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 (202318314)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318314

The Guinness Partnership Limited

23 April 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 reports damp, mould, and the associated repairs.

Background

  1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord. She moved out of the property in July 2023, and is no longer a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 August 2022 and reported a concern about damp and mould in her bathroom. The landlord inspected and raised a mould wash, replacement of the extractor fan, and redecoration works. It completed the repairs on 31 August 2022.
  3. The resident raised further concerns about damp and mould on 27 October 2022. The landlord attended and completed a mould wash on 11 November 2022. The landlord also inspected the windows in November 2022. It identified the window in the bathroom needed replacing and the other windows needed repairs to resolved the “excessive condensation”.
  4. The landlord completed a damp and mould inspection on 12 December 2022. The notes from its inspection said:
    1. The resident has a “large amount” of mould growing from the area of a leak from the property above.
    2. It would inspect the property above to ensure the leak was resolved.
    3. The trickle vents in the windows were closed, and the extractor fan and heating was off. It gave advice around the importance of heating and ventilation.
  5. The landlord completed a mould wash and redecoration works on 13 December 2022. It contacted the resident on 14 December 2023 and confirmed it had investigated and the leak from the property above was resolved.
  6. The landlord replaced a window in the bathroom in January 2023.
  7. On 28 March 2023, the resident reported a concern the leak from the property above had started again. It raised a repair for the property above. It is unclear when it fixed the leak, but it raised a repair for making good decorations on 13 April 2023.
  8. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 May 2023 to ask about the damp and mould. Its notes stated the resident reported no issues with damp and mould at that time.
  9. The landlord completed “making good” decoration works in the bathroom on 17 May 2023 due to the leak from the property above.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 June 2023 to report a concern about damp and mould in the bedroom at the property. The records indicate the resident cancelled an inspection on 27 June 2023.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint on 24 July 2023. She said when she lifted carpet when moving out of the property she found evidence of mould under the carpet. She reported her possessions were damaged by damp and mould in the property.
  12. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 3 August 2023. It gave a history of its repairs visits related to the reports of damp and mould. It said it had attended within its target timeframe for the repairs. It responded to questions the resident raised about mould growth and the energy efficiency of the property.
  13. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, and asked it to open a stage 2 complaint on 29 August 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 7 September 2023, and said:
    1. It gave a detailed history of the repairs visits to the property.
    2. It explained why there was a delay in repairing the windows, due to needing to order parts.
    3. It had attended to repairs when raised and satisfied itself through inspections there were no structural defects contributing to damp and mould at the property.
    4. It would only consider compensation for damage to possessions when it had “categorically done something that has caused the damage”. It was “confident” it did not cause the damage to her possessions.
  14. The resident contacted us on 7 September 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, and it had not compensated her for damage to her possessions. She also raised a concern about the impact on her son’s health due to its handling of the damp and mould.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports damp, mould, and the associated repairs.

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation
  2. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
  3. Throughout her complaint, and when she asked us to investigate, the resident said the landlord’s handling of the repairs had impacted on her son’s health. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  4. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of our remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers her son’s health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
  5. The resident also raised a concern that the damp and mould in her property caused damage to her personal possessions. While the serious nature of this claim is noted, it is not our role to determine liability for the resident’s damaged items. This would normally be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. This Service has instead considered the landlord’s response to this concern, and whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures
  6. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 days.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy states for claims of damage to possessions it will consider whether a service failure on its part contributed to the items being damaged. It also states it encourages residents to have their own contents insurance to cover against damage to possessions.
  8. When the resident raised concerns about damp and mould, in August 2022, the landlord promptly inspected. It identified repairs and completed them within the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s report of damp and mould seriously.
  9. The actions the landlord took in December 2022 were also appropriate. Following a further report about damp and mould it arranged an inspection, treated the mould, and did making good works related to the leak from the property above. The landlord acted promptly to remedy the matter and took additional steps to satisfy itself the leak was resolved. It also confirmed this with the resident which is evidence it sought to reassure her it had fully investigated the matter. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  10. The leak was reported again in March 2023. The landlord took appropriate steps and resolved the leak within a reasonable timeframe. It also completed making good works in the resident’s bathroom within a reasonable timeframe.
  11. The landlord replaced the window in the bathroom 2 months after it inspected. It is noted this was outside of its target timeframe for responsive repairs. However, given the complexity of such a repair we do not consider a 2 month timeframe excessive.
  12. The evidence shows the landlord did not complete the other repairs to the windows until May 2023. This was 6 months after the inspection identified the other windows needed repairs and were draughty. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase the landlord about the repair in February 2023 before it progressed. This caused her an inconvenience. We note the landlord told us when providing information for this investigation the repair were delayed due to the glass being “made to measure”. However, we have seen no evidence it communicated with the resident about the delays. Had it done so it may have helped reassure her it was progressing with the repairs with urgency.
  13. The landlord contacted the resident to ask about any damp and mould concerns she had in May 2023. This was proactive and evidence it sought to establish whether its previous actions were successful in resolving the issue. This was appropriate and evidence the landlord took the resident’s concerns about damp and mould seriously.
  14. Following the resident’s further report of damp and mould in the bedroom, in June 2023, the landlord raised an inspection. This was appropriate n the circumstances. The evidence shows the resident cancelled the inspection.
  15. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response gave a detailed history of most of the repairs. It also gave detailed answers to specific questions the resident raised in her complaint. This was appropriate in the circumstances. However, its complaint response lacked detail in terms of the window repair, and her concern about damage to her possessions. This was unreasonable and the resident was inconvenienced by not having these aspects of her complaint responded to.
  16. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went some way to putting right the shortcomings of its stage 1 response. It gave an explanation for the window repairs. However, that it did not offer compensation for the delay was inappropriate. We acknowledge the window repairs are complex and take time due to the need for parts to be measured and manufactured. However, given its poor communication about the delays and a 6 month wait, it would have been appropriate to offer compensation for the delay.
  17. The landlord set out its position in relation to the resident’s claim about damage to her possessions. This put right the error in its earlier silence on the issue. The evidence shows the landlord asked the resident to provide evidence in support of her claim. The landlord gave the information provided due consideration, in line with its compensation policy. It explained that it had not identified any service failures which meant it was liable for the damage. The landlord acted reasonably in relation to this query.
  18. Considering the errors identified above we have determined there was service failure in landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Our remedies guidance states that up to £100 may be appropriate to put right errors where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right. We have decided an order for £100 is appropriate to put things right for the resident in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould, and the associated repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report. The apology should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies, available on our website.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the damp, mould, and associated repairs.