The Guinness Partnership Limited (202119664)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119664

The Guinness Partnership Limited

10 May 2022

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:
   1. The landlord’s decision not to replace the door at the property.
   2. The landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which owns the property.
3. The resident complained about the landlord’s decision not to replace the front door at the property, which had a gap at the bottom of it, thereby letting draft and rainwater in. She was unhappy that this was the case, having said that she was previously advised at one inspection of the door, that this would be done.
4. In response to her complaint, the landlord said it would not be replacing the door at the property because the gap underneath it had been caused by the resident, who had lain a new higher flooring and had shaved off the bottom to accommodate it.  The landlord explained that it was therefore not its responsibility. The landlord did accept delay in its response to the complaint and offered £20 compensation in recognition of this and accepted, internally, that communication could have been improved.
5. The resident remains dissatisfied by the landlord’s decision not to replace the door at the property and would like this to be done. She does not accept the gap in the door was caused by her or that it is her responsibility to replace it, stating that the door has bowed and it had a gap underneath when she moved into the property. 

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

6. The landlord’s ‘Responsive Repairs Policy’ states that the resident is responsible for “altering doors for carpets” and that a resident is responsible for repair for any damage caused by themselves.
7. The landlord’s ‘Complaints Policy’ states that it aims to complete investigations of complaints at stage one, within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage two.  If the landlord needs longer at stage two, it will let the complainant know and it will provide a stage two outcome no later than 10 additional working days later.
8. The landlord’s ‘Compensation Policy’ sets out circumstances where the landlord may offer compensation, including where there has been a service failure by the landlord. The guidance for amount for service failure is “up to £250”.

The landlord’s decision not to replace the front door at the property

9. Once on notice, the landlord is obliged to carry out the repairs it is responsible for, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy and in law.  Both the landlord and tenant have repair responsibilities, with the resident being responsible for internal decoration and flooring, for example and the landlord being responsible for repair of the windows and front door.
10. The landlord does not dispute there is a problem with the door, however, decided not to replace it, due to it determining that the problem had been caused by the resident, who it said had shaved the bottom of the door to accommodate a higher flooring she had installed.  Whilst the landlord is responsible for repair or replacement of the front door, it is not responsible where damage has been caused by the resident and therefore, any works it does carry out, are rechargeable to the resident.
11. It is not in the remit of this Service to determine whether the resident had in fact shaved the bottom of the door to accommodate her new flooring or not; something she states she did not do. This is particularly impracticable as no evidence has been provided by either party in support of their version of events. Rather, it is the role of the Ombudsman to investigate and determine how the landlord responded to the reported issues and subsequent complaint and whether its response was in accordance with its policies and procedures and appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances.
12. The landlord’s decision not to replace the door was on the basis that the damage had been caused by the resident.  The decision was therefore an appropriate one, because it was not obliged to repair it in these circumstances, in accordance with its repairs policy, the tenancy agreement and in law.  The landlord found that the property was not let with the gap, but rather, caused by the resident, when laying a higher flooring.  The issue with the gap in the door, despite the resident stating that it was there from when she moved into the property, was not something reported at the start of the tenancy but rather, later, once the new floor had been installed.
13. For completeness, the resident has also stated that the door has bowed over time, causing the gap at the bottom.  However, the landlord’s surveyors have ascertained that this is not the case and that it has been shaved at the bottom; the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of an expert contractor, which it did.
14. The works the landlord did carry out, in fitting brushes to the bottom of the door were reasonable, because similarly, it was not obliged to do this without evidence that the issues with the door had been present before the resident moved into the property.

Communication and complaint handling

15. Documentation provided to this Service evidences the landlord recognising that its communication is an area of learning that it can take forward.  This is because there was a misunderstanding, with the resident believing she would receive a replacement door from the landlord, when this was never something agreed. There had been mention of a possibility of a new wooden door by one surveyor but then she was advised that this would not be possible due to the height of the floor and latterly, that it was not the landlord’s responsibility to replace the door in any event.
16. There were several visits to inspect the door and decide on a course of action. This was clearly and understandably frustrating for the resident, exacerbated by reference to a possibility of a wooden door, then being told there could be no wooden door, to then be advised by the landlord that it was not responsible anyway.  There was a lack of clarity and the resident’s expectations were not managed throughout. 
17. It is not known why the landlord, who recognised this learning in its review of the complaint and identification of any learning it could take from it, was not communicated to the resident as part of its response to it.  Responding to a complaint is not just about issuing an apology or making an offer of compensation, where appropriate, but identifying learning and in doing so, demonstrating that the matter has been taken seriously. The landlord missed an opportunity to do this.
18. Turning to timeframes for responding to the complaint, there was delay at both stages one and two of the complaints procedure, with the landlord issuing its responses significantly outside of the timeframes set out in its complaints policy, with a two-month gap at both stages. The reasons for delay are not acknowledged by the landlord, reasons which appear to relate, at least in part, to staff annual leave.  While unexpected leave may impact complaint timescales, annual leave is an insufficient reason for a complaint response to be delayed.  Staff availability to investigate and respond to a complaint should be first considered and any known delay should be communicated to a complainant in advance, which did not happen here.
19. It was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation to the resident, given the delay, although this was on the low side, at £20, set against the Ombudsman’s published ‘Guidance on Remedies’ which suggests an amount from £50 be offered, where a service failure has been identified. Finally, the landlord did not acknowledge or offer compensation to the resident in respect of its identification of learning regarding its communication, where an offer of compensation would have been reasonable, given the circumstances.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s decision not to replace the front door at the property.
21. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its communication and complaint handling.

Order

22. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £75, comprised of:
    1. £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint at both stages one and two.
    2. £25 in recognition of the learning identified in respect of its communication.
    3. This total amount encompasses the original £20 offered; where the £20 has already been accepted, £55 remains outstanding.
23. The landlord to evidence compliance with the above order to this Service within 28 days of this report.