The Guinness Partnership Limited (202431434)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202431434

The Guinness Partnership Limited

20 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of noise nuisance by her neighbours.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord and lives in a purpose-built block of flats with her daughter. The landlord is aware that her daughter has a mental health condition.
The resident has made several reports of noise nuisance from different neighbours within the block. For the purposes of this investigation, we will refer to the reported neighbours as:
1. Neighbour A – located above the resident
2. Neighbour B – also located above the resident
3. Neighbour C – located next door to the resident
Between March and October 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that Neighbour A was banging and stomping around their property. She also said she believed multiple people were living in the home, which was not in accordance with the tenancy agreement. She said the disturbances continued into the early hours of the morning, with items being dropped on the floor and furniture being moved.
During this period, the landlord discussed the allegations with Neighbour A and referred both parties to mediation. It issued a written warning to Neighbour A about noise, suggested the resident consider alternative housing options, and advised her to raise her concerns to environmental health. The landlord said it could not take any enforcement action against Neighbour A as the reports related to day-to-day domestic noise.
Between November and December 2022, the resident reported noise disturbances from Neighbours A and B, and C. In addition to the issues she had previously raised, she said Neighbour C kept their TV on loudly throughout the night, which was preventing her from sleeping. She also reported that Neighbour B came home drunk one night and started arguing with other occupants in their flat. The landlord discussed the reports with her neighbours and asked the resident to complete noise diary sheets to gather evidence of the disturbances.
Throughout 2023, the resident made regular monthly reports of similar noise disturbances to those she had previously raised. The landlord asked her to download its noise monitoring app to log the incidents. It also sent a letter to all residents in the block to notify them of the reported disturbances and to set expectations around noise. The landlord gave a verbal informal warning to Neighbour C, advising them to be mindful of their TV volume. It also told Neighbour A that it would work with them to install underlay beneath the vinyl flooring in their property.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 21 August 2023. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports and that the ongoing situation was affecting her and her daughter’s health due to a lack of sleep.
On 6 September 2023, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It said it had reviewed the previous ASB cases opened in response to the resident’s reports and was satisfied that each had been dealt with in line with its policies and procedures. It explained that it had found no evidence to support the resident’s allegations and therefore did not uphold the complaint.
Throughout 2024, the resident continued to report daily disturbances from Neighbour A. She also submitted a management move application to the landlord.
On 6 June 2024, the resident submitted another formal complaint to the landlord. She said the noise disturbances were ongoing and reiterated the impact it was having on her and her daughter.
On 19 July 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It acknowledged that the resident had been reporting noise issues for a significant period but repeated it had found no evidence of tenancy breaches to support enforcement action against her neighbours. It confirmed it was investigating the resident’s allegation that multiple people were living in Neighbour A’s property but explained that some level of noise transfer should be expected in a block of flats.
On the same day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that the noise disturbances had destroyed her quality of life and was taking up considerable time and energy. She said the landlord had failed to install the underlay beneath Neighbour A’s vinyl flooring as previously promised, and that she felt it was not taking her concerns seriously.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 27 September 2024. It said that when responding to noise disturbance reports, it had to consider whether they met the threshold for ASB. It summarised the steps it had taken to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord explained that to take legal action against someone suspected of subletting, it would need evidence that could be presented in court. It said the photos and witness statements provided by the resident, showing multiple people entering and leaving Neighbour A’s home, did not prove subletting, as there were no restrictions on how many visitors a tenant could have.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also confirmed that it had reviewed its handling of the resident’s stage 1 complaint and acknowledged delays in both logging and responding to it. It offered the resident £150 compensation for the delay and for its poor communication.

Events after the conclusion of the complaints process

In November 2024, the resident escalated her complaint to our service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her concerns. She also said she was still waiting for the landlord to progress her management move application. The landlord also opened a safeguarding case after the resident and various professionals reported a significant decline in her daughter’s mental health, linked to their living situation.
In February 2025, the landlord approved the resident’s application for a management move.
In April 2025, the landlord reviewed its handling of the resident’s noise nuisance reports. It issued a further response to the resident acknowledging that it had missed an opportunity to escalate her complaint at an earlier stage. It also accepted that its initial stage 1 complaint response had not clearly explained what actions it had taken in response to the resident’s reports, or how these aligned with its policies. The landlord said it had failed to complete risk assessments or issue case closure letters in line with its ASB policy. It offered the resident a revised compensation amount of £300 for the identified complaint handling failures and £400 for its handling of the ASB cases. The landlord also confirmed it had rolled out staff training on complaint handling and the use of risk assessments.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord’s records show that the resident was reporting similar noise–related issues in 2020 while she was a tenant of a different landlord in the same property. Her tenancy later transferred to the current landlord in 2021. We recognise that this has been a long-standing concern. However, the resident had the opportunity to raise her concerns as a formal complaint with the previous landlord and with this service at the time. With the passage of time, evidence may no longer be available, which makes it more difficult to carry out a thorough investigation and reach informed conclusions. Taking this into account, along with the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment focuses on the current landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance from March 2021 onwards, when her tenancy with the landlord began.
Although the resident’s formal complaint was raised in 2023, we have reviewed the landlord’s actions from 2021, as this is when it first became aware of her concerns. This ensures we consider how the landlord responded at the outset and whether any missed opportunities contributed to the ongoing nature of the issue. While the records show there was a gap in reports during 2022, the early stages remain relevant to understanding how the landlord approached the matter overall.
The resident has said that her neighbours’ behaviour and the landlord’s handling of her concerns negatively affected her and her daughter’s mental health. We acknowledge her comments and understand this has been a difficult situation for them both. However, claims of personal injury, including harm to health, fall outside the Ombudsman’s remit. These are matters that can be pursued through a landlord’s public liability insurer or through the courts, where medical evidence and any allegations of negligence would be considered. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on making a personal injury claim, if she believes the landlord’s actions, or lack of action, have caused her and her daughter harm. We have, however, considered any distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s service failures, and how it responded to the resident’s concerns about her and her daughter’s mental health. This includes its consideration of a management transfer on health grounds.

Legal policy and framework

The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm, or distress; conduct capable of causing a serious nuisance; or conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance.
The policy sets out that when responding to ASB reports the landlord will assess risk and the vulnerability of those affected, and take timely, proportionate action, based on the severity, impact, frequency, and evidence available. It may take preventative, non-legal or legal action, depending on the circumstances of each case.
The landlord will act where reports meet its ASB threshold. However, the policy makes clear that everyday living noise – which is not excessive or unreasonable – will not generally be considered ASB.
The policy confirms that the landlord works in partnership with external agencies, such as the local authority, where appropriate. It also sets out that ASB cases may be closed when the behaviour has improved to an acceptable level, when there is no further reasonable action the landlord can take, or where it is unable to progress the case despite attempts to do so.
The landlord’s allocations policy sets out that it will offer management moves when a resident needs to move in exceptional circumstances. This applies when there is evidence of a significant and overwhelming problem associated with the resident’s occupation of their current home.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If it needs more time at either stage, it must agree this with the resident, and the extension should not exceed a further 10 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by her neighbours

We acknowledge that this situation has been distressing to the resident and her daughter. However, it is important to note that it is outside our role to determine whether the reported noise occurred or, if it did, who was responsible. Our role is to consider whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance in line with its relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s records show that the resident raised concerns about noise from Neighbour A, shortly after her tenancy with the landlord began in March 2021. It was appropriate for the landlord to open an ASB case to establish whether the reports met its threshold for further action. As it only had the resident’s verbal account, it acted reasonably by first seeking a response from Neighbour A and referring both parties to mediation. Mediation can be a useful tool in managing neighbour disputes, as it encourages open communication, helps individuals understand each other’s perspectives, and can lead to mutually agreed solutions without the need for formal enforcement action.
The evidence shows the landlord took these initial steps within 2 weeks of the resident’s first report. This prompt action demonstrated a proportionate and timely early-stage response, in line with its ASB policy.
As part of its early response, the landlord told the resident it considered the reported noise to be general household activity and explained that some noise is expected in communal buildings. This gave a clear explanation of why the issue did not meet the landlord’s threshold for enforcement. Its response was consistent with the ASB policy and the Ombudsman’s Time to be Heard spotlight report, published on our website in October 2022, which stresses the importance of distinguishing between domestic noise and ASB, to help residents understand what action landlords can and cannot take.
The resident continued to report disturbances in the weeks that followed, and the evidence shows that the landlord escalated matters by issuing a written warning to Neighbour A in May 2021. This showed it was monitoring the situation and was responsive to the ongoing reports. The landlord’s records show the resident sometimes reported improvement, while on other days she said the noise had returned. This pattern suggested the behaviour was intermittent and justified the landlord’s decision to issue a warning but continue monitoring the case, rather than take immediate enforcement action.
In July 2021, the evidence shows the landlord made a welfare referral in response to an increase in reports and concerns about the resident’s mental health. It also suggested she consider a mutual exchange. This demonstrated that the landlord recognised the potential impact of the situation on the resident’s wellbeing and took steps to offer support beyond enforcement. While this would not have resolved the underlying issue, it showed that the landlord was attempting to assist the resident in finding a longer-term solution.
The following month, the landlord contacted the resident to close the ASB case after a period of no further reports. This reflected a measured approach based on reduced contact and the absence of new evidence. The landlord would have only needed to keep the case open if there had been further reports, a pattern of escalating behaviour, or evidence of non-compliance with the warning issued to the neighbour. However, it was important for the landlord to advise the resident on how to report any future concerns, which its records show that it did.
The resident resumed reports the following month, and the evidence shows that the landlord responded promptly by opening a new ASB case and issuing an action plan within 2 days. It advised the resident to keep a detailed diary of incidents and seek support from environmental health. This showed that the landlord was trying to gather more evidence and involve an external agency with appropriate powers and equipment to capture the disturbances being reported. As the records show that Neighbour A denied the allegations, the landlord had to weigh conflicting accounts. Its continued position that the resident’s reports related to general household noise reflected its judgement in the absence of corroborating evidence. This demonstrated a reasonable approach to managing a disputed case while maintaining engagement.
There was a gap of over a year before the resident resumed contact in November 2022, this time raising concerns about Neighbours B and C as well as renewed reports about Neighbour A. The evidence shows that the landlord responded by making targeted enquiries, such as checking work schedules for the neighbours to confirm why they were regularly entering and leaving the property late at night and investigating the layout of neighbouring flats. It asked the resident to submit incident logs covering a specific period before it escalated matters. This showed it was treating the reports seriously but reasonably required new evidence before repeating earlier steps.
The landlord also repeated that the resident could contact environmental health, which could install calibrated noise monitoring equipment to pinpoint the source and severity of noise. This kind of independent evidence could either support enforcement action or rule it out. Although the resident submitted videos, the landlord explained this did not show noise disturbance. While evidence-gathering can be frustrating, it was appropriate for the landlord to expect stronger evidence before taking further steps.
The landlord asked the resident on several occasions to use its noise monitoring app as an additional way to capture the disturbances. It explained that this helped it to assess the frequency and timing of reports. By May 2023, the landlord acknowledged that some of the noise may have been excessive, but still concluded it reflected general household activity. Even if unintentional or below the ASB threshold, this should have prompted it to consider practical steps to reduce the impact of noise, in line with guidance in the Time to be Heard spotlight report.
One such step was identifying Neighbour A’s vinyl flooring as a possible factor. The landlord considered installing underlay to reduce noise impact, but there is no evidence it followed up or updated the resident. This was a missed opportunity to intervene sooner and ease the disturbance. Its failure to act or communicate any outcome at this stage, amounted to service failure.
The landlord must update the resident on the status of this action, including either a clear explanation of why it has not progressed – while respecting confidentiality where necessary – or a timeline for when it will be completed.
Throughout the case, the resident alleged that Neighbour A was subletting the property and that this was contributing to the level of noise, particularly from frequent visitors late at night. The evidence shows that the landlord initially made light-touch enquiries by asking Neighbour A who lived at the property and requesting their work schedule. This was appropriate at that stage, as standard tenancy agreements usually include a right to quiet enjoyment, meaning landlords must avoid interfering with how tenants use their homes without a clear basis. Had the landlord taken more intrusive steps without sufficient grounds, it risked acting disproportionately and breaching Neighbour A’s tenancy rights.
The evidence shows the landlord continued to respond to the resident’s subletting concerns throughout 2023 and 2024. On several occasions during this period, it confirmed there was no evidence of a tenancy breach and explained that residents could have an unlimited number of visitors. These updates were appropriate and helped manage the resident’s expectations.
However, the landlord’s actions also reflected the limits of the evidence available across the wider case. It made repeated enquiries into the occupancy of Neighbour A’s property, but without corroborating evidence, it could not take enforcement action. As a result, the situation persisted and, from the resident’s perspective, understandably appeared unresolved.
There is no evidence that the landlord completed any formal risk assessments during the earlier stages of the case, despite the resident consistently raising concerns about the impact on her and her daughter’s mental health. The Time to be Heard spotlight report highlights the importance of assessing risk and vulnerability at all stages, to ensure that responses are tailored to the needs of the household and proportionate to the harm being caused. While the landlord’s records later include risk scores indicating a medium to high level risk, these are undated, and it is unclear when they were introduced.
However, by 2024, we can see the landlord started to adapt its approach. It contacted environmental health directly in April 2024 to check whether the resident had engaged with it and, by June 2024, agreed to explore a management move. These steps followed the introduction of risk assessments, which appeared to help the landlord respond in a more coordinated needs-led way. Still, the earlier absence of this tool likely contributed to a slower and less tailored response during a period when the resident’s distress was escalating.
The landlord’s willingness to support a management move marked a shift in how it responded to the resident’s ongoing noise nuisance reports. While its policy allows such moves where there is a serious and lasting impact, there is no evidence it considered this sooner. Prior to this decision, the landlord’s records suggest it did not view the resident’s circumstances as meeting the threshold. But by November 2024, concerns raised by external support services about the resident’s daughter’s mental health appear to have prompted a more flexible response. These developments suggest that as external agencies became involved and the impact of the household became clearer, the landlord moved towards more holistic forms of support. While this did not resolve the reported noise, it reflected a broader effort to reduce strain on the household, even where enforcement action remained limited.
The landlord offered the resident £400 compensation for not completing risk assessments earlier in the case and for failing to issue case closure letters. This showed reflection, accountability, and some organisational learning. However, the landlord only carried out this review in April 2025 – around 7 months after it closed the complaint in September 2024, and after the resident had escalated the matter to us. By that point, the delay meant the learning and redress came too late to reassure the resident or meaningfully influence the outcome.
The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, published on our website, sets out our approach to resolving disputes. Where we determine failings by a landlord which have adversely affected a resident, we state that landlords should offer residents a financial remedy of £100 to £600, to put things right. In this case, we would have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation at the middle end of that range for its failure to complete risk assessments earlier and to follow up on the flooring issue. The landlord’s offer of £400 was therefore in line with our approach. Although it missed some closure letters in 2023, the records show that it maintained regular contact with the resident, opened new cases promptly when reports resumed, and responded month to month. This level of engagement reduced the overall impact of that failing.
It is also important to recognise the limits of the landlord’s role. It is not responsible for the behaviour of others and cannot guarantee it will stop. The most definitive action – eviction or injunction – is a legal process that only courts can approve. To pursue this, the landlord must present clear and reliable evidence. It would be unfair and unlawful, to remove someone from their home based solely on allegations without supporting evidence. That is why the landlord’s repeated efforts to gather corroborating evidence, while often frustrating for the resident, were necessary.
While the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns over the 3-year period was broadly consistent with its policies and procedures, this did not resolve the complaint in full. Our role is to assess not only how a landlord responds to reports but whether it identifies and addresses any failings through the complaints process in a way that is reasonable in the circumstances. In this case, although the landlord later acknowledged its failings and offered compensation following an internal review, the redress came too late to put things right at the appropriate time. We have therefore found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by her neighbours.
The landlord is ordered to update the resident on the status of installing underlay beneath Neighbour A’s vinyl flooring. The update must include either a clear explanation of why it has not progressed – while respecting confidentiality where necessary – or a timeline for when it will be completed.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £400 compensation it previously offered for the failings in its handling of her noise nuisance reports, if it has not already done so.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint

The resident raised a formal complaint on 21 August 2023, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 13 working days later. This was slightly outside its published timescales but not so significant as to cause any notable detriment to the resident at that stage.
The landlord told us that after issuing its stage 1 complaint response in 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the response and it should have escalated her complaint at that point but did not. This demonstrated a failure to follow its own complaints procedure and likely left the resident feeling her concerns were not being taken seriously. However, the landlord later identified this issue during its internal case review in April 2025 and acknowledged the failure. While the reflected good organisational learning, the delay of nearly 2 years meant that the resident did not benefit from timely redress.
The resident raised a further formal complaint on 20 June 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 22 working days later, exceeding its complaints policy timescales. Although this delay may have caused inconvenience or uncertainty for the resident, the landlord acknowledged the failing in its stage 2 complaint response and awarded compensation to recognise the impact. This demonstrated good complaint handling, as it showed the landlord used the process to reflect on its service, take accountability, and offer redress without the need for escalation. This is the purpose of a fair and effective complaints procedure.
However, the landlord also took 51 working days to issue its stage 2 complaint response, significantly exceeding its published timescale. Its records show it explained the delay was due to staff leave. Whie this may account for the cause, it does not remove the impact on the resident, who would have experienced unnecessary delay in receiving an outcome to her complaint.
The landlord offered £150 during the complaints process to acknowledge the delays at both stages in its handling of the resident’s complaint in 2024. However, this offer did not go far enough to put things right, as it did not address the earlier failure to escalate the resident’s complaint in 2023.
The revised compensation of £300 offered in April 2025, following the landlord’s internal review, more appropriately reflected the overall failings, including the missed escalation. While this increased offer aligned more closely with what we would have ordered it to pay the resident, it came only after our intervention.
As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the £300 compensation it previously offered for its poor complaint handling, if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance by her neighbours.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Update the resident on the status of installing underlay beneath Neighbour A’s vinyl flooring. The update must include either a clear explanation of why it will not be fitted – while respecting confidentiality where necessary – or a timeline for when it will be completed.
2. Pay the resident the following compensation:
  1. £400 it previously offered for the failings in its handling of her noise nuisance reports, if it has not already done so
  2. £300 for its poor complaint handling, if it has not already done so
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.