The Guinness Partnership Limited (202326468)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326468

The Guinness Partnership Limited

23 July 2025

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. a roof leak
2. property damage as a result of the leak
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling
2. record keeping

Background

The resident is a shared owner leaseholder since April 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The records indicate that the resident suffers from anxiety and depression.
On 12 October 2023, the resident reported a leak from the roof into her second bedroom. The records note that water “runs down the wall when raining.” The landlord raised a repair order to attend to the leak.
On 13 October 2023, the resident raised a complaint. She reported that she had spoken with the previous owner of the flat who advised her that she had reported a leak in the same bedroom on 24 December 2022 but no works had been completed. She reported that the leak had worsened and caused damage to the ceiling and wall. She provided images of the damage and highlighted that the water was going across the light in the room.
On 26 October 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It accepted that there had been a previous report of a leak which it had closed down due to an administrative error. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by this delay and offered £150 compensation. It said that it would erect scaffolding as soon as possible to attend to the leak.
On 30 October 2023, the resident escalated her complaint. She reported that the leak had worsened. It had spread and was now coming through her first bedroom and provided further images of the damage. She reported stress and anxiety. She was unhappy that the landlord had not fixed the problem beforehand and had not told her about the leak at the time of the purchase. She said that the scaffolding was not going up until 1 November 2023 but that the leak was getting worse and damaging her property.
On 28 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. The landlord said that due to its poor record keeping it could not confirm if it had repaired the leak prior to the resident purchasing the property. It said that although leaseholders were responsible for internal repairs, it attended on 1 November 2023 to isolate the bedroom light and it scheduled to make good any internal damage as a gesture of goodwill. It said that it had completed the roof repair within its timescales and found no failings in its response to the report of repair. The landlord apologised for the distress caused and re-offered £150 that it made in its stage 1 complaint response.
On 30 November 2023, the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She reported that:
1. She was unhappy that the landlord had failed to notify her of the leak prior to the purchase of the property.
2. When she reported the leak dripping through the lighting, it was not treated as an urgent repair.
3. She was unhappy with the communication from the landlord throughout the repair period.
4. The landlord offered a decant but she declined because she had a dog and opted to stay with a friend.
5. The landlord’s action caused stress and anxiety.
As a resolution to the complaint, she wanted compensation for the time and stress caused, compensation for the delayed response to the leak, compensation for damaged belongings and flooring, and re-imbursement of accommodation costs when the property was uninhabitable.

Events after the internal complaint’s procedure

On 1 December 2023, the landlord advised the resident to claim for her personal belongings from her contents insurer and advised it would update her in respect of carrying out remedial works and sending her a decorating voucher of £150.
On 6 December 2023, the landlord told the resident that the decoration voucher had been requested and the remedial works scheduled for 18 December 2023.
On 19 December 2023, the resident chased the decoration voucher. The landlord completed a bank transfer to the resident on 4 January 2024.
On 18 July 2024, the landlord provided a further complaints response after reviewing the case while preparing the file for the Ombudsman. It reviewed the complaint and found communication and complaint handling failures. It offered a further £250, compromising:
1. £100 to reflect the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
2. £150 for complaint handling failures.

It found that it had not followed up with a work order to complete remedial works and asked the resident to contact its repairs team to arrange it.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported that the landlord’s handling of the issue had an impact on her mental health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a roof leak

Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord failed to provide information on the report of a leak in the property before she purchased it. The legal principle ‘caveat emptor’ or ‘buyer beware’ is relevant because the resident accepted the property in the condition that she found it. In property transactions the seller is legally obliged not to mislead the buyer, but other than that, the onus is on the buyer to satisfy themselves that the property is appropriate for their needs before they purchase it.
Nonetheless, this does not negate the landlord’s repair responsibilities on the part of the landlord and once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs it is responsible for, in accordance with its obligations under the lease and or tenancy and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repair policy says it will log a responsive repair as either an emergency or a routine repair. The policy sets out the following timescales:
1. emergency repairs – the landlord will aim to make safe or complete the emergency repair within 24 hours.
2. routine repairs – the landlord will aim to complete the repair within 28 calendar days.
Under the lease, the landlord had an obligation to maintain and repair the structure and outside parts of the property (such as walls, roofs, windows). This does not include the interior surfaces of those walls within the demise of the resident’s property, which are the resident’s responsibility. These obligations are confirmed in the terms of the lease.
After the resident reported the leak on 12 October 2023, she provided images and highlighted that the leak was “going directly across the light in the bedroom”. The landlords repair policy lists an example of an emergency repair as a leak that cannot be contained or causes a risk of electric shock. In this circumstance, there was reasonable expectation for the landlord to identify the cause of the leak and to identify repair responsibility considering the potential health and safety risk.
On 30 October 2023, the resident reported that the leak had progressed into another room, she said that 2 litres of water had dropped from the light overnight. The landlord did not respond until the resident chased up again on 1 November 2023 because the leak had got progressively worse. On 1 November 2023, the landlord attended and made the electrics safe. This was a delay of 18 days in responding to an emergency repair.
The landlord should have recognised the residents initial report as an emergency repair and made urgent enquiries to establish if it was responsible for making the property safe. If it found that the resident was responsible for the repair it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to provide advice on making the property safe. This was a significant failing for which the landlord failed to acknowledge responsibility.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord stated: “Leaseholders are responsible for internal repairs however we attended on 1 November 2023 to isolate your bedroom light, make safe and returned the next day to reinstate this.” This was unreasonable. At that point, the landlord had established that it was responsible for repairing the leak that caused the potential safety risk. It should have acknowledged this failing and apologised to the resident.
On 1 November 2023, the landlord offered a decant to the resident while it carried out the repair. This was reasonable because there was no obligation for the landlord to make this offer under the terms of the lease or within the terms of its decants policy. The landlord’s compensation policy allows it to offer discretionary compensation for a temporary move to compensate for reasonable costs incurred as a result of being displaced. While the resident declined the offer of a decant and opted to live with a friend, the landlord’s offer of a decant was reasonable. There was no obligation for the landlord to offer compensation for direct accommodation costs in these circumstances.
The landlord completed the repairs and re-instated the electrics in the property on 16 November 2023. The landlord followed up and carried out remedial repairs on 29 November 2023. This was a reasonable timeframe, within its repair timescales.
The landlord delayed in providing the resident with a decoration voucher. In its further review of the complaint, it acknowledged this delay and poor communication and offered further compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion was reasonable to put things right for the resident.
The Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak. This is because it failed to identify its responsibility for the leak and respond to an emergency repair within its timescales. This failure caused distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble to the resident in chasing up the repair with the landlord.
When the landlord reviewed its handling of its response to the leak, after the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman, it offered further compensation of £100 to reflect the time, trouble and inconvenience caused bringing the compensation to £250. This offer along with the decoration voucher of £150 which it has already paid, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was appropriate to put things right for the resident. It is ordered for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £250 for these failings.

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of property damage

It is not our role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
The Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the residents reports of property damage. The landlord acted reasonably when it advised the resident to pursue a claim for damage to her personal belongings through her contents insurance company. Alternatively, the resident may wish to pursue a claim from the landlord’s insurer.

Complaint handling

Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning. The Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out that landlord’s must acknowledge its failures and set out the actions it has taken or intends to take to put things right.
While the landlord’s complaint investigation identified failings in its handling of the reports of the leak, it failed to recognise the delay in responding to an emergency repair. Its stage 2 complaint response stated: “I have not found any failings in our response to this repair and works have been completed within our specified timescales”. The landlord failed to identify that the initial repair request should have been considered an emergency repair.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. This is because it did not identify its failing in responding to an emergency repair.
After the resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord reviewed its complaint handling and found poor communication with the resident after its stage 2 complaint response. It offered a further £150 for this failing. The Ombudsman does consider this revised offer to be reasonable.

Record keeping

The 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 should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors. The landlord’s complaint record keeping was inappropriate.
In its complaint response the landlord acknowledged that there had been a previous report of a roof leak but due to its poor record keeping it could not establish why it had closed that work order down. If the landlord had kept better records, it could have established that it was responsible for the leak as soon as the resident reported it.
The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure with the landlord’s record keeping. The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report highlights the importance of good record keeping. The evidence assessed in this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to reports of a roof leak.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation, in its response to the residents repots of property damage, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident compensation of £400 compromising:
1. £250 for failings identified in its response to reports of a leak
2. £150 for failings identified in its complaint handling.
It is ordered for the landlord to carry out a review of this case to identify and implement any learnings in respect of identifying and responding to emergency repairs.
The landlord should provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider the findings and recommendations and assess its practices against our Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report if it has not already done so. It should advise the Ombudsman of its intentions with this recommendation within 6 weeks of the date of this report.