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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202218624)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218624

The Guinness Partnership Limited

17 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Decision to issue the resident with a letter concerning her conduct towards a member of staff in September 2022.
    2. Handling of a telephone conversation with the resident in November 2022.
    3. Handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour.
    4. Handling of the resident’s subject access request.
    5. Handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a one-bedroom flat and has an assured tenancy. The resident has informed this Service she suffers from post traumatic stress disorder.
  2. Between September 2021 and June 2023 the resident made approximately 13 reports of fly-tipping to the landlord. On 23 August 2022 she informed the landlord that she had challenged a neighbour about fly-tipping and the neighbour had become abusive and swore at her. On 17 October 2022 the resident complained that she felt the landlord had not handled her reports of fly-tipping correctly.
  3. In November 2022 and June 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman because she said the landlord had not responded to her complaints. We contacted the landlord on both occasions, asking it to provide a response to the resident.
  4. On 20 June 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident. It explained that it had written to all residents regarding correct disposal of rubbish and not to use the communal bins, which were for use by the flats only. It confirmed it had made enquiries with the local council about obtaining larger bins for some of its residents. It confirmed it was completing weekly and monthly inspections and arranging to remove any rubbish found.
  5. On 21 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had sent letters to residents on the estate in the past but these had not made any difference. She said she had photographic and video evidence of those responsible. She had challenged one neighbour who had been abusive to her, which she had reported to the landlord and the police. She had made several reports to the landlord since May 2023 but had not received a response. She referred to items of furniture being left outside the flats for 3 months. She also said the landlord had not consulted with residents about CCTV, which it had agreed to do as an outcome to a previous complaint in September 2021.
  6. On 10 July 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the resident. It said it had acted in accordance with its policy regarding misuse of communal bins and fly-tipping. It explained it would continue to consider items left at the side of bins as fly-tipping and would remove these items as soon as possible, within 5 working days. It went on to say it would take action against those responsible where there was evidence. It asked the resident to share the evidence she had so that the landlord could review this. It said it continue to conduct regular inspections and remove any items found, as per its policy. With regards to the CCTV consultation, the landlord said there had been some interest in CCTV but most of the residents were unwilling to pay for this service. The landlord said it may review the option of CCTV again in the future. The landlord apologised that it had not addressed the issue of CCTV in its stage 1 response and offered £25 compensation as a gesture of goodwill.
  7. In communication with this service, the resident said that she felt let down by the landlord and that it was ignoring her. She said she would report fly-tipping, the landlord would acknowledge the report and inform her that someone would be in touch within 2 working days but this did not happen. She also said she found that the landlord was not consistent in its approach to her reports. Sometimes it logged it as anti-social behaviour (ASB) and on other occasions it would send the report directly through to the customer liaison officer, which the resident found confusing.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. We are not free to investigate every complaint brought to us. The rules by which we operate, called the Scheme, set out what we can and cannot investigate. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”

  1. The complaints specified in paragraphs 1(a)-(c) above arose whilst the landlord was dealing with the resident’s complaint about fly-tipping. We also recognise that the resident is experiencing issues which have occurred after the landlord’s final complaint response. We can see that the landlord has responded to some of these issues as separate complaints. As outlined above, the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints which have not exhausted a complaint procedure. As we have not seen evidence that these complaints have fully exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure, they will not be investigated as part of this complaint. 
  2. As regards the complaint about the handling of a subject access request, the Ombudsman does not investigate complaints which fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body (paragraph 42.j of the Scheme). The resident can complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office about how the landlord handled a subject access request in accordance with s.165(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018. As such we will not investigate the handling of this.

Scope of the investigation

  1. We can see there has been a long history to reports about fly-tipping. For clarity, the Ombudsman is only investigating the landlord’s handling of fly-tipping from September 2021 until the landlord’s final response on 10 July 2023. This includes how the landlord handled the reports that the neighbour was abusive to the resident.

Fly-tipping

  1. The records indicate that between September 2021 and July 2023, the resident made approximately 13 reports of fly-tipping and neighbours using the communal bins, meant for use by residents living in the flats.
  2. The landlord’s estate and neighbourhood management policy says it will keep estates clean, safe, secure and well maintained. It will complete estate inspections on a regular basis, at least every quarter and will remove any fly-tipped items within 5 working days of this being reported. The policy says the landlord will consider misuse of bins as ASB and will deal with this as a breach of tenancy.
  3. It was appropriate that the landlord arranged for removal of the fly-tipped items on each occasion, although it is not clear from the records how quickly it did this. The landlord is reminded that it should make its best efforts to ensure that fly-tipped items are removed within its published timeframe of 5 days.
  4. We can see from the records that the landlord completed estate inspections on a regular basis and arranged to remove any fly-tipped items found. This was appropriate and consistent with its policy.
  5. Following a report from the resident in August 2022, the landlord spoke to 3 identified neighbours about the fly-tipping and advised them not to use the communal bins. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
  6. The landlord sent letters to all residents in January 2022, September 2022 and January 2023, explaining how to dispose of their waste responsibly. The landlord advised residents not to use the communal bins meant for the residents in the flats and provided information on who they should contact to obtain a larger bin, if required. It also provided information on the local council’s service for collection of bulky waste and how to report fly-tipping. As well as these letters, the landlord issued a newsletter in July 2022 which contained information on appropriate waste disposal and how to report fly-tipping. These actions show that the landlord had made continued efforts to address and reduce the fly-tipping.
  7. In October 2022 the landlord put a lock on the meter cupboard doors. This was because the gas meters for the flats were situated outside and fly-tipped items were often left in this area. This prevented residents from accessing their gas meters. Although this did not resolve the issue completely, because there was no roof on this area and people continued to throw items over the top of the gate, it demonstrated the landlord’s attempts at trying to reduce and prevent the fly-tipping. This was a reasonable approach.
  8. In November 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that it had not conducted the consultation for CCTV, which it had agreed to do as an outcome to her complaint in September 2021. The landlord apologised for its delay and sent a survey out to residents in November 2022. Although the resident may not have agreed with the landlord’s decision not to install CCTV, it was appropriate that it consulted with residents and made a decision based on the responses it received. This is because the costs of installation and maintenance of a CCTV system would need to be covered by the service charge. However, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord completing this action, which had been outstanding since September 2021.
  9. The resident has informed us that communication with the landlord had been poor and she often felt ‘ignored’.
  10. Having reviewed the evidence, we can see that the landlord acted on the reports made by the resident and would add notes to its files to say that it had arranged for removal of the fly-tipped items. Given the landlord’s ASB policy recognises fly-tipping as ASB, it would have been appropriate for it to have logged reports of fly-tipping as ASB. In this case, the landlord logged 5 out of the resident’s 13 reports of fly-tipping as ASB. There is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns, collected any evidence she had or that it provided the resident with an update on the outcome of any action taken. This was a failure by the landlord.
  11. On 23 August 2022 the resident reported that she had spoken to a neighbour who she had seen fly-tipping. The neighbour had responded by shouting and swearing at her.
  12. The landlord’s ASB policy recognises shouting and swearing as ASB. It states that it will:
    1. Acknowledge a report of ASB within 2 working days.
    2. Conduct a risk assessment to assess the impact the ASB is having and to identify if the person reporting is vulnerable or has any support needs.
    3. Take proportionate and timely action to deal with the ASB.
    4. Where appropriate, it will consider mediation to try and resolve the ASB.
    5. Keep residents informed at regular intervals about the action taken.
  13. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s report on 31 August 2022, which was 5 working days later. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with its policy which says it will make contact within 2 working days.
  14. The landlord contacted the resident on 12 September 2022 and arranged to visit her and the neighbour on 14 September 2022. At that visit the neighbour made counter allegations about the resident, which the landlord then discussed with the resident. When the neighbour made counter allegations against the resident, the landlord acted reasonably by raising these with her and giving her an opportunity to respond.
  15. Where counter allegations are made, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider other means to try to resolve the issues, such as mediation. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this, which was a failure.
  16. There is no evidence that the landlord completed a risk assessment with the resident, either at the time of her complaint or at its visit on 14 September 2022. In communication with the landlord, the resident referred to her having post traumatic stress disorder. Had the landlord completed the risk assessment, this would have given it an opportunity to discuss the resident’s diagnosis and identify if she required any additional support. It did not do this, which was a failure.
  17. In her reports the resident had referred to video and photographic evidence, which she had shared with the landlord via WhatsApp. In September 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it could no longer accept evidence via this method due to security issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with an alternative method of submitting such evidence. We have not seen evidence that it did so and that was a failing.

Summary and conclusions

  1. In summary, there were failures by the landlord in that it:
    1. unreasonably delayed in completing the CCTV consultation, an agreed outcome to the resident’s September 2021 complaint
    2. failed to log and deal with the resident’s reports of fly-tipping as ASB
    3. failed to manage communications with the resident about her reports which resulted in her having to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates
    4. failed to log the resident’s report of abuse as ASB and acknowledge it within 2 working days
    5. failed to complete a risk assessment
    6. failed to consider mediation
  2. These failures cumulatively amount to maladministration by the landlord.
  3. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we must consider whether the landlord has acknowledged its failures and whether any redress offered resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we consider 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.
  4. It was reasonable that the landlord accepted there was an issue with fly-tipping. While frustrating for the resident, the Ombudsman appreciates the challenge for the landlord in eliminating the issue completely. However, the landlord’s communication and inconsistency in dealing with the issues, left the resident feeling confused and ignored. The landlord failed to recognise these failures in its complaint responses and we have therefore ordered it to pay compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. Having considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an appropriate level of compensation would be £400. This appropriately recognises the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days of being made and will provide its response within 10 working days of being logged. At stage 2, the landlord will provide its response within 20 working days from the resident’s request to escalate.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 17 October 2022. On 10 January 2023 the landlord informed the resident that it would not accept her complaint about fly-tipping because it had investigated this issue in 2021. Although this was correct, the resident’s new complaint concerned the landlord’s response after September 2021. Therefore the landlord should have accepted this as a new complaint. It did not do this, which was a failure.
  3. The resident contacted us on 13 June 2023 asking for assistance. She said she had not received a response to her complaint about the fly-tipping and abuse from a neighbour. The Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 response to the resident by 20 June 2023. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 20 June 2023.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 21 June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 July 2023, which was 14 days later.
  5. In its complaint response the landlord said it had provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s reports of fly-tipping in its letter dated 10 January 2023, which said it would not consider this issue again. It apologised for not addressing all the issues in its stage 1 response and offered £25 compensation.
  6. On 4 May 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that it had conducted a review of her case and found significant failures in its handling of the complaint. It increased its offer of compensation to £275 to recognise the failures together with learning points of additional training on complaint handling for its staff. The landlord sent this follow up response 18 months after the resident’s initial complaint and 10 months after the stage 2 response.
  7. We consider the landlord missed the opportunity to provide suitable redress and identify points of learning in its internal complaint process. Had the landlord made the current offer at the time of the final response, we would have likely determined that its offer was satisfactory in resolving the complaint. However, we have made a finding of service failure to reflect this missed opportunity.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme the landlord’s decision to issue the resident with a letter concerning her conduct towards a member of staff in September 2022 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of a telephone conversation with the resident in November 2022 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 42.j of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of fly-tipping.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination:
    1. provide the resident with a full written apology for the errors identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident compensation of £675 which is comprised of:
      1. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the reports of fly-tipping.
      2. £275 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
  3. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should update its systems to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities, subject to the resident agreeing.