The Guinness Partnership Limited (202310730)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310730

The Guinness Partnership Limited

24 June 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 regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
   1. Increases in rent and service charges.
   2. Repairs to the communal front door.
   3. Repairs to the communal lift.
   4. Reports the communal television was not working.
   5. Maintenance of the communal garden.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has been an assured tenant of a 1-bedroom flat since July 2013. The flat is on the second floor of a retirement housing complex. The landlord’s records say the resident has mobility issues and hypertension. The resident used a representative throughout her complaint to the landlord.
4. The resident’s representative contacted the landlord on 20 June 2023. They complained about the landlord not carrying out repairs and maintenance at the property. They also complained about increases in the resident’s rent and service charges.
5. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the representative on 21 July 2023. It did not uphold the complaints. It offered £25 compensation for the delay in responding to the complaint.
6. The representative emailed the landlord on 4 August 2023. They said they were not happy with the landlord’s response to the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 August 2023.
7. On 22 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the representative. It partially upheld the complaint as it said it found there had been times when it had not maintained the communal garden.
8. The representative contacted us on 9 October 2023. They said the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the increase in rent and service charges

Jurisdiction

9. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
10. On 23 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her of changes to her rent and service charges from 3 April 2023. On 16 May 2023 the resident’s representative complained to the landlord about the new rent and service charge amounts.
11. This aspect of the resident’s complaint is solely related to the level of increase of her rent and service charge costs from April 2023.
12. Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
13. The resident’s complaint about the level of rent and service charges increase is out of jurisdiction. This is because the reasonableness, or liability to pay variable rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The resident is signposted to take legal advice or to escalate the matter directly to the First-Tier Tribunal should she wish to complain about the level of service charge increase.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the communal front door

14. The representative complained to the landlord on 20 June 2023 the communal door entry system at the resident’s property was constantly broken. She did not provide any further information regarding when the door entry system had not been working.
15. The landlord’s records do not show any reports of the door entry system not working prior to the complaint being made in June 2023.
16. On 15 July 2023 the landlord recorded the communal front door would not close properly. The landlord’s repair records show an engineer attended the same day and the door was secured, but a specialist engineer was required to complete the repair. An engineer attended on 17 July 2023 and completed the door repair.
17. The landlord’s repairs policy states it is responsible for repairs to the door entry system. The policy classifies doors that are not secure as being emergency repairs. The policy states the landlord will either complete the repair or make the situation safe within 24 hours of it being reported. It adds that if additional materials or components are required, it will carry out a temporary repair and return within 7 working days to complete the repair.
18. The evidence shows the landlord secured the door within its emergency repair timescales. A specialist engineer completed the repair within 2 days, which was within the landlord’s policy timescale.
19. On 21 July 2023 the landlord sent a response to the representative at stage 1 of its complaints process. The landlord said due to a breach in security, it had changed the door access codes. It gave details on how to take extra security precautions.
20. A review of the complaint response shows the landlord did not specifically address the resident’s complaint about the communal front door not working.
21. The representative emailed the landlord on 4 August 2023. She reiterated the door entry system was constantly broken.
22. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the representative on 22 September 2023. It acknowledged it had not responded to her complaint about the door entry system being broken in its stage 1 response. The landlord confirmed it had repaired the door within its policy timescales when the fault was reported on 15 July 2023.
23. The evidence shows despite acknowledging its failure to reply about its actions at stage 1, the landlord did not apologise or offer redress for this failure in its stage 2 response.
24. In summary, the representative did not provide any details of when the front door entry system was broken prior to making the complaint, and the landlord’s records do not show the matter being raised earlier as an issue that required its attention. The landlord conducted the repairs in accordance with its policy timescales according to its records. The landlord acted appropriately in regard to this matter, and this results in a determination of no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding repairs to the communal lift.

25. On 20 June 2023 the representative complained to the landlord the communal lift at the resident’s property was ‘constantly broken’. She said it had previously not worked for a 6-week period, so the resident was not able to leave her flat on the second floor of the building. This was due to health issues meaning she could not use the stairs. The representative did not provide any evidence to support her claim or dates of when the lift had not been working.
26. The landlord’s repairs policy classifies lift repairs as an emergency. The policy states it should carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours. The landlord has not provided any records of reports of the lift not working prior to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will not consider issues which occurred more than 6 months before the complaint was made, unless it is established it is a recurring issue.
27. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the representative on 21 July 2023. It said it had investigated the matter. It said the last report of the lift being broken was April 2021. The landlord said as the there was no evidence of recurring reports the lift was broken in the previous 2 years, it would not investigate the matter further. It said this decision was made in accordance with its complaints policy.
28. A review of the complaint response shows it addressed the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained upon what evidence it based its decision not to investigate the matter further. On the basis of the information provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide a limited response in accordance with its policy.
29. The representative escalated the complaint with the landlord on 4 August 2023. She said the lift had broken down a couple of months earlier. The representative did not provide any further details as to when the lift was not working.
30. On 20 September 2023 it was reported to the landlord that the lift was not working. The landlords repair records show the lift was fixed by an engineer the same day, which was within its policy timescales.
31. The landlord sent its stage 2 response to the representative on 22 September 2023. It said the only record it held of the lift being faulty in the previous 12 months was the event on 20 September 2023. The landlord clarified the lift was fixed on the same day.
32. In summary, the representative did not provide the landlord with any dates to reference when the lift was broken during her complaints. The landlord investigated the matter and replied at both complaint stages it had no record of the lift being broken other than 1 instance just before its stage 2 response. The landlord investigated the matter as far as was practicable and limited its response in accordance with its complaints process. The evidence shows there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the communal lift.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns the communal television was not working

33. On 26 June 2023 the representative complained to the landlord the television (TV) in the communal lounge was not working.
34. The landlord does not have a specific policy regarding the provision of a service for residents to watch TV in a communal area. However, the landlord’s records show there was a TV in the communal area, and its repairs policy states it was responsible for repairing TV aerials for communal areas. The landlord’s records also show the resident was charged £0.50 by the landlord as part of their contribution towards a TV licence fee in 2022/23 and £0.53 in 2023/24. These charges were made as part of the resident’s service charge. The resident pays for a TV licence for her own accommodation.
35. During our investigation into the resident’s complaint, the landlord told us there has been no working TV aerial for the communal area since the complaint was made. It is not clear from the landlord’s records how long the aerial had not been working. However, the evidence provided by the landlord shows it was informed of the communal TV aerial was not functioning properly prior to the resident’s complaint.
36. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the representative on 21 July 2023. It said the TV did work, but residents could only watch DVDs on it. The landlord said in order to watch live TV in the communal area, a separate TV license was required, but one was not registered to the property.
37. A review of the landlord’s complaint response shows it failed to address the evidence that the resident was being charged for a contribution towards a TV licence, but that the communal TV aerial was not working.
38. The representative escalated the complaint on 4 August 2023. She disputed the landlord’s claim a TV licence was required for the communal area.
39. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint to the representative on 22 September 2023. It again said residents could not watch a communal TV without a licence for that specific communal area.
40. The landlord’s records show the resident was paying a £6 service charge for her share of a TV license fee for the communal area for 2025/26. The landlord told us in June 2025 there was still no working TV aerial for the communal lounge.
41. In summary, the information provided to the representative during its complaint process was misleading. The landlord does not have a specific policy regarding providing the residents with access to a communal TV, however, during the period of the complaint it charged the resident for a contribution towards a TV licence. The evidence is that the aerial serving the TV in the communal area was not functioning properly, nor was it repaired by the landlord.
42. The landlord failed to investigate the matter to the extent it was able to identify the unfairness in its actions towards the resident. The landlord neither repaired the aerial as per its complaints policy nor did it identify it was charging for a service the resident was not receiving.
43. The above failures lead to a determination of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports the communal TV was not working. An order for compensation had been made below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about maintenance of the communal garden

44. On 20 June 2023 the resident’s representative complained to the landlord that the communal garden was not being maintained.
45. The landlord’s estate management policy states it will maintain communal gardens fortnightly. The resident pays a service charge towards grounds maintenance. The landlord has not provided any records to us of when it carried out maintenance of the communal garden.
46. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the representative on 21 July 2023. The landlord confirmed it was responsible for maintaining the garden. It said it had recently conducted an inspection of the property’s communal areas and found no issues.
47. A review of the landlord’s complaint response shows a lack of information from the landlord in regard to when it conducted an inspection, nor did it confirm if it had checked its records to ensure garden maintenance had been carried out fortnightly, as per its policy.
48. The representative escalated the complaint with the landlord on 4 August 2023 as she said the garden was unkept.
49. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the representative on 22 September 2023. It said it had checked its records, and its operatives had failed to maintain the garden on the previous 2 occasions. The landlord said it had carried out maintenance on 29 and 30 August 2023 to ensure the grounds were up to standard. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused to the resident. It said the resident’s service charge account would be adjusted to reflect the period where no garden maintenance was carried out when the end of year accounts were completed.
50. Analysis of the landlord’s complaint response shows it accepted there had been a service failure and it apologised for this. It committed to refund the resident for the service she had not received. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for the failure to provide a service and to commit to refunding the charges in dispute, however, it is unreasonable that the landlord did not acknowledge the inconvenience of the resident having to raise the matter through its complaints process.
51. This failure to acknowledge the inconvenience caused to the resident leads to a determination of service failure. An order for compensation has been made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

52. In 2023 the landlord’s complaints policy stated it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledging them and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
53. The representative made a complaint to the landlord on 27 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged it the same day.
54. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the representative on 21 July 2023. This response was sent 18 working days after the complaint was acknowledged and was outside of its complaints policy timescale. The landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay in replying. This offer was in line with its compensation policy.
55. However, the landlord failed to address the resident’s complaints regarding the communal door being broken, and it did not give details of its investigation into when garden maintenance had been carried out. This was not in accordance with paragraph 6.7 of the Code, which states landlords must address all points raised in the resident’s complaint and provide clear reasons for its decisions.
56. The representative escalated the complaint on 4 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 August 2023. This was within its policy timescale.
57. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the representative on 22 September 2023. This was 12 working days outside of its policy timescale. The landlord did not offer any redress for its delay in responding. In its response the landlord accepted it had made failings regarding not responding to the complaint about the communal door, and it said it had not carried out maintenance of the garden as per its policy. 
58. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord did not adhere to its complaints policy in replying within its prescribed timescales, and its stage 1 response was not in accordance with the Code. This led to a process which was unclear and more difficult to navigate than it should have been. Although the landlord offered £25 compensation for its delayed response at stage 1, it failed to offer any redress for the further delay at stage 2 and the complaint handling failures it identified.
59. These failings, together with the failure to provide appropriate redress to put things right, lead to determination of a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order for increased compensation has been made below.

Determination

60. In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding the increase in rent and service charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
61. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to communal front door.
62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to the communal lift.
63. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns the communal TV was not working.
64. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about communal garden maintenance.
65. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

66. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay £325 compensation to the resident. The landlord may deduct the sum of £25 awarded as part of its internal complaints process, if already paid. The balance should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any rent or service charge account. The compensation is broken down as follows:
       1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal TV not working.
       2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the communal garden not being maintained.
       3. £75 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
67. The landlord should provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

68. The landlord is recommended to review the service charges paid by the resident for the TV licence and garden maintenance since 2023/24. The landlord should calculate and refund for the periods the resident has not received a service which she has been charged for.