Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202218011)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218011

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 May 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 management of repairs to the resident’s heating system.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident had been experiencing issues with a faulty boiler, which impacted his hot water and heating supply.
  2. The landlord was notified of this in 2021. After experiencing difficulties in repairing the boiler, the landlord asked for an independent auditor to inspect the boiler in January 2022. The auditor concluded that the system, although operational, was not up to service standard and recommended further works.
  3. The landlord offered an appointment for 9 February 2022 to complete the works. However, the resident declined as he had already taken numerous days off work for the repairs. An appointment was eventually arranged for 11 March 2022, however the landlord failed to attend. Subsequently, the resident declined to book another appointment. The resident made a formal complaint, which the landlord responded to in May 2022. The landlord has stated that as part of its formal complaint response, the resident was asked to supply his availability for a new repair appointment.
  4. The resident did not contact the landlord to arrange further repairs to the boiler. In June 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange for his annual gas service, and stated that it would complete the repairs on the same day. The resident asked for the contractors to attend early in the morning, which the landlord duly requested. However, the contractors attended the property on 27 June 2022, at 12:32pm, and the resident refused access. He stated that he would only accept future appointments on a Sunday. The landlord arranged for a Sunday appointment for 3 July 2022 at 10:00am. Its contractors arrived separately, one at 9:50am and the other at 10:05am. The resident refused access, as the second contractor had arrived late. The landlord’s contractors attended later in the week and completed the gas service, it noted that the system was working and in use.
  5. The landlord booked another Sunday appointment for 7 August 2022, where its contractors completed the majority of the works. However, they had brought the incorrect thermostat and so were unable to fully complete the job. The landlord attempted to arrange follow on works, was unsuccessful in gaining access by the resident. The resident made a new complaint on 31 August 2022. He stated that the issues with his boiler had been ongoing for 14 months, which had impacted his heating and hot water over the winter. He was unhappy that the contractors had missed multiple appointments and failed to resolve the boiler issues.
  6. The landlord responded on 30 September 2022. It explained that as the boiler repairs had already been assessed as a formal complaint, it would limit its investigation to an assessment of the events following its previous response in May 2022. It stated that it had tried to engage with the resident to undertake the repairs to the boiler. It acknowledged that its contractors had missed one appointment and had brought the wrong part to another. It offered £40 to the resident to recognise these errors, £20 for each failing. The landlord explained that it did not normally provide routine repair services on Sundays, however, it had arranged for the contractors to attend several weekend appointments to suit the resident. The landlord asked the resident to provide his availability, so that it could complete the final repair.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 4 October 2022. He later stated that he did not want the same contractors to re-attend, as he questioned their competence. The landlord responded on 21 October 2022. It explained that the appointment on Sunday 3 July 2022 did not constitute a missed appointment as it was not obligated to provide exact timeslots. The landlord acknowledged that previous failings by the contractors had caused the resident to lose faith in them. However, it stated that the contractors were the only ones it employed for these works. It apologised for failing to bring the right part, and reiterated its previous compensation offer. The landlord again asked the resident to allow the contractors to fit the thermostat.
  8. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that he is unable to live at the property because of a lack of hot water and heating. He is unhappy that the landlord missed appointments and has failed to fix his boiler. As an outcome, the resident would like the landlord to engage a different contractor to undertake his repairs.

Assessment

  1. According to the landlord’s tenancy agreement, it is responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order any installation provided for space heating, water heating and sanitation. This includes water heaters, boilers and fitted radiators. The same agreement dictates that the resident must give the landlord and its operatives reasonable access to the property to carry out any repair works.
  2. The auditor reported that the resident’s boiler was in need of repairs, but functioning on 25 January 2022. Subsequently the repair would be a routine repair rather than an emergency. According to the landlord’s repair policy, a routine repair will be completed by the landlord within 28 days. The landlord’s handling of this stage of the repair was subject to a separate complaint in May 2022.
  3. The landlord has explained that as part of that complaint response, it asked the resident to provide his availability for it to undertake the repairs to his boiler. The expectation had passed to the resident to contact the landlord, because the resident had declined all weekday appointments, as he had already taken several days off from work for the repairs. Unfortunately, this created an impasse, as the landlord did not provide weekend routine repair appointments.
  4. It was reasonable of the landlord to have asked the resident to provide his availability, as according to the resident’s tenancy agreement, the resident is obligated to provide access to the landlord for it to undertake repairs. After not receiving contact from the resident, the landlord managed to arrange for an appointment on 27 June 2022.
  5. The resident requested an early morning slot, however the landlord arrived at 12:32pm. Although this would have been inconvenient for the resident, the landlord’s morning repair appointment slots are from between 9:00am – 1:00pm. Therefore, the landlord had not arrived outside of its designated timeframe. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will seek to offer the resident a reasonable choice in making a repair appointment. However, it also explains that it will balance this approach with the need to schedule its resources efficiently. As such, although it would have been useful to have arrived more promptly, the landlord acted inline with its stipulated service standards.
  6. To end the impasse and progress the repairs, the landlord acted reasonably by taking a flexible approach and engaging its contractors to attend the resident’s property on a Sunday, outside of its normal operating hours. The contractors attended on 3 July 2022. However, as one out of the two operatives was five minutes late, they were both denied access. As before, the resident is obligated to provide reasonable access to the landlord to undertake repairs. Therefore, while the resident’s frustration with the landlord is evident, in-line with his contractual obligations from his tenancy agreement, the resident should have allowed the landlord to complete the works.
  7. The landlord again acted reasonably in booking another Sunday appointment for the resident on 7 August 2022. Unfortunately, the contractor brought the incorrect thermostat, and so could not fully complete the repairs. This was not appropriate, as in-line with general good customer service, the landlord should have ensured that the correct items were brought to undertake the repair. Additionally, the impact of the error was exacerbated, as the resident was already frustrated with the landlord’s multiple visits to resolve this issue.
  8. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint which has previously been considered will not be accepted for investigation. This is unless new information has been provided. As such, it was reasonable for the landlord to have only assessed issues not covered by its previous responses. It acted appropriately in its response by acknowledging that it should have ensured that the correct part had been ordered, and that it had not attended an earlier appointment promptly. It wasreasonable to have offered £40 in recognition of its errors. The landlord also recognised that past mistakes had marred the resident’s trust in its contractor and provided the resident with a reasonable response to his request that it engage another contractor, explaining that it could not do so due to its pre-existing commitments to its current one.
  9. The evidence shows that the repair is still outstanding. However, the landlord has been unable to gain access to the resident’s property to undertake the final repairs. It has continued to act reasonably in trying to arrange a suitable appointment for the resident. The landlord has also explained to the resident how to turn on the heating and hot water from his boiler manually, while he is without the thermostat. The landlord has acknowledged where things have gone wrong and attempted to put things right by offering a wider range of repair appointments. It also recognised the resident’s inconvenience by offering some compensation. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this offers suitable redress in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. 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, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should:
    1. Continue to offer the resident the £40 offered in its complaint response.
    2. Continue to seek a suitable date to complete the repair.