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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202402432)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402432

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 January 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 the resident’s reports of:
    1. Pests in the loft.
    2. Damp and mould.
    3. The condition of the kitchen.
    4. The condition of the windows and external doors.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a 4-bedroom house. The resident moved there via a mutual exchange in October 2016.
  2. The landord has told the Ombudsman it is aware the resident has several health conditions. When the resident expressed concerns about her health throughout the complaint process the landlord recorded the information and logged a health and safety form. There is also a vulnerable dependent in the household. It is not clear if or how these vulnerabilities are recorded on the landlord’s systems.
  3. In December 2023 the resident reported issues to the landlord with her external doors and windows. She requested a new door and said the condition of the windows was poor. She reported a hole in her roof and an uncontainable leak in her kitchen.
  4. In early January 2024 she reported to the landlord that she was locked inside the property because the front door had seized up. On 3 January 2024 the landlord attended on an emergency order and requested a damp and mould inspection of the property. It told the resident to speak to the local authority about the birds in the loft, but the resident refused. She said it was the landlord’s responsibility.
  5. On 11 January 2024 the landlord inspected the doors and windows and confirmed it needed to replace 3 windows. On 30 January and 16 February 2024 further inspections took place of the doors and windows and subsequently an order was raised for the 3 window replacements. The doors were put forward for consideration to replace.
  6. On 3 April 2024 the landlord checked the loft and noted in the corner of the eave a bird’s nest with young chicks in it. The resident made a complaint about all the outstanding repairs. She said her son’s room had black mould and damp. The landlord called the resident to confirm the complaint definitions and logged an inspection on its system.
  7. On 7 May 2024 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It upheld her complaint about the doors and windows because the communication was poor.  The landlord confirmed it would not replace the external doors or the kitchen. It upheld the loft repairs complaint and apologised for the delays. It confirmed no further works were required and it could not block further birds from entering the roof space as it would require extensive works. The landlord found no failures in its handling of the damp and mould reports.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint and asked for £400 compensation for damaged flooring. On 21 June 2024 a job was raised to complete a mould treatment. This was subsequently cancelled due to no access. On 9 July 2024 a further repair was booked for the landlord to check if the birds were still in the loft and inspect the ceiling.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response made the same findings as its stage 1 investigation. Additionally, it acknowledged a failing to create a clear plan of action to combat the pests and the damp and mould. Across the 2 stages the landlord offered £275 compensation. This included £25 for a complaint handling delay.

Post internal complaint process

  1. From July to September 2024 orders were raised to fix a hole in the soffit, gutters and an external door swelling. On 12 December 2024, following the Ombudsman’s contact for evidence, the landlord carried out a full inspection of the property. It sent the resident an increased compensation offer of £1000 because the landlord had identified further failings in its communication. The resident has told the Ombudsman she did not receive this letter. With the landlord’s permission, the Ombudsman has sent a copy? to her.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the period of the complaint, the resident has expressed concern with how the events have impacted her and her household’s physical and mental health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s position, the Ombudsman does not have the power to determine a causal link between the actions or omissions of a landlord and a resident’s health. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts. The resident has the option to seek further legal advice about legal action or a personal injury claim through an insurer. However, the overall distress and inconvenience caused to the resident has been considered in this investigation.
  2. Repairs required to the property’s gutters were raised during the complaint. The landlord identified this as a service request and informed the resident it would not consider the gutters within the complaint response but would raise a repair. Landlords must be given the opportunity to action any service requests and manage any subsequent complaints within its internal complaint process. The landlord has accepted the gutters need inspecting and on 12 December 2024 inspected them within the whole property inspection. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a gutter repair will not be investigated within this complaint.
  3. The landlord and the resident have evidenced that the resident had logged issues with her doors and windows since 2017. This investigation is limited to considering the landlord’s handling of the windows and doors repairs reported from December 2023. This is because, under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we cannot investigate issues that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe, normally within 12 months of the matter arising.

Pests in the loft

  1. The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s responsive repair policy reiterates this, as does the resident’s occupancy agreement. The landlord’s policy tells us that a routine repair should be completed within 28 calendar days.
  2. The landlord’s pest policy explains that birds’ nests are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and that taking, killing, injuring or disturbing them is prohibited. Queries will be referred to a customer liaison officer and the landlord will only act if the following apply:
    1. The wildlife is no longer on site but there are access points that need to be blocked.
    2. There is evidence that the wildlife has caused damage to the property.
  3. On 14 December 2023 the landlord raised a responsive repair for a hole in the roof. This repair was not completed on the landlord’s system and new repairs were raised on 5 January 2024 to check the roof and block areas where the birds could gain access. The landlord has not provided evidence to explain why the first repair was not completed and why it took 22 calendar days to raise a new one. It is understandable if the landlord wanted to understand its responsibilities and what the issue was, but it took too long. The landlord acted unreasonably.
  4. The landlord attended on the 18 March 2024 and did not gain access. The Ombudsman does not know from the evidence provided as part of this investigation, whether this was a planned appointment. On 3 April 2024 the landlord attended and found a bird’s nest with young chicks inside. The landlord confirmed this meant it could not do anything. It took 111 calendar days to inspect the roof from the date it first raised a repair. This is in excess of the landlord’s published target of 28 calendar days. The landlord acted inappropriately. The delays may have contributed to the resident’s reported feeling that the landlord did not do anything.
  5. It is not expected that everyone has an understanding of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The resident reported that she thought the bird’s nest was connected to the mould on the bedroom ceiling and a bad smell in the bedroom. The landlord had noted discoloured eaves. Given damage to the property was possibly linked to the nest, the landlord should have provided an explanation and a plan to the resident of how it would deal with the situation. The landord acted unreasonably. The resident was in increasing distress about the overall condition of her property.
  6. On 9 July 2024 the landlord raised an order to check if the birds were still in the loft and to see if there were any repairs that would prevent damage to the bedroom ceiling. This was raised with a completion target of 5 working days. It was completed on 8 August 2024, 22 working days later. While this was still a reasonable timeframe, the landlord had told the resident it would attend within 5 working days. The landlord acted inappropriately. It did not attend when it said it would and there has been no evidence provided that showed the landlord updated the resident.
  7. On 25 September 2024 the landlord attended to fix a hole in the soffit and did not gain access. The resident told the landlord she was in the property. The repair was reraised and the landlord attended within the 28-calendar day timeframe. The landlord did not gain access and recorded that the resident did not want it repaired. The resident disputed this account. The landlord should have communicated with both the operative and the resident to understand what happened at the appointment. The records show that no further repairs were raised for the roof or soffit. The next related action from the landlord was a property inspection on 12 December 2024. The landlord acted unreasonably. It knew from its internal complaints process that the loft issues had been unresolved for a year.
  8. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. Where there are identified failings, we would expect a landlord to implement these principles within their internal complaint procedure. In relation to the pests in the loft the landlord did acknowledge it had taken too long to attend to the repair. At stage 2 of the internal complaint process the landlord went further and acknowledged it should have organised a plan of action to combat the damage. To put things right it organised a 5 working day repair and in total offered £100 compensation. The landlord explained the changes it was making internally to provide a better service.
  9. On 12 December 2024 the landlord sent the resident a follow up letter on the complaint. It increased its compensation offer to £300 for the failure to act on the resident’s pest concerns. It offered a further £700 for the delays to repairs across all complaints. The landlord explained it had found further failings while gathering the evidence for the Ombudsman’s investigation and this prompted the follow-up letter. It remains unclear if the landlord would have taken steps to acknowledge its failures or offer additional compensation had the complaint not been referred to the Ombudsman.
  10. While the non-financial remedies are considered reasonable, the landlord did not complete the appointment within 5 working days. The financial remedy specific to the pest concerns was not fair. The poor communication, delays and inaction in relation to the bird’s nest were considerable. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she now has multiple bird’s nests, and she thinks these have caused the damp and mould in 3 bedrooms at the property. The landlord’s delays may have caused the situation to worsen.
  11. A fair financial remedy for the failings identified would be £500, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and the time and trouble the resident went to in trying to resolve the issue. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a finding where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempts to put things right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings.
  12. In summary the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft. It took too long to investigate the issue and at the time of this report has not resolved the matter. It recognised its failings but did not adequately put things right. Orders in recognition of this determination are made below.

Damp and mould

  1. The landlord published a damp and mould policy in May 2022. Some key points in relation to this case are:
    1. The landlord will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving the damp and mould in a timely and effective way.
    2. When the landord receives a report, it will attend the property to determine the cause and seek to resolve the immediate issue.
    3. Sometimes finding the cause is not straightforward and could be due to a combination of factors.
  2. In September 2023 the landlord self-assessed against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021). It confirmed it had an end-to-end damp and mould process in place to ensure no resident is left without an offer of a repair or support. It tells us that all damp and mould cases are recorded in core systems and the information is regularly monitored.
  3. On 5 January 2024, following an inspection for the windows and doors, the landlord requested an inspection to understand the root cause of the damp and mould. An internal task was sent to the relevant member of staff to contact the resident and organise the inspection. On 26 January and 6 March 2024, the resident chased the inspection. The landlord chased internally but there is no evidence that a damp and mould survey was completed. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident was left for too long without an explanation or plan for her damp and mould. The landlord was not customer focused or empathetic to the resident’s concerns.
  4. On 15 April 2024 the landlord logged a “ticket on evotix” as the resident reported damp and black mould in every room. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that this was acted upon. In line with its self-assessment comments and its policy, the landlord should have made sure the resident was offered a visit, repair or support. The landlord acted unreasonably. The resident had no idea what the landlord’s actions would be.
  5. Through the internal complaints process the landlord did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the damp and mould. It offered £25 to apologise for its handling of the resident’s concern about damp and mould around the windows. The landlord said it had inspected on 21 February 2024 and found no evidence of damp and mould in the home. The Ombudsman has seen a report dated 21 February 2024 with photos attached dated 16 February 2024. The report only documented doors; there was no mention of a damp and mould inspection or notes about damp and mould.
  6. At stage 2 of the complaint process the landlord’s complaint handler reached out to colleagues for more information. The landlord confirmed, from a photograph, that the damp and mould was minimal and needed to be treated, along with checking the insulation was laid correctly. Subsequently an order was raised. The Ombudsman does not find it reasonable that a decision on the damp and mould was made from a photograph. The resident had repeated her concerns that she thought the bird’s nest was causing the damp and mould. The landlord should have taken an inquisitorial approach and tried to put right its previous failings and undertake a full damp and mould survey. The landlord acted unreasonably. It did not use the complaints process to resolve the issue.
  7. The landlord’s complaint responses were not factual. As mentioned above, no record of the damp and mould inspection has been provided. Furthermore, the stage 2 complaint response tells us that since 21 February 2024 the landlord had not received any reports of damp and mould. This was not the case. The resident chased a damp and mould inspection in March 2024 and the landlord chased the inspection internally. In her correspondence to the landlord the resident mentioned damp and mould 7 times from 6 March to 6 June 2024. On 15 April 2024 the landlord had followed up the resident’s reports. The landlord acted unreasonably. It should have checked its information. Its inaccurate response may have contributed to the resident’s distress.
  8. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that it followed its damp and mould policy and processes in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The evidence points towards a non-committed approach and that the resident’s concerns were not investigated nor taken seriously. While the landlord has evidenced non access on 4 and 15 July 2024 as reasons action had not been taken, this does not account for the lack of action or support from 5 January 2024.
  9. A compensation payment of £400 would have been reasonable to acknowledge the delays and poor communication. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests payments between £250 and £700 for issues that took a long time to resolve with moderate inconvenience and a demonstratable impact on the household. The resident told the landlord that her son had moved out because of the damp and mould (and the bird’s nest). This amount is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings or put things right.
  10. In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord did not demonstrate it followed its own processes or listened to the resident. Its record keeping failed the resident and the root causes of the damp and mould remain unknown. Orders in recognition of this finding are made below.

Kitchen

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy tells us that the landlord will normally repair rather than replace individual elements. Where a repair would be poorer value for money or ineffective then it would replace. The decision is at the landlord’s discretion.
  2. On 15 April 2024 the resident told the landlord that the kitchen was in a poor condition, had been nibbled by mice and was not satisfactory for food preparation. Within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would not replace her kitchen. While this was not the news the resident wanted the landlord was within its policy to make that decision and provided an answer. The landlord acted reasonably.
  3. However, the landlord should have investigated and subsequently explained and apologised for any mixed messages that may have occurred, as the evidence points to the resident thinking her kitchen was going to be replaced. It should also have offered to revisit to complete any outstanding repairs. The landlord acted unreasonably. It did not go far enough to ensure the kitchen was in working condition.
  4. On 9 May 2024 the resident escalated her complaint and told the landlord the kitchen was unhygienic. She stated that a survey had been completed and she was told the work surfaces, cupboards and sink would be replaced. The resident asked for a copy of the report. The landlord asked internally if a further inspection was needed. No evidence has been provided to show the landlord surveyed the kitchen or if a copy was given to the resident. The landlord acted unreasonably. It had additional information from the resident, and it should have investigated and provided the resident with an outcome.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response confirmed to the resident that it could not replace the kitchen. The landlord offered to complete any repairs required. The landlord did not go far enough. The previous survey was not provided, discussed or explained. That survey was now 4 months old. The landlord acted unreasonably. The lack of explanation in the complaint response may have contributed to the resident’s reported feeling that the landlord was lying to her.
  6. In summary there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the kitchen. While the landlord acted reasonably in its decision about the kitchen, it did not fairly investigate the discrepancies between its decision and what the resident said she had been told. Orders in recognition of this are made below.

Windows and external doors

Windows

  1. On 21 December 2023 the resident reported that water was leaking through the patio window, and the windows were all in poor condition. The landlord inspected 21 calendar days later. Given that this was the Christmas period this was a reasonable timeframe. 3 windows needed to be replaced.
  2. The landlord’s system tells us that the window repair was completed on 6 March 2024 and the replacement order was completed on 1 April 2024. In its stage1 complaint response the landlord confirmed that 3 windows were replaced. On 8 May 2024 the resident told the landlord no windows had been replaced. On 9 July 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response and repeated the same information, that they had been replaced. It should have investigated the resident’s claim that no windows had been replaced. The landlord acted unreasonably. It may have contributed to the resident feeling like the landlord did not listen.
  3. The landlord did acknowledge that errors by its contractors caused a delay and offered £50 compensation to acknowledge the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience. However, this amount was calculated based on the fact that the landlord thought the 3 windows had been replaced. Considering that the windows were not in fact replaced the financial remedy was not fair.
  4. On 10 December 2024 the landlord confirmed internally that the windows were not replaced. On the date of this report, it was 386 calendar days since the landlord inspected the windows and agreed 3 windows should be replaced. The Ombudsman is not aware of any works that have been completed or planned since. The landlord acted inappropriately. It was on notice of repair, and it has not completed repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord actions are outside the scope of its own policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.

Doors

  1. On 14 December 2023 the resident reported her front door was draughty and jamming shut. This was attended to within the landlord’s target timeframe, on 3 January 2024. On the same day the resident reported she was stuck in the property because the door was jammed. The landlord prioritised this as an emergency and attended the same day. The landlord acted appropriately. The landlord listened, accepted responsibility and reacted appropriately to the repairs.
  2. On 11 January 2024 the landlord inspected the external doors. Following a further report from the resident the landlord inspected on 16 February 2024. The landlord took photos and produced a report. This confirmed the front door was warped and drafty and the back door and patio doors were beyond repair. The report asked for consideration for replacement. The landlord acted reasonably. It listened to the resident and carried out a comprehensive inspection. It was customer and asset focused.
  3. On 7 May 2024 within its stage 1 complaint response the landlord told the resident that the request for replacement external doors had been declined, and it would continue to repair them. It apologised for its poor communication. The landlord acted reasonably. It apologised for its failure to let the resident know the outcome in a timely manner and offered £25 compensation in acknowledgement of the poor communication.
  4. Its action to decline the replacement was within its discretion to make. However, the survey stated the back door and patio doors were beyond repair. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy tells us that if a repair would be ineffective then it would replace the element. Given the discretion the landlord has, the resident was owed an explanation for this contradiction in action against the detail of the policy. The landlord acted unreasonably. Its lack of a detailed explanation may have contributed to the resident’s reported frustration with the landlord’s inaction.
  5. The landlord should have gone further at both stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint process. The resident had reported issues with the front door since at least 2018. The survey on which the decision was made not to replace the doors was 4 months old by the time the stage 2 complaint response was sent. Since the survey the resident had expressed to the landlord the front door was a safety concern for her and her family. The landlord should have undertaken a further survey and shared the outcome with the resident in a timely manner. This may have helped to repair the landlord and resident relationship.
  6. On 12 December 2024 the landlord’s follow up letter offered the resident £700 compensation in acknowledgement of the “time trouble and inconvenience with your repairs.” The Ombudsman is unable to determine if this was a fair remedy across the complaints as the landlord did not specify specific amounts for each issue. The Ombudsman will determine what a fair remedy is on each complaint heading.
  7. In relation to the landlord’s handling of the residents concerns about her windows and external doors, the landlord’s financial remedy at stages 1 and 2 of its complaint process was not fair. In part as a result of poor record keeping, the landlord’s communication was poor with misinformation and periods of no information. The resident did not have a clear understanding of what the landlord planned for her windows and external doors.  In line with the landlord’s compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance a compensation offer of £300 would have been reasonable. The landlord’s poor communication, while acknowledged by the landlord, adversely affected the resident.
  8. In summary, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident reports of the condition of her windows and external doors. The landlord did not communicate effectively or keep accurate notes and records. The windows did not get replaced or repaired. Orders in recognition of this finding are made below. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the kitchen.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the doors and windows.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident, in writing, for the impact of its failings on the resident.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1300, made up of:
    1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests in the loft.
    2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the kitchen.
    4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of the condition of the windows and external doors.
    5. This offer replaces any offer the landlord has made the resident in relation to this complaint and if already paid, any previous offers must be deducted from this amount.
    6. The payment must be made directly to the resident and not used to offset against rent arrears or any other amount owed by the resident.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide:
    1. A copy of the 12 December 2024 property inspection report to the resident.
    2. An action plan that:
      1. Lists all the repairs, replacements or investigative work the landlord has committed to within the property inspection and associated reasonable timescales.
      2. Any actions the resident needs to complete to enable the landlord to investigate or complete works.
      3. A plan of action for any pests causing damage to the property.
    3. A point of contact for the duration of the works and an agreed frequency for updating the resident.
  4. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the action plan and evidence that all orders have been complied with.

Recommendations

  1. Once the agreed repairs and / or replacements are completed, the landlord to consider whether any further compensation for delays occurring since the internal complaint process, is due to the resident.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide the resident with an answer to her request for £400 for her damaged living room floor (10 May 2024), if not already done so.
  3. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to confirm with the resident the vulnerabilities within the household and which ones should be recorded on the landlord’s systems.