The Guinness Partnership Limited (202215055)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215055

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 July 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy commenced in 2016.
4. On 22 November 2021 the resident submitted a RTA application to the landlord. On 20 January 2022, the landlord responded to the resident and asked her if she wanted to continue with the application. The same day the resident confirmed that she did.
5. On 14 February 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said that she was still awaiting a response to her RTA application that was submitted in November 2021 and that she was unhappy with its poor service. On 21 February 2021, the landlord informed the resident that internal checks were with the surveyor, and it would update her once it was able to proceed with reviewing her supporting documents.
6. During March, April, and May 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about the RTA process. She said that the process was lengthy, and the communication from the landlord was slow. She was confused as to why it had taken it so long to request documents from her and was also unhappy that her formal complaints were not responded to. She wanted to know if the RTA could proceed and asked when the valuation and checks would take place.
7. On 6 June 2022 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its complaints process. In summary, the response said:
   1. There were some delays to the process.
   2. The resident submitted some of her supporting documents to it, but it needed more information at that point to proceed with the application.
   3. It had a duty to explain what documentation was needed and that it had failed to do so.
   4. It was assisting the resident and that progress had started with her application.
   5. It was sorry for the overall experience and the distress caused.
8. On 12 July 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She asked the landlord to explain why requesting her identification took almost five months. She said that she was chasing her application for eight months and had not received written confirmation that she had the RTA. As a resolution to her complaint, she wanted all outstanding checks and paperwork including the landlord’s ‘notice in reply’ (RTA2) to be completed within four weeks.
9. On 20 July 2022 the landlord instructed a valuation of the resident’s property and subsequently provided the resident with its RTA2 on 26 July 2022.
10. On 5 August 2022 the resident issued its final response. In summary, the response said:
    1. The RTA application began in November 2021 and was being managed by an officer who left in December 2021. The case was reassigned to a new officer in January 2022 who confirmed with the resident if she would like to proceed with the application.
    2. Internal checks were completed in April 2022 and the resident was asked for supporting documentation. Some of the documents were missing or not in the correct format, however, its request for documents was initially unclear.
    3. It did not contact her back on 18 May 2022 within its two working day timeframe.
    4. On 1 June it emailed her to clarify which documents were still needed. These were received and signed off on 6 June 2022 and confirmation was provided to the resident on 20 June 2022.
    5. Its stage one response did not acknowledge delays, and it apologised for this.
    6. There were several occasions the application did not progress as expected.
    7. It partially upheld the complaint and apologised for the distress caused. It offered compensation of £150 in total. Comprised of £50 for poor communication and £100 for stress and inconvenience.
11. On 20 September 2022 the landlord provided the resident with a RTA offer notice. The resident responded and said that due to delays her mortgage in principle had run out.
12. In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, she said that she was unhappy with the length of time it took to process the application and the quality of the landlord’s instructions. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint and the accuracy of its responses. She explained that due to the delays she could no longer afford to buy the property or obtain a mortgage. As a resolution she wanted the landlord to reduce the price of the property to reflect the house prices in February 2022 and for the landlord to compensate her for the stress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application.

13. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 

a.  Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

b.  Put things right, and; 

c.  Learn from outcomes. 

14. The Ombudsman must first 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 then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
15. The landlord’s right to acquire policy states ‘we will administer the scheme within the timescales as set down by legislation.’
16. The right to acquire for tenants of private registered providers of social housing (PRPSHs) was introduced in the Housing Act 1996. It is now contained in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The government’s timescales state that the landlord must say yes or no within four weeks of receiving a RTA application. This is normally done by way of issuing a ‘notice in reply’ (RTA2) to the resident.
17. It took the landlord almost two months to acknowledge the resident’s RTA application. During this period, the resident had to chase the landlord for a response on three occasions. While the landlord apologised and provided an explanation for the delays, it failed to take any meaningful action to progress her application. This led to the resident chasing the landlord again almost a month later. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
18. In addition, the landlord’s records indicate that it did not request all the required supporting documentation from the resident until April 2022. Given that the resident submitted her application in November 2021, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have requested this information much earlier. It would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s failure to do so contributed to delays in processing the RTA application.
19. Moreover, these delays were exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to clearly outline what documents were required and in what format within a reasonable timescale. This conclusion is supported by the landlord’s final response where it acknowledged that its initial requests for supporting documents were unclear, which added to delays. This was a failure on the part of the landlord that would have caused frustration to the resident.
20. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident advised this Service she was unable to purchase the property due to the delays. However, due to the number of factors involved in the purchase of a property, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude with certainty that had the delay not occurred, then the purchase of the property would have been completed. However, it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s failures in its handling of the application led to a loss of opportunity for the resident to purchase the property earlier. This would have caused additional distress and inconvenience to the resident.
21. Overall, it took the landlord over eight months to issue its RTA2 to the resident. This was over seven months outside of the government’s timescales. The delays were considerable and avoidable. Further, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, with the resident having to regularly chase the landlord for updates and responses to her emails.
22. The landlord tried ‘put things right’ by apologising for the poor communication and offering compensation to the resident, however, the landlord failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint. The Ombudsman also considers that the offer of compensation was not proportionate to the adverse affect caused by the failings identified in this investigation.
23. The offer was also not in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy which states that it will offer compensation of between £250-£700 where the issue took a long time to resolve and had a demonstrable impact on the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord should have therefore offered the resident compensation within this range. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) suggests that compensation between £100 and £600 should be considered where there was a failure that adversely affected the resident. In view of this, the landlord should provide redress to the resident for the service failures identified in this report and an order of compensation is made below for remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling

24. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has adopted the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint: ‘An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by Guinness, our staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents or person who is affected by Guinness’s services’. The policy also says that it will formally respond to complaints within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint.
25. The resident first raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 14 February 2022. The landlord failed to acknowledge this as a complaint and did not formally respond to her within the timescales set out in its complaint policy.
26. In addition, the resident continued to express dissatisfaction with the service provided by the landlord in March and April 2022, yet it failed to log her concerns as a complaint. The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy and missed serval opportunities to formally respond to the resident’s concerns. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
27. The resident raised another formal complaint at the beginning of May 2022 where she said that this was her third attempt to raise a complaint with the landlord, however, the landlord’s records indicated that it had marked the complaint as resolved without providing a formal response to the resident. This was inappropriate and led to the resident having to chase the landlord for a formal response. The landlord eventually acknowledged her complaint on 20 May 2022. This was a further failure on the part of the landlord that would have added to delays in getting matters resolved.
28. Overall, it took the landlord over three months to respond to the resident’s complaints and it missed multiple opportunities to respond to the resident’s concerns through its internal complaints process. Moreover, the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the complaint handling errors in its formal responses and it failed to act in line with its complaints policy. This amounts to maladministration from the landlord and orders are made below for remedy.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

31. The landlord must, within the next four weeks, pay the resident £800.00 compensation, comprised of:
    1. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application.
    2. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
32. The landlord must review the complaint handling in this case, with reference to the failings identified in this report, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.
33. The landlord must review the delays to the RTA process, in this case, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.

Recommendations

34. It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedures and identify any training needs.

35. It is recommended that the landlord provide information in advance to resident’s who wish to acquire their home on what type of proofs will be required and in what format.

36. It is recommended that the landlord carry out a staff training exercise to ensure RTA applications are responded to in line with the government’s timescales.