The Guinness Partnership Limited (202324073)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324073

The Guinness Partnership Limited

17 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:
1. Repairs.
2. A concern about a tree.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, and the landlord recorded him as vulnerable due to having physical and mental health conditions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 March 2022 and reported his front door was warped. The landlord completed repairs on 29 March 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4 April 2022 to report repairs to his windows he reported they were “draughty”. It is unclear what repairs the landlord completed at the time.
The resident reported a concern about a tree at the front of his property on 13 May 2022. He asked the landlord to cut the tree down. It is unclear what action it took at the time.
The landlord completed repairs to the windows and front door on 19 October 2022. The landlord inspected the tree around 27 October 2022 (the exact date is unclear). It explained to the resident it would not cut down the tree but would cut it back and sweep up the leaves and fallen fruit. It is unclear if it took this action at that time.
The resident continued to report issues with his front door and windows throughout late 2022 and early 2023. He reported repairs to the windows on 4 occasions and repairs to the front door on 6 occasions.
The resident made a complaint on 13 July 2023 about the landlord’s handling of the repairs. This included raising a new concern about holes in the wall after it installed a new consumer unit. He said he was unhappy it had not cut down the tree, and asked it to replace the front door.
The landlord completed an inspection of the windows on 22 August 2023. The notes from the inspection stated the window “spacer bars” were smaller than they should be. An operative had used silicone to “make up the difference”. The notes stated it may need replace 1 of the windows.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 22 August 2023. It said it would repair the holes in the walls before 18 September 2023. It said the resident first reported concerns about the windows on 31 January 2023, and the front door on 10 February 2023. It said it was not going to replace the windows or door, but would complete repairs. It apologised for its “extremely poor” communication about the repairs and offered £100 in compensation. It explained it would not remove the tree, but it would inspect in September 2023 to identify what action was needed. It offered £50 in compensation for the delay in sending its stage 1 complaint response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 August 2023 and said he was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response. He said it had not investigated its handling of the repairs properly.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2023. It gave a history of the repairs it had completed to the windows. It said it had reinspected the windows as part of its complaint investigation and identified more works that were needed. It explained it had cut back the tree in September 2023, and had reinspected in October 2023. It outlined its position that no further works were needed, and it would not remove the tree. It apologised for its handling of the repairs and offered £200 in compensation, it restated its offer of £50 for its complaint handling at stage 1.

Events after the complaints process

The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2023 and said the window repairs were still outstanding and it had not addressed his concerns about the front door.
The landlord completed repairs to the windows in December 2023.
The resident contacted us on 19 December 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and it had refused to remove the tree.
The landlord inspected the windows in April 2024, and decided to replace the windows. It completed the window replacement in June 2024. It wrote to the resident on 4 June 2024 and apologised for its handling of the repairs. It offered £1,250 in compensation in addition to the £200 offered in its stage 2 complaint response. It also made an offer of £375 for its complaint handling in addition to its previous offer of £50. It also explained it had decided to replace the resident’s front door. The information available indicates it replaced the door around August 2024, the exact date is unclear.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

The resident contacted us in July 2024 and raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of various issues that were not raised as part of his formal complaint. These issues included concerns about:
1. Damp and mould.
2. Heating and hot water issues, including repairs to his boiler.
3. A bathroom upgrade.
4. Kitchen repairs.
Our Scheme states that we can only investigate matters that have exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. Because of this, the issues listed above were not considered in this investigation. This investigation has instead focused on the concerns raised in the resident’s original complaint from July 2023, and his stage 2 complaint of August 2023. The landlord’s handling of matters not covered in its complaint responses of August and November 2023 are not within the scope of this investigation. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the above issues he may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord. We could then investigate the above issues if he remains unhappy after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The landlord accepted that its handling of the repairs was poor and the time taken to complete repairs was unreasonable. It is not possible to determine how the compensation offered was calculated against individual repair issues. As such, this investigation has considered the overall offer of compensation and whether it fully put things right for the resident, as a whole. However, to promote learning for the landlord, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the individual repairs issues below. We have identified areas of particular concern, and points of learning for the landlord.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. For the purposes of the Act, the windows are considered part of the structure of the property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will complete routine repairs within 28 days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

Repairs to windows

The information available shows the landlord was on notice about the resident’s concerns about the windows from April 2022. We have seen no evidence it took appropriate action at the time, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the condition of the windows, and he was inconvenienced by its failure to take appropriate action at the time.
The evidence provided for this investigation shows the landlord took no action when the resident report concerns on the following occasions:
1. 4 April 2022.
2. 9 May 2022.
3. 7 June 2022.
It was unreasonable that the landlord did not take appropriate action when the resident reported the repairs on the above dates. We do note that it attended to repairs to the windows September and December 2022. Both these repair visits were completed within a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence shows the landlord replaced the glazing in the windows in May 2023. This was nearly a year after the resident reported the glazing in the windows had misted. This was an unreasonable delay and the resident was inconvenienced by the need to report the issue again in January and April 2023 before it took appropriate action.
The landlord’s inspection of the windows in August 2023 identified that it may need to replace at least 1 of the windows. It lacked transparency by not including this information in its stage 1 complaint response. It is noted the inspection took place the same day it sent the response. It may have been appropriate to slightly delay its response so it could include an accurate record of its latest position on the windows.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response inaccurately stated the resident first reported issues with the windows in January 2023. The evidence shows it was on notice from April 2022. This further supports our conclusion the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked transparency. We do however welcome the fact it apologised for errors in its handling of the repairs and offered compensation. This is evidence it sought to try and put things right when it had identified failings.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response appropriately apologised it had still not completed all the window repairs. It was reasonable that it set out when it hoped to complete the repairs by. Again, it failed to accurately identify when the resident first reported the repairs to the windows. This is evidence its complaint investigation lacked the appropriate thoroughness.
Considering the frequency the resident was reporting repairs to his windows, it was appropriate the landlord decided to replace the windows in April 2024. That it agreed to do this 8 months after it first identified it needed to replace at least 1 of the windows amounts to an unreasonable delay. The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to keep reporting the same repairs before the landlord took appropriate action.

Repairs to front door

The information provided for this investigation shows the landlord was on notice about the front door repair from March 2022. After the resident’s first report of the repair, it attended within the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence it took the resident’s reports seriously.
The evidence shows the resident reported the repair again on 21 November 2022. We have seen no evidence the landlord attended to the repair at the time. This inconvenienced the resident. He was further inconvenienced by the need to report the repair again on 10 January 2023 before the landlord took appropriate action. When the resident reported the repair in January 2023 it attended within a reasonable timeframe (26January 2023) and completed some repairs.
The evidence shows the landlord attended to complete repairs to the door in February, March, and May 2023. On each occasion it attended within its target 28 day timeframe, which was appropriate. Considering the frequency with which the issue was recurring, it is unclear why the landlord did not explore replacing the door at that time. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to keep reporting the same repair throughout 2023.
The landlord appropriately apologised for its handling of the repairs in its stage 1 complaint response. That it set out when it hoped to complete further repairs to the door was reasonable and sought to reassure the resident it was taking his concerns seriously.
On 7 November 2023, the resident raised concerns the front door issue was outstanding. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint was silent on his concerns about the front door. This was unreasonable. Particularly considering the door was raised at stage 1, the resident had continued to raise repairs, and expressed dissatisfaction with its handling of the matter. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact he was left not knowing the landlord’s latest position on the door repairs.
We welcome the fact that after reviewing its overall handling of the repairs the landlord decided to replace the front door. Considering the frequency the resident reported issues with the front door, it may have been appropriate to consider replacing it sooner.

Repairs to the wall after it installed a new consumer unit

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the consumer unit up to March 2023 has already been determined by this Service (case reference: 202113898). In line with the approach set out in our Scheme this investigation has not revisited matters we have already reached a determination on. Instead, this investigation has assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns raised in his later complaint in July 2023.
The evidence shows the resident raised concerns about holes in the wall in July 2023. The holes were left after the landlord installed a new consumer unit earlier in 2023. We have seen no evidence that indicates the landlord took any action at the time. This was unreasonable and the resident was inconvenienced by this.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to apologise for its handling of the repair and explain when it would complete the repair. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The evidence shows the landlord completed the repair on 4 September 2023. This was outside of the timeframes set out in its repairs policy. We welcome the fact that it was within the timeframe set out in its stage 1 complaint response. It is worth noting any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, the delay was not excessive.

The landlord’s compensation offers for repairs

Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the role of this Service is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of: be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered a total of £200 for its handling of the repairs in its stage 2 complaint response. The evidence shows the door and window repairs were outstanding at the time of its response. The landlord’s complaint responses also failed to acknowledge it had been on notice about the door and window repairs since 2022, which was inaccurate. Considering the above, we have determined the offer it made at stage 2 did not fully put things right for the resident.
The landlord offered the resident an additional £1,250 for its handling of the repairs. The landlord did not revisit its offer of compensation for 7 months after its final complaint response. This means that this Service does not consider it an offer of compensation made as part of the complaint. This therefore impacts on the degree to which its offer of compensation put things right for the resident. We have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
Our remedies guidance sets out that an order of compensation over £1,000 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident. Particularly where failures accumulated over a significant period of time that had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. Considering the landlord’s total offer of £1,450 in compensation for its handling of the repairs, we have not made orders for additional compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about a tree

The evidence shows the landlord was on notice about the resident’s concern about the tree from May 2022. There is no evidence it took any action at the time, which was a failing in its handling of the matter. This inconvenienced the resident.
The resident was further inconvenienced by the need to raise his concerns about the tree in October 2022. It is noted it inspected within a reasonable timeframe after he raised his concerns again. The resident had raised concerns about a possible hazard due to the trip/slip hazard posed by fallen leaves and fruit. It was unreasonable that it did not inspect with more urgency.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to outline its position in relation to the tree. It explained its approach to trees, that it would not remove them unless they were dead or diseased. While it is noted the resident disagreed with its position, the landlord explained its reasons with clarity and consistency. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, it was inappropriate it failed to apologise for the delay in attending to the tree up to that point.
The landlord completed works to the tree in September 2023. This was well over a year after it was on notice, and an unreasonable delay. The resident was inconvenienced by the need to chase it about the issue.
The landlord failed to apologise for the delay in completing the tree works in its stage 2 complaint response. This was inappropriate. The resident was evidently distressed at the condition of the tree, and the landlord’s handling of the matter. The landlord missed an opportunity to show learning, put things right, and build trust with the resident.
We note the resident remains unhappy the landlord will not remove the tree completely. Considering the information available to us, we consider the landlord has acted appropriately, and clearly outlined its position. Considering the resident’s ongoing concerns, we have made a recommendation below. We recommend the landlord writes to the resident to explain when it will inspect the area around the tree. This should be at the times of year when leaves and fruit are known to fall from it. It should then arrange to clear the area to keep it free from hazards.
Considering the failings identified above, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. For the reasons set out above we have determined an order for £175 compensation is appropriate to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. The timeframes in its procedure mirror that of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our Service’s expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practices. The Code states stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint responses sent within 20 working days.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response 29 working days after the resident complained. This was an error in its complaint handling. We welcome the fact the landlord apologised and offered compensation for the delay. This is evidence it sought to learn from outcomes and put things right.
The resident was clearly unhappy with its stage 1 complaint response and said so in an email on 29 August 2023. It is noted the resident did not explicitly ask it to escalate his complaint. However, it was unreasonable the landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint. This was a failing in its complaint handling. The Code states that “if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2”. That it did not do so is evidence it operated an obstructive complaints process.
The landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for its failure to appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint. This is evidence it complaint response lacked transparency and learning.
We welcome the fact the landlord later identified this error, and wrote to the resident to apologise, in June 2024. This showed learning and transparency. We also welcome the fact it made an increased offer of compensation for the failings it identified.
As set out above, offers of compensation made long after a final complaint response impact on the degree to which the offer of compensation puts things right. We have therefore determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our remedies guidance sets out that for findings of maladministration an order of compensation between £100 and £600 may be appropriate to put things right for the resident where they have been distressed and/or inconvenienced by the landlord’s errors. Considering the landlord’s total offer of £425 in compensation for its complaint handling, we have not made further orders for compensation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a concern about a tree.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

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 £2,050 in compensation. The landlord’s total offer of £1,875 should be deducted from this total if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £1,450 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the repairs. (this is the total amount it has already offered).
  2. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by errors in its handling of the concern about a tree.
  3. £425 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by errors in its complaint handling (this is the total amount it has already offered).

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord writes to the resident to set out when it will inspect the area around the tree. It should consider doing this at the times of year when leaves and fruit are known to fall from the tree. It should then arrange to clear the area to keep it free from hazards.