The Guinness Partnership Limited (202219562)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219562

The Guinness Partnership Limited

27 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of major works;
2. complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property and the lease began in 2000. The information seen suggests he took over the lease in 2012. The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the top floor of a converted Victorian building (the building). The resident is retired and he occupies the property with his partner.
The landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the building in repair. The resident is obliged to pay the landlord a “fair proportion” of the costs it incurs while remedying any structural defect affecting the property (of which the resident was notified before the lease was granted). The lease contains arbitration provisions for resolving disputes around liability for costs.
The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has powers to determine Section 20 matters. This includes the power to dispense with consultation requirements in a particular case. It can also determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. Any concerns the resident has about the landlord’s compliance with consultation regulations, or his liability for costs are better suited to the FTT.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it will respond within 20 working days. A further 10 working days is available at each stage providing the resident is kept informed.

Summary of events

On 29 October 2019 the landlord issued the resident a Section 20 notice. It said the building’s roof was at the end of its lifespan and a full replacement was the most cost-effective option. The total cost, including insulated rendering works to external walls, was estimated at around £30K. The landlord also said the resident’s projected share was around £13K. The resident has said he began reporting roof issues when he first moved in.
From the landlord’s later correspondence, the resident complained about delays to the works in early December 2019. The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s initial complaint or the landlord’s response. Given the time that’s passed, it is unlikely we can investigate this complaint. Nevertheless, we can consider issues with the landlord’s complaint resolution. For example, a failure to complete agreed follow up actions.
On 26 February 2021 the landlord issued another Section 20 notice in relation to the roof. It listed the following works: roof replacement, patch repairs and render skim, scaffolding, traffic management system and welfare costs. The notice shows the projected costs had increased to around £44K. Further, the resident’s predicted share was now around £22K.
The landlord updated the resident by email on 24 March 2022. It said it was likely a new Section 20 notice would need to be issued. This was because a contractor appointed through the previous tendering process was unable to complete the works. It estimated the overall process was likely to take around 10 weeks. The landlord apologised for the bad news and advised it would provide regular updates.
The landlord’s complaint records show it raised a formal complaint on 6 September 2022. Corresponding notes said the resident was unhappy that roofing and rendering works were outstanding despite numerous visits from architects, surveyors and engineers. Further, he had been chasing the works over several years and another home on the top floor was affected. The main points were:
1. The resident wanted the works completing so the roof no longer leaked. A contractor had attended several months prior to price the works. Having chased for an update, the resident understood no contractor had been appointed.
2. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of updates. Further, he had raised an online complaint around 2 weeks ago but the landlord failed to respond.
The next day, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint by email. The email included a brief complaint summary. No information was seen to show the resident disputed this summary. The landlord also made a number of internal enquiries. It said it was unable to find any records of a recent complaint. Further notes show, having asked whether colleagues could locate it, the landlord was unable to find a complaint in the relevant inbox.
The landlord received additional information the same day. It said the roof was due to be replaced through a Section 20 consultation, and there had been around 3 Section 20 notifications issued in the last 4 years. Further, the last one was cancelled because the contractor was unable to fulfil the contract. Whilst this was beyond the landlord’s control, its relevant departments could have issued more updates. The information also said the works were being tendered again and the consultation period ended on 30 September 2022.
On 16 September 2022 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said the complaint was raised following contact with the resident on 6 September 2022. The timeline suggests the response was issued around 8 working days later. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld. The landlord awarded him £100 in compensation comprising: £75 for distress and inconvenience and £25 for poor communication. The main points were:
1. The resident advised he first reported roof issues 10 years ago. Further, it had been 4 years since the landlord agreed the outstanding repairs. The landlord could see a colleague previously investigated the resident’s concerns. While it was unable to re-investigate the same issue, it would ask the colleague to contact him.
2. Several Section 20 notices had been issued in the last 4 years. A contractor was appointed but subsequently said it was unable to complete the works. The works had been tendered again and the consultation period ran until 30 September 2022. The resident was entitled to nominate a contractor. The landlord would update him in due course.
3. Since March 2022, the resident requested updates on several occasions. The landlord was sorry none were provided. However, it was unable to find any evidence to show it failed to respond to a recent online complaint. Internal feedback had been given around the importance of updating customers.
In a same day email, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said the landlord’s compensation would be funny if he hadn’t “spent the last 4 years in anger, tears and frustration”, with a corresponding impact to his physical and mental health. Further, the landlord previously said he would be awarded £600 in compensation, and the resident emphasised this figure was inadequate at the time. In addition, he had done everything possible to address the issue from inside the property. His main points were:
1. The resident completed internal works because he could “see daylight” through holes in the property. At this time, the landlord was promising the major works would be completed.
2. The resident was now anticipating “a second winter of water ingress”. He also expected his internal repairs to deteriorate as a result. This would put him back to “square one”.
3. Since his initial complaints were not handled properly, the resident was surprised the landlord was unwilling to revisit its previous investigation.
The resident also emailed the landlord’s Section 20 representative that day. He said the landlord should take control of the situation and complete the repairs. Further, its “ridiculous” Section 20 process was adding to the stress of the situation. Given its size, he said, the landlord should not be asking him to source a contractor. Besides, it previously advised he was unable to nominate his own specialist. No information was seen to show the landlord’s complaints team were aware of this email. The resident’s main points were:
1. Since the “harm and hurt” the resident was caused outweighed the cost of the repairs, the landlord should now pay for the works in full.
2. The landlord should also discuss the installation of a Velux window to the rear of the property to address the lack of light. It previously promised this window and was now dismissing its commitment unfairly without explanation.
The landlord confirmed the escalation on 21 September 2022. It reiterated it was unable to reinvestigate issues. On that basis, it said, the compensation awarded only related to recent events.
During internal correspondence on 6 October 2022, the landlord said its previous Section 20 notices were all issued correctly and the problem related to its asset team. It said this team had: “postponed, cancelled, retendered…failed to communicate (and), the list really does go on”. It said the relevant team had not taken any responsibility for updating the resident and it had been sent “hundreds” of chaser emails. On that basis, the resident had “a valid complaint in terms of how poorly (the situation) had been managed”.
An internal memo the same day said the 1st stage of the landlord’s consultation process was complete and it was free to obtain quotes. Its wording suggests the resident raised similar concerns during the Section 20 observation period. The landlord said the resident could nominate contractors because a “different process” was being followed. It also said it wouldn’t fit a Velux window and this should not have been promised. In addition, the resident would be apportioned a share of the costs in line with the lease agreement.
The Ombudsman has seen a number undated images that appear to show damp patches and water damage on a number of internal walls. The landlord’s internal correspondence suggests the resident sent them to the landlord around 10 October 2022. However, due to problems with the attachments, the landlord was unable to view the images until early the following month. The information seen suggests, ultimately, the resident resent the images to resolve the problem. His initial email did not contain a description of the images.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 18 October 2022. This was around 21 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It apologised for the delays in completing the necessary works. It also awarded the resident £500 in compensation comprising: £200 for the lack of communication about the Section 20 process, £200 for any distress and inconvenience caused and £100 as “an apology for pursuing this matter”. It said feedback was provided to the landlord’s repairs team. The main points were:
1. The resident previously complained in 2019. The landlord’s corresponding investigation found there were delays were due to the pandemic, and contractor/supplier issues. Outstanding actions were left with the landlord’s repairs team and contractor. While this was the correct action at the time, the landlord’s repairs team should have managed the situation to completion.
2. Further, its complaints team “should have been on hand” until the works were complete. The landlord was sorry the matter was unresolved and the previous complaint had been closed. It was aware the resident had “consistently” pursued the matter and its “lack of action” was acknowledged.
3. The landlord’s current investigation showed its previous Section 20 notices were correctly issued. Further, responsibility for the delays rested with the landlord’s repairs team, which was responsible for appointing a contractor to complete the works.
4. It had taken an unreasonable amount of time for the works, to the roof guttering, rendering and chimney stack, “to come into fruition”. The landlord was sincerely sorry for the delay. The matter had been referred to its regional leader.
5. Following this referral, it was confirmed the landlord had now received all the necessary quotes. Its Section 20 team would contact the resident again in due course with an estimate. Once this was agreed, the landlord could provide a timeframe and begin the work.
6. The landlord had no evidence it failed to log a previous complaint. Without evidence, it was unable to “pass further judgement” on the resident’s related concerns .
7. The landlord’s stage 1 handler found the landlord’s level of communication from March 2022 was inappropriate. This amounted to poor service. The landlord was sorry its communication “had been somewhat fraught throughout this process”, and that service levels were not always met. It could appreciate this added to the resident’s frustration.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 November 2022. It said there were various issues with previous Section 20 notices. For example, contractors withdrawing, substantial cost increases and “required reissuing” of Section 20 notices had prevented the works from proceeding. To “mitigate the need for…more expensive repairs in the short term”, the landlord had undertaken repairs to the building’s internal roof. However, having viewed the resident’s images, it understood water ingress may be ongoing. The main points were:
1. A surveyor would inspect the property on 24 November 2022. They would be accompanied by a roofing specialist and a representative from the landlord’s contractor.
2. Following the survey, the landlord would review its findings and update the Section 20 notice if necessary. It would make every reasonable effort to expedite any work whilst complying with its other legal responsibilities.
3. In line with the lease agreement, the resident was obliged to contribute to the landlord’s costs for external repairs. He was also responsible for any internal repairs.
On 25 November 2022 the resident completed the Ombudsman’s complaint form. The timeline shows this was around 3 years after his 2019 complaint. He said discussions with the landlord about the major works had been ongoing for years. Further, the last 6 years were especially difficult for the family’s mental and physical health. They slept in rooms “with ever worsening damp” and had spent many hours trying to progress the repairs. Further, the landlord’s numerous apologies failed to result in firm action. His main points were:
1. Water ingress had been a problem since the family moved in. However, the landlord had only completed minor repairs. It only accepted extensive works were necessary after the resident involved a solicitor in 2016. The resident had spent over £2.5K on internal repairs related to water ingress.
2. The landlord should replace the roof and rendering in addition to making all guttering and walls good. It should also allow the installation of a rear bedroom window as agreed in 2018. Given costs spiralled during the landlord’s delays, it should also complete the works at the original price.
3. The landlord should stop making “defamatory comments” about the family. It should also compensate the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused, and for the internal repairs he had undertaken.
The resident updated the Ombudsman in January and February 2023. He provided multiple images of damp in the property’s bedroom. They appeared to show water damaged decorations and water around light fittings. The resident said he replaced plaster and woodwork around 18 months prior because he was “unable to stand” the situation any longer. Further, the landlord had ignored the financial and emotional costs to the family over the last 6 years.
The resident updated us again during a phone call in July 2022. He said the landlord completed some remedial works to the roof but he lacked confidence they would resolve the leaks and damp. He did not think the repairs were undertaken as an interim measure while the Section 20 process was ongoing. On that basis, it was understood he felt the landlord was no longer actively seeking to replace the roof. The resident referred to the landlord’s decision about the window and said it had declined to share a surveyor’s report from around 2018.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and his family. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. The information seen suggests it prompted a significant level of engagement from the resident. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages.
This assessment concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. We are typically unable to assess issues that have not been subject to a landlord’s formal complaints process. This is because, generally speaking, landlords need to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues accordingly prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of major works.

In line with the lease agreement, the landlord is legally obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the building in repair. This means it could be held responsible for internal damage caused by any failure to respond promptly to a leak. Where a resident reports damage occurred due to a landlord’s actions, we expect them to be referred to the landlord’s insurer. Alternatively, a landlord could inspect the damage and address it through its internal complaints procedure.
In this case, the landlord has not addressed water damage to the property. The timeline suggests it was unaware of the damage before it issued its final response. For example, though it was predicted in his escalation request, internal damage was not referenced in the resident’s initial complaint. There was no evidence to show the landlord’s complaints team should have been aware of these concerns before its final response was issued. In other words, there was no evidence the matter was not addressed due to a complaint handling failure.
We will therefore recommend the landlord raises a new complaint to address this issue. It is understood the resident is seeking damage related compensation. He may need referring to the landlord’s insurance team. The timeline points to a similar situation involving the Velux window, and the resident’s concerns around “defamatory” comments. Again, no information was seen to show these topics should have been included in the landlord’s final response. Still, they likely need including in the landlord’s new complaint.
It was noted, from the landlord’s case evidence, no information was seen to suggest the landlord made inappropriate comments about the resident or his family. For example, there was no evidence to indicate an inappropriate tone during the landlord’s interactions with the resident, or in its internal communications. Nevertheless, at the resident’s request, the landlord should investigate his related concerns accordingly.
The timeline points to long term issues with the landlord’s handling of the major works. For example, its internal correspondence in early October 2022 referenced a variety of failures over an extended period. Further, its November 2022 correspondence indicates a previous Section 20 process may have been reissued following incorrect handling by the landlord. In future, if he is unhappy with any associated charges, the resident may be able to pursue these issues through the FTT.
As mentioned, given the time that’s passed, this assessment is concerned with the period from the landlord’s previous stage 2 response (around December 2019) onwards. No information was seen to show the landlord failed to respond appropriately to any related repairs, including roofing or rendering issues, during this timeframe. In addition, the evidence suggests the Section 20 issue in this period was beyond the landlord’s control. This is because the nominated contractor made a commercial decision to withdraw from the works.
With regards to the complaint addressed, the landlord’s final response accepted its communication from March 2022 was poor. More significantly, it also accepted the resident’s related 2019 complaint was inappropriately closed with actions outstanding. Unreasonable delays and a lack of action were also acknowledged in respect of the repairs. The landlord assured the resident its latest Section 20 process would be successful and the repairs would be completed in reasonable time. It also awarded him £500 in compensation.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The timeline indicates the landlord has postponed its extensive schedule of works indefinitely. This was based on its November 2022 correspondence and the resident’s July 2023 update to the Ombudsman. In any case, the landlord cannot fairly say it rectified its previous issues around poor communication/lack of updates. Given the circumstances, it is both unfair and inappropriate that the resident currently lacks clarity around the landlord’s intentions. It is also contrary to the assurances in the landlord’s October 2022 final response.
Given the above, the evidence points to a lack of communication and inappropriate delays from the landlord’s previous stage 2 response to date. Based on the timing of this assessment, this represents a period of around 44 months. In comparison to the avoidable distress and inconvenience the resident was caused, its duration confirms the landlord’s compensation was disproportionate given what went wrong. For example, the resident was told a full roof replacement was needed and he was aware the building costs were continually increasing.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. We will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. The Ombudsman cannot compel the landlord to complete repairs by a certain date, determine the required scope of repairs or settle the resident’s portion of the costs. The FTT has powers to determine Section 20 matters. The resident could contact the Leasehold Advisory Service for related advice.

Complaint handling

No information was seen to suggest the landlord failed to respond to an online complaint around August 2022. However, the timeline points to other issues with its complaint handling. For example, at stage 1 the landlord said it was unable to reinvestigate previous complaints. Nevertheless, it would ask a relevant colleague to contact the resident. No information was seen to show this contact occurred. This indicates an inappropriate lack of follow up with regards to complaint resolutions. It was noted this was consistent with failures the landlord eventually identified at stage 2.
Further, the landlord initially declined to consider a relevant complaint response from 2019. For clarity, the landlord may need to revisit previous complaint responses where there are issues with a previous resolution. For example, failure to fulfil an agreed follow-up action likely represents a historic complaint handling failure. In general, the landlord is encouraged to consider its own complaint handling. The timeline suggests it ultimately considered its previous response at stage 2. This was appropriate given the circumstances.
Still, the timeline confirms there were also issues at stage 2. For example, the landlord failed to fully engage with the resident’s escalation request, which said a previous offer of £600 compensation was inadequate. No information was seen to suggest the landlord attempted to explore this comment and it subsequently offered a lesser compensation amount. This was contrary to section 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in March 2022, which says “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint…”.
The landlord’s failure to engage with this key escalation point was inappropriate. Given the circumstances, its final response was unlikely to resolve matters to the resident’s satisfaction. It is therefore reasonable to conclude the landlord may have missed an opportunity to resolve matters through its internal complaints procedure. Finally, the timeline points to a short delay at stage 2. It indicates the delay may be due to a failure to promptly action the resident’s escalation request. In any case, an apology would have been sufficient to address a delay of this length.
However, it was inappropriate not to address it and the resident could have been sent an update with a new response deadline. As mentioned, the landlord is encouraged to routinely consider its own complaint handling during investigations. Overall, the above shows there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of major works.
2. complaint handling.

Reasons

The timeline points to ongoing poor communication from the landlord about the major works. It suggests the situation has been ongoing for around 44 months with delays and failures occurring during this period. Further, these issues caused considerable distress and inconvenience for the resident.
No information was seen to show the landlord followed-up on a stage 1 resolution to have a previous complaint handler contact the resident. The landlord failed to engage with key comments in the resident’s escalation request around redress. It also failed to acknowledge, and therefore redress, a short complaint handling delay at stage 2.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident within 4 weeks to confirm its intentions regarding the major works. Given he was previously told the roof was at the end of its lifespan, the landlord’s update should share its underlying rationale. This includes any recent survey reports/technical information. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,300 in compensation within 4 weeks. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident. It comprises:
1. £1,100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of major works.
2. £200 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s above identified complaint handling delays and failures.
3. If it has already paid this amount, the landlord is free to deduct the £500 it previously awarded at stage 2 from the above total.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with relevant major works and complaints staff within 4 weeks for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord should focus on extracting broad learnings and provide the Ombudsman a copy of its internal communication.

Recommendations

The landlord to raise a new formal complaint to address the resident’s request for compensation in respect of damaged internal decorations. The landlord should contact the resident in advance to agree the complaint scope. It may need to include his concerns about the Velux window and “defamatory” comments.
The landlord to routinely consider its own complaint handling during investigations. This is to ensure any errors are addressed accordingly during its internal complaints procedure.
The landlord to promptly action escalation requests to avoid delays.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within 4 weeks.