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 (202327955)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327955

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 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 the resident’s request for replacement flooring.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property, a 3–bedroom house, since 2021. She has an assured shorthold tenancy and the landlord is a housing association.
  2. As part of routine refurbishment works, a new bathroom was fitted in April 2022 and a new kitchen was fitted in September 2023. During the works, the landlord fitted new flooring in both rooms. On 25 September 2023 the resident sent photographs to the landlord of the flooring in the downstairs of the property, seeking replacement as the kitchen and dining area did not match. The landlord informed her it was only responsible for installing a new floor in the kitchen as part of the refurbishment and it would not replace the dining room flooring.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 27 September 2023, claiming the flooring on the ground floor had been damaged by contractors during refurbishment works. The landlord responded on 16 October 2023 with evidence that the flooring had been protected during the works and the complaint was not upheld.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 17 October 2023, stating the landlord should replace the damaged flooring and she wanted it to match the kitchen. The landlord requested further photographs, which showed some rips and lifting of the vinyl flooring.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 13 November 2023 it maintained it was not responsible for the damaged floor. It offered £25 compensation as an apology as it made reference to the stage 1 complaint being about the hallway flooring, rather than the entire ground floor.
  6. The resident referred the complaint to us, stating she wanted the landlord to replace the damaged flooring with one matching colour throughout the ground floor.

Assessment and findings

  1. The occupancy agreement states the resident is responsible for fixtures and fittings within the property and that includes fitted flooring. It was, therefore, reasonable for the landlord to state it would not install new flooring outside of the kitchen and bathroom refurbishment work.
  2. Following the stage 1 complaint that contractors had damaged the resident’s flooring during the bathroom and kitchen installations, the landlord telephoned her to discuss the matter on 4 October 2023. This was responsive and positive, giving the resident the opportunity to give further details. During the call the landlord explained that, as the bathroom refurbishment occurred in April 2022, it was out of the scope of its complaints policy, as it had happened more than 6 months ago.
  3. This was the correct information, as the policy at the time deemed any issues that had occurred more than 6 months ago to be out of scope. The landlord’s complaint policy was updated in 2024 and now has this timescale as 12 months, in line with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme. However, as the bathroom refurbishment happened 18 months prior to the complaint being made, this stance would be appropriate regardless of which policy was applied.
  4. The kitchen refurbishment was completed in September 2023 and the landlord correctly focussed on this part of the resident’s claim. The landlord liaised with the repairs manager about the installation, which was appropriate to gather facts. The landlord was provided with photographs showing the floor of the property being laid with Proplex floor protection during the works. Based on this information the landlord reached the reasonable conclusion that any damage to the floor had not been caused during this time.
  5. The landlord telephoned the resident on 16 October 2023 to explain its stage 1 response before issuing it the same day. This was appropriate to allow for any questions and clarification. During that call the resident said she and her family had moved a large fridge across the ground floor to allow for the kitchen works. The landlord reasonably concluded the damage may have happened during the fridge move, when the floor was unprotected. There was no evidence the landlord had caused damage to the floor and it was not responsible for its ongoing maintenance or repair. The landlord was correct in explaining this to the resident and not upholding the complaint.
  6. When the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord requested further photographs of the damaged floor. Internal communication shows landlord staff asking for senior management advice. This was helpful, to ensure the correct response was given. The landlord maintained the same position as at stage 1. It advised its only responsibility was to install new flooring in the kitchen and bathroom during the refurbishment.
  7. Regarding the rest of the downstairs flooring, the landlord confirmed it is the resident’s responsibility to fit and maintain it. This advice was correct, in accordance with the occupancy agreement. The landlord’s opinion was that any rips on the floor, as shown in the photographs, could be caused by the resident dragging the fridge across the room. Its opinion was that the damage was not consistent with contractors walking over the floor. This was a reasonable opinion to reach based on the evidence.
  8. The landlord explained the above clearly in the stage 2 response. The offer of £25 as an apology for initially referring to the hallway as opposed to the ground floor was a fair gesture. This did not make any material difference to the outcome and did not alter the fact the landlord was not responsible for the installation or maintenance of any area of flooring, except for the kitchen during refurbishment.
  9. The resident’s complaint was not upheld due to the photographs of the flooring showing deterioration consistent with normal wear and tear and damage the landlord was not responsible for. Further, the landlord had photographic evidence of the contractors laying floor protection before and during the refurbishment. The landlord acted fairly and appropriately in this case and its decision not to replace the flooring was reasonable. It based this decision on facts, evidence and enquiries. There was no maladministration in how it handled the resident’s request for replacement flooring.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s request for replacement flooring.