Read our damp and mould report focusing on Awaab's Law

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202337438)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337438

The Guinness Partnership Limited

14 August 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 handling of the resident’s reports of pests.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives in a 2 bedroom top floor flat with her 3 children, who were 12, 10 and 8 at the time of the complaint.
  2. The resident has said she first reported mice inside her property in August 2022. She said that she had seen mice in various rooms. She added that this caused her and her children distress, leading to loss of sleep.
  3. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports of mice in 2023. It sent its pest control contractor to the property each month between June and November 2023. The contractor recommended that the landlord repair 2 holes to stop mice entering the property.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the pest control issues. She sought help from a law firm who wrote to the landlord on her behalf on 18 December 2023. Her solicitor said the landlord’s pest control visits had stopped, but mice were still present, and the landlord had not repaired holes identified by its contractor.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord on 26 March 2024. She was unhappy with the handling of the pest situation. She said this had been ongoing since 2022 and mice were still inside the flat and in the communal bin area. She advised that she had made several call back requests to the landlord with none being returned.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 April 2024. It upheld the complaint. It said:
    1. The resident reported mice on 5 June 2023. It had arranged for its specialist pest contractor to book an appointment with her within 20 working days to assess the property.
    2. Following the initial assessment on 21 June 2023, the contractor conducted 11 further visits between 10 July 2023 and 16 January 2024. These were to both check and replenish bait trays.
    3. On 22 June 2023, the contractor identified possible entry points in the kitchen and bathroom that needed proofing.
    4. Its contractor had scheduled an appointment for 3 November 2023. This did not go ahead, and it was unable to find the reason for non-attendance. It accepted that this was evidence of poor record keeping. It arranged a new appointment for 16 May 2024.
    5. Due to the delays in the repair as well as the failed call back requests, it awarded £400 compensation. This was comprised of:
      1. £100 for poor communication.
      2. £300 for the delays in proofing the holes to prevent access.
  7. The resident escalated the complaint to the landlord on 18 June 2024 via her solicitor. She stated that the pest problem remained. She said the landlord had not fulfilled her request to provide 7 days’ notice for visits as a reasonable adjustment.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 23 July 2024, upholding the complaint. It said:
    1. It had not raised the repairs identified on 22 June 2023 until 29 December 2023. It had not completed these repairs until 16 May 2024.
    2. It had not acknowledged a request for reasonable adjustments submitted on 13 March 2024 until 1 July 2024.
    3. It had identified 9 occasions when it failed to complete call back requests.
    4. An original complaint raised via the solicitor on 23 October 2023 was not actioned and was also missed from the stage 1 response.
    5. As such, it offered £900 compensation, comprising of:
      1. £500 for time and trouble caused.
      2. £200 for communication failures.
      3. £200 for complaint handling delays.
  9. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 2 August 2024. She said the pest issue was still not resolved, and reasonable adjustments were not being upheld. She has also provided evidence to this Service in August 2025, showing the external pest issue is unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said that she reported pest problems since 2022. The Ombudsman has only considered the landlord’s handling of these reports from June 2023 to September 2024. This is based on the information made available to this Service for investigation as no evidence prior to this date was provided. This is also the period which the landlord considered in its complaint.
  2. In her communication with the landlord, the resident referenced how this situation impacted the health of her and her children. It is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. 
  3. The Ombudsman recognises that there were delays in complaint handling. It is not in dispute by either party that the landlord’s offer of £200 at stage 2 resolved this issue satisfactorily. As such, this matter will not be reviewed within this report.

Policy and procedures

  1. The landlord’s pest control procedure says that, for all reports regarding properties with communal spaces, the resident will receive contact from its contractor within 48 hours to arrange an initial visit. The contractor will provide a report to the landlord highlighting repairs required. The landlord will raise these repairs as ‘fast track repairs’ with a routine repair being done within 28 calendar days. It is unclear from the policy what the timescale for a ‘fast track’ repair should be.
  2. The landlord’s compensation procedure sets out when it will pay compensation and the amounts it will consider dependent on the impact on the resident. The compensation brackets are as follows:
    1. Up to £250 for issues that are resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience.
    2. £250 to £700 for a longer resolution time with demonstrable impact.
    3. £700+ for a long time resolution with a significant impact.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests

  1. It is not in dispute that the landlord first acknowledged reports of the presence of pests in the resident’s property on 5 June 2023. The resident continued to report sightings both internally and externally throughout the complaints process. The issue remained unresolved at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 July 2024.
  2. Following the acknowledgement of pest activity, the landlord arranged for its contractor to contact the resident within 48 hours. This is an appropriate response and in line with its pest policy for properties where there is a communal area.
  3. The contractor completed its initial visit on 21 June 2023. The following day, they advised the landlord of 2 possible entry points that needed proofing to prevent ingress of pests. It also recommended 11 follow up visits to place bait trays with subsequent visits to check and replenish these. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice provided by its specialist contractors.
  4. However, the landlord did not appoint the proofing works until 3 November 2023. This represents a period of over 4 months, which is significantly outside of the 28 calendar days for a routine repair stated in its policy.
  5. In its stage 1 response on 22 April 2024, the landlord stated that the appointment scheduled for 3 November 2023 did not go ahead. It was unable to advise on the reason for this due to poor record keeping. Good record keeping is essential to evidence the action a landlord has taken which then aids in its service delivery, enabling it to respond professionally when something goes wrong. In this case, it would have provided a clear explanation for the failing that it could have shared with the resident.
  6. The landlord made a new appointment for proofing works for 16 May 2024. This represented a period of around 11 months since the proofing recommendation was made. During this time, the contractor completed 11 visits to replenish the bait trays without the proofing being addressed. The resident stated that she and her children were experiencing distress and inconvenience knowing mice could still enter the property. This illustrates an unacceptable delay by the landlord in not addressing the root cause which likely reduced the effectiveness of the baiting.
  7. Between October 2023 and March 2024, the resident made 9 call back requests to the landlord asking for updates on this matter. The landlord did not complete any of these call backs within their advised timescales of 48 hours. This caused the resident additional time and trouble to pursue her complaints. The landlord acknowledged its communication failures in its April 2024 stage 1 response and offered £100 compensation. It also appropriately accepted its delay in proofing and offered the resident £300 compensation.
  8. However, there was a missed opportunity by the landlord to expedite the repair at this point, thus reducing her distress and inconvenience. It also missed an opportunity to rebuild trust with the resident by scheduling additional treatment visits from its specialist contractor following the proofing works to ensure the situation was fully resolved.
  9. The resident said that, following its stage 1 response, the landlord did not keep to her requests for reasonable adjustments. She had asked in March 2024 for the landlord to provide her with 7 days’ notice before conducting visits. She complained it was not doing so and had continued to attend unannounced.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 23 July 2024 provided a more detailed summary of pest control activity. It said it had not completed the proofing works inside the property in line with its policy. It also acknowledged the reasonable adjustment request from the resident was not actioned until 1 July 2024.
  11. The landlord’s increased offer of £700 compensation (excluding the £200 for its complaint handling) was reflective of the overall detriment caused. Given the proofing delays of almost a year. This is an proportionate offer and was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affected a resident.. The landlord has shown that it had considered its failings and sought to put things right for the resident.
  12. However, it again missed the opportunity to fully resolve the substantive issues. The resident had reported outstanding proofing works in the kitchen. The landlord should have been more resolution focused and provided a clear action plan to resolve the outstanding repairs. It did not and this caused the resident additional time and trouble after the end of the complaints process.
  13. The resident reported on 30 July 2024 that the landlord had still not completed the proofing repairs. She also said there were short notice visits from the contractor despite her reasonable adjustment request being agreed to. On 7 August 2024, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to pass the request for adjustments to its contractor and awarded an additional £50 compensation. Although it appropriately compensated the resident for its oversight, this shows the landlord failed to fully implement the recommendations set out in its complaint response.
  14. The resident told the landlord that the proofing work was still incomplete on 27 August 2024. The landlord’s response on 5 September 2024 stated it was awaiting an update from a service manager and would provide an update shortly. The resident states the landlord has still never completed the proofing work in the kitchen. There is no evidence provided by the landlord to show that the kitchen proofing was done in May 2024 or at any later point. The resident has also provided photos showing an external pest issue remains ongoing. This is further evidence that the landlord’s failure to set an appropriate action plan through its final complaint response caused the resident additional time and trouble. It also indicates that the landlord did not learn from the outcomes of the complaint.
  15. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of pests. The landlord acknowledged there were delays in responding to the proofing repairs required. It also accepted not actioning reasonable adjustments request in a timely manner. The landlord’s offers of compensation for these failings were proportionate. Had the landlord completed all of the proofing works and maintained each of the commitments in its complaint response, we would likely have found that it made a reasonable offer of redress.
  16. However, the landlord failed to follow through with all of the recommendations made by its specialist contractor. It did not complete the recommended proofing works to the kitchen despite the resident’s concerns raised around the same time as its final complaint response. The Ombudsman has not made any additional orders for compensation but we have made orders regarding the outstanding proofing works below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pests.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide an apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. If it has not already done so, it should pay the resident the £750 compensation. This is comprised of:
      1. £500 for time and trouble (offered at stage 2).
      2. £200 for communication failures (offered at stage 2).
      3. £50 for failure to failure to adhere to the reasonable adjustments (offered on 7 August 2024).
    3. Complete a survey of the resident’s property to confirm what proofing repairs are outstanding or still required. The landlord must provide the resident and this Service with an inspection report and an action plan of any repairs identified, including when these will be completed.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should complete an external survey of the building and bin storage area to identify any additional points of ingress that require proofing or bait treating. This would reduce the likelihood of further internal issues.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £200 for complaint handling failures offered in its stage 2 resolution.