The Guinness Partnership Limited (202008437)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008437

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 May 2021

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. The temperature at the property and the need for insulation.
2. A delay in the repairs to the windows.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies.

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. The policy requires that complainants are kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident makes a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should formally respond within 10 working days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request a formal review of the decision and a response should be provided within 10 working days.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines the response times for different types of repairs; it aims to attend to routine repairs within 28 days of the issue being reported. It aims to complete repairs at the first visit. Where that is not possible (for example, where further investigation is needed, where the fix does not work, or where parts need to be ordered) it will communicate clearly with the resident explaining why the repair cannot be completed at first visit, what it intends to do and what should happen next, including when it will return to complete the repair.
Under the landlord’s complaints and compensation policy ‘A goodwill gesture may be given where it agrees that it should have provided a better customer experience and it decides an apology alone would not be proportionate’.

Summary of Events

On 12 February 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and raised an issue regarding the cold temperature in his property. The landlord attended the property and agreed that there was a temperature problem and would look at providing a solution however no formal resolution date was specified.
On 14 March 2019, the landlord repairs logs show that there was an overhaul of three heaters and the and immersion completed at the property. No other information was provided.
On 29 May 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to discuss an unrelated issue at the property and discovered that the insulation inspection had been cancelled earlier that month due to fire retardant issues. The resident was not provided with any update or information regarding the cancellation. On the same day the landlord provided a written response and apologised for the lack of communication on its behalf and said it was in the process of acquiring the building plans to determine the type of flooring in the apartment. It assured the resident that it would come up with a ‘plan B’ before winter set in.
On 4 July 2019, the landlord contacted the resident and said that it had been researching products that meet fire regulations and will help alleviate the issue. The landlord raised the large cost involved and stated that it would be classed as an improvement rather than a repair and would need to consult the sustainability team to see if it was viable and then it would update the resident.
On 5 September 2019, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update in regard to the insulation issue at the property. The landlord said it would provide an update shortly.
On 20 September 2019, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay in responding. It stated that the issue had been passed to the sustainability team and someone would be in touch.
On 27 September 2019, the resident made an initial stage one complaint to the landlord regarding the temperature of his flat and the landlord’s poor level of service and communication. He raised the following issues:
1. Due to poor insulation the flat is freezing during the colder months (October to April) as it sits above an open-space bin storage area. There is minimal underfloor insulation and also a high number of outside walls which makes the flat uneconomical to heat. He recently installed new heaters that seem unable to cope with the low internal temperatures but are more economical.
2. That the windows are badly insulated causing considerable heat loss. The resident’s energy supplier alerted him to a spike in the winter months and sent out an advisor to see if there was a problem with the meter.
On 25 November 2019, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response and addressed the following issues:
1. That it failed to communicate to the resident that the repair was cancelled due to ‘fire retardant issues’. It acknowledged that this should have been conveyed to the resident and it offered an apology that the resident had to chase it up.
2. It would inspect the resident’s home on 3 December 2019 and provide an update post inspection of what will occur next.
3. It informed the resident that call back request times are within two business days, when emails are sent directly to a member of staff they cannot put a timescale on response as they may be unexpectedly out of the office or busy with other matters. It provided the resident with the customer service email which is monitored and tracked and it would provide a response.
On 3 December 2019, a thermal imaging survey was performed at the property. The external thermal imaging survey findings did not highlight any significant areas of concern with relation to the dwelling’s external façade. The key finding from the internal thermal imaging was that the ambient internal air temperature was much lower than expected under normal heating conditions through the duration of the survey. The survey made the following recommendations:
1. Ensure the resident was fully acquainted with the functionality of the existing electric storage heaters – understanding how to change the temperature settings and timer functions.
2. Appoint an electric heating specialist to evaluate the existing electric storage heaters are correctly sized and positioned for the dwelling.
3. Monitoring internal temperature of each of the rooms via temperature sensors for a minimum of 6 months (to include a winter period) to assist in investigating the cause of issues.
The resident contacted the landlord three times between 12 December 2019 and 3 July 2020 to obtain a copy of the thermal imaging survey. There is no evidence that it was provided to the resident.
On 28 January 2020, the landlord sent a heating specialist to the resident’s property to assess the temperature issue and provided a site visit report. It was determined that all heaters were fully functional and that the resident understood the workings and settings of all heaters. It stated that there was a thermal break at the property and should the underfloor exposed area be insulated this would alleviate the break and fix cold spots. Works were raised by the landlord to overhaul bedroom, lounge & kitchen windows.
On 6 February 2020, the landlord contacted the resident and said there was a possibility that they would be able to insulate under the flooring but it would need to perform a survey to find out. It asked the resident to contact them when he was back from his six week overseas holiday.
On 6 April 2020, the landlord’s contract with the insulation company came to an end, due to the COVID-19 pandemic they were not doing any home visits.
On 27 April 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two complaint review. The landlord addressed the following:
1. It apologised that the resident was not informed about the cancelation of the repair and that it found out whilst chasing another repair. It stated that it was cancelled due to an issue regarding the fire retardant and the resident should have been informed and updated about the other options being explored.
2. It apologised for the delay in the repair to the windows taking place and acknowledged that the resident had been waiting months for an outcome.
3. It acknowledged that the issue was still outstanding and was yet be resolved, it said plans were in place for another inspection and that it might be possible for insulation to be installed under the floor. It said an appointment would be raised to survey the property when the COVID-19 Lockdown was lifted.
On 17 June 2020, the landlord’s repairs timeline stated that it completed works to overhaul bedroom, lounge & kitchen windows, hinges, trickle vents & gaskets.
On 15 July 2020, the resident responded to the landlord’s stage two independent complaint review and raised the following issues:
1. That he had not ‘heard a word’ from the landlord about the insulation of his property and wanted to ensure the job had not been forgotten.
2. That the landlord failed to adequately address its complaint handling and communication errors. He said that he could supply ‘several examples’ of the landlord failing to acknowledge or respond to his requests.
3. That the landlord failed to provide a copy of the December 2019 thermal imaging survey report and there were at least three ‘ignored emails’ including one on 4 July 2020. He raised that there was no follow up from the landlord in relation to the recommendations made on 7 January 2020.
4. That the landlord gave ‘misleading’ information to the MP who was led to believe that the case had closed. It also failed to provide any comment in its initial stage two response.
5. That he would like an update of whether a thermal imaging survey would need to be carried out or the less intrusive underfloor survey.
6. The delay in getting his ‘poorly insulated’ windows looked at and the lack / poor response by the landlord.
7. He raised the effect that this 18-month process had had on his physical and mental health and that the case remains unresolved. He requested an update of what is happening in the case including current job reference numbers and works for reference. He said that the case was ongoing for a year before COVID-19 so it cannot be a blanket excuse.
On 15 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for an update regarding the repairs to his property. He highlighted that the landlord had been carrying out non-urgent repairs for over a month now and still had not heard anything about the survey or repairs to the windows. He asked that the landlord contact him in relation to the matters.
On 20 July 2020, internal emails from the landlord outlined that they still did not have a contract in place with any underfloor insulation installers. It advised that they would not be able to perform the planed survey and that ‘for the time being it was not possible to pursue this option’. It stated that the option could be looked at again in a few months if a contract was in place.
On 17 September 2020, a contractor attended the property to drill into the floor and perform an insulation check and take a floor plan of the flat. The resident advised that the contractor brought the wrong drill and the insulation check was not performed or rescheduled.
On 28 September 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its second stage two final response. The resident asked for further investigation in regard to the delays and lack of communication in relation to the initial complaint as the resident felt the service was poor. The landlord addressed the following issues:
1. It had previously advised that an insultation inspection would be performed at the property. It was later confirmed that this would not be required and was promised to the resident incorrectly. It had liaised with the Independent Living Advisor and spoken with other neighbours and no issues with heat loss had been reported.
2. It was recommended from a thermal imaging survey performed in December 2019 that it should arrange for an electrician to check the storage heaters. This was performed and no faults to the heaters were found. A copy of the report was provided to the resident. It highlighted that it was unclear why the heat loss survey was only conducted in December 2019 when the resident had been reporting it for several months. It took responsibility for the delay and said that it would feed back to management to reduce any delays or service failures in the future.
3. That heaters with ‘high levels of energy efficiency performance’ were installed at the property in 2018. It said that it would review the size of the heaters that were installed to ensure that they are correct and effective for the size of the property.
4. It agreed to have a data device installed at the in the property to monitor temperature over a six month period. It said that if the readings were not of an acceptable temperature than further actions would be taken to address the issue.
5. It said that it would offer the resident further information and education regarding the most effective and efficient ways to use the heaters at the property.
6. It said that it would update the resident weekly to ensure that the follow up work is completed and take the onus away from the resident having to call for an update.
7. Window repair – a contractor was arranged to renew four window hinges and two locking mechanisms on the lounge and bedroom windows. Works were scheduled for the 19 August 2020 however they were not complete due to a window supply shortage. It apologised for the additional delays and said that the works had since been completed.
8. Complaint handling – it identified several complaint handling failures which had been discussed with the appropriate member of staff to ensure that they do not happen again in the future. The complaint handling failures included:
  1. Email received on 21 October 2019 and no response provided until 4 November 2019.
  2. Email received from the resident on 4 November 2019 to clarify details about the final response and query what stage his complaint was at. It did not provide a response until 20 December 2019 after the resident sent a chaser email.
  3. 13 emails exchanged between 4 November 2019 and 8 January 2020 were not recorded on the complaint.
  4. It also identified that its communication with the resident’s MP was incorrect, as it provided details that were not accurate, such as informing them that we had been communicating with the resident by phone when all communication had been via email.
  5. It also informed the MP that the resident’s complaint had been closed, however the resident had not been made aware of this. A further email from the resident querying if his complaint had been closed was not responded to for several weeks by the complaints team.
  6. It highlighted that the above-mentioned failures would be fed back to the complaints team manager and that steps had been taken to improve individuals and team performance.
9. It apologised for delays and previous experience of the resident and offered £450 good will gesture payment as consideration of the failings and for the time these issues have been ongoing.
On 1 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord in response to its second stage two response. He raised that other residents would not be experiencing the same effects as they don’t have an enclosed area underneath their uninsulated floor. He said that the response ‘glazed’ over the fact that it took 6 months for the landlord to provide a copy of the thermal imaging survey after repeated attempts. The resident asked for a copy of the report by contractors on 17 September 2020 and asked about the purpose as they did not bring the appropriate equipment to perform the survey. He raised that the goodwill gesture offered was ‘bordering on insulting’ and did not adequately cover the ‘time, misery and distress’ its failure had caused and the toll it had taken on his ‘physical & mental health’.

Assessment and findings

The temperature at the property and the need for insulation.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building, including ceilings and floors. Whilst it is unlikely that this extends to improvement works such as adding additional insulation it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns to ensure that it was meeting its obligations under the Act and to take steps to resolve any issues it identified. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine what, if any, works should be carried out to the properties to improve their heating and insulation. Instead, this Service’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns, in line with relevant policies, procedures and good practice.
The evidence provided by both parties demonstrates that the landlord was made aware of the temperature problem at the property on 13 February 2019. The landlord appropriately performed an initial inspection and agreed to undertake a further insulation inspection. This inspection however was cancelled by the landlord without notifying the resident and it was only discovered when the resident called to enquire about unrelated works on 29 May 2019. Under the landlord’s repairs policy routine inspection should be completed within 28 days and it also has an obligation to keep the resident updated and informed about the ongoing repairs. This did not happen.
The resident raised a stage one complaint about the landlord’s inaction and lack of communication regarding the issue on 27 September 2019.The landlord provided a response and appropriately offered the resident an apology and agreed to perform a thermal imaging survey on 3 December 2019. Up until this point the landlord had failed to take a resolution focused approach or conduct any inspection which led to delays in the assessment of the situation and possible future works. There was a nine-month delay in the assessment of the works from when the temperature issue was first reported which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident and it is not in line with the timelines outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord appropriately arranged for the thermal imaging survey on 3 December 2019 and a report was provided to it. The resident asked for a copy of the report on at least three separate occasions from December 2019 to July 2020 before it was provided. The landlord took a resolution focused approach and complied with two of the recommendations including having a heating specialist attend the property to ensure that the heaters were fully functioning, and that the resident was informed on the proper settings and functions. However, it was also recommended that the property was monitored with temperature sensors over a six-month period but there is no evidence that the landlord attempted to comply with this recommendation, which was not appropriate. From the evidence provided by both parties it appears no further works were booked in regard to the insulation due to the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in line with government regulations in place at the time.
The resident contacted the landlord again about the insulation at the property on 15 July 2020 as he had received no communication from the landlord. On 17 September 2020 the landlord appropriately sent a contractor to perform an insulation check however the contractor did not bring the right tools to perform the works so they were not completed or rescheduled. The landlord’s inaction and lack of communication in not completing the further monitoring and assessment of the issues constitutes a service failure. It was not reasonable particularly given the history of delays and previous failures to provide the resident with an update regarding works.
There has been limited progress made by the landlord following the issue of its final complaint response in September 2020, and this would have been understandably distressing and frustrating for the resident. It is accepted that the covid-19 pandemic and the associated restrictions impacted the landlord’s ability to carry out the non-urgent repair works in its properties and that this has directly impacted upon the resident’s complaint. However, given that the landlord has been aware of the issue since February 2019, it cannot rely on the recent events to wholly justify its delay in addressing the issues raised. Further, any limitations would not have prevented it from communicating with the resident more effectively or providing un update in line with its repairs policy. It is clear from the evidence that the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding what work would take place, when it was likely to commence, and to what extent it would update him on progress.
However, in determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress can be as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
In the landlord’s stage two response it appropriately took responsibility for its failure to communicate with the resident and the delayed and missed appointments and highlighted that the failures would be fed back to the complaints team manager and that steps had been taken to improve individuals and team performance. The landlord offered the resident £450 as a good will gesture payment as consideration of the failings and for the time these issues had been ongoing. The landlord did not break down compensation amount for its individual failures however an amount of £150 would have been adequate in this situation to compensate for the acknowledged failures to communicate with the resident and the delay, distress and inconvenience caused.

A delay in the repairs to the windows.

The landlord became aware of the issues with the windows at the property in the resident’s stage one complaint on 27 September 2019. The landlord apologised for the delay and inaction on the issue in its stage two complaint review on the 27 April 2020. The works to the windows were not completed until after 19 August 2020 due to a window supply shortage. The landlord had an obligation under its repairs policy to complete the routine repair within 28 days and keep the resident informed about any delay. As raised above in Paragraph 31 it is accepted that the covid-19 pandemic and the associated restrictions impacted the landlord’s ability to carry out the non-urgent repair works to the windows however the landlord had been aware of the issue since September 2019, therefore it cannot rely on the recent events to wholly justify its delay in addressing the issues raised. The landlord failed to take a resolution focused approach as there was a five-month delay before the implementation of the national COVID-19 restrictions which is not in line with the timeline highlighted in the landlord’s repairs policy.
As above in paragraph 34 the landlord offered a total of £450 good will payment in recognition of its failures. For this part of the complaint an amount of £100 would have been proportionate to the delay in the repair to the window before the Covid-19 pandemic caused further delays.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The documentation provided shows the initial formal complaint from the resident was made on 27 September 2019. The landlord provided a formal response on the 25 November 2019, this represents an unexplained 30 working day delay in providing the resident with its stage one response. The landlord failed to communicate the delay with the resident who had to chase up the response on multiple occasions. The landlord’s response was not in line with its complaints policy and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident asked for a review of the decision on the 4 December 2019 and the landlord progressed the complaint and provided its first final stage two review on 27 April 2020. This represents a 5-month delay in the landlord providing the resident with its response, the delay at stage two was significant and the response provided was inadequate as it failed to address a number of the resident’s concerns and another response was required to be provided on 28 September 2020. The landlord’s failure to address the resident’s complaints in its first stage two response, caused a delay in completing its internal complaints procedure.
The resident engaged his local MP in an attempt to progress his complaint through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. The landlord provided incorrect information to the MP that the resident’s complaint had been closed. This led to the MP informing the resident that they would need to apply to the Ombudsman to progress his complaint and would not provide further assistance. The landlord acknowledged its mistake in its stage two response and apologised for the error. The landlord’s failure was not approprate and meant that the resident was no longer able to get assistance from the MP’s office.
It is clear that there has been a significant failure at both stage one and two of the landlord’s complaints process which was not approprate. There have been a number of acknowledged communication failures throughout the internal complaints process as highlighted in the landlord’s stage two response in Paragraph 25 above. The landlord did appropriately apologise for the multiple delays and service failures and made a total offer to the resident of £450. This case is of the upper level of service failure and would therefore warrant a payment of £200 to compensate for the considerable distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
Overall, the total amount of compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the identified failures in the complaints set out above and sufficient to put then right. The resident has requested compensation for the toll that the landlord’s failures have taken on his ‘physical & mental health’. This Service does not award compensation in the same way that a court might quantify damages and the Ombudsman does not have the authority to reach a binding determination that the landlord has been negligent. This investigation has, however, taken into account the service failures acknowledged by the landlord, the impact on the resident as a vulnerable tenant, and what is stated in the landlord’s Compensation Policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in regard to its acknowledged failures in the three complaints below.
1. The temperature at the property and the need for insulation.
2. A delay in the repairs to the windows.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged its failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s concerns inline with relevant policies, procedures and good practice. There were a number of documented instances of the landlord failing to respond to the resident’s requests regarding the insulation at the property. The landlord however made an offer of compensation that was sufficient to put right the acknowledged failures.
The landlord failed to complete the repairs to the resident’s windows in line with its repairs timeline and adequately communicate these delays to the resident. The amount of compensation offered was proportionate to put right the landlord’s acknowledged failure.
There were significant delays at both stage one and two of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The landlord provided an inadequate initial stage two response to the resident that meant another response needed to be issued. This caused further delay and caused the resident further distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to provide appropriate updates to the resident about the delays and also provided the residents MP with incorrect information that the case was closed when it had not completed its complaints procedure. The landlord appropriately recognised these failings offered the resident a goodwill payment as consideration of its failings and for the time that the issues have been ongoing in line with is compensation policy.

Recommendations

That the landlord reoffer the resident the £450 which was previously offered for acknowledged service failures.
The landlord inspect and assess the need for insulation at the property if it has not already done so.
The landlord should use this complaint as a learning exercise to identify where it can improve its procedures and communication with its residents to prevent similar instances happening in future.
The landlord should review its complaints policy – last year the Ombudsman published a Complaint Handling Code which provides a framework for high-quality complaint handling and greater consistency across landlord’s complaint procedures. This applies to all members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It will enable landlord’s to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. It sets out good practice for the sector that will allow landlord’s to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code will help residents in knowing what to expect from their landlord when they make a complaint and how to progress their complaint. Non-compliance with the Code could result in the Ombudsman issuing complaint handling failure orders. The Code can be found here: https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/ComplaintHandling-Code.pdf