if she was aware of the poor condition of the boiler. She was also displeased that the boiler was then condemned and had to be replaced on 12 July 2021, which meant that she could not stay at her property despite paying two weeks’ rent in advance that she sought back.
  3. A stage one complaint response was issued by the landlord to the resident on 2 September 2021. It apologised for the delays and faulty boiler, and it explained that this was tested prior to her mutual exchange finding no faults at the time, so was considered safe to use. The landlord added that the boiler was replaced due to age, with it being deemed practical to replace this as a whole during its contractors’ inspection on 18 June 2021 rather than an individual part, as the likelihood of the boiler breaking down again was high.
  4. The landlord apologised to the resident for the lack of communication relating to her complaint, and for the delay in providing a complaint response, offering her £50 compensation. She then made a final stage complaint to it on 8 September 2021, stating that the loss of heating and hot water meant that she had to stay with her mother temporarily, she was unable to clean, and she was stressed. The resident was also displeased that there was a delay in the landlord’s complaint response, causing her to make another complaint. She added that the offer of £50 compensation did not cover the period that she was without a boiler, and she questioned why its contractors arrived with parts to fit during their inspection on 18 June 2021, if the boiler was checked before.
  5. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 22 November 2021. It explained that the boiler was inspected on 28 April 2021, prior her moving in, and this was found to be safe to use and in working condition. The landlord added that its contractors carried parts as van stock, and it did not mean that they were aware of any ongoing issues with the resident’s boiler when they attended with parts to turn on, test and service this on 18 June 2021, when they found that the boiler was not safe to use and isolated this. It acknowledged that she was without heating and hot water for an unacceptable amount of time, and its poor communication and delayed complaint responses. Due to this, the landlord increased the compensation offer to £200.
  6. The resident then made a complaint to this Service about the landlord’s handling of her reports about the condition of her boiler. She explained that her health and safety were at risk, due to her reporting that the boiler was leaking carbon monoxide, and because its “negligence” left her without heating or hot water for nearly five weeks. The resident added that the landlord ignored her concerns until this Service contacted it. As a resolution, she wanted a reimbursement of her rent while she was without a working boiler, and further compensation for the loss of heating and hot water, and the potential harm caused by the carbon monoxide. Although the landlord stated that there was no indication of a carbon monoxide leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident reports that she experienced a carbon monoxide leak at her property, and that her health and safety were put at risk by “negligence” on the landlord’s part in respect of this, for which she has requested a refund of her rent. This Service nevertheless does not have the authority or expertise to determine negligence, or to award damages for injury or risk to health, in the way that a court or insurer might, or to enforce gas safety legislation in the way that the local authority’s environmental health department might. Therefore, we cannot investigate whether “negligence” contributed to a carbon monoxide leak, which are outside the scope of this investigation.
  2. Moreover, this Service cannot consider complaints about the level of rent, or adjust the resident’s rent account in the way that a court or tribunal might, as we do not have the authority to do so, which are therefore also outside of the scope of this investigation. We instead consider whether the landlord’s compensation offer was proportionate to recognise any distress, inconvenience, time and trouble that the resident might have experienced from its acknowledged failures, in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of her boiler when she moved into her property after a mutual exchange

  1. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to ensure that any installations that it provides for heating and hot water within her home are kept in repair and good working condition, and to carry out annual inspections of gas appliances. It also has an obligation to do so under its responsive repairs policy, and to ensure that emergency repairs to address immediate health and safety risks such as no heating or hot water during the winter are addressed within 24 hours, as well as that routine non-emergency repairs are completed within 28 calendar days. The policy states that the landlord will decide at its discretion whether to replace rather than repair items when the repair will be poorer value for money or ineffective.
  2. When deciding on how best to proceed with the repair to the resident’s boiler that the landlord’s contractors found to be unsafe for her to use during their scheduled servicing of this on 18 June 2021, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified contractors, in line with her tenancy agreement and its responsive repairs policy. As the contractors advised that the boiler would have to be isolated on that date and that replacing this would be more practical than replacing the faulty part, since there was a significant chance that the boiler would break down again, it complied with the tenancy agreement and policy by agreeing to do so.
  3. This is because the landlord’s contractors made the resident’s boiler safe within the 24 hours required by its responsive repairs policy by isolating this, and while she disputed that it had done so there was no other expert evidence to the contrary, as well as due to the policy giving it discretion to replace the boiler when repairing this would have been ineffective. It was therefore appropriate for it to have relied upon the information provided by its contractors and to have acted accordingly to isolate the boiler on 18 June 2021 and replace this 24 calendar days later on 12 July 2021.
  4. Furthermore, in accordance with the landlord’s mutual exchange policy, as well as its responsive repairs policy and the resident’s tenancy agreement, it has an obligation to conduct gas safety checks at her property, annually and after her mutual exchange. Its repair logs showed that such an annual gas safety inspection was carried out on 28 April 2021, and that this concluded that her boiler was safe to use and in good working condition, as well as that its contractors then attended to test this after her mutual exchange on 18 June 2021. The landlord therefore acted appropriately by performing inspections of the resident’s boiler, prior to and after her moving into the property via mutual exchange, in line with its obligations.
  5. Moreover, it was appropriate for the landlord’s complaint responses to apologise for the delays in the replacement of the resident’s boiler to resolve the lack of heating and hot water at her property, and to acknowledge the reasons for the delays including its poor communication. This is because, while her loss of heating and hot water in the summer was not defined as an emergency repair under its responsive repairs policy unlike in the winter, she would nevertheless have experienced distress and inconvenience from being without these necessary facilities from 14 June to 12 July 2021. The resident reported that she had to stay with her mother at that time, was unable to clean at her property and was stressed by this, and it is also of concern that the landlord did not attend to test the boiler until four calendar days after she moved in on 18 June 2021.
  6. This meant that it was appropriate that the landlord’s complaint responses awarded the resident compensation for being without heating and hot water, as well as for its poor communication about this. Its compensation policy recommended that it offer her up to £50 right to repair compensation for delayed repairs including to heating and hot water as per its stage one complaint response, and gave it discretion to award her up to £250 compensation for issues resulting in inconvenience that had some impact on her, for which its final stage complaint response provided £200 compensation. Furthermore, the offer of £200 compensation reflected the length of the delays to the repairs and was appropriate to put things right for the resident, and to recognise any detriment that she experienced, as this was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  7. It is therefore recommended below that the landlord re-offer the resident the £200 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not already received this. To learn from the outcome of her case, it has also been recommended to landlord review its staff’s training needs in relation to their mutual exchange repairs communication in order to help to prevent future difficulties like hers. As noted, this Service does not have the authority or expertise to determine negligence, injury or risk to health, but the landlord has additionally been recommended to instruct the resident as to how to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for her reports of damages from the injury or risk to her health from an alleged carbon monoxide leak.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, and to final stage complaints within 20 working days. It did not follow its complaint procedure in respect of the resident’s stage one complaint on 24 June 2021, however, as its stage one response on 2 September 2021 exceeded the designated timeframe by 39 working days. The landlord also responded to the resident’s final stage complaint of 8 September 2021 12 working days later than the above timeframe for this on 22 November 2021. However, it then took appropriate steps by apologising for the delays, taking ownership of these errors, and awarding her a proportionate amount of compensation for the delays in its complaint responses.
  2. The £200 compensation offered to the resident was also proportionate to put things right in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling delays, as the amount is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommendation of compensation from £50 for repeated failures to reply to correspondence. The amount awarded therefore reflected the length of its delays appropriately to put these right for her, and resolve any unnecessary time and trouble caused to her this. It is nevertheless recommended below that the review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to prevent its complaint handling delays from occurring again.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her reports about the condition of her boiler when she moved into her property after a mutual exchange satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re–offer the resident the £200 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not already received this.
    2. Instruct the resident as to how to submit a liability insurance claim to it or its insurers for her reports of damages from the injury or risk to her health from an alleged carbon monoxide leak.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their mutual exchange repairs communication in order to help to prevent future difficulties like the resident’s.
    4. Review its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policy to seek to prevent its complaint handling delays from occurring again.