Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202330917)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330917

The Guinness Partnership Limited

13 June 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:
    1. Repairs to internal doors.
    2. Repairs to the front external door.
    3. Repairs to external paving.
    4. The resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the property, a house owned by the landlord. She accepted the property as part of a mutual exchange in February 2023.
  2. On 6 February 2023, the resident reported that internal doors were damaged or not closing and that the front door was hard to unlock. On 13 February 2023, the landlord measured for new internal doors and found that the front and back external doors needing replacing. She reported broken, loose, or uneven paving stones on 2 April 2023. It booked an appointment to attend on 18 May 2023.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord about door repair delays on 21 April 2023 and paving repair delays on 18 May 2023 after operatives said they could not access the property to investigate issues with paving, despite not attending.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 8 August 2023. It detailed the history of the issues to date and offered compensation of £450 for not replacing doors within a reasonable timescale, poor communication, and complaint delays. It could not provide a date for works to the doors but said it was hoping to start works soon.
  5. On 23 August 2023, the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication about door and paving repairs.
  6. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 21 September 2023. It apologised for the service it had provided and offered an additional £100 compensation for delays in repairing the front door. It said its contractor would replace the internal doors by 4 October 2023 and replace her front door and complete paving works by 31 October 2023.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied as the landlord did not complete works to the front door and paving by 31 October 2023 as agreed. As such, she brought her complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation.
  8. The landlord sent a revised stage 2 response to the resident on 19 July 2024, following contact from the Ombudsman. In this response, it acknowledged and apologised for “extremely poor” service and a failure to complete repairs within its policy timescales. It made a further offer of £1,000 compensation, comprising:
    1. £600 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
    2. £200 for complaint handling failures.
    3. £200 for poor communication.
  9. This additional offer brought its total offers across all responses to £1,550.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told the landlord that 1 element of the complaint caused injury to her son. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Therefore, this element to the resident’s complaint is better dealt with via the court.

Internal door repairs

  1. When the resident reported that her internal doors needed repairing on 6 February 2023, the landlord set a target date of 6 March 2023 for these works. It attended and took measurements for this on 13 February 2023. This was a good first response and within the timings set in its repairs policy, which says it aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. The resident chased the landlord for an update on repairs throughout March up to her complaint on 21 April 2023. It was unable to provide a date for these works at the time and as such, she raised a complaint. At this stage, it had surpassed its policy timescale for repairs and did not communicate with her about when it would complete works.
  3. On 26 May 2023, the landlord attended the resident’s property for a booked appointment to supply and fit new doors. She called it on the same day and reported that its operative had turned up and remeasured but had not brought any doors to fit. She continued to chase the landlord until it provided its stage 1 complaint response on 8 August 2023.
  4. In its response, the landlord said its contractor had accepted the quote to replace 13 internal doors, but it did not provide a date for works. It offered compensation of £450, £150 of which related to the internal door repairs comprising:
    1. £125 for its failure to replace the doors within a reasonable timescale.
    2. £25 to apologise for the failed call backs and its poor communication.
  5. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the amounts it will offer residents based on the level of inconvenience. It will offer payments up to £250 when it resolves issues within a reasonable time. At this time, it had not resolved the matter. Thus, the amount offered in its stage 1 response for this issue was not sufficient.
  6. The resident continued to chase the landlord for updates after its stage 1 response. It is clear from the evidence provided that its complaints team also worked to chase its repairs team for updates. Its repairs team advised the complaints team on 20 September 2023 that its new contractor would be installing new internal doors within the following 7 to 10 days.
  7. The landlord shared this update with the resident in its stage 2 response of 21 September 2023, saying it would fit the doors by 4 October 2023. It did not offer any additional financial redress for the delays but did apologise for the overall experience it provided and the distress this caused her. Its response was factual but lacked recognition of the significant delay in installing internal doors.
  8. The landlord installed the internal doors on 10 October 2023, 8 months after the resident’s first report. This was a significant delay that exceeded its 28-calendar day policy response time.
  9. In the landlord’s revised stage 2 letter on 19 July 2024, it apologised again for the overall poor service it provided, and the distress and inconvenience caused. It offered further compensation of £600 for time, trouble, and inconvenience and £200 for poor communication but this was related to all repair issues. Therefore, it is reasonable to find that £250 of this related directly to internal door replacements. This took its total offer across all responses to £400.
  10. The landlord’s remedies (compensation and apology) were in line with its compensation policy. We consider it unlikely that it would have taken this action had the resident not brought her complaint to this Service. The 10-month delay in providing the revised offer supports this. The offers made are in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and as such we consider this to be reasonable. It has confirmed that it has paid all compensation offers to date.

Front external door

  1. The resident included issues with the front door lock in her first report on 6 February 2023. When the landlord inspected on 13 February 2023, it found both the front and back doors damaged with locking problems and said all external doors needed replacing as per the tenancy agreement.
  2. The tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 outline that it is the responsibility of a landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises. This includes outside doors.
  3. As with the internal doors, the resident repeatedly chased the landlord for updates throughout March 2023 until her complaint of 21 April 2023. It continued to take no action despite her chasing and on 20 June 2023, she reported that the front door was allowing water ingress during rainfall.
  4. In its stage 1 response of 8 August 2023, the landlord said it had approved the front door replacement, and the manufacturing company would be in touch to start the renewal process. However, it was unable to provide a date for works. Its offer of compensation included £150 for delays in replacing the external doors, comprising:
    1. £125 for its failure to replace the doors within a reasonable timescale.
    2. £25 to apologise for the failed call backs and its poor communication.
  5. As with the landlord’s offer relating to internal doors, this offer was not sufficient in the circumstances when considering its compensation policy. At this time, the matter had been ongoing for 6 months and it was unable to provide the resident with a date for works. It is unclear why it had taken so long to action this. However, it appropriately recognised its poor communication within its stage 1 response.
  6. The resident chased the landlord for updates as part of her escalation request of 23 August 2023. It noted on 29 August 2023 that it had authorised external door works as capital replacement planned maintenance. Capital works can take around 90 days to complete in many cases. However, it had even exceeded this timescale at this stage.
  7. On 18 September 2023, the landlord set a target date of 16 October 2023 for replacement of the front door. Its surveyor visited the resident and told her the door needed to be authorised, which she thought had already happened from its stage 1 response. It discussed this internally and found its stage 1 complaint handler had misunderstood the process. Its surveyor said it would complete the external door works by 31 October 2023.
  8. The landlord included this completion target date in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for poor communication and the service it provided to the resident. It offered an additional compensation payment of £100 for delays in replacing the front door, taking its total offer across both responses to £250.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 response was fair in relation to the front door repairs. Its compensation offer and apology were in line with its compensation policy, and it provided a date for works which was the desired outcome for the resident.
  10. The resident approached the Ombudsman in early November 2023 as the landlord had not completed works. The evidence provided shows that she continued to regularly chase it for updates. On 21 November 2023, she spoke to its contractor who said the door would take another 6 to 7 weeks. It shared internally that it did not know why there was a further delay. She continued to chase it until it replaced the door on 2 February 2024.
  11. The landlords completed work to replace the front door almost 1 year after the resident’s first report of problems with it. In its revised stage 2 letter, it acknowledged its poor service and that it did not complete repairs within policy timescales. As outlined previously, it offered additional compensation totalling £600 for repair delays and £200 for poor communication across all issues. If split between the 3 issues, £250 relates directly to front door replacement delays.
  12. This took the landlord’s total compensation offer for front external door repairs to £500. Its remedies (compensation and apology) were in line with its compensation policy. We, again, consider it unlikely that it would have taken this action had the resident not brought her complaint to this Service. The 10-month delay in providing the revised offer supports this. Nonetheless, the offers made are in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and as such we consider this to be reasonable. It has confirmed that it has paid all compensation offers to date.

External paving repairs

  1. Following the resident’s report of broken paving slabs on 2 April 2023, the landlord set a target date for repairs of 30 April 2023 in line with its policy on routine repairs. On 3 May 2023, it set a new job to attend and carry out minor path and paving repairs to level or replace slabs with a target date of 31 May 2023. This extension was fair as it clarified the required works.
  2. The landlord was due to attend the resident’s property on 18 May 2023 to complete the works. However, it marked the appointment as no access. She queried this as she had been at home all day and it had not attended. It noted internally that repairs managers had told its operatives to mark jobs in certain areas as “no access” due to reassignment of works. It did not communicate this to the resident which was poor practice and caused mismanagement of her expectations, leading to a complaint.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for an update on paving works on 9 June 2023 and requested a call back from the repairs service manager. There is no evidence to show that it called her or that it chased works internally. Its communication about this matter remained poor.
  4. On 24 July 2023, the resident called the landlord to report that it had completed paving works but that the workmanship was poor. In its stage 1 complaint response, it offered a total of £100 compensation for failed call backs and poor communication, £25 of which we can directly attribute to paving repairs. It did not offer any redress for delays in completing works or offer any information on how it intended to approach her concerns about the quality of works.
  5. The landlord’s response to this issue was poor and its failure to offer sufficient financial redress was not reasonable.
  6. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 10 August 2023 to complete further works to the paving, but she reported they were only repairing 2 slabs instead of all broken ones as intended. She chased it again on 18 August 2023 and requested escalation of her complaint on 23 August 2023 citing poor communication.
  7. In a conversation with the landlord on 29 August 2023, the resident reported that its operative broke a slab in the garden when working and left bricks hanging out underneath the newly laid ones. She said the operative had told her he was a decorator and did not do that type of work. It did not investigate this claim.
  8. The landlord completed an inspection of the works on 18 September 2023 and recommended further works to lift and level patio slabs with replacement of any cracked ones. It said it would need a new quote for this which it would get within the next 4 weeks and then book works.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord gave a completion date of 31 October 2023 for paving works. It did not offer any redress for the continued delay in completing repairs. Its response did briefly touch upon the paving issue but focused on the internal and external doors. As such, the response was not satisfactory in covering the paving repairs.
  10. After this, the resident continued to chase the landlord for updates on repairs. On 20 November 2023, it noted internally that it was disputing the quote with its contractor due to the quoted works differing to those needed. Following further chasing from the resident and the requirement to approve quotes, the landlord attended to works on 20 February 2024. She reported that these were again of a poor quality.
  11. The landlord inspected the works on 19 March 2024 and agreed the works did not look “great”. It said it was limited in what it could do. It surveyed again on 22 April 2024 and found it completed brickwork repairs to a poor standard. She continued to chase it and on 3 July 2024 reported that her son had tripped on one of the broken slabs, causing facial injury.
  12. In its revised stage 2 offer of 19 July 2024, the landlord provided a completion date for works of 29 July 2024. Alongside its apology, it offered compensation as previously explained. We can directly attribute £250 of this to paving repair delays. This took the landlord’s total offer across all its responses to £275 for this matter.
  13. The landlord’s total offer was not in line with its compensation policy. While it did initially complete repairs within 3 months of her first report, this exceeded its repairs policy timescales. The landlord completed the repair to a poor standard twice and the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for updates due to its poor communication. We will make a further order for financial redress below to bring this in line with its offers for the other matters. However, it has confirmed that it has paid all compensation offers to date.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days of receipt. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of receiving an escalation request.
  2. At both stages, the landlord can extend its response time by a further 10 working days if it needs more time to investigate the complaint. The policy says it will explain this to the complainant.
  3. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 21 April 2023 about the internal and external doors. It did not respond to this within 10 working days.
  4. The resident made a further stage 1 complaint on 18 May 2023 relating to the paving repairs. The landlord confirmed a 10-working day response during the phone call. It then formally acknowledged her complaint on 2 July 2023, 30 working days later. This far exceeded its complaint acknowledgement and stage 1 response policy timescales.
  5. In its stage 1 response of the 8 August 2023, the landlord offered £100 compensation to apologise for failed call back and poor communication. £25 of this can be attributed to its complaint handling communication. It also offered £100 to apologise for its delayed response, bringing its total offer to £125.
  6. The landlord’s offer of compensation was fair and in line with its compensation policy. While it did not directly apologise, it made clear that its compensation offer was a means of apology and that was reasonable in the circumstances.
  7. The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 23 August 2023. It acknowledged this on the same day and responded at stage 2 on 21 September 2023. This response was within policy timescales and as such, no further redress was necessary.
  8. In the landlord’s revised stage 2 offer in July 2024, it identified and acknowledged the failures in its complaint handling. It offered further compensation of £200 for complaint handling failures and £50 for poor communication. This took its total offer for complaint handling to £375. This was a fair offer across all responses. While it is unlikely it would have made this further offer without the involvement of the Ombudsman, the amount is in line with its compensation policy. Therefore, we find this amount reasonable, and it has confirmed that it has paid all compensation offers to date.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to internal doors.
    2. Repairs to the front external door.
    3. The resident’s associated complaint.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of repairs to external paving.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation totalling £250 for the failures identified in its handling of external paving repairs. This is in addition to all its previous compensation offers.
  2. The landlord must provide proof of compliance with the above order to the Ombudsman.