The Guinness Partnership Limited (202413283)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202413283

The Guinness Partnership Limited

2 June 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. request for compensation following a leak and pest infestation at his previous address.
2. concerns about his move in May 2021 and the condition of his new home.
3. reports of an issue with a payment system.
4. request for a refund from his previous rent account.
5. reports of bed bugs and damp and mould.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. He has lived at his current property, which is a 2–bedroom flat since May 2021.
The resident complained to the landlord in December 2023. He said:
1. the landlord was “blocking” him from making payments through a third–party payment account.
2. he wanted a £356 refund, which was credit from 2019 on his previous account with the landlord.
3. he wanted compensation for issues he experienced at his previous property.
4. he was unhappy that there were unfinished repairs at his new property when he moved May 2021, and about the circumstances around that move.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 21 December 2023. It said:
1. it had no authority over the third–party payment account and could not block anyone from making payments.
2. while the resident believed he was owed money on his previous account, this had been cancelled with zero balance.
3. it noted the resident had slept in the guest room at his previous property for a period of time due to a rodent issue. It said it had not charged him for staying in the guest room.
4. the resident had viewed and bid on his current property, and all its properties were checked during the void process.
5. it had asked its customer support team to contact the resident to see if there was any additional support it could offer to him.
The resident escalated his complaint on 5 January 2024. He said:
1. he had only received the stage 1 complaint response on 3 January 2024, even though it was dated 21 December 2023.
2. there was black mould at his new property when he moved in which he had needed to remove.
3. he had been “fighting” bed bugs since moving to the property.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 9 February 2024. It said:
1. its initial complaint response had not been provided within its 10-working day target and it apologised for this.
2. there was no restriction in place that would prevent him from using the third–party payment account, and it did not have access to block payments being made.
3. the resident’s previous rent account was closed in May 2021 with no credit.
The landlord noted the concerns the resident had raised about issues at his previous property. It said that it could only investigate issues which had occurred within the last 12 months. Therefore, it said the issues he had raised relating to matters prior to May 2021 should not have been investigated during its earlier complaint response. The landlord apologised for the failings it had identified. It awarded the resident compensation of £50, made up of:
1. £25 for the delay in responding to his complaint.
2. £25 for the error in responding to historical concerns.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Request for compensation following a leak and pest infestation at his previous address

The resident requested for compensation following a leak and pest infestation at his previous address which he moved from in May 2021. Paragraph 42.b of the Scheme say that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
Records we have seen show that in October 2021 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response to his complaint that his previous property became uninhabitable, and his request for compensation for this and damaged items. That response provided the resident with details of how he could refer the matter to the Ombudsman, should he wish to do so.
We have carefully considered all the evidence. We have determined that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his request for compensation following a leak and pest infestation at his previous address is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in line with paragraph 42.b of the Scheme.

Concerns about his move in May 2021 and the condition of his new home

Paragraph 42.c of the Scheme outlines that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which is normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
The resident raised concerns about his move in May 2021 and the condition of his new home at this time. We have seen no evidence these concerns were raised with the landlord as a formal complaint until December 2023. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may become unavailable. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be completed. We have decided the resident’s concerns about this are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in line with paragraph 42.c of the Scheme. However, we will look at how the landlord responded to concerns he raised about ongoing damp and mould and pest issues at the property.

Scope of investigation

Ongoing concerns about bed bugs and damp and mould

Since the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in February 2024 the resident has raised further concerns about bed bugs. The landlord told us in May 2025 that it was in the process of considering a complaint from the resident about this matter. It has also attended the resident’s property to inspect and completed treatment to address damp and mould.
If the resident is concerned about the landlord’s subsequent handling of damp and mould, he can raise this with it as a complaint. Should the resident remain unhappy with this, or the landlord’s handling of his current complaint about bed bugs, he may refer them to the Ombudsman for consideration once he has exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and bed bugs up to its final response in February 2024.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould issues in a timely and effective way.
The landlord’s pests procedure in place at the time said that pest control will be the resident’s responsibility. This is reflected in the resident’s tenancy agreement. However, the landlord’s procedure sets out circumstances where it will take responsibility for pest control, such as when issues extend to communal areas or if an infestation indicates maintenance work is needed. It also says it will take responsibility if there is a high risk of an infestation spreading to neighbouring properties.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and provide a full response within 10 working date of this acknowledgement. It aims to response to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It says it will contact the resident if it is going to take longer than this and let them know when to expect the response.

Reports of an issue with a payment system.

In its response to the resident’s initial complaint the landlord told him it had no authority over this payment system he had referenced. However, it said it had arranged for its customer support team to contact him. Its action, by offering the resident assistance was appropriate. However, records of its subsequent contact with the resident detail that he refused help at this time.
The landlord explained it was not able to block payments from the third-party payment account. We have seen no evidence that suggests otherwise. The landlord also took reasonable steps to offer the resident assistance with setting up payments. As such, we have found no maladministration in its handling of this matter. However, we have recommended that the landlord write to the resident to repeat its offer of assistance in setting up payments, should still need this.

Request for a refund from his previous rent account

The resident raised concerns with the landlord that he was due a refund on his previous rent account. The landlord addressed this concern in its complaint responses. It stated that the resident’s previous account was closed with zero balance. It went on to say that the resident had previously paid only the shortfall not covered by his housing benefit. We have also seen details of the resident’s previous rent account showing a balance of zero when it was closed.
We acknowledge that the resident disputes what the landlord has said about the balance of his previous rent account, but he has provided no evidence to suggest the landlord position on this is incorrect. However, the landlord could have gone further in its attempts to resolve the resident’s concerns about this by providing him with evidence of its position. That it did not do so was a shortcoming. We have recommended that the landlord provides the resident with information from his previous rent account showing there was no credit on this when it was closed.
Overall, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a refund from his previous rent account.

Reports of damp and mould and bed bugs

As noted earlier, while we have not considered the resident’s concerns about the condition of his new property at the time it was let, we have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of ongoing issues at the property.
The resident told the landlord in his complaint and escalation request that there was black mould his property which had removed. Records show the landlord contacted the resident in December 2023 and January 2024 in response to the concerns he had raised about mould. It noted in January 2024 that the resident said there was no damp and mould at the property. The contact the landlord made demonstrates it addressed concerns the resident had raised about mould. However, it would have been better if it had also set this out in its complaint responses. This would have provided the resident with clarity about what it had done to try to address his concerns about this.
The resident also told the landlord of his concerns about ongoing issues with bed bugs. Although this was not within his initial email of complaint, it noted he had raised concerns about this when it contacted him to acknowledge the complaint in December 2023. He also said in his escalation request that he had been “fighting” bed bugs since he moved into the property.
We have seen records showing the landlord and its contractor had attended the resident’s property in May and June 2023 and found no bed bugs. We have also seen emails the resident sent about the landlord’s in which he said the landlord had attended his property about bed bugs in February 2024. However, the landlord should reasonably have explained in its complaint response December 2023 and February 2024 what it would do to address the resident’s ongoing concerns about bed bugs. That it did not was a failing which meant it delayed addressing the resident’s ongoing concerns. It missed an opportunity to provide him with clear information on this. Overall, we have found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and bed bugs.

Complaint handling

The landlord took appropriate steps to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint on 8 December 2023. While its stage 1 complaint response was dated 21 December 2023, and within its target timescales, the resident said he did not receive it until 3 January 2024. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its stage 2 complaint response. The £25 it awarded for this was also appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also delayed. While it aims to provide such responses within 20 working days, its eventual response was nearly 2 weeks outside this target. It contacted the resident to let him know of this delay. However, it did not do so until 9 February 2024, which was a week after its deadline for a response had passed. In line within its own policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), the landlord should reasonably have contacted the resident in advance of this deadline passing. We have ordered that the landlord remind its complaint handling staff of the importance of doing so.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for wrongly investigating historical issues in its earlier response. In recognition of this it awarded the resident £25. It was appropriate that it acknowledged and apologised for this as it caused confusion. However, the landlord still failed to identify that the historical issues the resident had raised had been addressed in its earlier complaint response in October 2021.
The landlord’s stage 1 response in December 2023 contained information that conflicted with the findings of its earlier investigation in 2021. That investigation set out findings that the resident’s property had deemed uninhabitable for a period. However, in its stage 1 response of December 2023 the landlord said that the resident had never been told his previous property was uninhabitable. The resident raised his concerns about this in his escalation request, at which time he said the landlord was now “lying” about the issue to protect itself. The landlord should have identified its earlier complaint response. Doing so would have avoided confusion and it making conflicting statements, and the evident concern this caused the resident.
The landlord has awarded £25 to the resident in recognition of it wrongly considering historical issues. With consideration to all the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance we have ordered that it increase this award. This is aimed at fully recognising the impact of its complaint handling failings. We have also ordered that it remind staff of the importance of reviewing related complaints responses to avoid the failings we have identified.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s request for compensation following a leak and pest infestation at his previous address is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about his move and the condition of his new home in May 2021 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of an issue with a payment system.
2. request for a refund from his previous rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and bed bugs.
2. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings we have identified.
2. pay the resident compensation of £225, made up of:
  1. £100 for the impact of failings in its handling of his reports of damp and mould and bed bugs.
  2. £125 for the impact of failings in its handling of his complaint. This includes the £50 it previously awarded.
  3. any payment already made to the resident may be deducted from the total.
  4. remind its officers of the importance of communicating in advance with residents about complaint response extensions.
  5. remind its officers of the importance of checking for and reviewing related complaints responses.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide the resident with information from his previous rent account showing the balance of that account when it was closed.