The Guinness Partnership Limited (202419804)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419804

The Guinness Partnership Limited

27 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of no heating and hot water.
   2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The resident says she and one of her children have neurodevelopmental disorders and one of her children was 2 during the complaint timeframe. The landlord records that the household has vulnerabilities.
3. In February 2022, the resident reported heating issues and the landlord’s heating contractor attended several times. On 25 February 2022, during a visit to fit a valve, they found a leak and capped downstairs heating pipework. This is understood to have left heating and hot water only upstairs. The contractor noted that flooring needed to be removed to do the full repair, as a pipe had slipped under it when this was isolated.
4. The same day, the resident reported that the leak the contractor had stopped had occurred for a while and had caused damp and mould.
5. In April 2022, the heating contractor attended for a report of no heating and hot water. They noted that all was working correctly and that some materials were ordered for the capped pipework. After chasing from the resident, the landlord then raised a repair on 25 April 2022 to remove 2 pieces of flooring, and an operative completed the repair on 17 June 2022. However, they could not see any pipework after cutting flooring out and recommended a joint visit with the heating contractor.
6. The resident later contacted the landlord in mid October 2022, but the contactor did not get access for an appointment the same month. The contractor then cancelled a December 2022 appointment due to staff sickness.
7. The same month, the landlord cleaned mould in response to a report of damp and mould. The heating contractor also did some works, but reported the landlord needed to remove flooring to reconnect pipework. The contractor restated this at further visits in late December 2022 and early January 2023.
8. The heating contractor subsequently completed the works to lift the flooring and reconnect the heating pipework on 1 March 2023, after they initially attended on 6 February 2023 when the resident had a medical appointment. This restored the heating downstairs.
9. The resident raised dissatisfaction to the landlord in late April 2023. She said she was left without heating from February 2022 to March 2023. She said there were also several long periods without hot water upstairs and she had to keep boiling water and using an immersion heater which were costly. She said there was a leak that had resulted in damp and mould and damage to her sofa, flooring and personal belongings. The landlord’s heating team initially discussed matters with the resident then referred it to be logged as a complaint in mid June 2023.
10. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 7 July 2023:
    1. It detailed events for the heating. It also detailed damp and mould reports and noted that it could not identify if a February 2022 report was attended.
    2. It acknowledged there were significant delays completing heating repairs and that communication was poor. However, it noted that there had been access issues on some occasions and it had not received damp and mould reports for periods.
    3. It said it partially upheld the complaint and awarded £375 for time, trouble and inconvenience, poor communication, and complaint delays.
11. The resident escalated the complain and the landlord responded at stage 2 on 23 August 2023.
    1. It said it was satisfied with the stage 1 investigation and award.
    2. It noted she said she had total, not partial, loss of heating at the property. It noted the contractor said first floor heating had worked which her account corroborated. It noted there were occasions when heating failed but this was restored by the contractor.
    3. It noted she was unhappy that temporary heaters were not supplied until December 2022. It noted that heaters were supplied in the winter months and would not have been offered earlier, but they would have been provided if requested.
    4. It increased its award to £425 to recognise its delayed stage 2 response.
12. The landlord later contacted the resident in October 2023 and offered to visit about damp and mould. However, it noted she said damp and mould was dealt with and there was no need to visit.
13. The resident brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She is dissatisfied that the landlord did not acknowledge that she had no heating and hot water for over a year and the impact of this on her and her children. She also says that damp and mould remains an issue in winter months.
14. The landlord later wrote to the resident in March 2025. It said it had identified failings in the way it handled the complaint. It noted that she had raised concerns over a month before it was logged. It noted it had also failed to address damage to belongings. It offered an additional £675 and invited her to provide details of damaged belongings for it to consider.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of no heating and hot water

15. The landlord is responsible for heating in the property. Our February 2021 spotlight report on complaints about heating confirms this is a basic need for any household, and that loss of heating can be a risk to health and wellbeing. It is necessary for landlords to effectively investigate and resolve reports of heating issues.
16. The resident complained that she had total loss of heating and hot water in the property. We do not necessarily dispute this and understand the distress this will have caused her and her family if this was the case. But we have to consider what the evidence shows.
17. The landlord’s records and reports from the resident do not show that there was no hot water or heating upstairs for lengthy periods. The heating contractor noted when they capped downstairs pipework in February 2022 that they enabled the heating circuit upstairs. They attended in April and December 2022 and resolved isolated reports of total loss of heating and hot water in a timely way. The landlord noted that only downstairs did not work after a call to the resident in October 2022.
18. The evidence therefore does not show that there was no heating and hot water at all. However, after the contractor capped the downstairs heating pipework due to a leak in late February 2022, it is evident there was no downstairs heating until early March 2023. This was over a year. The evidence shows that the resident was supplied temporary heaters from at least December 2022, but this is a lengthy period for her to be without permanent heating downstairs.
19. The landlord has mentioned in its responses that the resident did not provide access or report issues in some periods. It can be reasonable to take such issues into account. However, it is also reasonable to consider the opportunities a landlord has had to resolve an issue and how it has managed it. In this case, when the downstairs heating was made inoperative in late February 2022 through no fault of the resident, there should have been a more effective and timely response than is evident.
20. The resident reported on 17 March 2022 that there was no heating downstairs. Around this time is when the landlord seems to have first become aware there was no downstairs heating. While this is the case, it is not entirely satisfactory if its contractor had not made it aware of the situation before this. There appears scope for it to ensure that the contractor effectively communicates when any heating loss requires further action from the landlord.
21. The landlord would therefore have been expected to resolve the issue in a timely manner from at least 17 March 2022. Its policy says no heating should be attended in 24 hours in the winter. The Right to Repair regulations are a reference for such repairs. These confirm it is reasonable for partial loss of heating to be resolved in 1 working day between October and May, and in 3 working days in other months.
22. The landlord raised a repair to lift the flooring in April 2022. This was over a month later and too long. The landlord’s operative then attended on 17 June 2022 and noted that a joint visit with the heating contractor was needed, as they could not see any pipework after cutting flooring. However, a joint visit was not followed up.
23. The records for the April 2022 repair to lift flooring suggests this was intended to be jointly done with the heating contractor, as they were notified of at least 1 appointment. The landlord says there was no access for 1 visit around this time, while the resident says no one attended, but the landlord provides limited information about this and its management of visits.
24. A coordinated approach with the heating contractor was reasonably necessary. However, the June 2022 visit by the landlord’s operative to lift the flooring was ineffective, as they did not know where to lift. The landlord should have managed the issue more effectively. It should have ensured that the heating contractor attended with the operative when they lifted the flooring. It should have also ensured that the June 2022 visit was followed up.
25. The landlord refers to lack of access but there were at least 7 occasions where operatives did attend after the downstairs heating was capped without resolving it. The June 2022 operative visit to lift the flooring, and visits by the heating contractor in April and December 2022, were missed opportunities for joint visits and to reinstate the downstairs heating earlier. The heating contractor is also understood to have subsequently lifted the flooring themselves when they reinstated the downstairs heating in March 2023. This calls into question why this did not happen earlier.
26. The landlord has acknowledged there were significant delays and communication issues. It awarded £425 in the complaint timeframe and then a further £675 more recently, which totals £1,100. It confirmed it was taking steps to improve its heating service. It has therefore positively sought to recognise and remedy failings. However, its response was not entirely satisfactory.
27. The landlord, post-complaint, acknowledged that it delayed in raising the complaint and did not address some issues. However, it has still not addressed the resident’s concerns in the complaint timeframe about costs to boil water, use an immersion heater, and run fan heaters. The landlord should have shown it considered if she incurred additional costs due to its acknowledged failings, in line with its policy.
28. The £425 the landlord offered in the complaint timeframe was in a range its policy says is applicable for issues that took a long time and resulted in moderate inconvenience and impact. This shows it sought to offer an appropriate amount.
29. The Right to Repair regulations, while not mandatory, provide a reference for amounts generally considered reasonable for repairs delays, capped at £50 per repair. This may be reasonable if prescribed, short timeframes for repairs are not met, but may become less reasonable the longer issues go on. As such, the amounts are often used as a basis in housing association compensation policies for longer delays. The regulations suggest that £10, plus £2 per day, is a reasonable amount for repairs delays such as heating loss.
30. The landlord was aware from at least 17 March 2022 that there was no downstairs heating, so would have been expected to resolve matters in a timely manner from around then and within 1 working day. It had access and reasonable opportunity to reinstate the downstairs heating significantly earlier than March 2023. This included the heating contractor visit on 12 April 2022 and the operative visit to lift the flooring on 17 June 2022, which it failed to ensure was a joint visit and failed to follow up.
31. The timeframe from 19 March 2022, when the landlord would have reasonably been expected to resolve the issue, to 1 March 2023, when the issue was resolved, totals 347 days. At £10, plus £2 per day, this equates to a total of £704 for the 347 days of partial heating loss.
32. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the £425 the landlord offered during the complaint and the £675 it offered post-complaint, which is a total of £1100, therefore did not go far enough. It did not show it considered and addressed the resident’s incurred costs. It also did not reasonably recognise the loss of amenity of the downstairs heating for over a year.
33. It is not clear the landlord was aware of the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household, but the issue will have caused much distress to her and her family. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s response about no heating and hot water. This would have been maladministration had it not gone some way to acknowledge and remedy the complaint.
34. The Ombudsman sees no basis to award the £5,000 compensation that the resident reportedly sought. We are not punitive and do not make decisions about aspects such as the impact on health in the same way as the courts. We have therefore ordered a compensation amount that we consider to be more reasonable. This takes into account the evidence, the landlord’s original compensation offer and our remedies guidance. This includes £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, £704 for the loss of downstairs heating amenity, and £100 for the failing to consider any additional utility costs the resident may have incurred.
35. While this includes an amount intended to recognise the failing to consider any additional utility costs the resident may have incurred, the landlord is also recommended to consider further compensation should she supply evidence of incurred costs.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

36. The resident contacted the landlord in late February 2022 to raise concerns that the leak discovered by the heating contractor had caused damp and mould. It is not evident what happened with this report. She reported mould again in December 2022. After an initial visit without access, an operative cleaned mould. She then complained around late April 2023 about mould causing damage to belongings.
37. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged it could not confirm if the February 2022 report was attended. However, the resident has not complained it was not, and the landlord noted there were no further reports until December 2022. This is when it attempted to attend the same day when she reported mould again then, and cleaned mould a week later. The lack of records is not entirely satisfactory, but mould does not seem to have been an issue for 10 months and the landlord responded in a reasonably timely way when raised again. It therefore reasonably addressed any mould issues around the time of the complaint, as the resident declined its offer of an October 2023 visit saying the previous one resolved the issue.
38. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s reports of damaged belongings, which was not appropriate. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to decide if the landlord is liable for damages in the same way as the courts. But it should have initially considered if any action or inaction by it led to the damage, and referred the resident to its insurer if it did not initially believe it was liable.
39. The landlord has subsequently acknowledged this failing and invited the resident to provide information, but it is not satisfactory that this was 7 months later. This will have caused distress to the resident, left the issue unresolved for her, and could have adversely impacted her claim. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s later actions and compensation has now put this right, but this should have been during the complaint. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s response about mould.

Determination

40. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of no heating and hot water.
    2. service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders

41. The landlord is ordered, within 4 weeks, to pay the resident £1,604 to recognise the impact on her. This replaces the landlord’s offer and comprises:
    1. £500 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience.
    2. £100 for poor communication.
    3. £200 for complaint handling.
    4. £704 for the loss of downstairs heating amenity.
    5. £100 for the failing to consider any additional utility costs the resident may have incurred.

Recommendations

42. The landlord is recommended to review the issues identified with the handling of the heating and to consider any further learning.
43. The landlord is recommended to consider further compensation for the additional utility costs the resident may have incurred, should she supply further evidence of her incurred costs.