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 (202320489)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320489

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of rats in the property.
    2. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak affecting the property.
    3. Response to the resident’s concerns about damage caused by contractors.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured non-shorthold tenancy at the property which is a maisonette. She lives with her partner and 3 children.
  2. Work was carried out to the roof on 10 December 2021. Following this the resident made a complaint on 10 January 2022. She said there had been an ongoing leak at the property. She also said that there had been issues with rats. The landlord requested a recall for the roof works.
  3. It responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 10 March 2022. It said as follows:
    1. It was aware of the rat issue.
    2. A specialist operative had been required to carry out the work to resolve the leak. This was the main reason for the extensive delays. This had not resolved the issue. It had raised another repair and would let the resident know the date for this.
    3. It had failed to keep the resident informed of the progress of the leak work and there have been unreasonable delays in carrying it out. Its communication had been poor. It had fed back to its relevant teams and would provide training.
    4. It offered £200 as a goodwill gesture. This was made up as follows:
      1. £150 for the unreasonable delay in carrying out the repair.
      2. £30 for failure to provide regular updates about the repair.
      3. £20 for the delays in providing a response to the complaint.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 18 March 2022. She queried the timeframe of the leak and said the compensation was not enough. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 April 2022. It said as follows:
    1. Leak:
      1. It had carried out multiple leak repairs since 2014. Despite this, the leak had not been permanently resolved. It apologised for this.
      2. The length of time taken to complete the most recent repair was “unacceptable”, (13 July to 10 December 2021). The leak was still ongoing.
      3. It had raised another repair on 2 March 2022. The contractor would attend this before the end of the week.
    2. Pests:
      1. The resident had reported this “several years ago”. It had not been able to resolve this.
      2. Its pest control contractor had attended on more than one occasion to carry out surveys and to complete treatment. It had put poison in the ceiling space. It suggested the best solution would be to remove the ceiling and block up access points. It would follow up on this recommendation.
    3. It apologised for the distress caused. It offered £350 made up as follows:
      1. £200 for repair delays.
      2. £75 to acknowledge the “stress and inconvenience”.
      3. £50 for its poor communication.
      4. £25 for the time and trouble spend chasing the complaint.
  5. On 4 August 2022 the landlord noted internally that the resident would need to be decanted. It needed to cut out sections of the ceiling to determine the how the rats were entering. The resident was decanted to a hotel on 21 August 2022. She was then moved to a serviced apartment on 26 August 2022.
  6. Works at the property took place between August and November 2022. On 16 September 2022 the landlord noted that it would not need to take down the ceiling. After further considering the electrics it determined that the ceiling needed to be taken down to rewire. This was completed on 27 September 2022.
  7. The landlord sent a stage 2 follow-on response on 3 February 2023. It said as follows:
    1. These repairs were completed in November 2022. It acknowledged that the resident had been decanted for around 2 months.
    2. It acknowledged that the electrics tripping was inconvenient. However this had not posed a risk to safety.
    3. It would further investigate how rats were accessing the property.
    4. It offered £500 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. £250 for delays in completing repairs.
      2. £150 to acknowledge the stress and inconvenience.
      3. £50 as an apology for its poor communication.
      4. £50 for the time and trouble spent chasing the complaint.
  8. On 13 September 2023 the resident referred her case to us. She outlined her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. She was looking for £2,000 compensation.

Assessment and findings

  1. Paragraph 53.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that, “the Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has made an offer of redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.”

The Ombudsman’s intervention

  1. This Service contacted the landlord on 18 March 2025 and provided it with a summary of the Ombudsman’s understanding of events. This included the Ombudsman’s provisional comments as to what the landlord could do to resolve the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s offer of redress

  1. On 19 March 2025 the landlord provided this Service with evidence that it had acted on the Ombudsman’s provisional comments and would pay the resident a further £2,000 compensation. This is in addition to the £500 previously paid by the landlord.
  2. The resident informed the Ombudsman that she is satisfied with this as a resolution to this complaint.
  3. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied, following the intervention of this service, that the landlord has now taken actions to remedy the matters raised which resolve the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress, following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.