The Guinness Partnership Limited (202347387)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347387

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 January 2025

(Updated following review on 30 May 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports that repairs were needed to his roof and that there was damp and mould throughout his property.
2. Complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the Housing Association landlord. He holds a joint tenancy with his wife. Their tenancy started in 2016. They occupy a 2-bed new build property. The resident has terminal cancer and is receiving palliative care at home.
Between 2019 and 2023 the resident reported problems with damp and mould in his property to the landlord. He said that there was a defect in the roof construction which was causing damp and mould growth. He also reported problems with the guttering. At this time, the landlord had contracted out its repair functions to a private company. The repairs service was brought back in-house in November 2023. For this reason, the landlord has said that it does not have records of repairs prior to 2023.
In January 2023, the resident told the landlord that it needed to repair his guttering as rainwater was running down the side of the house. The landlord raised this as a repair but did not complete the works. The resident wrote to the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer in July 2023 to express his dissatisfaction with the service. He received a response from the landlord’s complaints team in July 2023 saying that it was investigating his reports and would get back to him.
The landlord raised some works to complete inspections and mould treatment in August and December 2023. When the resident did not receive a response to his complaint, he chased this on 21 February 2024. The landlord apologised and said that it had not logged his correspondence of July 2023 as a formal complaint, in error. It said that it would raise this as a new complaint and arranged a new inspection of the roof and for a mould treatment to be completed.
In February 2024, the resident arranged for his own contractor to inspect his roof. The roofing contractor said that there was a defect in the roof installation which impeded airflow and prevented rainwater from running off the roof into guttering. It provided a quote for work. When the resident sent the quote to the landlord, the landlord said that it disagreed with the roofing contractor’s findings and did not approve the works.
On 6 March 2024, the landlord informed the resident that it would need to extend the deadline for response to his complaint as it needed to undertake further investigations. On 20 March 2024, the landlord requested a further extension to the complaint deadline. This was because the complaint had to be reallocated to another officer as the original complaint handler had taken unexpected leave. The resident chased the landlord for a response several times in March 2024. The landlord attended on 28 March 2024 and undertook a full repairs inspection of the property.
On 4 April 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said that:
1. it did not have records of works completed between 2019 and 2023 as its repairs service was contracted out at this time and it did not hold the contractors repair records
2. the resident had logged 6 repairs between February 2023 and February 2024 related to roof leaks and damp and mould, the landlord had visited the property but could not find the root cause of the damp
3. the landlord inspected the property again on 28 March 2024 and concluded that the roof did not require replacing, however in some areas the roof insulation was insufficient, and it would address this by 2 May 2024
4. given the delays, it upheld this aspect of the resident’s complaint and apologised for these failings
5. it offered the resident £500 compensation for his time, trouble, and inconvenience
6. it apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint which had been logged on 21 February 2024
7. it offered the resident £50 in compensation for its complaint handling failings
8. it also identified learning from the complaint and confirmed that a working group had been set up to review all repair related complaints and that it would monitor actions
On 8 April 2024, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He said that the landlord had not said how it would address the damp in his property, and it had not provided a timescale for all works. He said that he wanted an independent contractor of his choice to complete a survey. The landlord acknowledged his email that day. He received a formal acknowledgement of his complaint escalation request on 14 April 2024.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 14 May 2024. It said that:
1. it had found during its inspection that the resident’s home had high humidity levels and provided advice on ventilation and heating
2. it completed works to install extra insulation to the resident’s loft on 1 May 2024
3. it also treated mould at this time. It asked that the resident keep it updated as to the condition of the property, so that it could address this promptly
4. it offered a further £50 for delays in its complaint response at stage 1, bringing the total amount of compensation offered to £600.
5. it had shared the individual findings of the complaint with relevant managers for discussion
6. it had also set up a new training programme for complaint handlers
The resident was unhappy with the outcome of his complaint as he did not agree that the roof did not require repair. He therefore referred his complaint to this Service for investigation.

Post complaint

The landlord arranged a damp and mould survey of the property on 25 June 2024. This went ahead on 2 July 2024 and found that there was mould in the lounge and two bedrooms. It made recommendations that the landlord take steps to aid airflow in the property such as installing lap vents, a PIV unit, and an undercut to interior doors. It also suggested that the landlord consider installing continuously running extractor fans. The landlord fitted environmental sensors in the property in September 2024 to assess the humidity levels in the home.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service notes that the resident has raised this matter with the landlord since 2019. Details of earlier reports have been helpful in providing a clear picture of the history of this complaint to date and the landlord’s interventions.
For this investigation, however, these earlier reports and the landlord’s responses are referenced for contextual purposes only. This is because the Ombudsman can only investigate those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints procedure and then brought to the attention of the Ombudsman within a reasonable timescale. Therefore, this investigation will focus on events from February 2023 onwards.
The resident has terminal cancer and is currently undergoing palliative care at home. He has said that the ongoing situation with the conditions in his home have affected his health. While this Service cannot consider matters such as liability, causation, or award damages for impact on physical or mental health, we can consider whether the landlord’s actions or inaction has caused the resident distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s record keeping

The landlord has informed this Service that its repairs function was under a maintenance contract until 2023, after which time it brought it back in-house. When the maintenance contract ended, the landlord was unable to provide the background of resident’s reports about repairs and outcomes, because the information was held by the contractor, not the landlord. Following a review the landlord was able to provide repair records from the contractor from January 2019.
It is vital that repair records are kept to show what the landlord has done in response to repair reports. This is particularly relevant where the landlord has contracted-out its repairs function, as it will need to ensure that it has adequate oversight of its contractors to ensure that it meets its legal obligations. In this case, an absence of systems prevented the landlord from being able to adequately monitor and oversee the contractor’s performance. This was unsatisfactory.
Record keeping failures underpin a landlord’s ability to action both repairs and complaint handling robustly. Good record keeping is important, not only so the landlord can provide an efficient and prompt service to its residents, but it also allows for an accurate audit trail of its decision making after the event. This can help in resolving complaints and learning from complaints to improve services. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord’s inadequate record keeping contributed to the failings this investigation has found which, in the circumstances, amount to maladministration.
In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the roof, resulting in damp and mould.

In investigating this complaint, the Ombudsman is not able to carry out a technical assessment of disputed repair issues and decide what works the landlord should undertake. Rather, it is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions considering its legal obligations, policies and procedures and good practice.
There have been failures in the landlord’s communication with the resident. Prior to the resident’s complaint he had:
1. asked for the landlord to provide him with inspection reports in 2023 following an inspection of the guttering, but there is no evidence that it had done so
2. chased up for a response regarding his concerns about the roof and damp and mould on 5 occasions between February 2023 and February 2024, but no update or comprehensive response has been included with the landlord’s records
3. provided the landlord with a copy of a report and quotation for works from his own roofing contractor. The landlord disagreed with their finding that there was a defect in the roof installation, but the records do not evidence that the landlord corresponded with the resident explaining why it rejected the findings
The landlord’s ineffective communication caused the resident frustration, distress, and inconvenience. He spent time and trouble chasing this up, which was unreasonable, particularly given his declining health. Better communication would have provided reassurance to the resident that matters were being managed.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord arranged an inspection, and a surveyor completed a detailed report. This was a reasonable step to take to decide the cause of the damp and what it would need to do to address it. The report outlined its findings, and detailed its conclusions that the issue was airflow and insufficient insulation in the roof space.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident disagrees with the landlord’s conclusions and that the situation has been very distressing for him. However, the Ombudsman is unable to independently verify build quality issues or how best to address damp and mould in a property. The Ombudsman trusts that the landlord will use suitably experienced or qualified staff to undertake their own assessments.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident would like the landlord to agree a joint expert with the resident to undertake an inspection and prepare a report. While in some circumstances the Ombudsman can order the landlord to arrange an independent survey, in this case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s surveyor undertook a thorough inspection detailing its findings in a report.
Following its inspection, the landlord raised works to install extra insulation in the roof space within a reasonable time. The landlord concluded that some of the problems in the property were due to condensation. It said that it gave advice to the resident and his wife about how to increase airflow and reduce moisture in the property. It also agreed to install environment sensors to monitor the humidity in the property. This was a reasonable step to take and showed that the landlord would be keeping the situation under review to see if it needed to take further action.
The landlord also inspected the guttering and arranged for a damp and mould survey by an independent contractor. The contractor’s report mirrored the landlord’s conclusions and made further recommendations to address the mould in the property. The Ombudsman is satisfied, therefore, that the landlord has taken adequate steps to address the issue.
In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure.
The landlord had taken reasonable steps to assess and remedy the cause of the mould and has offered £500 for the delays in raising works. However, the resident is a vulnerable occupier, because of his terminal cancer diagnosis. The landlord’s complaints responses do not show that it considered the added impact on him of its delays and poor communication, given his vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that “we may make an offer of compensation if the customer has faced obstacles or difficulties that could have been avoided, and as a result they were put under distress or significant inconvenience over and above that which would normally be expected when incidents of this type occur. This is particularly applicable to customers with a physical or a mental disability.”
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says that aggravating factors can justify an increased award in compensation to reflect the specific impact on the resident. As the landlord has not referred to the impact of the resident’s health condition in its compensation assessment, the Ombudsman considers that an increase in the resident’s compensation award to reflect this, is justified. For this reason, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure and orders the landlord to pay the resident an extra £100 in compensation.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The evidence shows that the resident sent an email to the landlord in July 2023 that the landlord agreed to treat as a complaint. However, the landlord did not raise a complaint at this time, which was a failing. While its failure to raise a complaint in 2023 may well have been an oversight, the result was that the resident was denied his right, following its complaints policy, to have his complaint addressed at an earlier stage. The resident had an expectation that his complaint was being dealt with, as the landlord had given assurances in July that it was looking into this.
Although it arranged further mould treatments and inspections between August and December 2023, the landlord did not provide the resident with a written complaint response, which prompted him to follow this up in February 2024. The landlord raised this as a new complaint. Its stage 1 response was issued 21 days outside of its published response timescales. The landlord notified the resident in advance that its response would be delayed and provided reasons for this. In doing so, it followed its complaints policy. The landlord addressed this delay in its complaint response. It offered an apology and £100 compensation for the delays, which was reasonable.
However, as the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in 2023, in either its stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an extra £100 in compensation for his time, effort, and inconvenience in following this up.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports that repairs were needed to his roof and that there was damp and mould throughout his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. arrange for a senior officer to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. pay the resident the amount of £800 which includes:
  1. £100 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s ineffective communication regarding the damp and mould in his property.
  2. £100 for his time, trouble and inconvenience because of its complaints handling failings.
  3. If it has not done so already, it should pay the resident the £600 it offered him at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. If this amount has previously been paid to the resident, it can be deducted from the balance of £800 above.
3. The landlord should confirm with this Service once payment of compensation has been made.
Within 5 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to write to the resident outlining the findings from its environmental sensor readings and the damp survey. It should confirm what actions it proposes to take following the recommendations in the damp and mould survey and its own investigations and provide timescales for any works. A copy of the letter should be provided to this Service.