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

Guinness Housing Association Limited (202121759)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121759

Guinness Housing Association Limited

28 June 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 repairs to the resident’s:

  1. Bathroom.
  2. Leaking toilet.

2.     The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:

  1. Record keeping.
  2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

3.     The resident is an assured tenant living in a one-bedroom flat. His tenancy began in August 2008.

4.     Prior to the resident’s complaint, the landlord did not have any knowledge of any vulnerabilities for the resident. Following his complaint however, the resident reported to the landlord he suffered a cardiac arrest, and reports living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

5.     The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states:

  1. Emergency repairs address an immediate health and safety risk. It would either complete a repair or conduct a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 24 hours of the report. The policy states routine repairs are those which are not emergencies and it aimed to get the issue fixed within 28 calendar days and sooner if it can.
  2. It aims to complete repairs at the first visit and where that is not possible, it would communicate clearly with the customer explaining why the repair cannot be completed at first visit, what it intended to do and, what should happen next, including when it will return to complete the repair.
  3. The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order, any installations it provides, for sanitation and supply of water within the home including, basins, sinks, baths, flushing systems, and waste pipes.

6.     The landlord’s complaints policy says:

  1. It will not consider complaints where the issue occurred over six months before the complaint was made unless there was a recurring issue or where the complaints are related to safeguarding concerns, health, and safety matters or, exceptional circumstances.
  2. It would deal with stage two complaints within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. It would explain to a resident if it needed to take longer to respond to a complaint, and it would take no longer than ten working days unless both parties agree an additional extension.
  3. It would ensure it keeps customers regularly updated with the progress of the complaint even if there is no new information to provide.

Summary of Events

7.     On 18 January 2018, a representative of the local authority visited the resident’s property and was dissatisfied with the state of the pipework to the shower. The representative commented that the pipework was rusty, mouldy, and not fit for purpose.

8.     The resident was then advised on 19 January 2018, by the local authority that his bathroom required adaptation. He was told over the telephone by the local authority that his landlord would be responsible for the repairs.

9.     The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s bathroom in July/August 2018 and arranged for the pipes to be fixed and boxed in. This was, however, not completed as the repairs were cancelled on the landlord’s system. There was then a delay of 10/11 months before the landlord attended his property in June 2019 and confirmed the bathroom required renovating. It is unclear what prompted this visit, or why there was delay.

10. The resident contacted the landlord on 06 April 2021 chasing adaptations to his bathroom. He reported he had provided his housing officer with a copy of a report from the local authority that said his current bathroom was not fit for purpose and he required a wet room.

11. The following day, on 7 April 2021, the landlord spoke with the resident about the shower. He explained he had sent a report from the local authority to the landlord’s operative. He said the shower was not fit for purpose as there was mould which was coming down into the shower and this had been the case for two and a half years. He explained, the landlord had previously been to see the issue and he had fallen a couple of times in the shower. He explained he had a handrail on the right and the shower was too small. He said he had sent a copy of a letter from the local authority to another one of the landlord’s operatives. The landlord confirmed its operative had the letter and had sent it off within its organisation to get the matter resolved for the resident.

12. The landlord’s internal communications show that on 7 June 2021, the resident was dissatisfied as nobody attended a job for his shower during the previous week, and that he would be logging a complaint. It arranged an appointment for the same day from one of its operatives. A member of the landlord’s staff advised the landlord that, although an assessment had previously been carried out for the shower, another one was required by its operative. This was to assess the required works and once done, the repairs would be arranged.

13. The following day, the landlord asked one of its staff, if the operative’s report had been received about the pipework. It explained the resident and his GP were also querying the date for the work to be completed, and he was dissatisfied as he had been waiting three years. The landlord was told by its contractor, the operative mentioned nothing about pipes. A description of the operative’s comments were provided to the landlord, and it requested for a plumber to attend and replace the resident’s pipework for the shower.

14. On 9 June 2021, the landlord asked its contractor to confirm that the job was booked for the repairs. It asked for these to be booked as urgent as the resident was dissatisfied. The required works were then booked for 18 June 2021.

15. On 23 August 2021, the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He detailed he had suffered a cardiac arrest in 2017 and was hospitalised for 11 weeks. When he was discharged from the hospital, he had an occupational therapy assessment and following this, in January 2018, a representative of the local authority attended his property. The resident explained that the representative deemed his bathroom was not fit for purpose. From the information available, it is unclear who arranged the occupational therapy assessment or which department of the local authority assessed the resident’s bathroom, or why it was assessed. He explained the assessment of the bathroom was repeatedly ignored by the landlord until July 2021, and he was told by his doctor this could have contributed to his illness. He said even on the day of his complaint, he was let down by the landlord as he had a leaking toilet system which they had not addressed within their timescales. He suggested he might take legal advice as his health was decreasing rapidly and he was frustrated.

16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 24 August 2021, and provided a 10-working day response time scale. On the same day, the landlord also confirmed that an engineer attended on the evening the resident reported the issue with his toilet, but there was no access. It asked if he would like the appointment rearranged and if he could confirm if he would be in the property for the next 24 hours.

17. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and said, he felt let down by its repairs team as his bathroom was soaked by the leaking toilet. He said the landlord ignored the advice from the local authority that his bathroom was not fit for purpose. The resident said his main problem was that the rust and mould were getting worse as the extractor fan in the bathroom was not working. He explained he felt dissatisfied, and his breathing had suffered, and this may have contributed to his cardiac arrest. The resident explained he had spent a lot of his own money redecorating the bathroom and making it habitable.

18. The landlord provided its stage one response to the resident on 27 August 2021. The landlord explained:

  1. Its complaints policy sets out the timeframes in which it can investigate complaints, which is six months before the complaint being logged.
  2. As the issues with his bathroom dated back over three years, it said it was unable to complete a comprehensive investigation into the delays the resident encountered.
  3. It attempted to establish a reason for the delay due to the resident’s health.
  4. It said the resident explained the local authority contacted it in January 2018 about his bathroom not being fit for purpose, it had checked its systems and was unable to locate a copy of the letter.
  5. It explained in April 2021, the resident spoke with the landlord in detail about his bathroom. The repairs were then logged by the end of April and completed in July 2021, as such it could not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  6. It also explained that the resident had reported the repair for the leaking toilet on the Saturday evening and it was attended to on Sunday evening due to staffing issues. The landlord apologised for the delay and explained this was still within the 24-hour timeframe in its policy.

19. On the same day, the resident responded to the landlord about the toilet repairs and said, he had been at home all day on the Saturday and Sunday, and nobody called. He detailed the job was completed on the Sunday evening by an operative who told him, he had attended on the Saturday afternoon. The resident stated he did not receive a call about the attendance on the Saturday.

20. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two on 3 September 2021. He said nobody had been in contact and his request was not resolved. He wanted to know why it took “two years” to complete the repairs to his bathroom and what the landlord was going to do to help him. The landlord confirmed on the same day that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage two.

21. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 September 2021, asking for an update on his complaint. The landlord explained it had been escalated to stage two. The resident said he had been informed by his doctor the issues with the repair might have contributed to his cardiac arrest in 2017. He informed the landlord he was thinking of going to the Ombudsman.

22. On 13 September 2021, the resident told the landlord he had taken legal advice on his situation. His shower room was deemed unfit for his condition in 2018, due to the size, rust, mould, and the faulty extractor fan and it took the landlord until July 2021 to rectify the issues.

23. On 14 December 2021, the landlord’s internal communication showed that though the complaint about the bathroom was historic, it aimed to review it due to the potential legal challenge. It found that following the notification of the issues with the bathroom, it had communication with a contractor, but this stopped until another contractor was in contact with it in 2021. It asked its surveyor and customer liaison manager for a summary of events, and any delays of which they were aware. On the same day, the landlord received the following responses:

  1. The surveyor detailed, it originally had a work order raised in 2018, for the pipework to the shower and this had been cancelled. It was then asked to reattend in April 2021, and then it re-raised the works orders for the shower and extractor fan in the bathroom. It indicated it had no other inspections raised for the property.
  2. The customer liaison manager said it did not get involved with the matter until 2020, when the resident informed it of the bathroom and the impact it was having on his health. This was when it contacted the surveyor and the repairs team. Although there was a delay in getting it done, they managed to complete the repairs. Referrals were made to the repairs team, and at the same time, the idea of alternative accommodation was explored. Once the repairs were completed, the resident confirmed he no longer wanted to move and was happy where he was. It said it believed the issues came initially when another member of the landlord’s staff completed a home visit to the resident in 2019, and then due to covid, repairs were postponed.

24. The landlord provided its stage two response on 15 December 2021. In the response, it explained the reason for the resident’s complaint, and the explanation provided for why his complaint about the bathroom was not addressed in the stage one response. The landlord then:

  1. Explained the emergency repairs about the resident’s leaking toilet did get addressed the day after it was reported. This was within the 24-hour timeframe in its policy. It apologised for any inconvenience and acknowledged it however did take longer than usual.
  2. The landlord stated having looked at the complaint again and the available information, it had been able to reach an outcome on how the repairs to the bathroom were managed and the handling of the complaint.
  3. It agreed with the stage one response but explained, it could see it had impacted the resident, and as it wanted to restore his faith in it, it overlooked the policy at its discretion and considered the resident’s journey since 2018.
  4. It explained it attended in July/August 2018 and arranged for the leaking pipes to be fixed and boxed in. This was however not done as the repairs were cancelled on its system. This then led to another visit in June 2019, to look at the bathroom, but after this, it could not see that repairs were arranged. The landlord acknowledged this was unacceptable and it apologised.
  5. It explained between March 2020 – March 2021, due to the lockdowns, it could only complete emergency repairs and repairs which could be completed safely without close contact to residents. This led to the repairs to the bathroom not being completed until after this time.
  6. It noted the resident did not contact about the leaking pipe again until April 2021 and the repairs to the bathroom were completed in July 2021. It acknowledged it was its responsibility to get things right the first time, but given the lack of contact, it did not believe this was a matter causing huge impact or daily inconvenience. It said it did not have the professional ability to find a connection between the leaking pipe and the resident’s health, but apologised if the resident’s health was made worse in any way due to its inaction. It offered the resident £250 in compensation to put things right. This was broken down as:
    1. £180 for the length of time taken to resolve the issue.
    2. £40 for the lack of communication about repairs
    3. £30 for the complaint handling delays and the delay in issuing its stage two response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

25. It is recognised the situation has been distressing for the resident and has been ongoing for a long time. The resident has reported the issue has contributed to his poor health. The Ombudsman can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s actions, where it identifies failure on the landlord’s part, but cannot comment on the impact on a resident’s health. Such issues are better dealt with by the courts.

Repairs to resident’s bathroom

26. The landlord has a responsibility to complete its repairs within 28 days as highlighted in its repairs policy. Whilst the local authority carried out its own investigations and made its own findings, once the landlord became aware of the need for the repairs, it was under a duty to complete its own investigations, make its own findings, and where it deemed necessary, complete the required repairs within the timeframes specified. Where it could not complete the repairs within established timescales, in line with its policy, it should communicate clearly with the resident and provide updates.

27. The timeline shows the landlord was aware of the required repairs in July/August 2018, as it attended to inspect the bathroom. Repairs were raised again in June 2019, but the works were then left outstanding and completed in July 2021. It took the landlord three years to complete the required works. This is significantly outside of the 28 working day period provided within its responsive repairs policy. There is also no evidence of communication with the resident to explain why the required repair works were cancelled on both occasions, or that the landlord provided any updates about the repairs to the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, that even if parts and external contractors were required to complete the repairs, the length of time taken is still significantly outside the expected timeframes in which such works should be completed.

28. The delays left the resident distressed, inconvenienced, and frustrated as he had to use an unsanitary bathroom due to the rusty, and mouldy piping, for a further three years after being informed it was not fit for purpose. The lack of communication and updates about the repairs would have also added to the resident’s dissatisfaction and goes against the landlord’s repairs policy about communicating and explaining why repairs could not be completed. The landlord also failed to provide its next steps, or when it would be returning to complete the repairs both in 2018, and 2019. This would have also added to the resident’s frustrations.

29. The landlord said in its stage two response, due to the lack of contact from the resident about the repairs until April 2021, it did not believe it was a matter causing huge impact or daily inconvenience to him. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, as the landlord was already aware the repairs were required, it was under a duty, to ensure they were completed promptly. The resident should not have needed to chase for updates to ensure it was done.

30. While it is recognised that the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to delays to works between January 2020 and June 2021, for some of this period, government restrictions had been removed or relaxed, allowing for repairs works to be undertaken. Even if there had been further delays caused by a backlog of works for reasons relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, this Service has not been provided with evidence that an explanation for the delays had been communicated to the resident. Instead, the resident was put to time and trouble in following this up and ultimately having to raise a complaint in order for this matter to be addressed. This Service would also identify that the landlord had a reasonable amount of time before COVID-19 and the imposed restrictions to complete the required repairs between July/August 2018 to February 2020.

31. To make things right and restore the resident’s faith in the landlord, it offered him an apology and compensation. Considering the length of time, the repairs remained outstanding, and the landlord’s lack of communication about the repairs, and the missed opportunities to get things right between 2018 to 2020, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not go far enough to rectify the inconvenience, distress, and frustration faced by the resident and a finding of maladministration has been made.

Repairs to the resident’s leaking toilet

32. With regards to the resident’s leaking toilet, following his report for the repair, he confirmed the landlord attended the following day to complete the required emergency repair. This was within the 24-hour period in its repairs policy. The landlord recorded attending on the same day but was unable to get access to the property. The resident disputed there was a visit made on the same day, however when he made the landlord aware of this, an operative attended, and the repair was completed within the 24-hour time frame. Although the situation would have been distressing for the resident, the landlord responded promptly and as such no maladministration has been found. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord acted reasonably and within the required timelines in getting the repairs about the toilet completed.

Landlord’s record keeping

33. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management recommends, landlords consider their current approach to record keeping, and where necessary, implement the needed recommendations, to ensure their record keeping is sufficiently accurate and robust. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, some of the recommendations within the report would be of assistance to the landlord, such as benchmarking against other organisations’ good practice in knowledge and information management to aid in its service delivery to resident’s.

34. The timeline shows repeated failures in the landlord’s record-keeping. It has no records to explain why the booked works in 2018 were cancelled, nor are there any records that following the visit in 2019, it scheduled any repairs. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion, the lack of records impacted on the completion of the repairs and the provision of updates to the resident about the repairs. This led to inconvenience to the resident, as he had to make use of a bathroom which the landlord agreed required work, and added to his frustration, as he did not know what was occurring around the required repairs.

35. In addition, from the information provided to the Ombudsman, there are gaps in the evidence, namely, a lack of information on what occurred between July/August 2018 to June 2019, and then again between June 2019 to June 2021. There is also no information on what prompted the visit in June 2019 which identified the resident’s bathroom required renovating.

36. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record-keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. Staff, contractors, and managing agents should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these.

37. Given the above, the landlord’s record-keeping was poor, and amounts to a service failure. The evidence suggests, this was a key factor in the landlord’s poor performance and the delay.

The landlord’s complaint handling

38. Although the resident’s complaint about the bathroom repairs exceeded the six-month time limits for consideration in its complaints policy, the landlord acted positively in exercising its discretion and choosing to investigate the matter. This shows positive customer service on behalf of the landlord to help the resident in feeling his concerns were heard.

39. It took the landlord 73 working days to provide its stage two response, this is 53 working days more than the 20 working days provided within its complaints policy. The landlord has also provided no evidence, that it requested an extension to provide its stage two response late, or that it offered the resident an explanation of the delay in line with its policy. There is also no evidence that it kept the resident updated of the progress of the complaint in line with its complaints policy, there appears to be a 66 working day gap in communication following the resident’s escalation between 13 September 2021 and 14 December 2021.

40. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in its complaint handling process and offered compensation to the resident. Despite this, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion this did not go far enough to address the delay in the landlord’s complaints handling. The delays, lack of communication, lack of updates, and failure to request extensions outside of its complaint policy timescales would have added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord. Further, the evidence suggests the landlord only explained the resident could provide information in support of his complaint a day before it issued its response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this is unreasonable and due to this, the lack of communication and the delay in the provision of its stage two response, there was a service failure by the landlord with its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been:

  1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom.
  2. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s leaking toilet.
  3. Service failure by the landlord with its record keeping.
  4. Service failure by the landlord with its complaint handling.

Reasons

42. It took the landlord three years to complete the necessary repairs to the bathroom. It provided no evidence of communicating or updating the resident about the delays to the repairs and there were missed opportunities to address the repairs between 2018 to 2020.

43. The landlord attended to the repairs to the resident’s leaking toilet within the 24-hour timeframe provided within its policy despite the reported communication issues by the resident.

44. There was a 53 working day delay in the landlord providing its stage two response, it provided no evidence it requested an extension or provided the resident a reason for the delay. There was also no evidence provided that it kept the resident updated about the progress of his complaint.

45. The landlord’s poor recordkeeping led to the delays in completing the repairs, a lack of communication and updates to the resident about the repairs, and an inability to explain the three-year delay in completing the repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

46. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is to:

  1. Pay the resident compensation of £700. This includes the £250 which was previously offered in its stage two response. The additional £450 is made up of:
    1. £250 for the length of time and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay in repairs to the bathroom.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s record keeping.
    3. £100 for the landlord’s complaint handling failure.
  2. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

47. The landlord should consider:

  1. Reviewing its record-keeping practices procedures and ensure accurate records are kept of repairs, timelines, completion dates, and correspondence with residents and contractors.
  2. Reviewing the Ombudsman published spotlight report on knowledge and information management in May 2023 which recommended that landlords strengthen their approach to record keeping. It is available at Housing Ombudsman Spotlight Knowledge and Information Management.
  3. Providing clear communication timescales to ensure residents are kept properly informed of developments about repairs and its complaints handling.