The Guinness Partnership Limited (202234598)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234598

The Guinness Partnership Limited

24 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks in the carpark.
2. Leaks on the balcony.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident held a lease for a flat on the third floor of a block owned by the landlord between 2017 and December 2023, when the resident sold the property. The resident’s block had a car park located beneath.
The resident reported leaks to the car park in January 2020. A contractor attended in March 2020 but could not resolve the reported issue.
In March 2021, the resident stated that the car park was leaking due to the building’s poor construction, and the leak worsened after heavy rain. He also mentioned that his balcony was leaking.
On 8 December 2021, the resident complained about the structural safety of the building after the leaks. He reported leaks to his balcony and others in the block. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day.
On 30 March 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response. This response indicated that discussions had taken place with the development team, who confirmed that there were no defects in the building or its drainage systems but acknowledged the resident’s frustration. Assessments of the balconies were conducted in 2018 and 2020, revealing no evidence of any “latent defects” (problems that may not be noticed immediately after construction). However, there were unreasonable delays in completing necessary repairs and addressing the complaint. It offered £100 compensation for the distress caused and said it would arrange a further survey of the leaks.
Between April and October 2022, the resident continued to email the landlord to provide updates on the leaks and request updates on the repairs and his complaint.
On 7 November 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response that included the following points:
1. A contractor was scheduled to inspect the balconies that same day to assess any necessary repairs, and the resident would receive updates on the progress.
2. The survey referenced in the stage 1 response had not moved forward as promised. The landlord acknowledged that multiple leaks were impacting the car park.
3. The landlord apologised for the resident’s time spent reporting these issues and the resulting distress and inconvenience. It offered £300 in compensation, which covered £100 for the delay in the stage 1 response, £100 for the resident’s time and efforts in addressing the matter, and £100 for poor communication.

Events following the completion of the landlord’s complaints process

Following our contact with the landlord, it wrote to the resident on 25 July 2024. While gathering information for our investigation, the landlord acknowledged failings in handling the repairs and the complaint and apologised. It offered further compensation totalling £1,100, comprised of:
1. £600 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced.
2. £250 for deficiencies in handling the complaint.
3. £250 for inadequate communication.
The resident sold his property in December 2023 but has requested that we assess how the landlord managed the repairs. Although he no longer resides at the address, he remains actively involved with other residents in the block and is concerned about the safety and structural integrity of the building. He said that the repairs remain outstanding.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Although the resident has said he has experienced repair issues since 2017, this assessment will focus on events from 2020 when the resident reported issues with the leaks to the car park and balcony, which led to his complaint in December 2021. We have considered events following the completion of the landlord’s complaints process as the issues remained unresolved.

Car park

It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the external structure of the car park. This is in accordance with the lease agreement which confirms that the car park was not part of the resident’s demised premises (the space and property let to the resident under the lease agreement).
The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
Our Spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new builds confirms that the landlord’s obligations regarding shared areas should be remedied within policy timescales to avoid delays, wider negative impacts for residents, and a drain on landlord resources.
The evidence indicates that the resident has been reporting leaks into the car park since at least 2020. Throughout his correspondence, the resident expressed that his primary concern was the structural integrity of the building and the potential long-term effects the leaks would have if they remained unresolved.
The resident has confirmed that in March 2020, a contractor visited the site and noted that the leaks into the car park resulted from substandard workmanship so they could not complete any repairs. We rely solely on the resident’s account of this event, as the landlord has not supplied an inspection report outlining its findings.
The landlord’s repair records are limited in detail. Because of this, it has been difficult for us to establish when repairs were reported and whether the landlord responded appropriately, in line with its repair obligations. The records provided do not indicate that any repairs were carried out between March 2020 and December 2021, when the resident submitted his complaint. This constitutes a failure to address the resident’s reports and act according to its repairs policy, which stipulates that routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
The resident submitted a complaint in December 2021, stating that the landlord had failed to address his car park leaks reports. He expressed significant concern about the safety of the building. The landlord responded at stage 1 in March 2022, asserting that there were no building defects or drainage issues. The landlord has not provided evidence of inspection reports upon which it based its conclusions. However, considering the circumstances and the number of reports over a prolonged period, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a further survey to identify the cause of the leaks.
Despite the landlord’s assurance that it would complete an inspection, it did not progress. The evidence shows the resident continued progressing the matter with the landlord from April to October 2022. The resident provided detailed updates on the leaks and photographs of their locations. The landlord did not routinely respond or confirm when the inspection of the car park was likely to be completed, leaving the resident in an uncertain position where the landlord failed to manage his expectations appropriately. Consequently, the resident was left with “little faith” that the landlord would address the issues after 2 years of reporting.
On 7 November 2022, the landlord responded at stage 2, acknowledging several new leaks affecting the car park, indicating increased reported issues. Although the landlord had previously promised to organise a survey to address these concerns, this had not occurred 8 months after its initial promise. Furthermore, the landlord did not explain the delay to the resident. At this point, the reported issues had remained unresolved for over 2 years, significantly exceeding the landlord’s stated timeframe of 28 calendar days to complete repairs.
We understand that some leaks can be intricate and may take time to resolve properly. Nevertheless, we expect the landlord to provide updates on the situation regularly and to perform temporary repairs as needed to mitigate any damage that may occur. This way, the landlord alleviates the resident’s immediate concerns regarding the safety and integrity of the building while seeking further guidance on potential permanent resolutions. This investigation reveals a consistent effort from the resident to secure a permanent solution, with evidence showing that the landlord has progressed matters slowly and seemingly only after contact from the resident.
The landlord took steps to resolve the complaint by apologising and offering £300 compensation, which included £100 for the delay in the stage 1 response. While this was an attempt to rectify the situation, it did not resolve the substantive issue and led to additional time, delays, distress, and inconvenience to the resident after the completion of the landlord’s complaints process in his pursuit of a resolution.
Therefore, we have identified maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the car park. In summary, the landlord failed to:
1. Complete any surveys during the 11 months that the complaint was open.
2. Provide explanations for the significant delays in addressing the issues that it noted as “long-standing” which affected multiple residents in the block.
3. Fully acknowledge its failings or the resident’s safety concerns.
4. Communicate a timeframe to complete the repairs, which was particularly important given the history and number of reports.
5. Identify the steps it would take to learn from its failings or prevent similar mistakes.
6. Take the opportunity to address and resolve the complaint, which could have improved the relationship with the resident.
7. Resolve the repairs by December 2023, when the resident sold his property, 2 years after he complained.
After the complaints, the landlord offered the resident an additional £1,100. This comprised of £600 for the inconvenience caused and £250 for the failures in its communication. This was in addition to the £300 offered at stage 2.
While the increase in compensation and acknowledgement of its failings were welcomed, the substantive issues remained unresolved. The landlord confirmed in February 2025 that further repairs had been completed after stating they were finished in July 2024, 7 months prior. The landlord has not provided details of what repairs have been completed. However, the resident has stated that the repairs are still outstanding.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaks in the carpark. The compensation offered was in line with our remedies guidance in cases of maladministration. Consequently, we will not be ordering any further compensation.
The resident no longer resides at the property so no further orders regarding repairs have been issued.

Balconies

Section 3.7 of the lease agreement clarifies that the leased property does not include the balcony but grants a right to use it. Therefore, the landlord is responsible for the repairs and maintenance of the balcony structure.
The resident reported the leak on the balcony on 23 March 2021. The resident provided photographs of the issues to the landlord. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to investigate the report or repair the leak.
In his complaint in December 2021, the resident stated that the balcony was leaking around the sealant and asked the landlord to repair it. Despite his request, the landlord has not provided evidence of investigating or repairing.
In its stage 1 response in March 2022, the landlord mentioned inspections conducted in 2018 and 2020 that reported no defects relating to the balcony. We have not received copies of these reports to confirm the landlord’s claims. Nevertheless, it was reasonable for the landlord to recognise the need for its repairs team to carry out the necessary repairs it had delayed. The landlord did not confirm when its repairs team would complete the repair to the balcony, which was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that repairs had not progressed and assured the resident that an inspection would be completed on 4 November 2022 and that any identified repairs would be completed as soon as possible. Again, the evidence does not show that any repairs were completed. Where repair work is overdue, residents should receive regular updates clearly explaining the reasons for the delay and the expected completion date in line with our Spotlight report on complaints about repairs. The evidence does not show this happened.
From the resident’s report in March 2021 until the landlord’s stage 2 response in November 2022, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it completed repairs to the balcony. If any repairs were conducted, they did not offer a lasting solution. Consequently, the repair remained outstanding for 20 months. This constitutes a failure to carry out repairs for which it is responsible within the 28-day timeframe outlined in its repairs policy. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord knew the leaks affecting the balconies impacted multiple properties yet remained unresponsive.
As of September 2023, the resident continued to seek a resolution for the repair 10 months after the formal complaints process concluded without a satisfactory outcome. The resident has expressed frustration, noting that when he moved out in December 2023, the issue of the leaking balconies remained unresolved.
Therefore, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leaking balcony. The landlord did not promptly determine the cause of the issue, resulting in the resident spending considerable time and effort attempting to resolve the matter over a period of approximately 2 years before leaving.
As detailed above, the landlord’s increased compensation offer was in line with our remedies guidance in cases of maladministration, so we will not order additional compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy, in place at the time of the complaint, confirmed that stage 1 complaints would be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Stage 2 responses would be issued within 20 working days. If an extension was required, it would not exceed 10 working days.
The resident made a complaint on 18 December 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day but did not provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2022 after he had not heard back regarding his complaint. The landlord would be expected to inform the resident of any delay and agree on an extension, which should be no more than 10 working days. There is no evidence that this was done, that it explained why there was a delay, or what steps it had taken to mitigate further delays in the future. This meant the resident spent time and effort requesting updates and prolonged the resident’s complaints process.
On 22 January 2022, the landlord apologised for the delayed response but did not provide the resident with a specific date for when he would receive a reply. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 30 March 2022, which was 77 working days after the resident complained. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The stage 1 response summarised previous actions, and while it said it would instruct a further survey, it did not provide a timeline for when this would be done. The landlord did not provide a clear and comprehensive response, which was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that outstanding actions must be tracked and actioned with regular updates provided to the resident. This was not done in this case.
Our Spotlight report on complaints confirms that maintaining regular contact with residents, even when there may be no new information, ensures effective communication. The evidence shows that the resident actively updated the landlord and sought updates on the repairs and his complaint throughout April, July and September 2022. The landlord frequently failed to respond, resulting in the resident’s emails going unanswered. This prompted the resident’s escalation in October 2022.
Although the landlord acknowledged some of the failures identified in this investigation and the subsequent delays in repairs, neither complaint response fully addressed what went wrong, the reasons behind this, and any learning it had identified as a result. We expect landlords to use its complaints process to ensure transparency in identifying issues and introducing positive changes in service delivery.
While the landlord apologised and offered £100 in compensation at stage 2, this did not resolve the core of the resident’s complaint. Its handling of the complaint exacerbated the handling of the substantive issues. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it took steps to learn from the complaint, and there were additional failings after the complaint’s process was completed in resolving the repairs and communicating with the resident. Consequently, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling and issued orders to rectify the failings.
It is not in line with our dispute resolution principles, or the Complaint Handling Code for the landlord to make and offer of redress at the end of a long process, which was the case here. The landlord reviewed the complaint in July 2024, after we confirmed we were investigating, 8 months after the completion of the complaints process. The landlord should have initiated this sooner.
Following its stage 2 response, the landlord offered an additional £250 for the failings in its complaint handling. Consequently, it has paid £350 for its complaint handling failures, which aligns with what we would typically offer. As such, we have not awarded additional compensation but have made orders aimed at learning from the complaint.

Record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repairs, reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight On: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) confirms that good record keeping is vital to evidence a landlord’s action, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes were not operating effectively.
Our investigation into this complaint has been hindered by a lack of evidence and detailed reports that the landlord has not provided. Specifically, we are missing the following:
1. Comprehensive records of repairs, including detailed information on all completed work and the specific tasks performed.
2. Complete records of correspondence between the landlord, its asset team and the development team.
3. Missing inspection reports from 2020 onwards.
Due to the landlord’s record keeping, we have been unable to conduct a thorough investigation to establish an accurate timeline of events, including the repairs completed and reasons for the delays. Consequently, we have identified maladministration by the landlord regarding its record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks in the car park.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks on the balcony.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the failings we have identified in our investigation.
Pay the resident £1,100 offered on 25 July 2024, if it has not already done so.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Confirm whether training is needed for its staff involved in complaints about repairs and provide us with a detailed action plan.