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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202303418)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303418

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 May 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 the resident’s:

  1. Concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.
  2. Request for repairs of her bathroom suite, windows, and the installation of an extractor fan at the property.
  3. Report of a pest infestation at the property.
  4. Report that she was injured, and her belongings were damaged when coving fell on her.
  5. Request for information concerning her service charge.
  6. Associated complaint.

Background

2.             The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a bungalow. She is diagnosed with fibromyalgia which the landlord is aware of.

3.             On 30 May 2022 the landlord carried out an empty home (void) inspection of the resident’s property. On 15 June 2022 the landlord signed off that the resident’s property was in a good general condition and clean state for it to be occupied. As part of its inspection, it deferred the following repairs that it said it would still need to complete but that this would not delay the property being occupied by the resident:

  1. Replace hardwood bath panel and repair chip on bath.
  2. Repair damage to window in kitchen.

4.             On 12 July 2022 the landlord handed the property over to the resident. On 25 July 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she had not yet moved into the property. She asked the landlord to complete the following repairs before she moved in:

  1. Some of the windows at the property would not open.
  2. The toilet was rusted and corroded, and the seat was not attached to the toilet.
  3. The bathroom sink hole was rusted, corroded, and smelt.

5.             The resident moved into her property on 2 October 2022. That same week she told the landlord the kitchen sink needed to be replaced as it was stained with paint that had been caused by its contractors. She also reported that the front door had a gap which allowed water to enter the property when it rained.

6.             Between October 2022 and November 2022, the landlord’s contractor replaced the kitchen sink, put a new plug on the bath and fitted a new bath panel. It also eased the resident’s front door and fitted a new sill.

7.             On 25 January 2023 the resident reported that the coving on her bedroom ceiling had fallen on her, hitting her on the head whilst she was in bed. She said it also damaged some of her personal belongings. The landlord attended the property the same day to make the repair safe.

8.             On 30 January 2023 the resident raised the following repairs at her property:

  1. There was damp and mould, as well as pools of water in the bathroom.
  2. The drains required cleaning as they were causing an infestation of drain flies inside her property.
  3. All the glass in her windows were misted over.
  4. The gutters or downpipes were either leaking or overflowing.
  5. Her kitchen sink was blocked and taking a long time to drain.

9.             Between 31 January 2023 and 10 February 2023, the landlord responded to the above repairs, as well as securing the coving in the resident’s bedroom that had previously fallen on her. The landlord also instructed its drains contractor to jet wash the drains surrounding the resident’s property during this period.

10.        On 22 February 2023 the landlord carried out an assessment at the property in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord told the resident that she did not require an extractor fan to be installed at the property. That same day the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. The resident’s complaints included the following:

  1. She said the property was not in a good general condition and there were a number of outstanding repairs when she moved in.
  2. She continued to have a drain fly infestation inside her property.
  3. The landlord’s contractor had told her she needed an extractor fan but then the landlord said it would not install one.
  4. It had sent the wrong contractor to inspect her rotten wooden windows and front door.
  5. The landlord had not provided her with its public liability insurance details after the coving fell on her.

11.        On 25 March 2023 the resident also raised a complaint to the landlord about items on her service charge, which she said related to a communal area that she did not use.

12.        The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 4 April 2023. The landlord said it was sorry the resident was dissatisfied with the general condition of her property. It also apologised for the following:

  1. Its error when raising a UPVC glazing repair for the windows at the property.
  2. Coving falling on the resident which injured her and damaged her belongings.
  3. Incorrectly saying that it could install an extractor fan at the property.
  4. That the resident was dissatisfied with the service provided by its contractors and staff. The landlord said it had fed this back to those members of its staff concerned.

13.        The landlord said it had arranged for its contractor to survey the windows and bathroom at the property on 17 April 2023. It awarded the resident £25 compensation. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response and requested the landlord escalate her complaint on 9 April 2023.

14.        The landlord raised a repair for 2 window frames to be replaced in the living room and bathroom at the resident’s property. The landlord reported that the resident cancelled this repair. The landlord then explained to the resident that the windows and doors at the property would be reviewed as part of its programme of works between 2023 and 2028. It said the resident would have to wait ‘as and when’ for a new bath suite to be installed at her property. The resident responded that she still had rotten windows, an infestation of drain flies, and a problem with condensation running down the walls of her property.

15.        On 3 July 2023 the landlord provided a further stage one complaint response to the resident’s query about her service charge. It awarded the resident £55 compensation for its poor communication and delay in its response.

16.        On 9 July 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. It apologised for delays in its repairs to the property, and miscommunication in its response to the replacement of 2 of her windows, and its decision to not install an extractor fan at her property. It had also raised a repair for its drains contractor to attend to the drain flies. It awarded the resident £150 compensation in view of the distress and inconvenience caused by these errors.

17.        The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in August 2023, stating her desired outcome was for all of the outstanding repairs to be completed and the infestation of drain flies to be resolved.

18.        Between December 2023 and April 2024, the landlord’s drains contractor made a number of visits to the property. The resident has updated the Ombudsman in May 2024 that she still has an infestation of drain flies, and her repairs remain outstanding. The resident has also said the landlord has made a further offer of £875 compensation since its final response.

Assessment and findings

19.        When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

20.        The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

Scope of Investigation

21.        The resident contributes towards the landlord’s costs, broadly maintenance, management, and repair, through annual service charges. This service is not able to consider complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge, as this falls outside the jurisdiction of this service. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states we will not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.

22.        The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges and whether it responded to any questions about the service charge appropriately in line with its legal obligations, its internal policies and industry best practice.

23.        The Ombudsman was sorry to learn of the plaster coving falling on to the resident’s head and causing her injury, as well as damaging her belongings. The Ombudsman, however, is unable to comment on the landlord’s liability for this injury or the damage caused to her belongings. This is because it is outside our role to assess a liability claim as these are legal matters which are better suited to a court or liability insurer to assess. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(f) Of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states we may not consider matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, or other tribunal procedure. However, consideration has been given to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she had been injured, as well as that her belongings had been damaged due to a repair issue.

Policies and procedures

24.        The landlord’s empty home repair standard policy states that it will not seek to upgrade facilities within an empty home but ensure what is already present is in good repair and is fit for purpose.

25.        The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it has 2 categories in which it will respond to repairs as follows:

  1. Emergency – These are repairs which require the landlord to address an immediate risk to health and safety. It will carry out a temporary make safe repair within 24 hours.
  2. Routine repairs – These are repairs which are not emergencies. The landlord will carry out this type of repair within 28 days.

26.        The repairs policy states that the landlord is responsible for the drains, gutters, and pipes of the resident’s property.

27.        The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 2 working days. It will then provide a written response at stage one within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord will provide a resident with an explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage. Any extension will not exceed a further 10 working days unless agreed prior with the resident.

28.        The landlord’s complaints policy states that where a customer raises additional complaints during the investigation, it will incorporate this into its response.

Concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.

29.        On 30 May 2022 the landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s empty property. It signed off the resident’s property as being clean and that it met its letting standard for occupation on 15 June 2022. The landlord deferred the repairs mentioned above which it confirmed still needed to be carried out. It said that these repairs did not prevent the property being to the letting standard for it to be occupied. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. This was because it carried out its inspection in line with its empty home repair standard policy. It identified repairs which it deferred to be completed by its repairs team. Due to the extremely high demand for social housing and the need to let available properties as soon as possible, it is reasonable for landlords to re-let properties which may be in need of repair. The landlord should ensure that the repairs do not mean the property is unfit to live in and they are completed within an appropriate timeframe after the new tenant has moved in.

30.        On 25 July 2022 the resident told the landlord that she had not yet moved into the property. She asked it to complete a number of repairs to the windows and bathroom as described above before she moved into the property. This included that the bathroom window would not open. The resident gave her contact details to the landlord so its contractor could arrange an appointment to access the property in advance. The repair records show that the landlord closed the repair without any works being carried out. It did this because the resident had not yet moved into the property. There is no further record that it made an attempt to complete these repairs. This was not appropriate. The landlord should have arranged with the resident to attend the property to inspect the windows and bathroom repairs. It should then have communicated with the resident by setting a reasonable timescale to carry out the works as a routine repair, in line with its repairs policy. This is evidence of poor communication and poor handling of its repairs processes.  

31.        On 23 November 2023 the landlord’s contractor replaced the bath panel. This was one of the deferred repairs. This repair took 161 days to complete. This was not appropriate. This was a routine repair which should have been completed within 28 days, as per the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. The landlord has not provided an adequate reason for the delay.

32.        Records reviewed by the Ombudsman evidence that the repair to the kitchen window, which was also a deferred repair remains outstanding. This was not acceptable and evidence of poor handling of its repairs. The Ombudsman has addressed the repair to the window in more detail separately in this report. This is because the resident has made a separate complaint about the condition of all of the windows at the property.

33.        For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.

34.        The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. This reflects that the resident suffered distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays and its failure to fully address and communicate with the resident over her concerns when moving into her property. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact.

Request for repairs to resident’s bathroom suite, windows, and the installation of an extractor fan at the property.

35.        The resident moved into her property on 2 October 2022. Within a week the resident reported a large gap under the front door that was allowing water to enter the property when it rained. She also reported damage to the sink and bath plugs in the bathroom. On 12 October 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended and replaced the plugs in the resident’s sink and bath in her bathroom. On 19 October 2022 its contractor visited the property and eased the front door, as well as fitting a new sill. This was an appropriate response by the landlord. This was because these were both routine repairs that it carried out in line with its repairs policy.

36.        On 30 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had damp and mould in her bathroom. She also said that the windows at her property were misted up. On 1 February 2023 the landlord raised a repair for a contractor to inspect the resident’s windows. It incorrectly sent the wrong type of contractor to this repair. The landlord should have completed an inspection of the resident’s windows at her property within 28 days of her report. It should have then raised any works identified for window repairs and set a timescale with the resident when these further works would be completed. This is evidence of poor communication and poor handling of its repairs.

 

37.        On 3 February 2023 the landlord sent a contractor to carry out an inspection of the damp and mould at the resident’s property. This was appropriate because the landlord needed to identify what works it should complete to address the damp and mould at the property. The resident has said that whilst the contractors were at her property they told her she needed an extractor fan to be installed.

38.        On 22 February 2023, the landlord sent a contractor to inspect the resident’s need for an extractor fan in her bathroom. The landlord said it would not authorise the installation of an extractor fan because its contractor reported that there was no mould in the property. It also said that the resident had a window in her bathroom for ventilation. The resident has told the Ombudsman that the landlord had said to her that it would not install an extractor in her bathroom because if she had one installed, then all residents would want an extractor fan. Whist we do not doubt what the resident has said, where there are conflicting accounts of what happened during communication and a lack of independent evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened or what was said.

39.        However, the records reviewed by the Ombudsman do evidence that the landlord originally provided incorrect information to the resident about its intentions to install an extractor fan in her property. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence that the landlord considered that due to it not repairing the bathroom window; the resident had been unable to use the window to provide the ventilation described by the landlord at the property. This is evidence of poor communication, poor record keeping and poor handling of its repairs processes.

40.        The resident has told the Ombudsman that she still suffers with condensation within her property. The Ombudsman will make an order as part of this report that the landlord completes a survey of the damp and mould at her property, which will need to include in its assessment whether an extractor fan should be installed within the bathroom.

41.        On 22 February 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord that her windows were rotten, misted and she was having to use bleach to clean them. On 4 April 2023 the landlord apologised and said it would arrange for the resident’s windows to be inspected on 17 April 2023. The landlord’s contractor carried out this inspection on 26 April 2023. It was appropriate the landlord apologised and completed the inspection of the windows. However, it was not reasonable that overall it had taken the landlord 275 days to carry out this inspection.

42.        The windows contractor told the landlord that 2 of the windows needed to be replaced at the property. One of these was the bathroom window that the resident was unable to open to ventilate her bathroom. The landlord arranged for the windows to be replaced on 26 May 2023. However, due to further miscommunication by the landlord, the repair was cancelled. In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint on 9 July 2023 it said it would update the resident about her windows on 14 July 2023. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident as agreed. This is further evidence of poor communication and poor handling of repairs.

43.        On 13 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that she remained dissatisfied with the poor state of her bathroom suite. She said the toilet remained rusty and filthy, just as when she had originally reported it when moving into the property. She still suffers with condensation and the combination of this has caused rusty coloured water to run down the walls and on to the floor which has caused stains in the bathroom. The landlord has updated the Ombudsman that the resident’s bathroom suite was installed in 1989. It has said it will review the resident’s need for a renewal of her bathroom suite annually. There is no date in which landlords must renew bathrooms as long as they are in a good state of repair and working order. However, the landlord has not communicated any of this information to the resident. This is further evidence of poor communication. It is good practice for landlords to consider renewing items such as kitchens and bathrooms on a cyclical basis when they are likely to be at the end of their expected lifespan. Landlords are encouraged to plan programmes of major works in advance to give residents clarity on when their bathrooms etc are due to be refurbished.

44.        The Ombudsman will therefore include an order that a survey is carried out of the bathroom at the resident’s property, within 28 days of this report. The landlord is to then set out a reasonable timescale of when it will renew the bathroom suite and is to communicate its decision to the resident in writing.

45.        On 29 April 2024 the landlord told the resident that it would review the windows and door at her property during its planned works programme between 2023 and 2028. This was unreasonable. As above, it is reasonable for the landlord to schedule major works such as window replacements in advance in order to manage costs. However, the landlord should schedule window works sooner if the windows are not fully functional. Therefore, in this case the landlord should have carried out the repairs and replacements of the windows following the survey. The Ombudsman will make a further order that these repairs are carried out within 8 weeks of this report, as per the original survey.

46.        The Ombudsman makes a finding of severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs of her bathroom suite, windows, and the installation of an extractor fan at the property. This is because of the significant delays, poor communication and the landlord’s overall failing to accurately investigate, address and resolve the resident’s repairs since she moved into her property 19 months ago.

47.        The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s poor communication and lack of action in responding to her repairs for the last 19 months has over time, exacerbated the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The Ombudsman understands that in May 2024 the landlord increased its offer of compensation to award the resident £875. In line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance for the distress and inconvenience caused for this aspect of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman makes an order for the landlord to increase this amount to £1000. The remedies guidance suggests that the Ombudsman may award compensation in this range where there has been severe maladministration by the landlord. This type of award includes where a landlord has repeatedly failed to provide a service which had a seriously detrimental effect on the resident.

48.        It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess landlords’ handling of complaints through their internal complaint procedures. Whilst it is positive that the landlord made a further offer of compensation to the resident; this was not enough and was not made until some 10 months after the time of the landlord’s original final response. Therefore, the landlord failed to effectively put things right during its complaints process and missed the opportunity to learn lessons from the outcome at the time of its original investigation. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from mistakes. Therefore, the determination remains severe maladministration for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Report of a pest infestation at the property.

49.        On 30 January 2023 the resident reported that she had an infestation of drain flies in her property. She told the landlord that she had contacted the local authority’s environmental health team. The resident said that environmental health had confirmed that the infestation was coming from the drains and was the landlord’s responsibility to resolve. On the 10 February 2023, the landlord sent a contractor who discovered that the resident’s drains were blocked. Its drainage contractor jetted the drains in order to clear the blockage. This was a reasonable response. This type of report would be considered a routine repair. Therefore, the landlord responded in line with its repairs policy as set out above, which includes that maintaining the drains are its responsibility.

50.        In June 2023 the resident told the landlord that she was unable to open her windows due to the continued infestation of flies at her property. On 9 July 2023 the landlord said that it was sorry the resident was still having issues with drain flies at her property. It said it would arrange for its drains contractor to return to the property. This was an appropriate response. This is because the landlord had been unaware until the resident’s further communication that the drain flies were still an issue at her property.

51.        In August 2023 the landlord’s drain contractor told the resident that due to the previous 2 visits not working, it would need to carry out a deeper investigation. The drains contractor said it had been refused access to the resident’s property during August 2023 due to her being on holiday. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the reasons for the resident not being able to allow contractors access during this period. However, it was reasonable that the landlord attempted to gain access during this period of time, in line with its repairs policy as the landlord is obliged to maintain the property.

52.        In September 2023 the landlord’s drain contractor carried out an internal and external cleaning of the resident’s drains. This was reasonable. However, this did not work, and the resident continued to suffer with drain flies at her property. Between December 2023 and February 2024 ,the contractor carried out 3 further visits to the property and have confirmed that the resident continues to suffer with drain flies throughout her property. During these visits the drains contractor provided advice to the resident on how to keep the infestation of flies under control. This was a reasonable response because it was attempting to provide assistance to the resident in how to manage the infestation whilst also seeking to identify the underlying cause of the drain flies.

53.        The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a pest infestation at the property was proportionate and in line with its repairs policy. The Ombudsman understands the resident is still suffering with drain flies at the property. Whilst we appreciate this must be distressing for the resident, it can take multiple attempts to fully eradicate pests and this does not necessarily indicate maladministration by the landlord. The Ombudsman will make recommendation that the landlord carries out an independent survey of the resident’s drains at the property. This is to encourage a continued investigation in respect of the drain flies throughout her property, so that the landlord continues to assist the resident by seeking to resolve the problem. The landlord should communicate its findings from this inspection to the resident.

54.        For the reasons described above the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Report that the resident was injured, and her property was damaged when coving fell on her.

55.        On 25 January 2023, the resident told the landlord that she had been woken up at 5am that morning by the coving around her bedroom ceiling, falling on her whilst she was in bed. She also said that the falling coving had damaged a number of her personal items. The landlord raised a repair and sent a contractor that same day, who made the repair safe. This was appropriate. This was because the landlord carried out the immediate repairs to make the area safe in line with its published timescales for emergency repairs.

56.        The Ombudsman appreciates that this must have been a very distressing incident for the resident. On 4 April 2023, the landlord told the resident that she would need to claim on her contents insurance for the accidental damage, as it had been an accident. This was an appropriate response as residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance to cover the cost of replacing their belongings in the event of sudden and unforeseen damage. However, the landlord also told the resident to obtain independent legal advice if she wished to make a personal injury claim. This part of the landlord’s explanation was not reasonable. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide information to the resident about its liability insurance if there are allegations of negligence so the resident could make a personal injury claim if she wished to. As explained above, the Ombudsman will not comment on the likely outcome of such a claim, but we have assessed the landlord’s communication about the matter. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord.

57.        The resident raised in her complaint to the landlord that the contractor who attended to the ‘make safe’ repair of the coving, failed to make eye contact with the resident. She also said they did not give the resident any assurance that the resident’s property had been properly inspected prior to moving in. The resident said the contractor also did not check on her welfare during this visit. The Ombudsman understands that this exacerbated the distress caused to the resident at that time. On 4 April 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident in its stage one complaint response for how the resident felt its contractor treated her. It also explained that it had spoken to the contractor and fed back her concerns to them. The actions taken by the landlord were a reasonable and proportionate response to these circumstances.

58.        On 31 January 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended to secure the coving back to the ceiling. The resident said she was dissatisfied that the landlord had changed its mind during this visit from taking all the coving down, to securing the damaged coving with glue. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision on how to repair the coving and it is understandable that the resident was concerned the problem may happen again. However, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. This was because it is for the landlord and its professional contractors to assess the correct way to approach a repair, provided it provides a lasting repair in line with its legal obligations. It also completed the repair in line with its repairs policy for routine repairs as set out above.

59.        The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that she was injured, and her belongings were damaged when coving fell on her. This was because the landlord failed to provide the correct information in respect of referring the resident to its liability insurance. The Ombudsman has considered its own remedies guidance and awards the resident £100 compensation. Examples of this type of award in the guidance are where there was a minor failure, and the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge the failing, or do enough to put it right.

The resident’s request for information concerning her service charge.

60.        On 25 March 2023 the resident raised a request for the landlord to explain a number of items in her service charge statement. She said that the items she was paying for were not explained when she signed her tenancy agreement. The resident’s queries included the following:

  1. £7.92 for a communal TV license fee when she pays for her own.
  2. £4.05 for an arial sinking fund when she paid for her own TV arial to be installed on her roof.
  3. £0.71 for the cooker and fridge sinking fund when she has her own.
  4. £7.62 for depreciation which the resident wanted the landlord to explain what this was.

61.        On 4 April 2023 the landlord said it would respond to the resident’s queries regarding her service charge within 5 working days. It did not do this. The resident then chased the landlord in June 2023 for an update about her service charge queries. This is evidence of poor communication by the landlord.

62.        On 3 July 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s queries about her service charge in its stage one written complaint response. This was 60 working days later, which was unreasonable. It should have responded within the 5 working days it had agreed with the resident. If there was an unavoidable delay, it should have explained the reason for this to the resident and agreed a new deadline but there is no evidence that it did so.

63.        The landlord explained to the resident that although she lived in a bungalow, she did have access to the communal living space in the nearby building and that these would be included in her service charge. This was a reasonable response because this is what is recorded as part of the resident’s tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the resident’s reasons to not use the communal facilities. However, the landlord’s explanation was appropriate that she was able to use them as part of her tenancy and therefore the landlord was entitled to charge for this. The Ombudsman has also reviewed the resident’s signed tenancy agreement and the service charges listed for her property are set out, including the charges relating to communal areas.

64.        The Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information regarding her service charge. The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £25 compensation for its poor communication. It is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right for the resident. However, the Ombudsman does not consider that this amount reflects the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this significant delay, which included her having to chase the landlord. Therefore, the Ombudsman has considered its own remedies guidance (published on its website) and increases this to £100, inclusive of the £25 offered by the landlord.

The associated complaint.

65.        On 22 February 2023, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord about its handling of the condition of her property when moving in, the outstanding repairs referred to above, and a drain fly infestation. On 23 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s complaints policy as set out above.

66.        The landlord provided its stage one written complaint response to the resident on 4 April 2023. This was 29 working days later. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have provided its response within 10 working days. The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s further complaint about her service charge. It should have incorporated this into its stage one complaint response as per its complaints policy. This is evidence of poor complaint handling, although the Ombudsman acknowledges that the overall delay was not excessive.

67.        On 9 April 2023 the resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint because the matters of her complaint remained unresolved. The resident submitted her complaints again to the landlord on 13 April 2023. She then chased the landlord again for a response to her complaint on 10 June 2023.

68.        The Ombudsman understands the lack of communication from the landlord exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience felt by its lack of action towards her outstanding complaints. This is evidence of poor complaint handling as well as poor communication.

69.        In June 2023 the resident raised an additional complaint to the landlord about its handling of her request for information concerning her service charge. On 3 July 2023 the landlord provided a further stage one complaint response to the resident about this. The landlord apologised for its delay in responding to the resident’s further complaint and awarded her £30 compensation. This was in addition to the £25 it had awarded the resident for its poor communication in responding to the resident’s request for information about her service charge. The Ombudsman considers this to be a reasonable and proportionate response.

70.        On 9 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 written complaint response. This was 62 working days later. This was not appropriate. The resident should have received the landlord’s final response within 20 working days of it escalating her complaint. This is further evidence of poor complaint handling and poor communication by the landlord.

71.        There is evidence of failings as described above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s final complaint response, which included an apology and an award of £150 compensation for its poor communication and handling of the resident’s complaint to be both a reasonable and proportionate response to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint. Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, examples of when this level of compensation is appropriate include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident but resulted in no permanent impact. There was no permanent impact from the failings in complaint handling as the landlord ultimately responded to the complaint and offered compensation. Therefore, the landlord’s actions within its final response represent reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord is not required to do anything further in respect of its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

72.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:

  1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.
  2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her bathroom suite, windows, and the installation of an extractor fan at the property.
  3. No Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a pest infestation at the property.
  4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report that she was injured, and her property was damaged when coving fell on her.
  5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information concerning her service charge.

73.        In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves concerns about its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

74.        The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing within 28 days of the issue of this report. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the severe maladministration, maladministration, and service failure for which it expresses a sincere regret for its handling of:

  1. Concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.
  2. Request for repairs of her bathroom suite, windows, and the installation of an extractor fan at the property.
  3. Report that she was injured, and her property was damaged when coving fell on her.
  4. Request for information concerning her service charge.

75.        The landlord is to pay the resident a compensation payment of £1450 within 28 days of this report. The breakdown of this compensation is as follows:

  1. £250 for its maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property when moving in.
  2. £1000 for its severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to her bathroom suite, windows, and the installation of an extractor fan at the property.
  3. £100 for its service failure for its handling of the resident’s report that she was injured, and her property was damaged when coving fell on her.
  4. £100 for its service failure for its handling of the resident’s request for information concerning her service charge.

76.        Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord is to replace the 2 windows at the resident’s property as per its inspection report carried out on 26 April 2023.

77.        It is also to carry a survey of the rest of the windows and doors at the resident’s property within these 8 weeks.

78.        The landlord should draw up a schedule of works following this survey which is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman and is to include timescales for the outstanding repairs to be completed. The repairs must be completed within a reasonable time period, in line with the landlord’s published timescales, and in line with industry best practice.

79.        The landlord is to arrange for an independent survey to be carried out by a damp and mould specialist to inspect the property in respect of the damp within 28 days of this report. This inspection is to include an assessment of whether an extractor fan needs to be installed in the bathroom. It is then to set out a schedule of works for which it is responsible, which it is to share with the resident. If follow on works are identified by the inspection, these works are to then be carried out within a further 4 weeks. The landlord is to share evidence with the Ombudsman confirming that it has complied with this order.

80.        The landlord is to carry out an inspection of the resident’s bathroom suite within 28 days of this report. It is to then communicate with the resident and identify any outstanding repairs of works for which it is responsible. The landlord should draw up a schedule of works following this survey which is to be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman and is to include timescales for the outstanding repairs to be completed. The repairs must be completed within a reasonable time period, in line with the landlord’s published timescales, and in line with industry best practice.

81.        In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should conduct senior management review of its handling of the resident’s repairs in this complaint, to identify the reasons for the failings set out within this report, and what action it may need to take to avoid a recurrence of this in the future. It should provide this review to its senior leadership team within 8 weeks of this report and should share the findings of this review with the resident and the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

82.        The landlord should arrange for an independent survey of the drains to be carried out at the resident’s property within 28 days of this report. The landlord should share the findings of its survey with the resident. Any follow-on works should then be carried out within a reasonable timescale in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.