The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202302454)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302454

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The boiler replacement and associated repairs.
    2. Outstanding void repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 2-bed house. It is an upside-down house with the kitchen and living room at street level and the bedrooms downstairs. The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its system. They include electromagnetic sensitivity.
  2. The resident viewed the property on or around 17 February 2022. The resident and landlord noted outstanding repairs at the viewing. The landlord delayed the ready to let date so that repairs could be completed. The resident started her tenancy on 11 March 2022 and from late March 2022 onwards reported outstanding repairs and new repairs to the landlord. It was agreed by both the landlord and the resident that the repairs would be held until the boiler was replaced.
  3. The resident had to report issues with the boiler and leaking radiators several times in April 2022. In May 2022 the landlord decided to replace the boiler. 2 appointments were booked but not completed as the resident was concerned that the model of boiler would aggravate her electro sensitivity condition. The landlord agreed to research and install an appropriate boiler, hard-wired in and with no wireless capabilities.
  4. By September 2022 the resident was unhappy with the delays to the boiler replacement and repairs, communication, and the number of radiators the landlord had confirmed it would replace. She made a formal complaint to the landlord. The stage 1 formal complaint response from the landlord accepted that the boiler replacement was delayed so agreed to programme in some of the outstanding repairs. It confirmed that only 1 radiator would be replaced. The resident escalated her complaint as she did not agree with the landlord’s responses.
  5. The stage 2 formal response from the landlord on 28 November 2022 confirmed which boiler it was going to install. There was a missed appointment in January 2023 due to the landlord’s van breaking down. Some work took place around 20 January 2023, and the boiler replacement was completed on 6 February 2023. All radiators were replaced in line with the stage 2 outcome on the matter.
  6. In early November 2022 a list of repairs from the void works was drawn up and shared with the resident. The landlord’s contractor advised the landlord that they would be unable to complete the works by the end of the year. The resident was reassured by the landlord that it would find a contractor to complete the works by the end of 2022. This did not happen, and the works remained outstanding at the time the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 May 2023. The resident wanted the works to be completed and to be paid compensation for the distress that the situation had caused her.
  7. The landlord has provided evidence that the outstanding void works were completed in December 2023 and January and February 2024. Other repairs that the resident had reported since moving in were also completed. A post inspection report was completed on 9 February 2024, signed by the resident, showing the completed works. The works included the remaining outstanding repairs that the resident had reported at the viewing on 17 February 2022.
  8. The landlord has confirmed there are outstanding works to be completed in March 2024. They are:
    1. To cover the bathroom tiles.
    2. Install a new bath.
    3. Re-do unsatisfactory bathroom repairs.
    4. Move thermostat downstairs.
    5. Install a thermostatic radiator valve on the lounge radiator.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint and in her contact with this service, the resident has expressed concern with how the events have impacted her and her household’s physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s position, the Ombudsman does not have the power to determine a causal link between the actions or omissions of a landlord and a resident’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice about legal action or a personal injury claim through an insurer. However, the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident has been considered in this investigation.
  2. The resident repeatedly stated that she felt the property was not fit for habitation because of the outstanding repairs. While the Ombudsman cannot determine if this was the case or not, this investigate will consider the landlord’s response to her concern.
  3. This complaint was accepted by the Ombudsman for investigation duly on 11 May 2023. Some repairs were still not complete at that time and new repairs continued to be added to the list, that do not form part of this complaint. This investigation will focus on the events and communication from 11 March 2022 (tenancy start date) to the date the case was accepted for investigation. This is the timeframe of the complaint. However, where appropriate and necessary, for context, in relation to this complaint, evidence may be used from 11 May 2023 to the present day.

Boiler replacement and associated repairs

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as the installation and supply of water, gas, and electricity. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s responsive repair policy reiterates this, as does the resident’s occupancy agreement. A routine repair under the landlord’s policy should be completed within 28 days. The policy is silent on a different timeframe when a responsive repair becomes a replacement, so the Ombudsman considers the 28-day timeframe was in place.
  2. On the 23 May 2022 an order was raised for a replacement boiler with 1 radiator to be replaced and 2 to be upgraded. This was the result of numerous call outs to the system in April and May 2022 and a heat loss survey on 17 May 2022. This was an appropriate response to the reported issues with the system. It was a cost-effective solution for the landlord and a better long-term solution for the resident.
  3. The landlord attended to replace the boiler on 26 May 2022. The landlord did not gain access and called the resident. When she called back an appointment was scheduled for 6 and 7 June 2022. The resident explained her electromagnetic sensitivity and the need for the boiler to have no wireless smart features. When the landlord arrived for the new appointment, the replacement did not take place, as the resident was concerned the boiler would not suit her needs. The contractor working for the landlord noted that they would await instruction from the landlord. It was reasonable of the resident to decline the work as she had not received any confirmation from the landlord that the proposed boiler had no smart features. The landlord should have spoken to the resident after she called on 26 May 2022 to discuss the boiler and decide a way forward. Making a new appointment with no assurances to the resident that the boiler would suit her needs was not appropriate.
  4. On 1 July 2022 the landlord received an enquiry from the resident’s MP asking for an update on several issues, including the boiler replacement. On 13 July 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident, and she confirmed she still wanted a new boiler but was concerned about its wireless capabilities. The landlord asked its contractor to look into it. The resident did not receive any further contact about the boiler until 16 September 2022, after she made a formal complaint about the boiler and other issues. The landlord told the resident that once it had the make and model of the boiler it would make enquiries with the boiler company about electromagnetic signals. The delay from 13 July 2022 to 16 September 2022 is not acceptable. The landlord should have sight of its outstanding jobs and be proactively booking them in. A delay to the boiler replacement is reasonable in some circumstances because the landlord was trying to accommodate the resident’s condition. However, the long gaps in keeping the resident informed are not.
  5. The landlord was attentive to the resident’s medical condition in trying to source a boiler that would not aggravate it. When the resident told the landlord that her condition (electromagnetic sensitivity) was not recognised by GPs in this country, it was customer focused and open to finding the best boiler for the resident. Evidence submitted as part of this investigation shows that the landlord was making every effort to find out about the condition and source the most appropriate boiler. It also shows it was concerned that it did not want to get this wrong for the resident. The landlord was delayed by specialists not responding to its contact. The stage 2 landlord complaint response of 28 November 2022 confirmed the boiler make and model that would be fitted. The landlord should have kept the resident updated. The resident was only informed when she called up to get an update or when the landlord made contact in response to the MP enquiry or the formal complaint.
  6. The replacement boiler was due to be fitted on 18 January 2023. The landlord’s van broke down and it called the resident and offered an update by midday. The resident reported that she did not get a call back. The landlord records from its contractor show that the contractor did try and call back but there was no answer. The Ombudsman cannot determine any failing here as the evidence is conflicting. Some of the work was completed on 20 January 2023.
  7. A new date of 31 January 2023 was provisionally booked in to complete the job, with a member of the landlord housing team to attend, to try and ensure the appointment went smoothly. This was at the request of the contractor. This was good practice from the landlord. The landlord has the overall responsibility to ensure the contractor acts within the service level agreement it has with the landlord. Due to a delay in the landlord confirming that someone could attend on the 31 January 2023 the slot was lost and the appointment rescheduled for 6 February 2023. This appointment went ahead, and the boiler replacement and new radiators were completed.
  8. Alongside the boiler replacement there was conflicting information about how many radiators were due to be replaced. The resident made it clear in her contact with the contractor and the landlord that she believed all the radiators needed to be replaced. She said the contractor had told her this. This was evidenced in call logs and internal correspondence on 13 July, 19 July, 9 September, 16 September 2022. The heat loss survey of 27 September 2022 found the radiators all needed thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs) and lock shield valves but that the property only needed one new radiator. The stage 1 landlord complaint response of 14 October 2022 explained this.
  9.  Due to the miscommunication between the landlord, contractor and resident, the landlord agreed in its stage 2 complaint response to replace all the radiators. This was reasonable of the landlord and an appropriate response to the miscommunication. The landlord detailed its failings, apologised for the miscommunication, and recognised the impact this may have had on the customer. In addition to replacing all the radiators, the landlord offered £55 compensation, which is in keeping with its compensation policy of payments up to £250 for distress and inconvenience for matters that are resolved resulting in minor inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman remedies guidance considers £50-£100 to be a fair remedy for a minor failing by the landlord.
  10. The resident’s boiler needed to be boxed in and on 20 January 2023 the boxing was constructed at the property. The resident informed the contractor that she was allergic to MDF and that the boxing needed to be made from plywood. The contractor did not fit the boxing and passed the information to the landlord to arrange. The landlord completed it on the 6 or 7 December 2023, some 212 working days after the boiler was installed. This delay was not appropriate. While it is undisputed that the landlord was willing to accommodate her request, it has not provided any evidence to explain the delay.
  11. On 20 February 2023 the resident requested that the thermostat be moved downstairs so a TRV could be fitted to the lounge radiator. She provided evidence from an energy charity that this would be beneficial. The landlord acted reasonably in attending on 21 February 2023 to carry out an assessment. It informed the resident it would not be moving the thermostat and why. The landlord continued to relay this decision, even after a further assessment of 4 April 2023 had reported that it would be beneficial. The landlord did keep the resident informed of its decision on this matter. However, it appeared to be relying on the first assessment rather than the more recent one, which is an error. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it will move the thermostat and fit a TRV to the lounge radiator.
  12. In summary, the delays in fitting the boiler and associated works were more than the 28-day timeframe set out in the landlord’s responsive repair policy. There were mitigating factors that cause some of the delays, but the resident was not kept updated on a regular basis. The resident frequently contacted the landlord for updates. The landlord’s communication was reactive not proactive. There was also evidence of correspondence from the resident not being responded to, which is not customer focused.
  13. The landlord acknowledged the delay to the boiler replacement and offered £30 at stage 1 of the complaints process. In the Ombudsman’s assessment, this offer is not a fair remedy. The landlord’s compensation policy states compensation can be awarded of:
    1. Up to £250 where the issue was resolved in a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience for the resident.
    2. £250-£700 where the issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in moderate inconvenience for the resident.
    3. £700+ where the issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience for the resident.
  14. At the time of the stage 1 complaint response the landlord did not know how much longer the delay was going to be. In the Ombudsman view, sufficient compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience at the time would have been £200. The delay continued and the Ombudsman’s final order of £350 compensation for this part of the complaint reflects that.

Outstanding void repairs

  1. The resident viewed the property on or around 17 February 2022 with the landlord. A list of outstanding works was produced:
    1. Patio slab that was a trip hazard.
    2. Bathroom extractor fan not working.
    3. Water damage in kitchen cupboard.
    4. Outside tap not secured to the wall.
    5. Gutters blocked.
    6. Poor paint work on the windows.
    7. Banister paintwork unfinished.
  2. The landlord agreed the property was not ready to let and that these works needed to be completed. In some circumstances these works could be completed with the new resident in situ. The landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities and made the decision to delay the letting of the property. This was reasonable of the landlord and evidence that it was accommodating the resident’s needs.
  3. The landlord repair log detailed 24 February 2022 as the completion date for the above repairs. On 28 February 2022 the post void work inspection sheet detailed the only deferred works (works to complete once the resident moved in) as reseeding the garden and repairing the gas and electrical meter cupboards. However, on 1 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord and advised they had completed the paintwork in the hallway, outside tap and cupboard in the kitchen. There was no mention of the other works listed above. The resident moved into the property on 11 March 2022. It has been accepted by the landlord in the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses that some works remained outstanding. The repairs log is misleading and would have caused further confusion in the months that followed. The Ombudsman spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management found that poor records and systems were undermining the ability of landlords to respond effectively to residents.
  4. The landlord did not meet its relet standard when the property was let on 11 March 2022. Only some of the repairs listed by the resident and the landlord on 17 February 2022 were completed. The landlord’s empty homes repair standard states:
    1. All trip hazards must be addressed before property is let.
    2. Guttering to be free of blockages / debris.
    3. Existing extractor fan to be fully functioning.
  5. In April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord 3 times about the outstanding repairs and new repairs that she had discovered since moving in. Around this time several different departments became involved with the resident, and it does appear to have caused some confusion, resulting in nobody taking the lead for the multiple issues the resident was having.
  6. The resident reported to the landlord that her washing machine and clothes in it had been damaged because the landlord had incorrectly labelled the hot pipe as the cold pipe. This caused the washing machine to overheat. From the evidence received the landlord arranged compensation for the washing machine but not the clothes. The landlord asked for the receipts for the clothes which the resident provided on 20 June 2022. It is not reasonable that the landlord has not confirmed to the resident whether they will reimburse her or offered support to enable her to make a claim.
  7. Some evidence points to the landlord trying the help the resident. On 9 May 2022 the landlord made a referral to its financial support team. That team engaged with the resident and made applications for funding to help the resident. It also tried to help with the repairs. The contractor was in contact with the resident, as well as the landlord’s repair staff. The landlord’s lettings team were trying to secure different accommodation for the resident. The landlord’s complaints team became involved and tried to resolve the issues by taking responsibility for leading on the repairs. It would have been good practice for the landlord to acknowledge there was a multitude of issues and create an action plan, so that all actions were monitored and had set timescales. This would have prevented the landlord’s staff working on the same issue and ensured nothing was missed. The customer could have been informed and updated on a regular basis. The Ombudsman understands it can be difficult for one person to see the overall picture. However, at the stage 1 investigation the landlord would have seen the multiple communication logs from the resident with different departments. It would have been aware there was a lot going on and should have taken steps to manage this better.
  8. On 6 July 2022 the landlord’s contractor met with the resident, and it was agreed that the repairs would be held until the boiler was replaced. The resident agreed with this decision. At this time the understanding was that the boiler was going to replaced shortly, although no appointment was arranged. This is an appropriate action from the landlord. It made sense to do the repairs after, as the boiler installation may further damage some of the areas that needed repairing. It was also beneficial for the resident to have the repairs completed in bulk, reducing the impact on her time. At this time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have devised a repairs action plan for the resident, to enable her to have oversight on what the landlord was agreeing to do and not do.
  9. Due to the delay in the boiler installation the outstanding repairs also remained delayed. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged this and agreed to start some of the repairs before the boiler installation. It did not offer any compensation for this matter. The Ombudsman does not accept this was a fair remedy. The landlord had let the property with outstanding works to be completed. Some of the works could have been completed before the boiler installation, for example the paving slab trip hazard and the gutter clearance. Compensation should have been offered.
  10. The stage 2 complaint response acknowledged that the quality of some of the void work was not acceptable and repairs remained outstanding. It also stated it agreed some works had been completely overlooked. This was an honest response and the landlord apologised accordingly. It offered the resident £70 for failure to complete the necessary repairs during the void period and for poor workmanship. While the admission is correct, the level of compensation is not a fair remedy. At this point in the journey the Ombudsman would suggest that £250 would have been an appropriate remedy. The landlord should have recognised the distress and inconvenience to the resident, who was continually having to report old repairs, new repairs, and chase for updates. The resident was also having to keep a record of what was required to keep track of everything. This would have been time-consuming for the resident.
  11. The communication throughout, from the landlord, was mixed. On its website it states that if it needs to call a resident back it will do so within 2 working days. If a resident writes to the landlord, it will respond within 5 working days. The landlord’s call logs showed that the resident called the landlord frequently. In most cases this was to find out what was happening with the outstanding issues at the property. The landlord did try to call the customer back but often could not get through. The resident would call back in a timely manner and often the same thing would happen. Over time this creates a feeling of not being heard, despite the efforts of both parties. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord has many people demanding of its service. Given the history of missed communication, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made additional efforts to reach the resident. This may have included a follow up communication by email or letter if a phone call was unsuccessful. That the landlord did not make additional efforts was, in this case, unreasonable.
  12. The resident has expressed to the Ombudsman and in her communication with the landlord that she generally felt she was not communicated with well. Based on the evidence received nearly all the written communication received from the resident was responded to within 5 working days. For example, on 18, 19, 23 and 24 January 2023 the resident sent 4 emails and the landlord responded on 24 January 2023. Although frustrating for the resident, this is still within the timescale of 5 working days. The landlord evidence demonstrates there were minimal occasions when the landlord instigated communication with the resident. So, whilst it did respond to contact from the resident, it did not tend to proactively instigate communication with her. This was not reasonable, or customer focused.
  13. There is a risk to a landlord when residents email directly to members of staff. The same risk exists when residents can communicate directly with contractors, as is the case with this landlord. The resident included multiple people in her emails. This resulted in some points in her correspondence not being responded to adequately. It would have been useful for the landlord to have a conversation with the resident about communication and come to an agreement on how both parties could communicate effectively. It is also not clear from the evidence whether all correspondence was saved in a central place. This would have made it difficult for the landlord to offer up to date clear information when the resident contacted it. The Ombudsman recommends, in the spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, that information should be stored on a central database and not on individual’s computer.
  14. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 states a landlord must ensure the property is fit for human habitation on the day of letting and throughout the tenancy. When determining whether a property is unfit the landlord must assess any risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of the dwelling. This includes any hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). On 9 September 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and said that her home was not habitable. She repeated this concern on 9 November 2022, 7 and 17 August and 7 November 2023. The MP shared the landlord’s response with the resident on 28 July 2023 that stated its engineers and service manager had been in the property and did not agree that the home is unhabitable. The landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns were to continue to try to get the works completed. This alone was not appropriate. A qualified person should have undertaken a full inspection of the property to decide, in line with the requirements of the HHSRS, whether the home was habitable.
  15. There is evidence of good practice and advice from the landlord. It appropriately considered a decant for the resident. It made appropriate and thoughtful referrals to its financial support team, applications for grants and a safeguarding referral. It offered money to the resident for lunches so that she could leave the house when the repairs were being completed. Some of the communication was empathetic to the distress the resident was repeatedly telling them she was suffering from. The Ombudsman does find the communication could have been more empathetic as often email responses did not mention the distress the resident had said she was going through.
  16. In summary the majority of the repairs were completed in January and February 2024. Any remaining are due to be completed in March 2024. The landlord had been on notice for some of the repairs since 17 February 2022 which is 491 days. Taking into account the agreement with the resident to delay the repairs until the boiler installation, it was not in line with the landlord’s policies on repairs or the empty homes repair standard and the resident was left for too long with unresolved repair issues. The compensation offered at stage 2 was not a fair remedy considering what had occurred up to that point and is not a fair remedy considering the final completion date of the repairs.
  17. Taking all the evidence into account, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs to the property. The delays were too long, and the resident was not kept updated on a regular basis. The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s concern that the house was not habitable. The stage 2 complaint response advised the repairs would be completed by the end of 2022. The continued delays indicate that it did not learn sufficient lessons and similar failings had a continued impact on the resident. The landlord must apologise to the resident and pay her £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord must review this case to identify any learning and service improvements, and to share these with the Ombudsman.

Complaints handling

  1. On 24 April 2022 the resident asked the landlord how she could make a complaint and request compensation. The landlord did ask for receipts to consider the compensation request, but a formal complaint was not raised. On 17 June 2022 in an email to the landlord the resident explained her disabilities and asked for support to raise a formal complaint. The landlord did not support the resident to raise a complaint. The landlord’s website details how residents can make a complaint. They include completing a webform, calling the landlord and speaking to a member of staff. The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) advises under paragraph 1.7 that landlords must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to. Paragraph 2.1 tells landlords that it must make it easy for residents to make a complaint, by having different channels in which to do so. The landlord did not manage the resident’s requests appropriately. It should have sought further information from the resident and supported her to raise a complaint. By not doing so it delayed the resident’s opportunity to proceed through the internal complaints process and access this service for advice and escalation. The landlord also delayed the opportunity for it to understand the issues and put things right.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 9 September 2022. On the 13 September 2022 the landlord called the resident to acknowledge the complaint and discuss the complaint issues. This was within the landlord’s complaint policy timeframe of 2 working days. The landlord was thorough and discussed the issues at length. It agreed an extension with the resident to provide a full response by 10 October 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 13 October 2022 as she had not received anything. The stage 1 landlord response was received on 14 October 2022. The delay of 4 working days is not excessive. The landlord should have contacted the resident to advise of this further delay, but the Ombudsman does not believe this delay to have had a significant adverse impact on the resident. The landlord offered £25 for the delayed response and the Ombudsman finds this to be a fair remedy.
  3. The stage 1 landlord response was well set out, listing each area of the complaint as a separate heading. Each section outlined what it understood to be the complaint, the investigation, and the landlord’s findings. It apologised when needed and the apologies came across as genuine. The response did contradict itself. At one point it said that, as the boiler installation was delayed, the landlord would make a start on the other repairs. Then later in the letter it stated all repairs would be completed after the boiler was installed. The Code stipulates that responses need to be in clear, plain language, and in relation to this point, that it must clearly state any outstanding actions.
  4. Due to the complexity of the complaint and the number of issues, it would have been beneficial for the landlord to instigate an action plan, which is within its complaint policy. This would have been a SMART approach (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timely) that would have captured all the issues being dealt with. It would have been easier to track the work and not lose sight of any of the repairs.
  5. The resident was not happy with the stage 1 complaint response and escalated to stage 2 on 17 October 2022. This was acknowledged on 21 October 2022, which is 2 days outside of the complaints policy timeframe. On 11 November 2022 the landlord advised the resident it may need an extension and on 14 November 2022 an extension was agreed until 28 November 2022. The response was received on this day. It was reasonable of the landlord to request an extension. The complaint had multiple issues, many outstanding and required an in-depth investigation. The landlord communicated well with the resident around the extension. The landlord offered £25 for the delays and the Ombudsman finds this to be a fair remedy.
  6.  In summary, the landlord offered a fair remedy for the delays to the complaint responses. For the most part the responses were detailed and clear. However, there was a lack of clarity around when the outstanding repair work would start, it missed 2 earlier opportunities to raise a complaint for the resident and this is not appropriate. For these reasons, the Ombudsman finds service failure and orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 for distress and inconvenience.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of the boiler replacement and associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of the outstanding void works.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident and her household. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £950, broken down as follows:
    1. £350 for service failures (delays and communication) in its handling of the boiler replacement and associated repairs, causing distress and inconvenience.
    2. £500 for service failures (delays and communication) in its handling of the outstanding void repairs, causing distress and inconvenience.
    3. £100 for service failures in its complaint handling.
  3. The above amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £200. If already paid, the £200 should be deducted from the above total.
  4. The landlord to learn from the outcomes of this case by reviewing the failings identified in this report, focusing on communication and the delays, and set out what it will do to ensure the same issues do not happen again. A senior level manager must conduct the case review. A written report must be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman.
  5. The landlord must show it has complied with these orders within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its ways to make a complaint list on its website. Although not in breach of the Code, to consider whether ‘email’ should be an option.
  2. The landlord should train relevant staff on the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code, in preparation for the mandatory Code in April 2024.
  3. The landlord should consider the risks associated with residents communicating directly with contractors instead of the landlord and implement any improvements it finds.
  4. The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that the resident has provided receipts the landlord asked for. The landlord should confirm its position to the resident in relation to the compensation request (damaged clothes).