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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202313877)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313877

The Guinness Partnership Limited

18 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 handling of:
    1. The sale of the resident’s property.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property. The landlord, a housing association, is the freeholder of the property.
  2. The resident asked the landlord for a management pack on 6 October 2022. The landlord received payment on 13 October 2022 and sent the management pack to the resident’s solicitors on 31 October 2022. Between 7 November 2022 and 15 February 2023 the resident and his solicitors sent 11 emails to the landlord requesting a deed of variation. The resident also made several telephone calls and webchat queries. On 15 February 2023 the landlord agreed to a deed of variation. The resident’s solicitors sent the landlord a draft deed of variation on 9 March 2023 for it to approve. They sent a further amended deed of variation on 27 March 2023 and, following the landlord pointing out an error sent a further draft on 5 May 2023. The landlord then returned an agreed and signed deed of variation on 11 May 2023. The resident’s buyer pulled out of the sale the same day.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 15 May 2023. He said the buyer had pulled out of the sale and he held the landlord solely responsible due to the delays. He said he had chased up the deed of variation for a total of 7 months. He said he was disappointed with the service, and he had experienced distress, frustration and financial loss. He asked the landlord to investigate the matter and provide a detailed report.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 25 May 2023. It said:
    1. It received a request for a deed of variation in November 2022 and the resident had to chase for a response on 30 January 2023. It apologised for that delay.
    2. It discussed the agreed wording to change via a deed of variation with the resident’s solicitors and received a draft on 9 March 2023.
    3. It received a further amended deed of variation on 27 March 2023 that contained an error. It received a corrected deed on 5 May 2023 and signed and returned it on 11 May 2023.
    4. It partially upheld the complaint due to initial delays providing a deed of variation, but said the solicitors continued to liaise with it after the initial delays.
    5. It had given feedback to its resales and staircasing team to ensure it responds to customer queries within its targeted timeframes.
  5. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 12 June 2023. He said he had not received an adequate response to his original complaint. He requested compensation totalling £9,590 and provided a breakdown of how he calculated the figure. He said if the landlord did not agree with the compensation, then it should state why and make a counteroffer.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2023. It said:
    1. It received the initial request for a deed of variation on 29 November 2022 but did not confirm it could proceed until 15 February 2023. It apologised for that delay and that the resident had to chase for a response.
    2. The delays from receiving the deed of variation on 9 March 2023 and returning a completed deed of variation on 11 May 2023 were caused by other parties.
    3. It therefore only partially upheld the complaint for the delays up to 15 February 2023. It did not uphold the complaint for the delays thereafter.
    4. It did not accept any responsibility for the loss of the buyer, as external buyers can pull out of purchases for many reasons. There was no evidence to suggest the buyer pulled out due to the delays by the landlord.
    5. It acknowledged that following its stage 1 response, it sent a confusing email to the resident that caused him to believe he had exhausted the internal complaint process. It apologised for the confusion and inconvenience caused.
    6. It offered a gesture of goodwill of £100 which was £75 for any inconvenience caused by the initial delays in it progressing the application and £25 for the confusion caused by its responses.
  7. The resident then complained to the Ombudsman that the buyer pulled out of the sale due to the landlord’s delays. The resident has asked for his complaint to be resolved with compensation for all financial losses, for his time being wasted, and for emotional distress.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s property

  1. This Service cannot determine whether the landlord’s actions directly caused the potential buyer to pull out of purchasing the property. There are several reasons why the buyer could have stopped their purchase of the property. This Service cannot draw any conclusions, or make assumptions as to why the buyer made their decision. However, we can determine whether the landlord acted fairly and appropriately throughout the process, and whether it acted in line with any relevant policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord’s timescales for providing a management pack is 10 working days. The landlord exceeded that timescale by 7 working days when it sent the management pack to the resident’s solicitors on 31 October 2022. That was inappropriate.
  3. Following the resident’s solicitors’ request for a deed of variation on 7 November 2022, the landlord told them on 3 occasions (15, 23 and 29 November 2022) one was not required. That was incorrect advice, which the landlord has acknowledged. This was unreasonable and caused unnecessary delay.
  4. The resident’s solicitors asked for a deed of variation again on 8 December 2022. The landlord says it aims to respond to online queries within 2 working days and written contact within 5 working days. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of that contact or provided a response. This was not appropriate or in line with its stated timescales for responding to contact. The resident had to chase a response on 9 January 2023.
  5. The first evidence the landlord passed the request for a deed of variation to its legal team was on 9 January 2023. The delay of over 2 months was unreasonable. The landlord also did not tell the resident or his solicitors it had passed the request to its legal team. The resident and his solicitors chased up a response a further 2 times on 10 and 18 January 2023. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of that contact or provided a response. This was not appropriate or in line with its stated timescales for responding to contact.
  6. The resident chased a response again on 31 January 2023. The landlord responded the same day and said it would request an update from its legal team and ask someone to contact him as soon as possible. This was a reasonable action to take.
  7. After another 2 emails from the resident chasing a response, the landlord emailed his solicitors on 15 February 2023. It apologised for the delays providing a response. It said its legal team confirmed it was acceptable to vary the lease to delete “landlord to forfeit in the event a tenant who is a corporation is wound up”. It asked the solicitors to provide a draft deed, and it would approve it. This was a reasonable action to take, but the Ombudsman considers the overall time taken of over 3 months to be unreasonable.
  8. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged receipt of the draft deeds of variation the resident’s solicitors sent on 9 March 2023 and 27 March 2023. There is also no evidence it responded to the resident’s emails chasing a response on 30 March 2023 and 11 April 2023, which was inappropriate.
  9. The resident’s solicitors sent the deeds using the name of the housing association on the original lease. However, the landlord had previously confirmed on 23 November 2022 that this organisation no longer existed, as it had taken it over. The Ombudsman therefore does not consider the landlord to be responsible for the delays caused by the incorrect name on the deed.
  10. The landlord responded on 3 May 2023. It told the resident’s solicitors they needed to amend the draft deed to show the correct housing association name. The landlord did not provide the resident or this Service with expected timescales for its legal team to review the deed of variation. It is therefore unclear if the time taken (from 27 March to 3 May 2023) to inform the solicitors they must amend the deed was within timescales. However, the Ombudsman considers the period of over 5 weeks to be unreasonable.
  11. The resident’s solicitors provided a corrected deed on 5 May 2023 and the landlord returned the approved deed on 11 May 2023. That was a reasonable time to approve and return the document.
  12. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s view that the landlord delayed the sales process and should compensate him for that. However, all delays were not solely attributed to the landlord. The landlord delayed 7 working days when providing the management pack. It also delayed from 7 November 2022 to 15 February 2023 in agreeing to a deed of variation. The landlord then further delayed from 27 March 2023 to 3 May 2023 in reviewing the deed. The remaining time appears to either have been periods where the landlord had taken action within a reasonable period, or events were outside its control.
  13. The Ombudsman considers that the resident’s frustration with the process was likely to have been exacerbated by the landlord’s approach to communications. Response times and provision of updates were inconsistent. The landlord has not provided evidence to allow the Ombudsman to be satisfied that it had always appropriately responded to queries from the resident or his solicitor within reasonable timescales.
  14. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses. In its stage 1 response it confirmed it had given feedback to its resales and staircasing team to ensure it responds to customer queries within its targeted timeframes. It then offered £75 for any inconvenience caused by the initial delays in it progressing the application. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that is insufficient to redress the failings in this case or appropriately recognise the impact on the resident.
  15. After the resident brought his complaint to this Service, the landlord made a further offer of redress. On 27 June 2024 it offered the resident £875 in addition to the £75 already offered. It gave a breakdown for the offer which included £500 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its delays and the impact that had on the resident, £125 to apologise for the poor communication, £25 for the delay in issuing the Management Pack, £200 refund for the cost of the Deed of Variation.
  16. It is the Ombudsman’s view the increased offer is proportionate redress for the impact on the resident of the failings identified above. It is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which had a significant impact on the resident. However, the landlord did not make this offer until after this Service had accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation and we have addressed that in our complaint handling assessment below.
  17. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has made an offer to the resident that provides reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the sale of the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy says it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within a further 10 working days. It also says it would respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the escalation request. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code).
  2. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its policy and the Code. It also provided its stage 1 complaint response in line with its policy and the Code.
  3. The day after the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, it sent an email to the resident. It said it was still finalising the formal complaint response, and it should send it the following week. This was not appropriate as the complaint response had already been sent the previous day, and it caused confusion for the resident.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 escalation request in line with its policy and the Code. It also provided its stage 2 complaint response in line with its policy and the Code. It offered £25 in its final response for the confusion caused by the email after it sent the stage 1 response.
  5. Although the landlord dealt with the complaint responses in line with the timescales in its policy and the Code, it is clear it did not conduct a thorough review of the case. The landlord further reviewed the case after the resident brought the complaint to this Service and significantly increased its offer of redress. The landlord therefore failed to adequately address the level of compensation required to resolve the complaint satisfactorily and only did so 12 months after the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
  6. The Ombudsman expects landlords to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage 2 of its complaints process. Had this been done, the landlord may have identified its failings sooner and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. This was inappropriate.
  7. With regards to complaint handling, the landlord had offered £25 in its final response for the confusion caused by the email after it sent the stage 1 response. It then offered a further £25 for its complaint handling failures in its further review on 27 June 2024.
  8. The total of £50 compensation is not proportionate to the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling failings identified above. We have made an order that the landlord pay the resident a further £100. This amount is within the range of awards set out in our remedies guidance for cases such as this where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
  9. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Pay the resident the compensation it had previously offered totalling £975 if this has not already been paid.
    2. Pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble likely incurred as a result of its complaint handling failings.
  2. If the landlord has already paid the compensation to the resident it is entitled to offset any payments against this sum. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.