The Guinness Partnership Limited (202319837)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319837

The Guinness Partnership Limited

11 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom flat, since August 2017.
On 9 January 2023, the local authority’s environmental health service contacted the landlord. It said that the resident had informed it that he had reported damp and mould in the property, but “nothing had been done” by the landlord to resolve the issue.
The landlord responded to the environmental health service the same day and arranged a joint visit to the property for 13 January 2023. During the inspection, it was identified that the external walls in the bedroom and bathroom were wet, and further investigations were required.
On 9 February 2023, the landlord’s repair contractor confirmed that following a survey of the property, it proposed to install thermal boarding in the affected rooms to prevent any further damp.
The works commenced on 23 February 2023. The evidence suggests that upon the repair contractor’s arrival to the property, the resident’s adult son was dissatisfied with the work that was being undertaken (plastering over existing damp plaster) and was unhappy that the installation of thermal boarding would make the rooms smaller. Following a telephone call between the resident’s son and the landlord, the contractor reinstated everything back to the way it was and left the property.
In the subsequent weeks, the landlord consulted with the repair contractor and resident about the repairs. On 16 March 2023, the resident agreed for the works to continue.
Following a further inspection on 14 April 2023, the repair contractor recommended 18 remedial actions to resolve the damp and mould issues in the property. The landlord informed the resident of the planned repairs on 22 May 2023, and the resident confirmed that he was happy for the works to go ahead on 23 May 2023.
The evidence suggests that all repairs were completed on 19 June 2023.
The resident complained to the landlord on 6 July 2023. He said it had delayed damp and mould repairs to his bedroom and bathroom for the previous 5 years. He also felt it was discriminating against him.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 9 August 2023. It provided a timeline of events and said:
1. As per its complaints policy, it could only investigate matters that occurred within the last 6 months ago. Its investigation was therefore based on repairs from January 2023 onwards.
2. It had been unable to complete the original works at the request of the resident’s son.
3. The delays between March 2023 and May 2023 were because the works required were extensive and needed to be signed off by senior management.
4. It had kept in “constant” contact with the resident throughout the work and therefore did not uphold his complaint.
5. It was sorry that the resident felt it was discriminating against him.
6. It offered him £25 in compensation for its delayed complaint response.
The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 14 August 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 5 September 2023. It said:
1. It maintained that it was appropriate to begin its investigation from January 2023, as this was in line with its complaints policy. Its repair records indicated that previous repairs for mould in the resident’s home were the result of leaks. As several months had passed between these and the more recent reports of damp and mould, it felt it was “correct” to treat this as a separate issue.
2. It agreed with its stage 1 findings in relation to the damp and mould repairs, and did not uphold the complaint.
3. It offered the resident an additional £15 in compensation (total of £40) in recognition of delays in acknowledging the stage 1 complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The evidence supplied shows that, on 3 January 2023, the resident reported a leak through the bedroom ceiling from the flat above. Although there was reference to damp and mould within this repair, we have not considered this repair within the assessment of this case. This is because the landlord dealt with this via a separate formal complaint and issued its stage 1 response on 23 January 2023. Under paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
Within the resident’s request to make a formal complaint, he said that the landlord had failed to resolve the issues with damp and mould for 5 years. As we have seen no evidence of some of these repairs, we are unable to comment on the overall length of any delays. Additionally, as mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord assessed its handling of the repairs for the previous 6 months only. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions from 9 January 2023 which were considered within its complaint responses. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period.
The resident has reported issues of discrimination. If the resident believes he has been unlawfully discriminated against, he may wish to seek independent legal advice or contact the Equality and Human Rights Commission for further information on his options. This is in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, we can consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about discrimination.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property

Within its stage 1 response, the landlord provided the resident with a timeline of events that occurred in relation to his reports of damp and mould. However, throughout our investigation it appeared that the landlord had not supplied evidence to support numerous aspects of its narrative of the damp and mould case. We therefore asked it to provide further information, but some pieces of evidence remained absent from its submission. Some examples have been highlighted within this section of the report. The level of evidence has made it difficult for us to make an assessment of these aspects of the case. It is, however, indicative of poor record keeping in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. We will take this into consideration in determining the case.
Following an email from the environmental health service on 9 January 2023, it was appropriate and timely that the landlord attended the property 4 working days later (on 13 January 2023) to inspect the damp and mould. The evidence suggests that following the joint visit, the landlord was awaiting a report from the environmental health service, and it requested an update on 24 January 2023. This was also appropriate and showed that it was being proactive in its handling of the matter. However, we have not had sight of this report, which is indicative of poor record keeping.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord requested its repair contractor to undertake a survey of the property. From the evidence provided, it is not clear what date the repair contractor attended the property, which is a further record keeping failure. However, it is reasonable to assume that its response was timely, as the repair contractor provided an update 2 days later (on 9 February 2023) and supplied a quote to undertake thermal boarding to the property.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord informed the resident of what repairs were going to be undertaken during the ensuing repair appointment on 23 February 2023. The importance of clear, regular and well documented updates to residents on works affecting their properties is highlighted.
The resident has not disputed that his son was unhappy with the works being undertaken during the appointment on 23 February 2023. However, the landlord’s records state that during a telephone call with his son on this date, it advised him to ask the repair contractor to stop the work and noted that “he did not refuse any works”. Within the landlord’s notes, it also stated that “it made no logical sense to plaster over” the affected walls and that it was “extremely concerning” that the contractor was attempting to “cover the problem”. Given that communication between the resident’s son and the contractor had broken down during the appointment, we find that it was appropriate for the landlord to decide to ask the contractor to leave the property. However, we find that the repairs should have been agreed between all parties before the work commenced. Had this happened, this may have prevented confusion on the day of the repairs and the subsequent delays that followed. We also find it inappropriate that the landlord stated within its complaint responses that the delays to the repairs were attributed to the resident’s son who had “asked [the repair contractor] to stop [the repairs]”, as the evidence suggests that this was factually incorrect.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will communicate with residents clearly and regularly regarding any actions it plans to take. Between 27 February 2023 and 16 March 2023, the landlord consulted with the repair contractor and the environmental health service to discuss the repairs required, which was appropriate. The landlord then contacted the resident on 16 March 2023 to ask if he was happy for the works to be undertaken, and he confirmed the same day that he was happy to proceed. However, the resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2023, 6 working days later, to advise that he had not yet received an appointment for the repairs. This was inappropriate and caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience.
On 11 April 2022, the landlord arranged a joint visit for 14 April 2023 with the repair contractor and environmental health service to “discuss” the remedial works with the resident. We have not had sight of any records of this visit, which is a record keeping failure in the landlord’s handling of the case.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 May 2023 to advise that it was still awaiting approval for the works. It apologised for the delay. It was positive that the landlord contacted the resident to provide him with an update, and that it apologised. This demonstrated accountability for the issues and an awareness of the impact of its failure. However, by this time the resident had not received an update for almost 4 weeks, which we find inappropriate.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on the proposed repairs on 22 May 2023. The resident responded the following day to advise that he was happy for the works to go ahead. It is positive that the landlord identified a comprehensive scope of works. However, we find it unreasonable that these repairs were not identified during its earlier inspections in February 2023.
A total of 18 remedial actions was identified, and the main repairs included:
1. Remove and refix radiators.
2. Renew defective or apply new skim coat of plaster.
3. Renew softwood skirting including all ends and angles.
4. Fit thermal boards to walls.
5. Fit plasterboard to window reveals.
6. Renew existing PVC window board.
7. Renew internal door and decorate to the side.
8. Apply sealer and stabiliser to walls and ceilings.
9. Apply preventive mould wash to walls and ceilings.
10. Decorate and gloss on all painted surfaces.
11. Renew pipework.
It was positive that the landlord provided the resident with a detailed list of repairs and showed that it was taking his concerns about the damp and mould seriously. When dealing with multiple repairs, it is good practice for landlords to provide residents with a timebound schedule of works in writing. However, we have seen no evidence that the landlord did so in this case, which is indicative of poor communication and record keeping. Including timescales in its list of repairs would have helped to set realistic expectations.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that where a particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issue is identified, it will undertake a risk assessment which may result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances. While it is not within our jurisdiction to establish the severity of the damp and mould in the resident’s home, given the amount of work that was required to rectify the issue (and that it required approval by senior management), it is reasonable to assume that the damp present in the resident’s home was substantial. We have seen no evidence that the landlord undertook a risk assessment in this case. If the landlord felt that a risk assessment was not applicable, it should have maintained robust records to explain why.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that any repairs that are required will be dealt with in accordance with its responsive repairs policy. This stipulates that it aims to fix routine repairs (those which are not emergencies) within 28 calendar days. The evidence suggests that all the repairs were completed on 19 June 2023, and the resident has not disputed this fact. We accept that determining the cause of damp and mould is not always straightforward, and in this case, numerous repairs were required to resolve the issue. Once the necessary works were confirmed in May 2023, we find that the landlord completed them in a timely manner. Despite this, we find that 6 months to fully complete the works was unreasonable.
In summary, the landlord:
1. Failed to action the repairs in accordance with its own policy timescales for an unreasonable period of time.
2. Displayed poor record keeping and communication with the resident.
3. Did not identify and apologise in its final response for its failings, or to offer at stage 2 the level of redress it ultimately considered was due.
It is therefore the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord did not go far enough to put things right for the resident, and we find that there was maladministration in its handling of the damp and mould repairs. Compensation has been ordered to reflect the failures identified within this report and has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 2 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be responded to within 20 working days from the date the complainant requests to escalate their complaint. The landlord states within its complaints policy that if it needs longer to investigate a complaint, it will not exceed a further 10 working days unless it has agreed an extension with the complainant.
The resident requested to make a formal complaint on 6 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 3 working days later, on 11 July 2023, and advised the resident that it would provide a formal response within 10 working days. Although the acknowledgement was within the target timescales outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), it was slightly outside of the target timescales outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. While this delay of 1 working day is likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, we find it was unreasonable that the evidence of this email trail was provided to this Service by the resident and not the landlord. This is a service failing within its record keeping.
On 26 July 2023, the landlord’s complaint handler contacted the resident to advise him that they had been allocated the complaint. In our opinion, the landlord should have contacted the resident sooner, as it had already exceeded the response timescale it had originally promised him. We also find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to update the resident of the expected timescales of the investigation.
Additionally, the landlord told the resident that it would investigate and provide him with 2 separate complaint responses. It said that 1 of the complaints was in relation to window repairs and an accusation of discrimination, and the other was regarding damp and mould repairs. We have not seen the resident’s complaint about the windows. However, his concerns about discrimination were referenced within his complaint on 6 July 2023 (in relation to the damp and mould repairs). Although we consider it appropriate that the landlord then provided a response to the discrimination accusations within this specific complaint response, we find that its communication about the complaint definition was confusing. An assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns of discrimination is made later in the report.
The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 response on 9 August 2023. It is positive that it provided the response within 10 working days of its contact on 26 July 2023. However, this was 24 working days from the date the resident initially requested to make a complaint, and 21 days from its acknowledgement. We have also seen no evidence that the landlord informed the resident about the delays or agreed an extension with him throughout the stage 1 complaint process. This was inappropriate and at odds with its complaints policy.
The landlord offered the resident £25 in compensation at stage 1. It said that this was in recognition of the delays in issuing its stage 1 response. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay compensation for distress and inconvenience, which includes unreasonable delays in resolving matters or for poor complaint handling. It provides a matrix for calculation which states that up to £250 may be paid to the resident if the issue resulted in a minor inconvenience. While also taking into account the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, we find that the landlord’s offer at stage 1 was low.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the resident on 5 September 2023. This was 15 working days after the resident requested to escalate his complaint. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales outlined within its complaints policy.
The resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with its handling of damp of mould repairs since 2018. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint states that it will not consider complaints where an issue occurred over 6 months before the complaint is made, unless there is a recurring issue or where complaints are related to health and safety matters or where there are agreed to be exceptional circumstances (considered on a case-by-case basis). This approach was in line with the 2022 Code. Although we have not had sight of any of the repairs prior to January 2023, we find that the landlord’s explanation within its stage 2 response was reasonable and clarified its reasoning for not investigating the issue beyond the 6-month period outlined in its policy.
The resident also said that he felt that the landlord was discriminating against him. This was a serious allegation and warranted a proper response from the landlord. However, it is our opinion that it failed to answer or adequately respond to the resident’s claims of discrimination in both stages of the complaint. As explained earlier in the report, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination in relation to whether discrimination occurred. However, we find that it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss the resident’s relevant protected characteristic(s) directly with him and ask him to explain how he had been affected by its actions. It should have demonstrated that it conducted a thorough investigation into his concerns about discrimination (for example, by speaking to relevant members of staff and reviewing records) and clearly explained its decision making with reference to the level of available evidence. Its failure to fully do so could have been perceived by the resident to minimise or undermine what he no doubt felt were legitimate and serious concerns.
Within its stage 2 response the landlord increased its offer of compensation from £25 to £40. It said that this was in recognition of its delay in acknowledging the resident’s stage 1 complaint. For this specific failure alone, we find that this was reasonable offer from the landlord.
However, overall, we consider that the amount of compensation offered for complaint handling was low and failed to account for all the failings identified within this report. It is for this reason that we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. An additional order of compensation has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s own compensation guidance, as well as the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident £300 compensation. This must be paid directly to him and is made up as follows:
  1. £200 for its handling of his reports of damp and mould.
  2. £100 for its handling of his complaint. This includes the £40 previously offered by the landlord at stage 2, plus an additional £60 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.

Recommendations

The landlord may wish to review the Housing Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge Information Management (KIM). It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery.