The Guinness Partnership Limited (202340836)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340836

The Guinness Partnership Limited

13 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:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows and doors.
2. the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord which began on 17 September 2001. The landlord is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom mid terrace house. The resident lives with her adult daughter. The landlord said it does not have any vulnerabilities recorded. The resident told the landlord and the Ombudsman she had asthma.
On 4 October 2023, the resident reported repairs to the external front and back doors and multiple windows in her house, causing leaks and draughts.
The landlord’s contractors inspected the windows and doors around mid–October 2023. The landlord and resident agree that the contractors led the resident to believe it would replace the doors and windows. The landlord inspected the property on 9 November and 14 December 2023.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 1 December 2023. She said the front and back door, and the windows were letting in draughts and water and needed replacing. She said the landlord had carried out multiple inspections but had not completed any works. She was unhappy that she had to chase repairs and that the landlord had not returned her contact.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 22 December 2023. It said:
1. it had not yet arranged the works from the inspection on 9 November 2023. It apologised for the delay.
2. on 18 December 2023 it had asked the resident for another inspection, but she was reluctant. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience.
3. it would contact the resident and decide whether to replace the windows and doors in the new year.
4. it acknowledged poor communication including unreturned and late returned calls.
5. it upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered £70 for poor communication, £20 for missed appointments and £160 for repair delays.
6. it would feed back the failings and communication issues.
7. its complaints team would contact the resident on 17 January 2024 to check the outstanding issues.
The landlord carried out at further visit on 8 January 2024. On 31 January 2024 it replaced the windowsill in one of the bedrooms.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 29 January 2024. She emailed the landlord on 4 February 2024 and said that:
1. she was unhappy with the complaint handling. She said the complaints team did not return her calls and sent communication to the wrong address.
2. she was unhappy with the standard of the operative’s work and requested a different one.
3. she felt the landlord misinformed her about the repairs.
4. she was unhappy that the landlord had not completed repairs despite multiple visits. She reported draughts, damp, and mould in her home.
5. chasing the landlord multiple times had disrupted her work and cost her money.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 26 February 2024, the landlord said:
1. after the contractor’s visit in October 2023, it had reviewed their report and decided it could complete repairs.
2. it had not made the process of repairing or replacing the windows and doors clear. It led the resident to believe it would replace them. It admitted poor communication.
3. it had shared feedback with its repairs team and contractors about following correct processes and poor communication.
4. it would normally repair, not replace. It referred to its discretion in its repairs policy.
5. it apologised for not calling the resident back within its normal timescales.
6. it acknowledged more delays and poor communication since its stage 1 response. It increased compensation to £200 for time and trouble and £150 for poor communication.
7. it promised to provide a list of planned repairs as soon as possible.
8. it said the resident had declined repair works. It asked the resident to make contact if she wanted it to complete the works.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 2 response and approached this Service. She felt the complaint responses did not set out all the landlord’s failings. She said it did not confirm a list of works or when it would complete them. She said it was unclear how the landlord made the decision to repair. She was unhappy the landlord said she had refused works. She wanted increased compensation to reflect the increased energy costs, severe distress, and time spent chasing the repairs and complaint.
The landlord replaced the front and back external doors on 5 May 2024.
On 5 December 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident to apologise. It:
1. said it should have offered to replace the windows and doors sooner than it did. It said it was clear they were beyond repair.
2. apologised for the stress and inconvenience and offered £100 additional compensation.
3. said it had new technology to improve its services. It asked to arrange a heat loss survey to ensure the replacements were effective.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident reported dissatisfaction with additional matters on 4 February 2024. This included boiler leak, a pipe, a leak into her kitchen, bathroom repairs, a period without hot water or heating and an external crack in the wall. The resident has confirmed that she raised these in a separate complaint to the landlord. She has not asked us to investigate this complaint. We have therefore limited the scope of this investigation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows and doors and the associated complaint handling.

Repairs to the windows and doors

The landlord’s policy on damp and mould says it will take action to identify homes that may be at risk of developing damp and mould. It will also try to mitigate increased risks of damp and mould. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould recommends that landlords have a risk-based approach to damp and mould.
In relation to health and safety risks, we encourage landlords to conduct thorough risk assessments based on individual household circumstances, ensuring appropriate actions are recognised, responded to, and documented.
The resident told us the landlord was aware of her asthma during the complaint process. The landlord reported no vulnerabilities for her. On 3 March 2024, the resident told the landlord and this Service she had asthma. We do not have enough evidence to confirm whether the landlord was aware she had asthma during the complaint procedure. We therefore cannot assess whether it acted reasonably in relation to this.
The landlord was aware of rotting wood and water passing through the doors and/ or windows from October 2023. There is evidence the resident reported mould and damp on 4 February 2024. The 7-month period between the resident reporting the repairs and the landlord completing repairs was over autumn and winter.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess the risk of damp and mould when making decisions about the repairs. There is no evidence it did this. This was a missed opportunity to take a risk-based approach to damp and mould.
The landlord noted that the rotten wood on the back door as a health and safety issue and that the front door could be easily opened. The landlord has not provided evidence it assessed health and safety or security risks. If it did, we have not seen evidence it discussed this with the resident or that this impacted its decision making. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to satisfy itself it had considered potential risks.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy categorises repairs as:
1. emergency, which are an immediate health and safety risk. It aims to fix these within 24 hours.
2. routine, which are not emergencies. It aims to fix these within 28 calendar days.
The repairs policy also states:
1. the landlord will try to make a repair the first time the resident contacts it or as soon as practicable.
2. where the landlord needs to investigate further, it will communicate clearly with the resident. It will explain why it cannot complete the repair at the first visit. It will also explain what it intends to do and when it will complete the repair.
3. the landlord will normally repair rather than replace. The landlord will decide what and when to replace at its discretion.
The landlord categorised the repairs the resident reported on 4 October 2023, as routine repairs. It booked a contractor to attend in mid-October 2023. This was appropriate. The contractor told the landlord the windows and both doors, or their components, needed replacing. The landlord was on notice that the doors and windows needed replacing or repairing from mid-October 2023.
The landlord says it sent the contractor’s report to its commercial team. It says it decided on 23 October 2023 that it would not complete replacements. The evidence suggests the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update. It suggests the contractor informed her the landlord had cancelled the works.
It was appropriate for the landlord to assess whether to repair or replace. We do not have enough evidence to assess whether the landlord’s decision to repair was reasonable in all the circumstances. However, once it had decided not to replace, it would have been in line with its repairs policy for the landlord to contact the resident to explain its decision, what it intended to do and when it would complete the repairs. We have no evidence it did this.
Once the landlord was on notice that the front door needed a repair and it had decided not to replace the door, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise a repair, or to explain to the resident why it had not. There is no evidence it did this. The landlord did not raise a repair to the front door until 15 March 2024. This was an unreasonable delay and a failure of service.
The evidence suggests the resident requested an update on 8 November 2023. The landlord visited the property on 9 November 2023. It noted the living room windows were peeling on the outside, there was a draught from the window and front door, and repairs were needed. The landlord raised repairs to the windows and back door on 15 November 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise these repairs sooner, or to explain to the resident why it did not. The target date for repairs was 30 December 2023, within 45 days. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The evidence suggests the resident contacted the landlord for an update multiple times including 27 November and 1 December 2023. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the resident to confirm when it would complete the repairs. There is no evidence the landlord attempted or completed the repairs raised on 15 November 2023 in line with its repairs policy timescales. This was a failure of service.
The landlord inspected the back door on 14 December 2023. It noted the door and frame had water damage and were rotting. During this visit, the resident says the landlord led her to believe it would replace the windows and doors.
In mid-January 2024, the landlord internally discussed whether it or the resident was responsible for repairing the back door. The resident says near the end of January, the landlord told her it was waiting for its commercial team to approve the repairs.
The landlord has not provided evidence of its decision making in this process so we cannot assess whether this was reasonable in all the circumstances. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to assess who was responsible for the back door repair sooner. Additionally, there is no evidence it clearly explained the processes or confirmed when it would complete the repairs, in line with its repairs policy. This was a failure of service.
The landlord raised a repair to the back door on 6 February 2024. The target date was 22 March 2024, within 45 days. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. There is no evidence the landlord completed these repairs in line with its repairs policy timescales. This was a failure of service.
The evidence suggests the landlord inspected the property on 8 January 2024. It does not have proper records of this visit. At a visit in January, the resident reports that the landlord told her the windows needed sealing, and the windowsills and doors needed replacing. The landlord raised a repair to the windowsill in one of the bedrooms on 15 January 2024. This was categorised as a routine repair. Evidence suggests the landlord completed this on 31 January 2024.
The landlord categorised and completed the repair on 31 January 2024 in line with its repairs policy. However, it would have been reasonable for it to raise and complete repairs to the other windows at the same time, or to explain to the resident why it had not.
Evidence suggests the landlord spoke to the resident on 5 February 2024 and agreed to raise repairs to the other windowsills. On 15 February 2024, the landlord raised these repairs. The repair was appropriately categorised as routine. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have raised these repairs sooner. There is no evidence the landlord completed these repairs in line with its repairs policy timescales. This was a failure of service.
The landlord says that, around 7 February 2024, the resident told it she would not allow it to complete repairs. The resident denies this, but says she asked for clarification about the repairs and complaints process. We do not have enough evidence to assess exactly what was said, or whether this impacted the amount of time it took the landlord to complete works.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 3 March 2024, the resident confirmed she was not refusing works.
On 5 March 2024, the landlord told the resident it would repair the windows and door. It raised routine repairs to assess the doors and windows on 15 March 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise the works sooner after agreeing to repair, or to explain to the resident why it had not. There is no evidence that it completed these works.
The landlord says it approved the replacement of the windows and doors on 18 March 2024. It raised replacement works on 8 April 2024, with a target date of 8 April 2025. It replaced the doors on 20 May 2024. The resident confirms the landlord replaced the windows around the same time. As it did not complete the repairs in the meantime, the target date and time taken to complete the replacements was not reasonable. This was a failure of service.
The evidence suggests the landlord’s process to approve works may have impacted its delays in raising and responding to repairs. The evidence also suggests poor record keeping, and a change in landlord staff may have increased delays. This led to a break down in trust and caused the resident distress. It also led the resident to doubt the standard of inspections.
The resident contacted the landlord multiple times over 6 months to request updates and clarity on the repairs process. The evidence suggests the landlord did not inform her enough about why it needed to do further inspections, when it would complete repairs, or the reason for delays. It did not explain its processes or decision making. This was a failure of service and a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations.
The resident reports that the landlord’s staff told her its limited budget impacted its decisions and delayed repairs and replacements. We do not have enough evidence of these conversations and cannot assess what was said, but this would have caused the resident distress. The landlord confirmed it did not conduct the inspection on 8 January 2024 correctly. This would have further reduced her trust in the landlord.
In summary, the landlord failed to:
1. carry out risk assessments in relation to damp and mould or security.
2. reasonably respond to the resident’s contact.
3. raise repairs in a reasonable period.
4. categorise or respond to repairs in line with its repairs policy.
5. communicate clearly with the resident and explain the following in line with its repairs policy:
  1. why it could not complete repairs.
  2. its intended actions.
  3. when it would complete the repairs.
For these reasons, we find there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows and doors. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged multiple failures of service. It said it did not return multiple calls within its normal timescales. It also admitted poor communication. It apologised for the repair delays. It recognised it did not make the process of repairing or replacing clear. It accepted it had led the resident to believe it would replace items.
The resident raised her concerns to the landlord about increased heating bills caused by draughts on 27 November 2024. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this in its complaint responses, but it did not do so. The landlord did not highlight in its complaint responses that it should have decided on replacing the windows and doors sooner.
On 5 December 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it should have replaced the windows and doors sooner. It offered the resident an additional £100. We have not taken this into consideration when assessing the landlord’s redress in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the doors and windows. This is because it was sent a significant amount of time after its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer:
1. up to £250 for issues resolved within a reasonable time that caused minor inconvenience with some impact.
2. £250 to £700 for issues resolved after a long time that caused moderate inconvenience with demonstrable impact.
3. more than £700 for issues that took a long time to resolve which caused significant inconvenience and likely long-term impact.
The total £350 compensation the landlord offered in its stage 2 response was in line with its compensation policy. However, we find it was not proportionate to the failings identified. In line with our remedies’ guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows and doors. We have also recommended that the landlord reviews its process for approving works and makes this clear to residents.

Complaint handling

The response times in the landlord’s complaints policy were in line with the 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The complaints policy states that:
1. it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days of receipt.
2. it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of acknowledgement.
3. it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement.
4. it may extend timescales for responding to the complaint by 10 days.
The landlord’s complaints policy says a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about its standard of service, actions, or lack of actions. This is in line with the Code.
The Code says 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.
The evidence shows the resident contacted the landlord on 27 November 2023. She said she was unhappy with the time taken to complete the door and window repairs and the standard of the inspection. She was worried this would increase her heating costs. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to take the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction on 27 November 2023 as a complaint. That it did not was a failure of service.
The evidence suggests the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 4 December 2023, within its complaints policy. It responded to the complaint 15 working days after acknowledgement. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 response was late. It said it emailed the resident to confirm an extension on 15 December 2023. This would have been in line with the landlord’s policy, although we have not seen this email.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it would contact the resident on 17 January 2024 to discuss the outstanding issues. The evidence suggests the resident tried to contact the complaints team between 15 and 29 January 2024. There is no evidence the complaints team contacted her on 17 January 2024 or until 29 January 2024. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to retain the resident’s trust, to discuss the outcome of the stage 1 complaint, and any outstanding works.
The evidence shows the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 29 January 2024. The landlord was unsure whether to escalate the complaint. Its stage 2 response says she escalated the complaint on 4 February 2024. It would have been in line with the Code for the landlord to recognise a stage 2 request on 29 January 2024. That it did not was a failure of service. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within its policy timescales.
The Code says that when a resident raises additional complaints during the investigation, the landlord should only incorporate these into the stage one response if they are relevant, and the stage one response has not been issued. Otherwise, it should log them as a new complaint.
The resident raised additional issues on 4 February 2024. She reports she did not receive the stage 1 response until after this date. However, the stage 1 response had already been issued, and the issues were unrelated to the existing complaint. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to raise a new complaint to address them.
On 7 February 2024, the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its complaint handling and the complaint team’s communication. She raised these issues after the stage 1 response. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to have specifically acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its complaint handling in its stage 2 response.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord did not confirm when it would complete the repairs. It would have been in line with the dispute resolution principle of putting things right for it to have done this.
In summary, the landlord failed to:
1. raise a complaint on 27 November 2023 in line with its policy.
2. escalate the complaint on 29 January 2024 in line with its policy.
3. respond to the resident’s requests for contact.
4. consider the inconvenience its complaint handling caused.
The landlord did not offer any redress for its complaint handling failures. The landlord’s letter of 5 December 2024 was in line with the dispute resolution principles of learning from outcomes and putting things right. However, it sent this at least 9 months after its internal complaint procedure and 7 months after it replaced the doors and windows. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this sooner, and we have not taken this letter into consideration when assessing the landlord’s redress.
For these reasons, we find there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows and doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 days of this report, we order the landlord to:
1. provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident a total of £550 compensation, made up of:
  1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows and doors.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
  3. the landlord may deduct the £200 it offered at stage 1, the additional £100 it offered at stage 2, and/ or the £100 it offered on 4 December 2024 if it has already paid any of these amounts to the resident.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance within 28 days of this report.

Recommendation

If it has not done so already, we recommend the landlord reviews its process for approving works, and documents this clearly, including target timescales. We recommend it distributes this to residents when appropriate.