The Guinness Partnership Limited (202316816)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316816

The Guinness Partnership Limited

12 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 concerns about an internal fire door.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 10 October 2005. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 1-bedroom, first-floor flat in a converted semi-detached house. The resident has no known vulnerabilities.
This Service has communicated with both residents named on the tenancy. It is noted that one of the residents was the lead complainant so, for ease of reference in this report, the resident will be referred to as ‘he’.
A contractor completed a fire risk assessment on 19 June 2019, which recommended the landlord replace the front doors to each flat with self-closing fire doors. The landlord did this in April 2022. Internal stairs leading up to the resident’s first floor flat are situated immediately behind the front door of the flat.
On 29 April 2022, the resident complained that the fire door was too narrow. In response, the landlord assessed and replaced this with a wider door in September 2022.
From 5 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord several times about the replacement door. On 6 March 2023, the landlord told the resident that a consultant would visit to assess the fire door. This took place on 3 April 2023, following which the landlord took no further action.
On 8 August 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint, the key points were as follows:
1. The landlord had not called him back following contact the previous week.
2. When the fire door was open, the gap was not wide enough to get white goods through if replacing them or moving out.
3. He wanted the landlord to fit a fire door wide enough for white goods.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 August 2023 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 23 August 2023. The landlord:
1. Acknowledged that the resident had previously removed the internal communal door and hallway banister to make enough space to have appliances delivered.
2. Explained it installed new doors to ensure they were legally compliant with a change in fire safety regulations.
3. Said it installed a wider internal fire door with a smaller frame in September 2022 and adjusted the hinges to enable the door to open outwards and allow more space in the entrance way. It said it would try to find another contractor that could meet the regulations with a smaller frame, to allow a wider door.
4. Offered to remove and refit the door the same day of any appliance delivery, with ample notice, if it was unable to reduce the frame size.
The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 25 August 2023. In summary, the resident said:
1. The landlord had resolved nothing, as he still could not get large items in or out of the property when he desired.
2. He usually had deliveries on Saturdays due to work commitments, but the landlord did not work Saturdays, so this took away his freedom of choice.
The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 29 August 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 13 September 2023. In summary, the landlord:
1. Said there was nothing more it could do apart from offer to remove and refit the fire door to allow larger items through. It explained that the narrow opening in which the door and frame had been fitted, along with the proximity to the narrow staircase, meant the delivery of larger items would always be problematic. The landlord said it must adhere to fire safety regulations to remain legally compliant and, therefore, could not make any further alterations.
2. Said the creation of a fire escape to the rear of the property, as suggested in the resident’s email dated 30 August 2023, was not possible and would not enable him to move larger items in or out of the property.
3. Offered £25 compensation for its delayed complaint response.
4. Confirmed the resident could contact the Ombudsman if he remained unhappy.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 September 2023. On 11 March 2024, the landlord sold the property as part of a stock transfer to another landlord. The complaint became one that we could consider on 23 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident says this complaint has impacted the household’s well-being. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Policies and procedures

The Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 introduced new measures that apply to all buildings in England that comprise of 2 or more domestic premises. The regulations require all fire doors in communal areas to be self-closing.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1, it will contact the resident within 2 working days and respond within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, its ‘review’ stage, it will respond within 20 working days.

Landlord’s handling of concerns about an internal fire door

On 5 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord about the replacement fire door. The landlord raised a call back request following the contact, which the resident chased on 10 October 2022. We would expect a landlord to respond to a call back request within a reasonable timeframe, usually 5 working days. However, the landlord phoned and left a voice mail for the resident on 14 October 2022, which was longer than we would expect.
The landlord appears to have phoned again on 18 October 2022, but its records are not clear. The lack of clarity indicates an issue with its record keeping. After unsuccessfully trying to contact the resident by phone, it would have been good practice for the landlord to follow this up by letter or email.
The resident next contacted the landlord on 18 January 2023. He acknowledged it had to comply with fire safety regulations but said the fire door was ‘extremely narrow’ and expressed concern about not being able to replace household appliances if they failed. The landlord phoned the resident on 23 January 2023 and left a message to say it would contact him the following day. There is no record that the landlord did this, which is a failing and likely caused the resident inconvenience.
The landlord noted on 8 February 2023 that a surveyor would attend to assess the fire door, but it failed to update the resident. We would expect a landlord to keep the resident updated regarding the next steps it will take to manage expectations. Not doing so caused the resident to chase the matter again on 21 February 2023 and likely frustrated him.
However, given the resident’s concerns about the fire door, it was reasonable of the landlord to arrange for a consultant to attend to consider if it could take any further action. This highlighted its commitment to resolve the issue for the resident.
On 25 February 2023, the landlord told the resident that its planning team would contact him as soon as possible. Its records show it made a phone call on 1 March 2023, but it is unclear who it phoned and whether it spoke to anyone. This further indicates an issue with its record keeping.
A consultant visited to inspect the fire door on 3 April 2023. The report from the visit noted the door had a clear opening of approximately 580mm, which meant the resident could not get white goods in or out of the property. It recommended reducing the width of the door frame by a minimum of 15mm on both sides to enable a clear opening of above 600mm to enable white goods to be moved in and out of the property. The landlord took no further action following the visit and failed to update the resident. This is further evidence of a lack of effective communication with the resident which ultimately led the resident to raise a formal complaint.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised it would find another contractor to check if it could install a smaller frame to allow a wider door. The landlord was under no obligation to change the door for the resident, so its offer to investigate further highlighted its commitment to resolve the issue. However, it then did not follow this up, which is a failing.
In consideration of access issues due to the width of the fire door, the landlord offered to attend to remove and rehang the door on any occasion when the resident had white goods delivered. Again, the landlord was under no obligation to do this as the door met the required fire safety regulations. This offer went above the expectations of the landlord. While the resident was not happy with the offer due to him only having goods delivered on a Saturday, the landlord’s offer was a suitable alternative to achieve the outcome the resident wanted which was to have white goods delivered.
In summary, the resident experienced communication issues regarding the landlord’s response to his concerns about the width of the fire door. Although the landlord arranged for a consultant to reassess this, it provided no update to the resident following the visit and did not follow up on the recommendations set out in the report. Then, when it later committed to investigate whether another contractor could fit a smaller fire door frame, it took no further action. Taking into account the failings identified above, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the fire door over a prolonged period of time for which an order has been made for remedy.
Although we were able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear and accurate records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. A further order has therefore been made that the landlord conducts a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring there is a clear audit trail for any communication with residents.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of concerns about an internal fire door.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay £250 compensation for the failings identified regarding its handling of concerns about an internal fire door.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Investigate whether it could reduce the width of the fire door frame by a minimum of 15mm on both sides to enable a clear opening of above 600mm and confirm the outcome of this to the resident and us.
2. Review its record keeping processes, ensuring there is a clear audit trail for any communication with residents.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the £25 compensation offered to the resident for its complaint handling failure, if it has not already done so.