The Guinness Partnership Limited (202208543)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208543

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 March 2024

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 response to the resident’s reports about leaks into the property.
This service will also consider the associated complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor of a four-storey block. The tenancy commenced on 9 November 2009.
The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the roof and the gutters of the building.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will complete repairs within:
1. 24 hours if considered an emergency
2. 28 calendar days if it is a routine repair, but sooner if it can.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual customer or group of customers or person who is affected by its service.
It has ‘expressions of dissatisfaction as the initial stage within its policy. It states that this is so that it can “try to put things right at the earliest opportunity and resolve the issue without it becoming a formal complaint.”
If a complaint is received the landlord will respond by:
1. acknowledging the complaint within 2 working days
2. respond to stage 1 within 10 working days unless an extension is agreed by both parties. The request to escalate must be received within 15 working days of the stage 1 decision
3. respond at stage 2 within 20 working days. An extension can be requested but it will not exceed a further 10 working days unless an additional extension is agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s compensation policy provides guidelines as to when compensation can be offered. An example is a good will gesture can be considered for a shortcoming in the way it delivered a service
Compensation is assessed at:
1. Up to £250 for an issue resolved within a reasonable time with minor inconvenience, with some impact to the resident
2. £250 – £700 if the issue took a long time to resolve, resulting in moderate inconvenience and a demonstrable impact on the resident
3. £700 + the issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience, having significant impact on the resident and likely to cause long term distress.

Summary of events

On 5 August 2020, an urgent repair was raised by the resident following a leak in the ceiling of the resident’s property. It was noted that it was not coming from the flat above. A second repair was raised on the same day for an urgent appointment, to make a hole in the ceiling and to trace the leak.
A further call was made on 6 August 2020 as the leak was ongoing and the resident was concerned it would get into the electrics. According to the landlord’s stage 2 response, repairs were raised for the roof and the electrics. However, the contractors contract ended and no longer worked with the landlord and therefore it held no records of the visits. It was aware that the contractors could not repair the roof leaks.
On 17 August 2020, the resident called the landlord again as the leak was coming into the bedroom every time it rained. The resident advised it was coming from the roof (not the flat above). She requested it make safe the ceiling as the plaster was ‘bubbling’ on the wall around an isolated plug socket.
On the same day, it was noted on the landlord’s repair spreadsheet that scaffolding was already up at the block (4 stories high).
On 20 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord following a telephone conversation that same day. She reiterated that the ongoing chasing, waiting for appointments and poor communication from the landlord had been very stressful. She said that she was not willing to wait until 9 September 2020, for works to be completed, “as an additional 3 weeks on top of the upheaval in her bedroom due to the boiler installation, lockdown, personal losses and health challenges had played havoc on her wellbeing causing a great deal of stress and anxiety.” She attached photos and a video and confirmed that she was still waiting for:
1. a date for the internal building works in the bedroom
2. an investigation and cleaning of the mould
3. the holes to be filled on the concrete ceiling
4. repairs to the roof
5. replaster and paint of bathroom ceiling and wall
According to the landlord’s repairs schedule, the works were carried out to the bedroom on 14 September 2020. No evidence was provided to clarify if the cleaning of mould or filling of holes in the ceiling took place. The bathroom ceiling and walls were repaired on 9 September 2020.
On 12 November 2020, the resident reported a leak in her bathroom, following rainfall. She advised it was from the roof again. The landlord’s repair schedule shows that the repair was closed on 10 December 2020, but does not identify what works were completed or why it was closed.
On 28 November 2020, the repairs schedule identifies an out of hour call out to the property to make safe the ceiling in the bathroom following a leak from above. It was showing as cancelled on 29 November 2020.
On 14 January 2021, the resident reported an ongoing leak into the bedroom ceiling. It was stated that it was seeping through the MDF and although containable, it was close to electrics. The resident advised that the roof needed to be fixed, and the front side of the flat needed to be cemented. This job was raised twice, 1 closed and 1 cancelled on the landlord’s repair schedule. It does not identify why.
On 19 January 2021, according to the stage 2 response, the landlord’s contractor attended site and established the cause of the leak (blocked gutters). It advised the landlord that scaffolding would be required. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge this and so no follow on repairs were arranged.
On 4 February 2021, the repairs schedule shows a repair raised for crumbling and peeling plaster in the bathroom. This repair was closed on 5 May 2021.
On 9 August 2021, the resident called the landlord to raise a complaint because the ceiling was leaking again in the living room. She advised that leaks had been a recurring issue since August 2020, and that she was still waiting for her bathroom to be decorated, following replastering work to the ceilings and walls in September 2020 (according to the landlord’s repair schedule) due to a previous leak. The repair was cancelled on 7 November 2021 according to the repair schedule.
In notes provided by the landlord, the leak repair raised on 9 August 2021 was put under the resident’s own property, and so cancelled and re-raised under the building ‘block’ as a communal repair. Another document provided by the landlord states that this repair was closed due to no access on 27 August 2021, and that it could not see a new order for a roof repair on the repairs system.
The landlord contacted the resident the next day (10 August 2021) to apologise as it would take longer than the usual timescales to settle the query due to the Covid pandemic. It advised the resident that:
1. it had raised a roof repair, but there were no appointments available in the diary that day and so was booked for 8 November 2021
2. it could arrange for a joiner as her wall had bubbled due to the leak, but the resident declined as the resident advised it had dried out
3. she could call for an emergency joiner if need be
4. the landlord did not decorate, and that she would need to do this herself
5. the complaint would be responded to within 10 working days.
As a resolution the resident wanted the roof to be fixed once and for all and the remedial works including decorating to be completed by the landlord. The file notes from the landlord confirmed that the internal repairs would be arranged (including the decorating) once the roof repair was completed.
Following the resident’s complaint, it was noted on 17 September 2021, that scaffolding was required to investigate the leak and clear and repair the guttering. The landlord left a voicemail on the resident’s phone apologising for the delay but had established that the follow on work for the roof repair had not been arranged and was therefore chasing for an update and would advise accordingly.
On 8 October 2021, the landlord called the resident again and left a voicemail. It apologised for the oversight as the follow on work for the roof repair had not been arranged, and that it was a clear failing on their part. It advised that it was chasing the works and would update her accordingly.
On 15 October 2021, the resident called the landlord for an update. It discussed the internal works that would be required and compensation/ gesture of good will and advised:
1. it had spoken with the relevant team
2. a new order had been raised
3. it did not have a date for the work to commence yet
4. it promised to call the resident before the end of the week
On 22 October 2021, an internal email was sent by the landlord to arrange for parking bays to be suspended on 8 November 2021, as the contractors would need space to erect scaffolding to complete the roof repairs.
The resident was updated on 28 October 2021, as the works were planned for 8 November 2021, the resident asked about compensation and the landlord said that this would be detailed in the outcome of the complaint provided.
A stage 1 response was issued on 29 October 2021, the landlord apologised, upheld the complaint, and arranged for the roof to be repaired on 8 November 2021. It offered compensation of £200 which the resident accepted. This comprised of:
1. £170 for the inconvenience of the delays with repairs (excluding lockdown)
2. £10 for 2 failed promises
3. £20 for the complaint delay
The contractors attended the property on 8 November 2021, but the landlord had not been able to suspend parking bays for access and so the works could not go ahead.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 November 2021, and apologised for the lack of contact. It advised it was working internally to obtain a new date with coordinated parking bay suspension and would be in touch as soon as a date was confirmed. An email was also sent internally chasing a new date for the repairs and a reminder to arrange parking bay suspension.
A new contractor was commissioned by the landlord as they did not require scaffolding. The works to clear the guttering on the whole building were carried out from 4 December 2021 and 6 December 2021.
On 10 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on her complaint and requested a call back.
Internal emails show that from 19 December 2021 to 10 February 2022, the landlord regularly chased for an update regarding completion of the internal leak damage. The landlord’s file notes indicate that the internal repairs were booked in for 24 January 2022. However, this was not the case, as there was some confusion regarding other properties on the block. On 3 February 2022, it was confirmed that the works had not progressed as the 24 January 2022 date was only ‘pencilled in’.
The repairs schedule shows that on 4 February 2022, a repair was raised to assess the internal walls and ceiling and to paint as per its policy, any areas that needed to be plastered. This was closed on 4 March 2022.
Numerous emails were sent between the landlord and the contractor and on 10 February 2022 the landlord updated the resident. It apologised for the delay and advised that an assessment of the works was provisionally booked in for 25 February 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord for an update on 07 February 2022, as she had received a call to book 25 February for another assessment for the plaster work. She said that she was unhappy as the situation had been going on for nearly 2 years, with mould in the cupboard and no end in sight. In light of this the landlord asked the contractor if they could do any earlier and the date for the works were bought forward to 17 February 2022.
The contractor called the resident on 17 February 2022, to confirm its attendance on 25 February 2022. When the resident advised that the appointment had been re-arranged for that day, the contractor was able to attend but a few hours later. The resident wrote to the landlord asking why it had not been booked in correctly and that she wanted the complaint escalated. She stated that she was offered a gesture of good will payment a few months ago, and that it was now a ‘whole new year‘ and the work was still ongoing.
Despite the escalation request being submitted more than 15 working days after the stage 1 response was issued, the landlord responded on the same day apologising for the delay and confirmed that the complaint would be escalated and to allow 20 working days for a response. It also advised that it would review the good will gesture payment of £200.
According to the landlord’s file notes, the plastering to the lounge and bathroom was completed on 25 February 2022, which was then painted on 21 March 2022.
Between March and June 2022, there was no evidence of communication between the 2 parties with regards to the leaks.
A stage 2 response was issued on 28 June 2022. The landlord:
1. apologised for the frustrations and inconvenience caused whilst completing the repairs to the roof and internal remedial repairs
2. apologised for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response
3. outlined the complaint and events to completion of the repairs
4. acknowledged the £200 ‘gesture of good will’ at stage 1
5. offered a further £250 broken down as:
6. £150 for the delays in completing the repairs
7. £50 for poor communication in providing the stage 2 response
8. £50 to acknowledge heh stress and inconvenience experienced
9. acknowledged its learning and shared its findings with the relevant team and asked that it review its internal processes when raising follow on repairs to subcontractors
10. it identified that the resident confirmed all the repairs and internal works raised were now complete. The resident advised that there was mould in a cupboard which was bought on by the leak.
An order was raised on 28 June 2022 to clear the mould in the cupboard which was ‘mould washed’ and stain blocked on 25 July 2022 according to the landlord’s records.
On 25 July 2022 the resident contacted the Ombudsman, as she was not happy with the length of time it had taken for the landlord to repair the leaks, and as a resolution sort higher compensation. She also highlighted that her initial complaint was made on 20 August 2020.She was advised that under the complaint handling code (CHC), she needed to wait until 8 weeks after the landlord’s final response. On 6 September 2022, confirmation was received that she wished this service to investigate her complaint.

Post complaint

On 26 October 2022, it was reported that the kitchen ceiling was damp and discoloured. It was closed on 23 November 2022.
On 14 November 2022, the repair schedule shows that a repair was raised for a leaking roof which was closed on 12 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

The length of time it took the landlord to repair the leaks into the resident’s property

The resident first reported a leak into her property on 5 August 2020. It took 4 visits by contractors, and 167 calendar days until 19 January 2021, for the landlord to establish the causation of the leaks. This was not appropriate. The first 2 inspections by contractors were not recorded with the landlord, as the contractor had since stopped working for the landlord. The landlord did not share/keep records of its contractors’ work. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) recommends that landlords have a minimum standard for knowledge and information management as part of the service level agreement with third parties and that the quality of information sharing should form part of the assessment at procurement stage.
The second contractor, on the third visit was unable to establish what the cause was. This was not appropriate, as the resident had advised on a number of occasions that she thought it was the building’s roof that was leaking, not the flat above. The landlord should have facilitated a proper inspection of the roof and rain water good much earlier. The landlord should have researched all options available as it did in December 2021, when it found contractors that did not require scaffolding.
When the leak was reported on 17 August 2020, it was noted by the landlord that scaffolding was already up at the block (4 stories high). The landlord failed to seize this opportunity to inspect the roof whilst the scaffolding was available. This was not appropriate. The source of the leak could have been established and repairs arranged within 12 calendar days. This would have prevented the additional leaks to the resident’s property and the internal damaged caused, which the landlord later rectified.
Although the cause was established on 19 January 2021, the works were not instigated until the resident raised her complaint on 9 August 2021, it then took until 8 November 2021 for the works to be booked in. This was not appropriate, as it was 66 calendar days later and 38 calendar days longer than identified in the landlord’s repair policy.
The 66 calendar days should have been sufficient time for the landlord to secure suspended parking bays so that the scaffolding could be erected. The landlord failed to do this, nor advise the contractor who turned up on site to start the work. This was not appropriate, it caused further delays, had financial implications and another contractor had to be found. The repairs were finally completed on 6 December 2021. This was 321 calendar day after the cause of the leak was detected.
From the report of the first leak on 5 August 2020 to the completion of the repair on 6 December 2021 (a total of 488 calendar days) there were 4 leaks reported by the resident. The various leaks caused damage to the resident’s bedroom and bathroom and resulted in damage inside the property. This was not appropriate and it’s reasonable to conclude that some of the subsequent leaks and damage would have been avoided had the landlord carried out an effective repair sooner. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as she said it affected her property and her wellbeing.
The landlord had already stated that the internal repair works would not be completed until after the leak repairs had been completed and so this also had a knock on impact on the resident and the enjoyment of her home. There were water stains on the walls and ceiling, flaking paster and undecorated areas. This evidently had a detrimental impact on the resident’s wellbeing. The resident also had to keep contacting the landlord to report the repairs, as well as chasing the works to be completed.
The landlord also failed to adhere to its own repairs policy. The leaks were damaging the resident’s property and causing concerns on a number of occasions due to the electrics. The leaks should have been deemed a priority, and therefore attended within 24 hours to at least make safe. Instead, it resulted in the resident spending nearly 2 years reporting the same issues, damage to her property with repairs and redecoration required and a loss of confidence in the landlord and a breakdown of the 2 parties relationship.
Whilst the landlord sent this Service details of the repairs raised during this period, detailed reports of inspections, findings or actual works carried out were not provided (bar the gutter clearance in December 2021). The repair history provided did not include any of this information. This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs found that it was vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates.
Social housing landlords should ensure a prudent, planned approach to repairs and maintenance of homes and communal areas. This should be demonstrated with an appropriate balance of planned and responsive repairs, and value for money. The approach should include: responsive and cyclical repairs; planned and capital work. It is clear from this report that guttering clearing was not listed as a cyclical repair, which may have prevented these types of repair requests and the resultant damage and complaints. A recommendation in regard to the landlord considering this has been made below.
The landlord’s communication in keeping the resident updated with the repairs was intermittent, and usually only after she had chased for a response (although it is recognised that this did improve once the stage 2 complaint was received). This again was not appropriate. Good customer service, and multi team working promotes good information sharing, and keeping relevant parties updated. This is also highlighted as good practice in the spotlight report on repairs, where it found that poor communication between landlords, contractors and subcontractors were often the root cause of delays.
The landlord did recognise its failings in the stage 1 and 2 responses, it apologised to the resident and shared its fact finding with the relevant teams. It also offered compensation of £320 for the delay in completing the repairs and £50 for the destress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the delay. However, this was not proportionate to its failures taking into account the length of time the repairs were ongoing, the frustration distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and the impact that she said this had on her wellbeing.
In summary the landlord recognised its errors, apologised, and offered compensation. However, this did not compensate for the fact that it took a total of 488 days to complete the leak repairs. The excessive delay was due to the landlords poor management of its contractors, the repairs they completed and keeping an audit trail. It failed to suspend the parking bays or look for alternative suitable options for contractors in a reasonable timespan, which meant that the resident suffered 4 leaks into her property causing damage, mould and further repairs to her property. This caused her frustration, distress and inconvenience. The length of time the landlord took to complete the leak repairs amounts to maladministration.

The associated complaint

The resident submitted her complaint on 9 August 2021, which was acknowledged the next day by the landlord, which was in keeping with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (CHC).
The stage 1 response should have been issued by 23 August 2021. However, it was not received until 28 October 2021, which was 81 working days late. This was 71 working days later than expected had the landlord’s complaint policy had been adhered to. This was not appropriate as it did not comply with the landlord’s own complaints policy nor the Ombudsman’s CHC and the resident had to chase for a response and caused distress and inconvenience.
The stage 2 response should have been issued by 16 March 2022 however it was not provided until 28 June 2022, which was 70 working days late. This was not appropriate. This was 50 working days later than expected if the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsmen’s CHC had been complied with. No evidence was provided to suggest an extension of time was requested. This caused the resident frustration, and distress as she had asked them to review the compensation award to reflect this.
In the stage 1 and 2 responses, the landlord apologised for the delays in issuing its decisions, and the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. It also shared its findings with the relevant teams. This was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s resolution principles of be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered compensation, which amounted to £70 for its delay in complaint handling and £10 for 2 failed promises (call backs not returned). This was not sufficient because it was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the combined delay of 10 months which meant that it took nearly a year for the resident to complete the complaints process. As such further compensation has been ordered below.
In summary the stage 1 and stage 2 responses were late in being issued, the compensation offered did not suitably provide redress for the delays .

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the length of time it took the landlord to fix the leaks in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Reasons

There were extensive delays of 488 days in repairing the leaks. The 4 leaks caused damage, additional repairs and mould internally to the resident’s property. The contractors were poorly managed by the landlord, and much of the repair history was not retained. It failed to suspend the parking bays or look for alternative suitable options for contractors in a reasonable timespan. The length of time the landlord took to complete the leak repairs amounts to maladministration.
The stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses were late in being issued. The landlord’s offer of redress by way of compensation was not sufficient.

Orders and recommendations

A senior officer is to issue the resident with a written apology within 4 weeks. The landlord should recognise its delays in its repair service and failing to comply with its own complaints policy. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the letter.
Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £1050. This can be reduced by the £450 previously offered if already paid. The funds must be paid direct to the resident and not offset against rent arrears if accrued. The amount ordered is made up of:
1. £900 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord due to the delay in repairing the leaks
2. £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
The landlord should review this case in order to identify service improvements it can make to prevent similar failures occurring. In particular it should consider:
1. the repair response times listed in its policy
2. how it can improve communication with its contractors to ensure that essential works are not ‘lost’ in the system
3. appropriately recording and storing relevant information with regards to repairs especially when outsourced to contractors
4. how it can easily identify recurrent repairs, and look at the ‘bigger picture’ to resolve the issue once and for all
5. a procedure on communicating with the residents to ensure they are kept updated with regards to their repairs.
The landlord is to review its complaints policy and make the appropriate changes so that it is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (CHC) (published 8 February 2024, applicable from 1 April 2024).
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord is to consider listing gutter cleaning as a cyclical repair, to ensure that the gutters are cleared regularly during the appropriate seasons to avoid any further leaks.
The landlord is to confirm if it is to accept this recommendation within 4 weeks.