The Guinness Partnership Limited (202331014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331014

The Guinness Partnership Limited

24 July 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 response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of a repair.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 18 April 2018. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
4. On 27 October 2023 the resident made an online formal complaint to the landlord. He said the repair the landlord attended that day was related to window glass. However, he said it was not just the glass because there was an issue with 4 frames where lady bugs were coming through. A file note of the same date confirmed the operative advised he sent the job to his manager because 2 people were required. This was because the repair involved an upstairs bedroom window.
5. Also on 27 October 2023 the operative emailed the landlord to set out a further account of the visit. He said the resident was unhappy with the repairs and began swearing at him so he left the property. Consequently the landlord issued the resident with a warning letter for “unreasonable behaviour” that same day.
6. A ‘complaint summary’ dated 27 October 2023 set out the resident’s call to complain that the engineer had attended at 9.30am. However, he left the property soon after because it was a 2 man job. He said he would return “soon” however, he did not and the job was closed. The resident felt this was “incompetent and unprofessional” and requested compensation for “time wasted.”
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 2 November 2023. It said it had attended to carry out repairs to the banister and back window. It confirmed the resident’s complaint was that the operative did not return and did not contact him with a new date. It said the operative had left following the resident’s behaviour towards him. It had issued him with a warning for breach of tenancy and the complaint was not upheld. It confirmed that the outstanding works would be rearranged through solicitors as part of an ongoing disrepair claim.
8. On 7 November 2023 the resident called the landlord to ask why it said he was aggressive during the visit. A file note dated 8 November 2023 set out its call with the resident. During their discussion the resident said the operative had told him he was going to “step out” for 10 minutes to bring his colleague who was at a neighbouring property. However, he failed to return. He also felt the outcome of the complaint was biased and chased the repairs which were outstanding.
9. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2023. It reviewed and upheld its stage 1 complaint response. It said its operative was correct to leave the property because he felt intimidated and he reported the incident as per its procedure. Furthermore it followed its procedure when it issued its unreasonable behaviour letter.
10. It responded to the resident’s concern that it had said he was aggressive. The operative described his behaviour as “intimidating” and his language as “offensive.” Its position was that this could be considered “confrontational or aggressive” and therefore the complaint was not upheld.
11. It confirmed that the window repair was part of the resident’s live disrepair claim which would be managed by solicitors. Because the banister was not part of the disrepair claim it raised a works order and an appointment was made for 7 December 2023.

Events post internal complaints process.

12. The resident emailed us on 4 December 2023 to say the landlord had failed to address the repairs to the banister and window frames.
13. Also on 4 December 2023 the resident called the landlord to clarify exactly what the operative had said about his behaviour. He denied that he swore and said he had a recording of the incident. The landlord said it could not reinvestigate the complaint. It said he could provide us with a copy of the recording and we could investigate. 
14. In its response to us the landlord asserted that it tried to attend on 7 and 11 December 2023 but was unable to gain access. It was waiting for the resident to contact it to confirm his availability.

Assessment and findings

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of a repair.

15. The landlord’s Managing Unacceptable Customer Behaviour Procedure (behaviour procedure) says that when unacceptable behaviour is displayed by a resident it should:
    1. Discuss the behaviour with them. It should advise them why it is unacceptable however they may end the conversation “if required at any point.”
    2. Report the matter immediately to the line manager.
    3. Review the case and investigate the resident’s behaviour.
    4. Take informal action in the first instance, unless the behaviour is so severe that more formal action is required. Consider how best to discuss the matter with the resident for example over the telephone, by arranging a meeting in person or by writing to the customer.
16. The operative emailed the landlord on 27 October 2023 to set out his account of events. There is no evidence that they followed its behaviour procedure by addressing the resident’s alleged behaviour with the resident during the visit. There is no evidence that the situation was so serious it would not have been appropriate to try to do so, knowing they could end the conversation if required.
17. Having made the decision to remove himself from the property the operative emailed the landlord shortly after at 10.14am to report the incident. An internal email sent minutes later requested that a conduct letter be issued to the resident.
18. The landlord’s letter to the resident of 27 October 2023 said he had breached his tenancy agreement. However, there is no evidence that it carried out a thorough investigation in line with its behaviour procedure.
19. Furthermore had it contacted the resident that day it could have explained why the operative left, obtained his account of events and managed his expectations about next steps to resolve the repair.
20. Its failure to do so caused distress to the resident which was evident when he contacted the landlord on 7 November 2023 to clarify matters. He advised he felt the investigation was biased. He provided his response which differed to the account provided by the operative. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this to ensure its response had been reasonable and proportionate.
21. During its call to the resident on 4 December 2023 the landlord said it could not reinvestigate the incident and signposted him to us. It is acknowledged that the resident did not identify the recording until later in the process. However, had the landlord contacted the resident to obtain his account as set out above he may have mentioned it sooner.
22. The landlord inappropriately failed to take an open mind to the situation and declined to review the recording. It was inappropriate for it to advise the resident we could review it and investigate the issue. This is because our role is to assess the landlord’s response to complaints not to investigate the substantive issue itself.
23. The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation in line with our Remedies Guidance.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

24. During his communication with the landlord on 27 October 2023 the resident reported that he was unhappy that 1 operative had attended when 2 were required. This had resulted in the operative leaving the property on the basis the job would be rearranged. This was confirmed by the operative to the landlord on the same day.
25. The Housing Ombudsman’s Code (the Code) requires landlords to provide a response to all points of a resident’s complaint. It is acknowledged that the circumstances were complicated by the operatives reported concerns about the resident’s behaviour. However, the evidence shows this was an element of the complaint and one which the landlord should have responded to. Its failure to do so was inappropriate. 
26. The Code sets out that landlords should use the complaints process to resolve complaints at the earliest opportunity. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 2 November 2023 advised that both the repair to the banister and windows would be rearranged through solicitors as part of an ongoing disrepair claim. This was incorrect because its stage 2 complaint response of 1 December advised the banister repair would be dealt with separately. While it appropriately raised a works order for 7 December its proposed resolution was delayed due to its error.
27. The Code says that landlords must consider all information and evidence carefully. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 1 December 2023. There is no evidence that it carried out a thorough review of its response to the substantive issue by considering its conversation with the resident on 7 November. It therefore failed to demonstrate to the resident that its findings were fair which further eroded the landlord/resident relationship.
28. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling because its failures had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 in line with our Remedies Guidance.

Determination

29. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of a repair.
30. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £250 compensation comprised of:
       1. £150 for the distress caused by the failures in its response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of a repair.
       2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
32. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the orders above to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
33. Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the case against its Managing Unacceptable Customer Behaviour Procedure. It should identify what went wrong and what it will do differently to avoid a reoccurrence. A copy of the review should be provided to the resident and to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.