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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202339341)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202339341 & 202231130

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 February 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. Handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning.
    2. Handling of the initial one-off cleaning cost.
    3. Complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in April 2015. The property is a 1-bedroom flat contained within a block. The landlord has vulnerabilities noted for the resident.

First complaint

  1. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 20 June 2023. This was about the landlord’s poor communication in relation to communal cleaning and after he attempted to make a complaint using its website.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 July 2023. It said:
    1. It had sent the resident emails on 22 June 2022 and on 12 October 2022 which set out that it did not charge a service fee for the cleaning of the block. It would need to consult with all residents of the block before introducing a cleaning service. The feedback it had received in the past was that residents did not want to pay the additional cost for this. Although it understood the resident had contacted it again in April 2023, this was about the communal gardening and not the communal cleaning.
    2. It had public liability insurance cover in case there was a slip in the communal area. It was happy for the resident to clean the communal area with a mop.
    3. It was in the process of obtaining quotes from contractors for the communal cleaning. It would then contact residents about the matter.
    4. When a complaint was made via its website it would call the complainant to obtain further information. As it had been unable to speak to the resident, it had sent him an email on 19 April 2023 setting out that the case was closed. The email had noted that if he still needed support, he should get back in touch.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2023 to escalate the complaint. He said there had been communal cleaning in the block from November 2021 until June 2022.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 September 2023. It offered compensation of £150, which comprised £50 for complaints handling and £100 for poor communication, inconvenience and time and trouble. The landlord said:
    1. The resident’s complaint submitted on its website on 14 April 2023 contained sufficient information about the reason for his complaint – namely, that the landlord did not respond to an email he sent on 31 March 2023. While it accepted it was good practice for it to phone and obtain further details, “we had enough information to register your complaint”.
    2. The resident had attempted to register a further complaint on 24 April 2023, due to his previous complaint (of 14 April 2023) being closed. The landlord had attempted to call him on 26 April 2023. It had also sent him an email, as this was the resident’s preferred means of contact. It did not raise a complaint at this point, although it passed the matter to a manager who failed to provide him an update. An update was only provided after the resident contacted the landlord using its live chat facility on 13 June 2023, when he was once again unable to register a complaint.
    3. Within its email of 22 June 2022 to the resident, it had said it “would need to consult with all residents at your scheme if we were to introduce the cleaning service as they would all be impacted by and contribute towards the costs”. However, it could find no evidence that it did this. It had also failed to arrange for a quote to be provided, as it informed the resident it would do in an email to him on 26 June 2023.
    4. It was unclear why the communal cleaning stopped. However, as the issue occurred over 6 months ago, it was not something that it could investigate as part of the resident’s complaint. This was in line with its complaints policy.
    5. The resident had requested escalation of his complaint both prior to receiving the stage 1 response (on 27 June 2023) and on 6 July 2023. While the landlord was correct in not escalating the matter until after it had issued the stage 1 response, it had not escalated the matter until the resident contacted it again on 11 August 2023. Its acknowledgement letter of 14 August 2023 had apologised for this, but the landlord accepted it “must do better”.
  5. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 9 September 2023. He said that the landlord had “lied” about consulting residents over the communal cleaning, which did not happen. He added he was unable to find anything in his tenancy agreement that residents were responsible for cleaning the communal areas, including the communal windows both internally and externally. The resident felt the cost of this should have been included in the existing service charge which was charged to him.
  6. The landlord wrote to all the residents of the block on 11 October 2023. It said, based on the quote it had received, that the cost of the communal cleaning would be £900 plus an initial “one-off deep clean” charge of £285. It worked this out to be an additional £1.90 per week for each property, on top of what was already paid. It asked residents to submit any thoughts or suggestions by 27 October 2023.
  7. The resident emailed the landlord and the Ombudsman on 15 October 2023 to question the cost of £1.90 per week. He also enquired about the one-off charge, as he said the cleaning should have been carried out over the last 2 years meaning that a deep clean was not necessary.

Second complaint

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 December 2023 to make a further complaint. He said:
    1. Following the first complaint being upheld, he asked the landlord if, as a gesture of goodwill, it could have the communal area cleaned while the cleaning contract was still to be finalised. He noted that he was not asking for a deep clean.
    2. If the landlord had listened to him when he initially raised the issues, there would not have been the need for a deep clean.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 December 2023. It said:
    1. There was not currently a cleaning contact in place for the upkeep of the communal areas. However, following the resident’s initial complaint, it had appointed a cleaning contractor after consulting with all the residents of the block. The cleaning was due to start at the end of January 2024 and would take place on a fortnightly basis.
    2. Although it understood the resident contested the initial charge, it had found no evidence that its contractor had contributed to the uncleanliness of the communal area. As the area had not been previously cleaned, the cleaning contractor would need to spend more time on the initial clean.
  3. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on the same day (22 December 2023). He followed this up in another email 3 days later, saying:
    1. The landlord had failed to set out the reasons why all the residents needed to pay for the deep clean, and it had failed to answer his question about whether a deep clean would be needed if it had addressed the matter earlier.
    2. He questioned the evidence that the landlord’s contractor did not contribute to the uncleanliness and asked if it had contacted the contractor.
    3. The landlord had not consulted with residents in June 2022 as it claimed.
    4. In a telephone conversation with him on 26 April 2023, the landlord had informed him that a deep clean would be organised.
    5. To resolve the complaint, he wanted the landlord to cover the initial deep clean cost as well as pay him compensation.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 February 2024. It said:
    1. The resident’s concerns about the evidence that its contractor contributed to the uncleanliness of the communal area and the call of 26 April 2023 were issues it could not investigate under its complaints policy. This was because the events occurred more than 6 months before the complaint was made.
    2. Some of the issues about his contact with it, as well as the landlord not consulting residents in June 2022, were previously addressed in his earlier complaint made in June 2023. It therefore could not investigate these matters again.
    3. While it understood the resident felt it should have addressed the matter earlier, the communal cleaning was due to start in February 2024. This was as a direct result of the actions the landlord took following a request from residents. It could find no failure in its management of the process.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 February 2024 to ask about the communal windows and why the cleaning team (who had visited on that day) did not clean them. The landlord replied to say that the internal windows would be cleaned. When asked why the external windows would not be cleaned, it said a different contractor was needed as its cleaning contractor “can’t [do] ladders”. The resident informed the landlord he remained dissatisfied with its response, and referred the matter to this Service.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 April 2024, following contact from this Service about his first complaint. It offered increased compensation of £500 (from the original £150) which comprised £250 for complaint handling failures and £250 for the time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident as well as poor communication. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident continued to communicate with the landlord about the communal cleaning following its stage 2 response issued in September 2023. The landlord dealt with this as a separate complaint, which completed its internal complaints process in February 2024. While the second complaint primarily concerned the issue of the initial deep clean, it is clear that the 2 complaints are linked and that the second complaint follows on from the first one. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to combine both of the complaints under a single investigation report. This is in line with paragraph 44 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and with the resident’s wishes.
  2. The resident has communicated further with the landlord about the nature of the communal cleaning, including the frequency and whether it should include the external windows, following the end of the second internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint, or that have yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. The Ombudsman has, however, made a recommendation at the end of this report with the aim of resolving the current situation for both parties.
  3. The resident has raised issues related to the level of service charges. Paragraph 42d of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not investigate a complaint that concerns the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. This investigation will therefore not assess whether the service charges are reasonable, or whether the amount charged is appropriate.
  4. While this Service is unable to decide on the matters above, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and complaint about whether the communal cleaning costs were already included within the service charge.
  5. Complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge may be best suited to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which can establish whether variable as opposed to fixed service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the nature of the service charges which he is liable for. The resident may wish to approach the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for further advice on this matter.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. It confirms that if the resident lives in a block of flats, “we will maintain in good repair any communal areas around your home”. 
  2. Section 6 of the tenancy agreement, relating to community responsibilities, says: “In a property with a communal area you must co-operate with us and your neighbours to keep that area clean, tidy and free from obstruction. Where the stairs and landing have a concrete floor … tenants have a responsibility to keep the areas clean.”
  3. The landlord’s estate and neighbourhood management policy states that the landlord will:
    1. Keep its estates and neighbourhoods clean, safe, secure and well-maintained.
    2. Inspect its estates on a regular basis to check the quality of the services it provides, identify any maintenance issues, and remedy any health and safety concerns.
    3. Provide the agreed services reliably to all residents. It will, where appropriate, work with residents and provide additional services to address a specific issue or improve the neighbourhood.
  4. The estate and neighbourhood management policy also says “we recognise that the cleaning and maintenance of our communal areas significantly impacts the way residents feel about where they live. The cleaning of our internal communal areas will take place at regular intervals.”
  5. The service charge policy states “costs covered by service charges include, but are not restricted to, the maintenance of communal areas, e.g., windows and gardens, and the cost of facilities in communal areas, e.g., lifts and door entry systems”. The policy says “the annual service charge review letter will include the overall cost of service chargeable items for the estate, scheme or block. It will also include the amount apportioned to the individual property to which the letter refers. We will provide customers with their service charge estimate by letter at the beginning of each financial year. The letter will include how the estimate has been calculated and an annual statement showing where their money has been spent.”
  6. The service charge policy also says, in relation to consultation, “we will consult all residents who may potentially be affected whenever a proposal is made to seek changes to services provided. This includes where we seek to introduce new services or extend existing services and an additional charge needs to be made. It also includes where we propose to reduce or remove an existing service.”
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy says, “if a customer tells us they want to complain, we will always record it as a complaint”. It adds that “if a customer expresses dissatisfaction with our service we will try to put things right at the earliest possible opportunity, therefore we may be able to resolve the issue for our customer quickly without it becoming a formal complaint. We will record all expressions of dissatisfaction to help improve our services. If a customer remains dissatisfied or makes it clear they wish to complain, then the matter will be logged as a stage one complaint.”
  8. The policy says that the landlord will not generally consider a complaint if it:
    1. Relates to an issue which occurred more than 6 months before the resident raised the complaint.
    2. Has been previously considered by it and “no substantive new information is provided”.
  9. The landlord’s complaints process has 2 stages. The landlord will acknowledge a complaint within 2 days of receiving it. It will provide a response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be investigated by an independent person who will aim to respond within 20 working days. If the landlord needs longer to respond, it will explain this to the resident and the deadline will not exceed a further 10 working days, unless agreed by both parties.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for discretionary compensation payments, depending on the level of inconvenience caused by a failure in service and the impact on the resident. Payments of up to £250 may be made for minor inconvenience, up to £700 for moderate inconvenience, and over £700 where there has been significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning

  1. The landlord has confirmed that it took over the tenancy following a merger with the resident’s previous landlord in 2017. It has provided this Service with a copy of the resident’s original tenancy agreement which applied at the time the resident moved to the property. The landlord has explained that it was unaware, given the length of time that had elapsed, of the specific circumstances and whether the resident’s previous landlord cleaned the communal areas. However, it agrees that it did not offer this until after the resident’s complaint, with the cleaning contract beginning in February 2024. The resident disputes this and says that the communal areas were cleaned by the landlord until relatively recently, which prompted him to make a complaint. The resident has been unable to recall exactly when the communal cleaning stopped, although he has referred to it being sometime between 2021 and 2023. Given the historical nature of these events and in the absence of any contemporaneous documentary evidence, we have been unable to make a finding in relation to this aspect.
  2. After the landlord took over the tenancy from the previous landlord, there is no evidence that it asked the resident to sign a new tenancy agreement. It was therefore obliged to honour the resident’s existing tenancy agreement in terms of responsibilities. The tenancy agreement is somewhat unclear as to what the resident was responsible for. The agreement refers to residents working in conjunction with each other and the landlord’s responsibility to keep communal areas clean, unless the cleaning relates to concrete stairs and landings, in which case the residents alone are responsible. The intention behind this term appears to be to ensure that residents do not contribute to any excessive mess or accumulation of items in the areas. However, as the wording refers to 2 blocks/estates, but not the resident’s, it could be assumed the communal responsibility term did not apply to him. In other words, the tenancy agreement could be seen to indicate that the responsibility for the cleaning rests with the landlord. This ties in with the usual expectations of landlords in relation to communal areas in estates/blocks.
  3. The landlord explained to the resident, when he enquired about the communal cleaning, that residents had previously not expressed any interest in this service and the associated cost. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show when it previously consulted with residents about the matter. Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlords’ services. This has not been the case in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. These recording failures amount to a significant failing on the part of the landlord and a missed opportunity by it to ensure it correctly recorded the resident’s concerns. There is no evidence to show that, following its communication with the resident, the landlord contacted him in writing to set out its understanding of the concerns he was raising. This was unsatisfactory.
  4. The landlord says the resident did not pay a service charge for communal cleaning, so it was apparent that it was not offering this service initially. The resident asked, if this was the case what the service charges he paid covered. This was a reasonable query. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that each year, prior to the increase in rent which took place in April, it wrote to the resident setting out details of the new payments payable. This payment was split into rent, the service charge, and the private charge which it applied per week. Included with this letter was a breakdown of the service charges, setting out the estimated charges for the coming year as well as an explanation of what the service charges covered.  This was appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s service charge policy, as it provided an explanation as to what the resident’s service charges covered.
  5. The landlord has provided this Service with the breakdown of estimated charges for the last 3 years. In 2022/23 the weekly cost of service charges was £13.15. In 2023/24 it increased to £63.55 per week. The landlord has confirmed that this was due to a large amount quoted for grounds maintenance, which included the communal electricity cost. The service charges in 2024/25 reduced to £22.34 per week. The landlord said this was because it managed to reduce the communal electricity cost.
  6. The landlord’s annual correspondence to the resident, seen by this Service, enclosed a booklet setting out an explanation of the service charges as well as a description of each of these areas describing what they covered. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord supplied a reasonable level of detail about the service charge breakdown. There was no mention within these yearly communications that the resident’s service charges included an element for communal cleaning, although gardening for the communal areas was mentioned during 2022/23. 
  7. In summary, although the landlord did not know whether the previous landlord had provided communal cleaning, this was ultimately its responsibility. Although it responded to the resident when he asked if he could mop up the communal area, confirming he could and that it did have public liability insurance, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to clarify that it was responsible for cleaning and maintaining the communal areas. While it said that residents had not previously expressed an interest in this service, it has been unable to provide evidence to support this or confirm when relevant consultations took place. In mitigation, the landlord clearly set out to the resident that the service charges he paid did not include any amount for communal cleaning. This was both in the form of the annual correspondence it sent out each February and in its correspondence to him in June 2022 and October 2022 in response to his query.
  8. The landlord made an offer of £100 compensation at stage 2 which it increased to £250 in April 2024. This Service recognises that the landlord reviewed the complaint following the resident referring his complaint to this Service and made an increased offer, which demonstrates learning. However, because it increased its offer after the complaint completed its complaints process and following our involvement, reasonable redress is not an outcome that we can consider in this case. This is because the landlord should have thoroughly reviewed its compensation at stage 2 and not after the complaint was referred to the Ombudsman. Our outcomes guidance notes that it is not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles for a landlord to make an (often substantially or disproportionately) increased offer of redress at the end of a protracted process with the anticipated effect that we will not consider the matter further.
  9. The amount offered by the landlord in April 2024 was in keeping with the top end of scale set out in its compensation policy for minor inconvenience, which was appropriate. This offer is also in line with this Service’s recommended range for maladministration where there was no significant impact on the resident. Taking the full circumstances into account, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning, but has awarded no additional compensation. 

The landlord’s handling of the initial one-off cleaning cost

  1. The resident’s communication with the landlord does not appear to indicate that he has any significant concern over the cost quoted for the fortnightly communal cleaning. Instead, his complaint centres on the initial deep clean charge proposed of £285. The resident felt that following the landlord agreeing to provide communal cleaning to the block, the one-off clean should not have been charged to residents. This is because the landlord and its operatives contributed to the uncleanliness in the communal areas. Further, he felt the delays taken by the landlord to reintroduce communal cleaning also contributed to the area requiring a more thorough initial clean.
  2. The landlord’s records show that it asked for a quote for the communal cleaning in September 2023. The response it received from its cleaning contractor provided the price for a single clean initially. It also then provided a cost on a regular basis following the landlord requesting it. The contractor said, “the blocks will need an initial deep clean before it could take over the service”.
  3. The resident said the landlord informed him in a call in April 2023 that it would organise a deep clean. The resident has been unable to provide further details of when this call took place and which member of the landlord’s staff he spoke to. The landlord stated that, as the issue occurred more than 6 months before he made his complaint, it was unable to look at the matter. While the resident made his second complaint in December 2023, he had been communicating with the landlord over the matter prior to this time and the issues were linked to his first complaint. Given this, in our opinion, the landlord ought to have further investigated this matter and informed the resident of its conclusion. By not doing this, this was a missed opportunity by it.
  4. However, this Service notes the call in question was made several months before the landlord agreed to put in place a cleaning contract for the block. At the time it was maintaining that the responsibility for the cleaning of the communal area rested with the resident. Given the timing of the call, the Ombudsman is unable to determine if the landlord provided the resident with any assurance at the time that it would organise (and pay for) the deep clean.
  5. The resident said that the landlord’s contractor carried out work to the block. He has provided this Service with an undated letter which set out that his front door was to be replaced with a composite fire door. In addition, the landlord informed the resident the warden alarm would be upgraded in January 2023. While the Ombudsman acknowledges these communications as evidence that work was carried out to the property, they do not show that the contractor discarded anything into the communal areas following completing the works. The cleaning contractor’s initial quote makes no reference to it needing to remove large items such as old doors which were left in the communal areas, or wiring or anything else to do with the old alarm. There is also no photographic evidence which shows the communal areas were cluttered due to the actions of the landlord or its contractor. However, it is recognised that the presence of any individual in the communal areas may inadvertently contribute to a buildup of general dirt/debris and wear over time.
  6. The resident asked the landlord to contact its contractor about the matter. This was in response to the landlord saying in its stage 1 response that there was no evidence to support his view that the contractors contributed to the uncleanliness. The landlord said that it was unable to investigate events which occurred more than 6 months prior to a complaint being logged, in line with its complaints policy. It recently informed this Service that due to the time that passed, it was unable to gather information from the contractor.
  7. Regardless of the length of time that had elapsed, it would have been good practice for the landlord to attempt to contact the contractor. This is especially pertinent as the resident initially contacted the landlord within 3 months of the alarm being updated, and it acknowledged it did not respond to his queries or register his complaints at the time. Given this, the issue was not out of time in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. This was a failing by the landlord.
  8. The resident also said that the landlord’s delay in dealing with the matter, and its omission to respond to his queries raised in April 2023 and June 2023, contributed to the communal area needing a more thorough clean. The Ombudsman has seen that the landlord has already addressed the issue of unanswered queries in its formal response to the resident’s first complaint. As a result, this Service is unable to look at the matter again following the resident’s second complaint.
  9. In summary, the landlord failed to contact its contractor about the resident’s allegation that it contributed to the uncleanliness of the communal area. It also did not thoroughly investigate his assertion that it agreed to organise a deep clean in April 2023. This amounts to a service failure. The Ombudsman has made an award of £100 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the concerns over the initial deep clean charge. This is in line with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure that caused distress and inconvenience, but did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord has accepted that the resident attempted to make a complaint using its website on 14 April 2023 and 24 April 2023. While it said it followed its complaints process and attempted to speak to the resident, it did not raise a complaint on either occasion. The complaints policy sets out that if a resident wants to complain, “we will always record it as a complaint”. The policy also sets out that the landlord will accept complaints made through a number of channels, including its online contact form as well as by telephone and email. Its omission to log a complaint following the resident’s 2 attempts to make one using its online contact form was therefore unreasonable.
  2. Following the resident escalating his first complaint to stage 2 on 6 July 2023, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 8 September 2023, 45 working days later. This was significantly outside of the timescales contained in its complaints policy. The landlord accepted it did not acknowledge the escalation until 14 August 2023, following further contact from the resident. It did not provide any explanation as to why it failed to escalate the complaint initially. While the complaints policy did not set out any timescale for it to acknowledge escalation requests, its response after 27 working days was not appropriate. This was a further failing by the landlord.
  3. The landlord made an offer of £50 at stage 2 for complaints handling, which was later significantly increased to £250 in April 2024 following a review. The increased amount offered was in keeping with the top end of scale set out in its compensation policy for minor inconvenience. It was also in line with this Service’s recommended range for maladministration where there was no significant impact on the resident. This was appropriate. However, since the landlord did not make this offer until after the complaint was referred to us, this has prevented a finding of reasonable redress. Instead, a finding of service failure has been made to acknowledge the landlord’s failings in not logging a complaint on multiple occasions as well as not acknowledging the resident’s request for escalation of his first complaint for an extended period. The £250 ultimately offered by the landlord is considered reflective of these failures, and no additional award has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning.
    2. Handling of the initial one-off cleaning cost.
    3. Complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £600, which comprises:
      1. £250 for its failure in the handling of his concerns about communal cleaning.
      2. £100 for the failure in its handling of the initial one-off cleaning cost.
      3. £250 for its complaints handling failures.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should contact the resident to determine if he has any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints process in February 2024. If he raises any such concerns, it should respond to these in accordance with its policies and procedures.