From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new cases by email. Please use our online webform to submit your complaint. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Call us on 0300 111 3000

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202227432)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227432

The Guinness Partnership Limited

12 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. Handling of repairs to the communal door.
    2. Response to the resident’s request for priority A rehousing banding.
    3. Handling of an internal inspection of the property.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat in a mid-rise building. The landlord is a housing association and was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident moved from the property in March 2022.
  2. On 19 March 2021, the resident raised his complaint. He told the landlord the property was poorly maintained and was not safe for him to live in with his 7 year old daughter. He said:
    1. There were “very serious” safeguarding issues due to the door entry system not being adequately maintained. The property had “very serious” damp issues, single glazed windows, and the communal areas had not been cleaned.
    2. He began reporting safeguarding issues about the communal door in December 2018 and followed advice to report the issues to police. He explained how reports included people entering the building and sleeping, using drugs, urinating/defecating under stairs and on landings.
    3. Following conversations with the police in March 2021, it was agreed that the situation was a child protection issue and he decided to stay at his parents’ home on nights his daughter was in his care until the problem was resolved. He explained how he had a shared child arrangement order.
    4. His doctor wrote to the landlord in April 2019 about the impact his living situation was having on him. He said he had a mental health “breakdown” in June 2020 and said this was due to unauthorised people entering the building. He explained how he felt reporting incidents to the police increased risks to his safety.
    5. A survey from 29 January 2020 found the wall, flat roof, and single glazed windows contributed to the flat being damp and cold during winter.
    6. He asked to be moved to emergency band A for housing and said this was for his health and safety.
    7. He wanted the landlord to consider a payment for financial loss between March 2019 to March 2021. Due to the building not being secure, him living with his parents, the damp and mould issues at the property and the impact this all had on his mental health. He said he incurred costs for time and trouble in contacting the landlord.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 June 2021. It is understood that it spoke to the resident prior to issuing its written response and was aware of the resident’s escalation request. The landlord apologised that it was unable to change the resident’s rehousing banding and explained how he did not meet its criteria. It said:
    1. It was aware of ongoing maintenance issues at the building. It was conducting inspections and weekly review meetings. Its surveyor would be in touch to arrange a visit to inspect the inside of the property.
    2. It was aware of ongoing antisocial behavior (ASB) and was working with the police. The problem was outstanding and it had identified the front door may be contributing to the issue. It ordered a new reinforced door and hoped this would be installed in the coming weeks.
    3. It escalated the complaint and a manager would contact the resident within 10 working days.
  4. On 22 June 2021 the landlord said it would aim to resolve the complaint within 20 working days. It issued its stage 2 response on 16 September 2021 and apologised for the time taken to address all of the resident’s concerns. It said:
    1. It had discussed the rehousing request and had moved the resident to band A priority rehousing status and noted the resident had updated the areas on his application.
    2. The communal door had been secured and a new door had been ordered with an expected installation date of October 2021.
    3. It had requested a full inspection of the roof and building. It said this had already commenced. It provided a direct email address for future concerns about the property.
    4. The internal flat inspection had been completed and the resident would receive the outcome of this within the next week including details of further action that may be required.
    5. In terms of learning, it said it was investigating the installation of CCTV due to several instances of the communal front door being broken. It would conduct bi-weekly inspections to check the security of the door and communal areas.
    6. It offered the resident a payment of £500 as a gesture of goodwill. It said this was in recognition of the ongoing repair and ASB issues the resident had experienced over a lengthy period of time.

Post internal complaints process

  1. On 2 December 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and said its review of the evidence it was preparing for this Service’s investigation, identified failures in how it handled the resident’s complaint. It apologised and said:
    1. It did not adequately address several concerns within the resident’s complaint from March 2021, which included matters relating to safety, single-glazed windows and communal cleaning. It also identified it took until 16 September 2021 to provide its stage 2 response.
    2. It had implemented changes to its complaints process since 2021. This included a new training program for complaint handlers, a full review and restructure of its complaints service in June 2022. For repairs, it agreed a formal improvement plan with its contractor and in early 2023 it brought the service in-house.
    3. While it noted the resident had moved to a new property in March 2022, it increased its compensation offer to £1,000. This was made up of £500 it previously offered, £300 to acknowledge the delay in resolution and £200 to acknowledge the personal impact on the resident.
  2. In January 2025, the resident told this Service that he accepted the landlord’s increased compensation offer but wanted this Service to investigate his complaint further.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has said that his living conditions impacted his mental health and in June 2020 he suffered a mental health breakdown following concerns about unauthorised persons entering the building. The Ombudsman sympathises with the resident, it was clearly a difficult time for him and his family. It is important to explain that it is outside of the Ombudsman’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health or wellbeing. As such the Ombudsman can not decide whether the landlord’s action, or lack of, caused a mental health breakdown. There matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident in light of his personal circumstances.
  2. The resident has said issues with the communal door were ongoing for some time, his complaint refers to reports made in December 2018 and cleaning issues in the communal area from around that time. He has also said the landlord should have given him band A priority following his GP letter from March 2019. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised the issues as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months of the matters arising. Issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time have not been assessed within this report.

Handling of repairs to the communal door

  1. The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and outside of the premises. This includes, amongst other things, the roof, outside doors, and it would be responsible for cleaning internal shared areas. It will take reasonable care to keep shared entrances in reasonable repair and fit for residents. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy from 2019 says a repair is either catergorised as an emergency or a routine repair. It says:
    1. Emergency repairs address an immediate health and safety risk. It would either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 24 hours. If it completes a temporary repair, it will return within a reasonable time to complete the repair. It lists emergency repairs as those including doors that are not secure, and anything else that may present a serious health and safety risk.
    2. Routine repairs are those that are not emergencies and it will fix the issue within 28 calendar days.
    3. Repairs in communal areas will be scheduled in line with the repair categories explained and the risk they present. The timescales for emergency and routine repairs would be the same.
    4. It is responsible for outside doors and walls, including faulty locks and doors and it “must take care to keep in repair the common entrances, hallways, stairways” amongst other things.
  2. It is not disputed that there were issues with the communal door in 2019 and at that time the landlord was aware of unauthorised visitors gaining access to the building.
  3. The landlord has accepted that the communal door was not secure since December 2020. In February 2021 it told the resident that it had ordered a new custom made door that would be fitted within a number of weeks. However, it did not meet this timeframe. This was not appropriate.
  4. Within its stage 1 response from June 2021, the landlord said the new door would be installed in the coming weeks. It did not meet this timeframe again. Within its stage 2 response from September 2021, it said it expected to install the new door in October 2021, this did not happen either. The evidence shows the new door was installed in December 2021. The landlord took 1 year to install the new communal door and failed to keep the resident updated during this time. This was not appropriate.
  5. It is noted that within the landlord’s stage 2 response it said it had secured the communal door around that time (September 2021). It is unclear why the landlord took as long as it did to secure the communal door (from December 2020 to September 2021). The landlord’s repairs policy includes doors that are not secure as an emergency repair. The timeframe of around 9 months to secure the communal door was not appropriate and was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s failure to secure the door sooner was not appropriate and would have added to the resident’s safety concerns, especially as it was aware that unauthorised persons were entering the building.
  6. In addition to this, it also took the landlord until 18 June 2021 to assess the risk of the communal door not being secure. Here it conducted a health and safety audit and said it changed its fire inspections to weekly in light of the door. The landlord has not demonstrated it took similar actions between December 2020 and June 2021. This was not appropriate.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s handling of issues with the communal door was not appropriate. It failed to secure the communal door within 24 hours, as per its policy. This meant the communal door was not secure for around 9 months and it did not manage the risks associated with this. It did this despite what it knew and what the resident repeatedly told it about unauthorised persons entering the building and the serious impact this was having on him. Following securing the door in September 2021, it did not resolve the issue within a reasonable time, as per its policy, and took 3 months to install the new door. This meant it took the landlord 1 year to replace the door. This was despite it repeatedly saying it would take weeks, from February 2021, to install the door. When it did not meet its timeframes it failed to keep the resident reasonably updated. It also failed to manage the security of the building during this time, as per its obligations. The landlord’s failings amount to severe maladministration.
  8. Throughout his contact with the landlord the resident, his representative, GP and other professionals working with him, told it of the serious impact the living conditions were having on his mental health. In February 2021, the landlord worked with the police and cleaners to remove a tent and drugs from the communal area. Following this, in March 2021 the resident told the landlord that the communal door issue was a safeguarding concern and he felt he could not stay at the property when his young daughter was in his care. When considering what the resident told the landlord and what it knew about the way in which the communal area was being used, it is understandable that the resident had concerns about his safety and that of his young daughter’s. The landlord missed opportunities to assess the risk sooner and proactively manage the repair. Its handling of the communal door issue would have had a significant impact on the resident.
  9. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it offered the resident £500 compensation, as a gesture of goodwill, to recognise the repair issue was not resolved for a “lengthy period of time”. The amount of £500 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. While the landlord did acknowledge the delay with the communal door repair up to September 2021, it did not recognise its failure to secure the door for a significant period of time and the impact this would have had on the resident. It also did not complete the repair until December 2021. As such, when considering these issues combined and the impact they would have had on the resident, the Ombudsman has decided to increase the compensation amount to £800. This amount falls within the severe maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been decided as more proportionate in the circumstances.

Response to the resident’s request for priority A rehousing banding

  1. The landlord’s allocation policy explains that it can arrange to move existing tenants in exceptional or urgent circumstances as a management move. It says that this is intended to be used when there is an urgent need to move due to threat of or actual violence/harm, exceptional circumstances, or where serious damp and mould conditions are present. Its allocation policy also details its transfer scheme and lists how it will prioritise residents in the following way:
    1. High priority. To those with significant and serious housing needs. Including, amongst other things, a need to move quickly because there is evidence of significant and immediate problems associated with the occupation of the property. The current housing condition having a major adverse effect on a medical condition that would be substantially improved by a move. Reported damp and mould problems in association with overcrowding and/or medical conditions.
    2. Medium priority. Where the current housing condition is having an adverse effect on the medical condition and will be substantially improved by the move, amongst other things.
    3. Low priority. For all but may be reassessed and placed in a higher priority if circumstances change and supporting evidence is provided.
  2. Following a letter from the resident’s GP in May 2019, the landlord granted the resident priority B banding. Within his complaint from March 2021, the resident asked the landlord to move him to band A for health and safety concerns. At that time, the landlord said he was not eligible for a band A transfer and said it had spoken to its relevant team to explore this option. While it apologised and told the resident to continue bidding through his local authority, it did not explain the eligibility criteria that it was using. It missed a further opportunity to explain this within its stage 1 response from June 2021. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  3. In August 2021, the landlord reconsidered its position and authorised band A priority for the resident and a management move. While it was a positive step for the landlord to review its position, it is unclear why it did this in August 2021. The landlord’s failure to explain its decision making has left the resident feeling it should have changed his banding sooner. This was unreasonable.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s communication about the eligibility criteria for priority A banding could have been better and its failure to explain its approach amounts to a service failure.
  5. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the impact of the landlord not explaining its approach to the resident. The landlord’s decision to change the banding was a positive step and the resident moved from the property in March 2022. When considering this, the Ombudsman considers a compensation amount of £50 to be appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls within the service failure banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances.

Handling of an internal inspection of the property

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy from 2019, says it is responsible for windows, internal walls, floors and ceilings. As mentioned previously, it says a routine repair are those that are not considered emergencies and will be fixed within 28 days. The landlord’s website says resident’s should contact it and it will take action to resolve damp and mould problems. It says it will ask questions to understand the extent of the issue and then arrange for someone to come to the property to resolve the issue.
  2. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) landlords have obligations to consider the condition of properties. A landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and carry out monitoring of a property where a potential hazard is identified (including damp and mould). The landlord has wider obligations to deal with mould if it is caused by a problem with the property and/or making the property not fit to live in.
  3. Within the resident’s complaint from March 2021, he told the landlord that there were “very serious” damp issues at the property and the windows were single glazed. Within its stage 1 response, from June 2021, the landlord said it was aware of maintenance issues at the building and it was conducting inspections as well as weekly review meetings. The landlord’s internal notes from June 2021 said the building had a number of roof leaks and damp issues and that it had taken 6 months for its repairs team to inspect the roof. However, despite what the landlord knew, it failed to inspect the building sooner. This was not appropriate
  4. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord said a full inspection of the roof and building had commenced and the internal inspection had been completed. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of its inspection report, this has made it difficult to assess the condition of the property. However, the available evidence shows it took the landlord around 6 months (since March 2021) to complete an internal inspection of the property. This timeframe was not appropriate.
  5. The landlord’s internal notes from June 2021 accept there were issues with the property. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord completed works following its inspection or that it provided the resident with support to manage the internal condition of the property. This was also not appropriate.
  6. It is accepted that the landlord may have considered the condition of the property as part of its decision to award the resident priority A banding. However, it still had obligations to ensure the property was suitable in light of the resident’s concerns and while he continued to live there. There is no evidence to show the landlord provided the resident with support while he continued to live at the property, this was not appropriate.
  7. Overall, the landlord’s handling of concerns about damp and mould at the property and the internal inspection was not appropriate. The landlord took too long to conduct an inspection of the property despite what it knew, it did not complete work and failed to offer the resident support to manage the internal conditions of the property. The landlord’s failings here amount to maladministration.
  8. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it explained it would conduct inspections but it failed to acknowledge the impact of its delay in doing this sooner. It also did not address the resident’s concerns about windows within the property. This would have added to the resident’s frustrations with its service and further undermined the landlord/tenant relationship. In December 2024, the landlord accepted its stage 2 response did not identify all its failings and offered the resident £300 to acknowledge these delays. It also offered a further £200 to acknowledge the personal impact on the resident. The amount of £500 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.
  9. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered, alongside what the landlord has now offered as well as the circumstances of the case. The amount of £500 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and this amount has been considered as appropriate in light of the information available. As the landlord did not make this offer of compensation as part of its internal complaints process a finding of maladministration has been made and not one of reasonable redress. It is understood that the resident has accepted this amount. As such no further compensation amount has been ordered.
  10. The resident has asked the landlord and this Service to consider financial loss for time in contacting it and for his representative’s travel costs. It is acknowledged that the resident had to contact the landlord about issues and it did not always keep him or his appointed representative updated. However, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s compensation offer of £500 mentioned here to appropriately acknowledge the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy from 2017 explains that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. Its complaints policy from July 2021, relevant at the time of the resident’s stage 2 complaint, says a stage 2 decision will be provided within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised his complaint on 19 March 2021. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 22 March 2021 and said it would respond within 20 working days. This timeframe was not in line with its policy and it failed to meet this. This was not appropriate.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again on 23, 28 April and 16 May 2021 telling it that it had exceeded its 20 working day timeframe. He also involved his MP on 25 May 2021 due to the landlord’s lack of contact. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 June 2021. This timeframe of around 3 months to issue a stage 1 response was not appropriate and significantly exceeded the timeframe set within its policy.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 22 June 2021 and while the landlord said it would respond within 20 working days it took until 16 September 2021 to provide its stage 2 response. This timeframe of around 3 months was not appropriate and exceeded the timeframe set within its policy.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It exceeded the timeframes set within its policies and failed to keep the resident updated during this time. While it apologised for the time taken to address the resident’s concerns within its stage 2 response it missed an opportunity to put things right and acknowledge the impact its delays would have had on the resident. The landlord’s complaint handling failings amount to maladministration.
  6. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the impact the landlord’s complaints handling may have had on the resident. As such, the Ombudsman considers a compensation amount of £250 to be appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been decided as appropriate.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for priority A banding.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of an internal inspection of the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a director to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £1,600 compensation. This is made up of:
      1. £800 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of repairs to the communal door. This includes £500 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
      2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s request for priority A banding.
      3. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of an internal inspection of the property. This includes £500 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
      4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failings.