The Guinness Partnership Limited (202432658)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202432658

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 April 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and the associated damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 3 September 2018. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
The landlord has advised us that the resident has Autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and is asthmatic. The resident’s daughter also has Autism and ADHD.
The landlord raised an order on 19 April 2023 to carry out damp and mould treatment around the windows. An operative attended on the same day and identified that a job should be raised for a roofer to repair the roofing felt in the loft area around the boiler flue.
The resident chased the job in June 2023 as she said she had not heard from the roofing subcontractor. On 8 January 2024 she submitted a webform to say that damp and mould were affecting various rooms. She said that her household members had respiratory health issues.
The landlord obtained 3 quotes from roofing contractors and approved one of the quotes on 15 May 2024. The contractor attended on 20 May 2024 to carry out the roof repairs but found a bird nesting on the roof. The contractor said it was therefore unable to carry out the repairs as the work would have involved disturbing the bird’s nest.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 22 May 2024 and its main findings were:
1. The landlord said the resident had reported the roof leak on 16 January 2024 and confirmed that a contractor had attended on 20 May 2024 and found a bird’s nest on the roof. The contractor had therefore been unable to proceed with the work.
2. The landlord accepted that the contractor had not attended within the 28-day timescale stipulated in its repairs policy and therefore upheld the complaint about the roof repair.
3. The landlord acknowledged it had not responded to the resident’s complaint within the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
4. The landlord apologised for the service experienced by the resident and offered £355 compensation.
5. The landlord said its service manager would visit on 30 May 2024 and would arrange the outstanding work when the birds had left.
6. The landlord concluded by outlining the learning it had taken from the investigation.
The resident advised the landlord on 22 May 2024 that she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 reply as she believed the landlord had not fully investigated its handling of the roof leak dating back to 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 22 July 2024 and its main findings were:
1. The landlord concluded there had been a lack of responsibility, poor internal communications and poor contractor management resulting in unreasonable delays. The landlord therefore upheld the resident’s complaint.
2. The landlord agreed to consider the resident’s request for compensation for possessions that had been damaged by the roof leak.
3. The landlord said that its communications during the complaints process had not been good enough and increased its offer of compensation from £355 to £775.
4. The landlord explained that it had made various staffing changes to improve the service and was in the process of introducing new software to improve its management of contractors.
5. In terms of next steps, the landlord said it was due to attend on 7 or 8 August 2024 to check the status of the birds and once they had gone it would instruct the contractor to complete the roof repairs.
The roof repairs were completed in August 2024. However, the resident contacted the landlord in November 2024 to report further possible water ingress into the loft. She contacted us on 26 November 2024 to report she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs.
The contractor attended on 16 December 2024 and carried out some additional repairs to the lead flashings on the roof. The landlord advised us on 9 April 2025 that it attended on 13 March 2025 to complete loft insulation works and on 25 March 2025 to carry out internal works, including mould treatment. The resident advised us on 3 April 2025 that all of the repairs had been completed apart from some internal making good, which she said she was in discussion with the landlord about.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

On 8 January 2025, the resident advised us that she was asthmatic and her condition had been made worse by the damp and mould. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The information sent to us shows that various events relating to the reported roof leak took place after the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 22 July 2024. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and the associated damp and mould

The landlord categorises repairs as either emergency or routine. In the case of emergencies, the landlord will either complete a repair or make safe within 24 hours. The landlord aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
In 2021, the Ombudsman’s produced a Spotlight report on Damp & Mould, which had various recommendations for landlords, including:
1. Landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.
2. Landlords should ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
3. Landlords should ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. “We will offer a reasonable amount for replacing any lost or damaged items. We will require evidence of the loss or damage before compensation is paid”.
2. “When making a claim for compensation, we will need to be provided with relevant evidence…”.
On 19 April 2023, an operative identified there were holes in the roofing felt around the boiler flue. The resident phoned the landlord on 10 May 2023 to ask about the roofing job and, as a result, an appointment was booked for a roofing contractor to attend on 22 May 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not been proactive in arranging for a roofing contractor to attend after the operative had found the holes in the roofing felt on 19 April 2023. It had taken the resident to chase the landlord before it had made an appointment for the roofing contractor to attend.
The landlord’s records state that following the visit on 22 May 2023, the landlord concluded that a specialist roofing contractor was needed to carry out the repairs. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 June 2023 to say she had not heard anything further about the roof repair. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not kept the resident updated about its decision to assign the job to a specialist contractor. This showed a lack of communication and customer care on the part of the landlord.
The resident submitted a webform on 8 January 2024 and said damp and mould were affecting both bedrooms, the kitchen, bathroom and living room. She advised the landlord that members of her family had respiratory health issues. She pointed out that she had chased the landlord on various occasions in 2023. She added that appointments had been booked for scaffolding to be erected to inspect the roof but no one had inspected it. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not arranged for the roof to be inspected and for repairs to be carried out more than 7 months after the landlord identified on 22 May 2023 that a specialist roofing contractor was needed. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, roofing jobs are categorised as routine repairs and should be completed within 28 days.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 13 January 2024 to say she had contacted a solicitor and she had been advised not to allow the landlord to carry out any further repairs to the property. However, the resident then contacted the landlord on 16 January 2024 to request a roof repair as she could hear water dripping. Based on the resident’s phone call of 13 January 2024, we accept that there was limited action the landlord could take between 13 and 16 January 2024, however, this was a for a short period only.
The landlord arranged for a roofing contractor to attend on 8 February 2024 to carry out an initial survey of the roof. The contractor recommended that a more intrusive survey was needed. However, due to heavy rainfall in February and March 2024, the contractor could not carry out the survey as it would have meant exposing internal areas to the elements.
Whilst we understand the reason the contractor did not carry out the survey during February and March 2024 due to the weather conditions, we would have expected the landlord to keep the resident updated during this period. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord did so and therefore this was unreasonable. The landlord’s lack of communication led the resident to chase the landlord on 5 March 2024 and to submit a further complaint on 8 April 2024.
A contractor inspected the roof on 6 April 2024 and provided a quote to the landlord on 10 April 2024. However, the landlord’s records show that it had concerns about the quote and therefore it asked 2 other contractors to also quote for the work. The landlord gave its approval on 15 May 2024 for the work to proceed.
We understand the need for landlord’s to ensure they are receiving value for money by obtaining alternative quotes. However, it was unreasonable that it took a further 5 weeks from receiving the first quote on 10 April 2024 to approving the work on 15 May 2024. In our view, the landlord should have given the matter greater priority as the resident had advised the landlord on 8 January 2024 that members of her family had respiratory health issues and the leak was causing damp and mould. The level of communication during this period was again inadequate. During this period, the resident sent a video and photos showing the roof leaking and said it was affecting her mental health.
The contractor attended on 20 May 2024 to carry out the roofing work, however, it found there was a bird nesting on the roof and therefore concluded that it could not carry out the work as this would disturb the nest. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 states: “If any person intentionally…takes, damages or destroys the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built…he shall be guilty of an offence”. Therefore, as the contractor had found a nest on the roof and had concluded that the work would disturb the nest, it was reasonable for it to decide not to proceed with the work. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s advice in this respect.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 20 May 2024 and advised her that the work could not proceed until the birds had gone. It was appropriate that the landlord had advised the resident about the nesting bird so she was aware of the reason the work could not proceed.
Although the roof repairs could not proceed, the contractor made the roof watertight. This was a reasonable temporary measure to alleviate the immediate problem of rainwater entering the property.
In terms of dealing with the mould, the landlord’s records do not provide details of when it offered to carry out mould treatments. However, the resident confirmed in her email dated 1 May 2024 that the landlord had offered mould cleaning. Although this would not have been a permanent solution to the problem, the offer of mould cleaning was reasonable to reduce the impact of the reported mould on the household.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 22 May 2024 and said that it had checked its records and could not find any record of the resident reporting the roof leak in 2023. This was unreasonable as the evidence shows that the landlord’s own operative had reported the problem with the roofing felt on 19 April 2023 and the resident had chased the landlord about the repair during 2023. The landlord’s failure to identify the reported roof issues in 2023 showed poor record keeping and/or a lack of thorough investigation during stage 1 of the complaints process. As a result, the resident made a stage 2 complaint on 22 May 2024 because she said the landlord had not fully investigated her complaint, particularly the events during 2023.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 22 July 24 and confirmed that its operative had identified holes in the roofing felt on 19 April 2023. It also confirmed that the resident had requested updates on the roof repair during May and June 2023. However, it said that due to the performance of the roofing contractor and poor internal management of the repair on its part, the resident’s requests were overlooked. The landlord also accepted that its communication with the resident during February and March 2024 should have been better.
The landlord concluded in its stage 2 reply that there had been a lack of responsibility, poor internal communications and poor contractor management resulting in unreasonable delays. The landlord upheld the complaint and apologised for the stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. It offered compensation of £775, which was comprised of £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £100 for poor communication and £75 for complaint handling. The landlord also identified learning it had taken from the complaint.
Given that the landlord had identified failings in its handling of the reported roof leak and the associated complaints, it was appropriate that the landlord had apologised for its failings. The importance of the landlord’s apology was reflected in the resident’s email dated 23 July 2024 in which she thanked the landlord for investigating the issues properly and said she felt she had been heard. It was also reasonable that the landlord had offered compensation to put things right given that the resident had experienced stress and inconvenience. The amount of compensation offered is considered below.
The landlord also said in its stage 2 it was happy to review any compensation for the resident’s possessions she said had been damaged by the roof leak. However, it said it would need the resident to provide further information in order for it to consider the claim. It was appropriate for the landlord to have offered to consider compensation for any damaged possessions as it had accepted responsibility for various failings. This was in line with its compensation policy. It was also appropriate for it to have requested additional information about the damaged items as this was a requirement of its compensation policy.
In terms of the next steps, the landlord said in its stage 2 reply that it would attend on 7 or 8 August 2024 to check the status of the birds and once they had gone it would instruct a contractor to complete the roof repairs. This was reasonable because it gave a clear timescale for checking on the status of the birds and gave a commitment to instruct a contractor as soon as the birds had flown away. Given that the landlord could not control when the birds would leave, it was also reasonable that the contractor had taken steps to leave the roof watertight while the permanent repairs were pending.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
Our view is that the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in handling the reports of the roof leak. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced a poor service resulting in unreasonable delays and that its communication had been poor.
In terms of putting things right, the landlord’s offer of £775 included £700 for its handling of the roof leak and associated damp/mould (the other £75 for complaint handling is considered below as part of our assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling). We have considered the landlord’s offer of £700 and concluded that it was proportionate to address the impact of the failings on the resident and to put things right in terms of the events that had occurred prior to the stage 2 reply because:
1. The landlord had given a clear apology for its failings as part of seeking to put things right.
2. The amount offered was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for issues that have taken a long time to resolve, resulted in significant inconvenience, had significant impact on the resident and caused distress. In this case, the evidence shows that the resident experienced significant inconvenience and distress as a result of the delay in carrying out the roof repairs.
3. The compensation award was also in line with our own remedies guidance as it was in the range of sums set out for situations where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.
4. The landlord said it was happy to consider a claim for damaged possessions if the resident provided further information.
5. In terms of the delay in repairing the roof, there was some mitigation because from 20 May 2024 the landlord was unable to carry out repairs until the nesting birds had flown.
6. The contractor had attempted to make the roof watertight as an interim measure while the landlord was waiting to carry out the permanent repairs.
Our assessment of the landlord’s offer has taken into account the severity of the situation, the length of time the roof repair was outstanding, the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household and other relevant factors.
In terms of learning from outcomes, the landlord used its stage 1 and 2 replies to outline a number of changes it would be introducing, including making staffing changes and introducing new software to improve its management of contractors.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings, offered fair and proportionate compensation to put things right and demonstrated learning by making changes. For these reasons, we have found that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in our opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. These timescales are in line with our complaint handling code. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding. However, the extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without good reason. The landlord will explain the reason to the resident and inform them of the expected timescale of the response.
The resident phoned the landlord on 8 April 2024 to say she wanted to make a complaint. She said she was very upset about the delay in the landlord carrying out the roof repairs. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 15 April 2024, which was appropriate as it was within the 5 working day target stipulated in its complaints policy.
The landlord sent its stage 1 reply on 22 May 2024, which was 26 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. The time taken to respond was therefore inappropriate as this was longer than the 10-working day target in its policy. We have not seen evidence showing that the landlord wrote to the resident explaining the reasons it was extending the timescale. However, the landlord’s records show that the resident phoned the landlord on 14 May 2024 to say she had been expecting a response to her complaint by 13 May 2024. This shows the resident had been advised of the landlord’s intention to extend the deadline to 13 May 2024. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to meet this deadline, which was inappropriate and meant that the resident had to spend additional time and effort chasing the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 May 2024 to say she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and wanted to escalate her complaint. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 June 2024 and again asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. It was inappropriate that the landlord had not acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint dated 22 May 2024 and either confirmed it was escalating the complaint or confirmed the reasons it would not be escalating it. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the stage 2 complaint was contrary to its policy and meant that the resident had to chase the landlord on 3 June 2024 to escalate her complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 22 July 2024, which was 42 working days after the resident had asked for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord had written to the resident on 10 July 2024 and advised that it was still gathering information for a response. However, the time taken by the landlord to respond was still inappropriate as it was outside both its 20-working day target and the maximum period of extension set out in its policy.
The landlord apologised for the delays in replying to the resident’s complaints and offered compensation of £75 in its stage 2 reply. It also said that it was recruiting additional staff to improve its complaint handling.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failings, apologised and offered compensation. However, we do not consider the amount offered was proportionate to the failings as there were delays at both stages of the process and at each stage the resident had to chase the landlord. We have found there was service failure because although the landlord acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right, the offer was not, in our opinion, proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
We have noted that the landlord wrote to the resident on 7 February 2025 and said that the compensation offered had not been in line with its compensation policy. It therefore offered an additional £250, comprised of £150 for complaint handling failures and £100 for poor communication.
While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and increased the offer of redress, it is not clear why the landlord did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure, rather than 6 months after its stage 2 reply. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to consider the landlord’s offer as ‘reasonable redress’ because the offer was made after we accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. However, we have not ordered any additional compensation as we consider the amount offered to be reasonable.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and the associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has paid the resident a total of £225 for its complaint handling.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £800 offered in its stage 2 reply and in its letter dated 7 February 2025 for its handling of the roof leak, damp and mould if this has not already been paid.
Our finding of reasonable redress for the failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak and associated damp and mould is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.