The Guinness Partnership Limited (202122236)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122236

Guinness Housing Association Limited

11 October 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:
1. response to the resident’s reports regarding repairs to her windows and conservatory roof.
2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident lives in a three-bedroom terraced house and has had an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord since 16 May 2011.The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The tenancy agreement notes that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside structure of the property, including the roof and windows.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will respond to routine repairs within 28 days, and it must maintain the outside structure of the tenants home, including the roof and windows. It also states it will:
1. “deliver an effective repairs service which responds to the needs of, and offers choices to customers, and which has the objective of completing repairs right first time,”
2. always communicate effectively with residents,
3. respond effectively to complaints,
4. normally repair rather than replace. However, where either the repair would be poorer value for money or ineffective, then it will replace.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process that states it will provide a response to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The policy also states that it will:
1. Not close a complaint until the complaint investigation has been completed, the decision communicated to the complainant and, if an action plan is necessary, this has been agreed with the complainant.
2. Ensure that it keeps customers regularly updated with the progress of the complaint even if there is no new information to provide.
3. It may take longer to provide a response if there is good reason, but it will explain this to the resident and it will not exceed a further 10 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy refers to three levels of payments. Up to £250 for minor inconvenience, £250-£700 moderate inconvenience and £700+ for significant inconvenience. It states it will consider the offer of compensation when:
1. it is at fault and an apology or other remedy is not considered sufficient.
2. there is recognition of loss, damage, distress and inconvenience, and the landlord is at fault.

Summary of events

Between 21 October 2013 and 4 November 2020, the resident made multiple reports to the landlord of leaks from the conservatory roof. This resulted in the landlord raising 12 repair orders to carry out inspections and repairs to the roof. Most of these were recorded as having been completed, although from the evidence seen by this Service it is not clear what work the landlord had carried out.
On 4 November 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that repairs were needed for “water ingress to the sun space in the conservatory and a cracked double-glazing unit that also needed to be replaced.” The landlord re-raised this repair on 3 February 2021. It is not clear from the evidence seen by this Service if this was prompted by the resident contacting the landlord, or if the landlord realised the repairs had not been completed.
On 6 November 2020, the resident reported to the landlord that a double-glazing unit in the bedroom had blown. While the landlord recorded the repair at this time, the landlord’s records show that the window was not replaced until 1 December 2021.
On 20 May 2021, the resident spoke to the landlord and made a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs and its poor communication. The landlord confirmed to the resident in the call that it had raised a repair in February 2021, and agreed the repairs had not been completed. The landlord spoke with its contractor who advised it wanted to meet with the landlord to carry out a joint visit. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day and advised it may take a little longer than usual due to the Covid-19 pandemic; however, it aimed to provide its response within 20 working days.
On 7 June 2021, the resident asked the landlord for an update on her complaint. The landlord said that it would make internal enquiries and call the resident when they had an update for her. The landlord spoke with its contractor and noted that there was not a surveyor covering the area. The landlord told its contractor that the repair had been raised in February 2021, there were historical issues, and a subcontractor should be sent to inspect the leak and repair the cracked glazing to the conservatory. It is not evident that the landlord provided a new date for the works to the resident until 19 July 2021.
On 19 July 2021, the landlord told the resident that its contractor would be carrying out a temporary repair to the leaking roof the following day. It agreed to call the resident after its contractor had visited. It advised the resident that she may wish to escalate her complaint. Its records show that it called the resident on 23 July 2021, but was not successful in speaking with her.
Following the appointment by the landlord’s contractor, the resident advised the landlord on 26 July 2021, that the contractor would provide quotes for works needed to the conservatory. The landlord discussed the outstanding repair needed to the bedroom window and said that it had found the repair was still with its previous contractor. It advised that since the repair had been raised it had changed the contractor that it used, and so it had re-raised the repair to its current contractor. The resident called the landlord on 29 July 2021, for an update and asked to be called back. No evidence has been seen to show the landlord called the resident back.
On 12 August 2021, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process due to no further communication having been received. The resident said an appointment had been arranged for the bedroom window to be replaced on 10 August 2021, but the contractor did not attend.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on the same day. It said that:
1. The resident had waited for over 12 months for the repairs to be done to the conservatory roof and the bedroom window.
2. It apologised for the issues outstanding and said this was due to a change in its contractor and the complexity of works to the conservatory.
3. It had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process, and it would aim to provide a response within 20 working days.
In August 2021, the resident submitted a satisfaction survey to the landlord. She advised that the repairs had not been resolved and that it had been ongoing for eight years. During October 2021, the resident also contacted the landlord on four occasions for an update on its stage two response. No evidence has been provided to show that the landlord responded to the resident’s communications.
On 29 October 2021, the landlord provided its stage two response to the resident’s complaint. It confirmed the resident’s reason for complaint and said:
1. It acknowledged that leaks to the property occurred each year, owing to the design of the building. It had been unable to provide a date for when the repairs would be completed, despite the most recent repair having been reported in February 2021.
2. The complaint had not been handled as well as it could have been, and it took longer than necessary to respond. It said this was not acceptable and apologised for this and for the time the resident had taken to try to get the matter resolved.
3. The outstanding repairs to the conservatory roof and bedroom window were on a high priority list for its contractor to complete and it would monitor this and provide more information by the end of the week.
4. The planned replacement programme showed that the conservatory roof was due to be replaced in 2028; however, it had brought this forward to the next financial year of 2022/2023. More details would be provided in due course.
5. It offered £300 compensation for the delays in repairs and for the time and trouble to the resident in trying to resolve the matter up to that point. Should any other issues or delays arise; it would consider a further offer of redress, should it be necessary, when the repairs had been completed.
On 3 November 2021, the resident asked the landlord to confirm that it had received her response sent on 29 October 2021. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the resident’s response, nor is it evident that the landlord acknowledged this.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord carried out a minor roofing and glazing repair for the works order that was raised on 3 February 2021. However, its contractor questioned the landlord continuing to raise repairs to the conservatory. It reported that the structure was fixed in place using scaffolding and cranes due to the size and weight of the glazing, and there was nothing more that the contractor could do.
On 28 February 2022, the landlord contacted the resident about its stage two response and asked if anything was outstanding. The resident noted that a temporary repair had been carried out to the conservatory roof, but it had started to leak again. The landlord’s contractor had visited the resident’s property the previous week, but no works were carried out as they had not been made aware of the size and scale of the repairs needed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the 2 March 2022. It said:
1. There was a history of roof problems due to a design feature shared across a number of houses. It was likely to require a significant redesign or removal.
2. It did not have the funding to be able to carry out the large scale works within the financial period of 2022/23 but would look to provide possible permanent solution on its 2023/2024 programme. In the meantime, it would look to provide a more short-term solution.
3. The resident’s complaint was closed due to a response having been provided previously.
On 17 October 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update on the repairs to the conservatory, as an engineer had attended but the leak had not been fixed. The landlord spoke with the resident on 19 October 2022, and the member of staff advised of having no previous involvement and would investigate further. The landlord noted that “the problem is the clay ground moves and there is no tolerance in the aluminium frame so they leak, and the panes can crack.” It is not clear from the evidence provided if this had been explained to the resident at that time or previously. This Service has not seen any confirmation of further communications with the resident following this.
The resident brought their complaint to this Service on 6 January 2022. The landlord confirmed to this Service in May 2023 that it:
1. Had confirmed to the resident that it was trying to provide a permanent solution to the conservatory issues in its 2023/2024 works programme.
2. Had not progressed all repairs as agreed and had apologised to the resident for this.
3. Had ceased its contract with its third-party contractor in January 2023, and introduced a new framework on how it manages its communications with its contractors.
4. Had advised the bedroom double glazed unit was replaced in December 2021; however, the resident had recently reported the same fault that had appeared previously, and it had agreed to assess it within policy timescales.
5. It had increased its compensation offer to £800 to the resident due to the further delays, and the resident had accepted its revised offer.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to windows and conservatory roof

In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside structure of the roof and windows of the property. Its repairs policy states that it will respond to routine repairs within 28 days and that it will communicate with residents effectively. Its repairs policy states that normally it will repair rather than replace, but where either the repair would be poor value for money or ineffective, then it will replace the element.
The resident had experienced multiple leaks to her conservatory roof since 2013. The landlord carried out inspections and temporary repairs on at least 13 occasions, the problem persisted. The landlord acknowledged that the leaking conservatory was a reoccurring issue on an annual basis. This review begins from the resident’s report to the landlord in November 2020; however, from the landlord’s communications it referred to the repairs being raised in February 2021. The landlord’s records show that the repairs were originally raised in November 2020, but it has not recognised or acknowledge this, throughout its handling of the repairs.
The landlord changed its contractors, and its systems were not robust enough to ensure the transfer of works were sent to its new contractor. This caused further delays and further distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord was slow to identify when repairs had not been completed and on occasion, took six to nine months to identify this. The landlord should have ensured its systems could identify repairs that had already been allocated to its previous contractor and been able to re-allocate them to its new contractor. The landlord has not advised this Service if it has changed its processes following its acknowledgement of its failure.
The multiple repairs carried out by the landlord were ineffective in providing a long-term solution. Although it brought forward planned works to replace the conservatory, it could have considered doing this sooner due to the number of times it had carried out previous temporary repairs.
The landlord showed poor repairs monitoring and record keeping. This was evident when the landlord was unaware of arranged or missed appointments, and of the outcomes of inspections that had been carried out. There was confusion of required works between the landlord and its contractor, and it did not monitor the outstanding repairs following its complaint responses, despite advising this Service of improvements that it had made to its repairs service. It is important that landlords ensure that they have a good standard of recording keeping as this will help enable it to deliver a good level of service to its residents.
The landlord caused multiple delays in carrying out repairs. There were earlier works raised by the landlord that were not completed, and at one point the resident saw a delay of over a year before repairs were carried out to the conservatory roof and bedroom window. While the landlord acknowledged this and apologised, it continued to delay completing the repairs even after the resident had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. Its repairs policy states that it will carry out routine repairs within 28 days and so it was not compliant with its policy and procedures.
The landlord showed poor communication both with the resident and between its internal departments. It continued to raise the resident’s expectations without giving firm dates as well as failing to deliver on promises made to provide these at a later date. This caused the resident to chase the landlord multiple times to gain updates without success. While it brought forward planned works to the conservatory roof, when the resident chased dates for these works to start it advised her that it was unable to carry out the works in the time frame it had promised. It offered in the meantime to see if it could provide a short-term resolution; however, no evidence has been seen by this Service to show the landlord did this.
The landlord did not consider the impact on the resident and showed little empathy of her experience. She had been repeatedly reporting repairs, after it had carried out various short-term repairs for almost ten years. It showed little empathy for any distress or inconvenience caused to the resident throughout, and this resulted in the resident feeling that she had no other option that to make a complaint.
The landlord delayed looking at a permanent solution to resolve the repairs the resident continued to report, while at the same time causing delays to the temporary repairs it had promised to carry out. Its communications both with the resident and internally were poor and showed little empathy or consideration of the impact its handling had on the resident. While it identified its systems had been unable to transfer outstanding repairs to its contractor, it has not shown that it has changed it processes to avoid this happening in the future. As a result, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs and orders it to pay the resident £800 compensation in recognition of this.

Complaints handling

In the landlord’s complaints policy, it states that it will provide its decision within 10 working days; however, if it takes longer to do this and with good reason, it will explain this to the resident. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process. To assist landlords in ensuring they have a clear and effective complaints process, this Service introduced the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the code). This was with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by residents quickly and fairly.The landlord should use its complaints process to resolve issues raised to them at the earliest opportunity.
From the evidence seen by this Service the landlord did not utilise its complaints process in the way it should have. It should have taken the opportunity at stage 1 to fully investigate the complaint and aimed to resolve the issues raised. It should have demonstrated a thorough investigation and provided a full response to all points at both stages of its complaints process, to ensure compliance with the code. It should then have allowed the resident time to review its response and then escalate her complaint to the next stage if she remained dissatisfied. The landlord agreed to escalate the resident’s complaint prior to providing its stage 1 response. It only provided its stage 1 response when it escalated the resident’s complaint.
While the landlord was reasonable to manage the resident’s expectations in its stage 1 complaint acknowledgement by advising of possible delays in receiving a response due to Covid-19, it said that it would provide a response within 20 working days. It took the landlord almost three months to provide its stage 1 response without providing the resident with any substantial updates or good reasons for this. It apologised and acknowledged its error for delayed works to the bedroom window but could not provide a response to how it would resolve the conservatory roof issues. It made no offer of financial redress to the resident for its service failures or for the impact this had on the resident.
In its stage 1 response it said the conservatory issues had been ongoing since 2018; however, its records showed leaks to the conservatory had begun in 2013. As part of any complaint investigation, it is crucial that the landlord carries out a thorough review of all its records, to ensure a fair investigation is carried out. The landlord’s response would suggest that it did not fully review its repairs records and so did not consider the length of time the resident had been reporting faults to the conservatory roof, before providing its response.
It took the landlord 10 weeks to provide its Stage 2 response. It was right to apologise to the resident for its delay in providing a response and for the time taken by the resident in trying to get her complaint resolved. It made an offer of compensation in recognition of its failings and said it would consider a further offer after all repairs had been completed. The landlord increased its offer of compensation, in May 2023, following an information request from this Service. This would suggest that while it was right to review its offer, it was only prompted to do so following the communication from this Service.
Following receipt of the landlords Stage 2 response, the resident advised the landlord she had sent it her response and asked for it to be acknowledged. There has been no evidence seen by this Service of the residents response or that the landlord acknowledged this or took any further action. The landlord spoke to the resident around 5 months later where the resident advised the repairs had not been resolved. The landlord advised the resident that the planned works would not be carried out when it had said they would be, and they would look to consider these to be completed the following financial year. It also said the complaint was closed as it had previously been responded to.
The landlord detailed the outstanding repairs in its stage 2 response and said that the resident would be updated on these at a later date. It should have taken more decisive action to resolve the resident’s complaint and confirmed its plan of action, to manage expectations. It has confirmed to this Service in May 2023, that it had not completed all repairs although did not specify what repairs remained outstanding, showing that it had not monitored the outstanding actions detailed in its complaint responses. The landlord was not compliant with its complaints policy as it did not agree a plan of action in relation to the outstanding repairs, with the resident before closing the complaint.
The landlord’s handling of the residents complaint has been poor. It did not show sincerity in wanting to resolve the residents complaint at the earliest opportunity, it did not follow its complaints policy and procedures when providing its responses or show that it had carried out thorough investigations before providing its responses. It failed to monitor outstanding actions and only did so after having been prompted by this Service. It did not take into consideration the detriment to the resident of failures when making its offer of compensation. As a result, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, and it is ordered to pay the resident £700, broken down by:
1. £300 for its complaint handling.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. £200 for its lack communication.
The landlord has advised this Service of the changes it has made following resident’s complaints and feedback to improve the service it delivers. This has included a further change to its contractor in January 2023, as well as introducing a manager to closely manage its third-party relationships and increased internal resource to its repairs service. While this is a positive step in the landlord looking to improve the repairs service it provides to it residents, work still is needed to ensure appropriate monitoring of outstanding works to their completion.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s reports regarding repairs to her windows and conservatory roof,
2. complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out repairs to the conservatory and the bedroom window in accordance with its repairs policy and within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord did not monitor outstanding repairs with the resident or its contractor, causing unnecessary delay in repairs being carried out and impacting on the residents enjoyment of their home.
The resident had to chase the landlord on many occasions for updates on repairs and to their complaint and the landlord’s communication with them was in the view of this Service, of an unacceptable standard.
The landlord did not handle the residents complaint in accordance with its complaints policy or this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. This caused the resident additional inconvenience, time, and trouble.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £1,500. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £800. If the payment of £800 has already been made, the landlord should make a further payment of £700 directly to the resident comprising:
1. £800 for delays and time taken by the resident to try to resolve their complaint.
2. £300 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
3. £200 in recognition of its lack of communication with the resident.
4. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
A senior member of the landlord is to write to the resident and apologise for the service failings identified in this report, and to provide the resident with a clear plan of any outstanding repairs, including those of planned works to the conservatory, and confirm when these will be completed.
The landlord is to review its complaints handling training. This should include a review of The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) to ensure requirements in the Code are met and best practice promoted.
The above orders must be complied with within four weeks of the date of this determination. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance of these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord’s Senior Management Team carry out a review of this case to identify improvements that could be made to record keeping, communications with residents and its repairs notes of the actions it has taken.