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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202231653)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231653

The Guinness Partnership Limited

18 February 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 handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Request for a management transfer.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a house owned by the landlord. She lives with her adult daughter. Both have long-term health conditions.
  2. On 17 June 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting a management transfer from her property because of damp, mould, and high humidity. She felt that her and her daughter would not be able to cope with the works required to rectify these issues due to their health conditions. It directly offered her a property and tried to arrange works in a way which would be suitable for her.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 March 2023 about its handling of her reports of damp and stated that she was seeking a management transfer.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 14 June 2023. It provided a history of damp works and apologised for an initial delay between January and March 2023. It explained that it had offered her a property which she declined due to the distance to local amenities. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and offered compensation of £150, comprising £100 for complaint delays and £50 for earlier repair delays.
  5. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 28 June 2023. She found the landlord’s stage 1 compensation offer insufficient and felt that it had ignored historic issues with damp and mould.
  6. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 2 complaint response on 2 August 2023. It provided an assessment of its repairs history and confirmed that it completed these leading up to 20 June 2023. It found no failing in its handling of repairs or her management transfer request. It offered an additional compensation amount of £100 for complaint handling delays.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her complaint and brought her complaint to this Service for investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout her complaint, the resident has told the landlord that matters in this case have impacted her health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.
  2. The evidence provided in this case shows that the resident has been reporting ongoing issues with damp and mould since 2019. However, these did not form part of a formal complaint. As such, this Service has only considered events that occurred from her renewed contact with the landlord from 17 June 2022. Any further mention of historical matters prior to 17 June 2022 is only for context within this report.

Damp and mould

  1. In a letter to the landlord on 17 June 2022, the resident reported that there was damp and mould in the downstairs rooms of her property. She said that during the landlord’s survey in 2021, its surveyor had stated it would be appropriate to install a damp proof course. She described feeling unable to manage the works due to the physical and mental health of her and her daughter and requested it move her to a new property.
  2. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when it receives a report, an operative will attend the property to determine the cause and seek to resolve the immediate issue. For more complex cases, it will consider moving residents to temporary accommodation during intrusive building works or where there is a risk to health. It will complete repairs in accordance with its repairs policy but acknowledges that it is not always straightforward to identify the cause of damp and mould.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it will categorise repairs requirements as either “emergency” or “routine.” It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. In both policies and the tenancy agreement, it states that it requires customers to allow it access to complete repairs. If it is unable to access and the safety of the tenant or the integrity of the property is at risk, it will take appropriate action to gain access.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 June 2022. It focused on her request for a management transfer and then surveyed the property on 31 August 2022 following further contact from her. This was over 2 months since it received her letter, however, it was during the warmer summer months and its immediate focus was on her request to move. It was prioritising based on its initial assessment of her concerns, and this was good practice.
  5. When the landlord completed the survey in August 2022, it confirmed that there was rising damp affecting the downstairs of the property. However, it reported that the resident had refused works due to her health issues. She wrote to it again on 4 November 2022 to report worsening damp with the onset of cold weather but again requested a move, stating that she could not cope with works. The evidence provided shows that it received this on 8 November 2022, but that it did not share this internally until 28 November 2022. This was not appropriate due to the time of year and the reported impact on her.
  6. In December 2022, the landlord noted in an internal email that the resident kept refusing all repairs but that it was planning to visit her and discuss ways forward. This was to prevent it from needing to take legal action to complete works. On 7 December 2022, the resident agreed to a temporary rehousing for her and her daughter while it completed works.
  7. The landlord completed an inspection of the property on 12 December 2022 and identified extensive required works. It agreed with the resident that it would do one room at a time, starting in April 2023, with a 3-week break in between works to each room. This action was positive and in line with its damp and mould policy, which states that it will consider the individual circumstances of a resident when it requires intrusive building work.
  8. The resident continued to raise concerns about the landlord completing works directly to the landlord and via her MP between January and March 2023. She maintained that instead of a temporary move or room-by-room works, she wanted a permanent move. It visited her again on 17 March 2023 to discuss the options available to her. She raised concerns about the impact staying in a hotel would have on her health and on 23 March 2023, it offered to move her and her daughter into a furnished apartment temporarily. This demonstrated its continued work to ensure it could complete works while considering the needs of the resident.
  9. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 March 2023 about how it handled her reports of damp in the 3 years prior and stated that she wanted a managed move to a new property as a resolution.
  10. On 27 March 2023, the landlord planned works for the week commencing 5 June 2023. It worked to try and find an appropriate property for the resident for a permanent move, recognising that it would be the easiest option for her and, so it could complete works with no access issues. It offered her a property on 5 April 2023. However, she refused the property on the same day after viewing it. It then booked a suitable alternative temporary property on 25 April 2023 and began works as planned on 5 June 2023.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 14 June 2023 acknowledged some delays in completing works in early 2023 to install a roof vent. It went on to explain that it identified rising damp in the property on 12 December 2022 and that following discussions with the resident it agreed to complete works in Spring 2023. Following her further concerns about this, it agreed to decant her to a furnished property. It confirmed that it started works on 5 June 2023. It offered compensation of £50 for previous repair delays and apologised for this.
  12. The landlord’s complaint response was fair and appropriate. It had worked with the resident to try and arrange works in a way that would have the least impact on her and this had taken time to agree. The required works were intrusive and despite having challenges in planning these, it began them within 6 months of identifying that it needed to complete works. This Services notes that this exceeded its timescale for routine repairs. However, it was not an excessive delay in the circumstances.
  13. The landlord called the resident to discuss the matter on 27 July 2023. She stated that it had lied about how long the damp and mould had been an ongoing issue in its stage 1 response.
  14. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 2 August 2023, it acknowledged that the resident had been reporting damp and mould from 2018. It apologised for not including this in its stage 1 response but explained that it could not effectively investigate matters from that far back. It outlined works it completed in 2021 and early 2022 to try and prevent further damp and said that it was satisfied that these did not form part of the complaint. It narrated its involvement from August 2022 to completion of damp works on 20 June 2023, noting that she was happy with the works upon returning home following completion. Its response was clear and factual. Its explanation for not including historic matters was well reasoned and appropriate.
  15. In conclusion, the landlord effectively persevered in completing works to prevent rising damp. It faced challenges in accessing the property due to the resident’s concerns, but it worked with her to find reasonable solutions, remaining mindful of both her worries and its need to prevent further damage to the property. It demonstrated good practice throughout the period of this complaint in relation to damp and mould works.

Management transfer

  1. The resident requested a management transfer on medical grounds as part of her letter to the landlord on 17 June 2022. It called her to discuss her request on 22 June 2022 and advised that it would call her back on 11 July 2022, once she had seen her GP again, to complete the application paperwork with her. It spoke to her on this date, but she did not have a supporting GP letter yet, so it asked her to contact it once she had this and it would assist with her application. This was a good first response from the landlord as it wanted to ensure she had all relevant information ahead of applying.
  2. Following the landlord’s survey of the property on 31 August 2022 to confirm rising damp, it submitted the resident’s application for a management transfer on 6 September 2022. It communicated with her to identify preferred areas but when the application reached senior management, the landlord opted to reject a management transfer. Instead, it chose to increase her banding for allocations.
  3. The landlord’s allocations policy states that it may agree to a management transfer in exceptional circumstances. This includes where serious damp and mould conditions are present in a home and previous attempts to eradicate this have failed. The policy also states that it will offer high banding for allocations if a medical condition within the household will be “substantially improved” by a move, or if damp and mould problems have been reported in association with medical conditions.
  4. As such, the landlord’s decision to reject the management transfer application was fair at this time.
  5. The resident again requested a management transfer on 4 November 2022 as she did not feel able to remain in the property with the required level of work. Following this, as previously described in this report, the landlord worked with her to find a suitable way of completing works in the months after this. It received correspondence from her MP on 27 February 2023, again requesting a management transfer.
  6. In March 2023, the landlord was having difficulty booking damp and mould works due to the resident’s concerns about a decant and her request for a management transfer. It discussed this internally and continued to provide her with advice on bidding for properties on its website. She retained the high banding, and it wanted to make sure she was bidding effectively.
  7. Following receipt of the resident’s complaint on 23 March 2023, the landlord agreed to offer her a management transfer. It found 1 property that met her requirements and offered this to her on 5 April 2023. However, she rejected this as she felt it was not close enough to local amenities when considering the health conditions within her household. As such, it stated that it would return her to the high banding and would not offer a further management transfer.
  8. The landlord’s allocations policy clearly states that it will make 1 reasonable offer of accommodation and that if a resident refuses this, they will revert to bidding through its website. As such, its decision to place the resident back into high banding for allocations was in line with its allocation policy.
  9. The landlord did not identify any failing in its handling of the management transfer in its stage 1 complaint response of 14 June 2023. As part of her escalation request in July 2023, she stated that her main issue was wanting it to move her. After this, it noted internally that it may struggle to help meet her rehousing needs as her request was so specific.
  10. In its stage 2 response of 2 August 2023, the landlord explained that it was unable to find any other homes than the property it offered in her chosen areas that would meet her suitability needs. It explained that as she refused this offer, which it deemed reasonable, it would not make a further offer in line with its policy. It advised her to keep bidding for other properties on its website and with the local authority. It stated that it had no concerns about its handling of her management transfer.
  11. Social housing properties are widely sought after, and the landlord’s allocations policy reflects this. It will only have a limited number of properties within its housing stock and even fewer of these will be available and meet the needs of residents.
  12. In this case, the landlord revisited its decision to reject the resident’s original management transfer application and directly offered her a property as close to her requirements as it could find. It made this decision to benefit both parties, to allow the resident a highly requested move and to allow it to complete repairs without causing any disruption to her. However, as it was under no obligation to accept the application in line with its policy, it was not obliged to then make a second offer outside of the parameters of the same policy.
  13. In conclusion, while this Service understands that the resident wishes to move home, the landlord has acted fairly and in accordance with its policy throughout the period of this complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging a complaint and it will provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of receiving an escalation request. At both stages, it can request a 10-working day extension if it requires further investigation.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 23 March 2023. She has stated that she complained prior to this but there is no evidence of this complaint. It responded at stage 1 on 14 June 2023, 54 working days later. It has not provided evidence demonstrating that it requested any extension to the complaint period. It apologised for its delayed response and offered compensation of £100 for this.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments of up to £250 for an issue which it resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or household. As such, its offer of £100 was reasonable in this case. While its response was delayed, it was working on arranging damp and mould works and the resident’s request for a management transfer and as such, the impact of the delays was minimal.
  4. On 28 June 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that it escalate her complaint to stage 2. It received this on 4 July 2023 but did not log this as an escalation request. It called her on 27 July 2023 to acknowledge and discuss her complaint. It then provided its stage 2 complaint response on 2 August 2023, 21 working days after receipt.
  5. Despite there only being a 1 working day delay in the landlord proving the resident with its stage 2 complaint response, it apologised for failing to escalate the complaint earlier and offered a further £100 compensation for this. It stated that it had offered further training to its complaints team to ensure all it acknowledged all new complaints and responded to them within its agreed timescales and that any escalation requests were actioned appropriately.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was fair, and its offer of additional compensation was reasonable in the circumstances. Despite the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint, it only provided its response 1 day late. It identified all failures in its complaint handling and offered information about actions it had taken to improve its complaint handling service.
  7. In conclusion, while there were clear delays in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint handling, it acknowledged and apologised for these. It also offered appropriate compensation and offered staff training to avoid further issues.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Request for a management transfer.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. This Service recommends that the landlord pay the resident its total compensation offer of £250 across its stage 1 and stage 2 complaints if it has not done so already. £200 of this offer recognised genuine elements of service failure, and the sufficient redress finding for complaint handling is made on that basis.
  2. This Service recommends that the landlord continue to advise and support the resident in relation to bidding for a more appropriate property to meet her needs.