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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202419280)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419280

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 June 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:
    1. complaint from June 2023 about noise disturbance because of improvement works.
    2. recent concerns about noise disturbance from improvement works.
    3. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy that began on 29 January 1996. The property is a 2-bedroom flat in a high rise building. The resident told the landlord during the complaints procedure that he had autism.
  2. Since April 2022, the landlord has been conducting a series of large-scale improvement and retrospective remedial works at the resident’s building. The resident made regular reports throughout 2022 and 2023 about:
    1. the contractor’s use of the service lift, which was noisy because it was next to his flat.
    2. the contractor’s started working before 9am and did not give prior notice of their attendance.
    3. the general noise disturbance adversely impacting his vulnerabilities and disturbing his enjoyment of the property.
  3. During June 2023, the resident made a complaint about contractors slamming doors, starting work before 9am, sending generic letters advising of work being carried out but without start or end dates and times, and the scheduling of the planned works.
  4. This complaint completed the internal complaint process in July 2023. The landlord confirmed the planned works and approximate start and finish dates. It also explained that all of the planned works could not be completed at the same time because different contractors were required for different work programmes. It said it would feedback to its contractors about being mindful of noise before 9am to minimise disturbance. Overall, it did not uphold the complaint because it said some noise disturbance was to be expected, and it was doing its best to minimise disruption where possible.
  5. The resident continued to make frequent reports about the noise and the conduct of contractors. The landlord said it would speak with its contractors about expectations regarding their conduct, give the resident advanced warning of when the noise would occur, provide a respite room in the building, and update his housing register application with the council. It also completed an equality impact assessment in January 2024, and produced an action plan outlining how it would mitigate the noise impact on the resident. The landlord additionally put signs across the building explaining work was ongoing, provided monthly newsletters with updates on the major works schedules, and forums to consult residents about the work.
  6. The resident made a complaint on 18 January 2024. He said:
    1. he was having to leave his home 3 days a week because of the disturbance from the drilling.
    2. the works at the building had been ongoing for 2 years and were not yet completed.
    3. he felt that this was impacting his vulnerabilities because he is autistic. He wanted the landlord to temporarily accommodate him because of this.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 30 January 2024. It said:
    1. several planned works were being completed in the building at the same time for the next 14 months. This was to improve the building’s quality and safety.
    2. it would take a while to carry them out because the work was extensive and completing them at the same time avoided future disruptions.
    3. it was sorry this was affecting “home life”. And it tried to ensure its presence while carrying out work had minimal impact, including ensuring certain safety and quality standards were met, and work was carried out during sociable hours.
    4. it could not provide temporary accommodation because of the length of time it estimated the works would take. However, a respite room was available in the building and accessible to all residents.
    5. it noted the resident had an open transfer application with it and confirmed he was in the highest priority banding.
    6. it did not uphold the resident’s complaint because it had assessed his needs and found there were alternative solutions available.
  8. The resident asked that his complaint be escalated on 2 February 2024. He did not detail the specific reasons for this. The landlord issued it stage 2 response on 4 March 2024. It said:
    1. the planned works were expected to continue throughout 2024 into early 2025.
    2. because of the amount of time it expected the works to take, it was unable to provide temporary accommodation. Additionally, temporary housing was only granted in emergencies, when properties are uninhabitable.
    3. it apologised for the impact of the noise on the resident and referred him to a single point of contact for “additional support”.
    4. it had historically investigated the resident’s concerns about noise and responded formally in July 2023. This response set out there were 10 individual maintenance programmes that started in 2022.
    5. the previous response had investigated concerns about contractors using drills and noisy machinery before 9am and found that although contractors arrived before this time, noise machinery was not used until after 9am.
    6. it had a code of conduct for its contractors and expected that they would be mindful of residents while carrying out work. It had provided his feedback to them to try and minimise further disturbance.
  9. The resident referred his complaint to us on 18 February 2025 because:
    1. he is seeking compensation in recognition of his inability to use his property for up to 3 times per week because of the noise disturbance.
    2. he felt the landlord had not taken into account his vulnerabilities when it approached the planned maintenance works.
    3. he wanted the landlord to take accountability for its failures.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. The landlord explained to us that a formal complaint was also made by the resident during June 2023. This completed the complaints process in July 2023. The resident told us that the noise disturbance had been ongoing for an extended period of time, and he had made historic complaints to the landlord about this.
  2. Paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.”

  1. There is no evidence that the resident referred to us the complaint he made in June 2023 after it had exhausted the complaints process in July 2023. As such, it is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate the landlord’s handling of this. Any reference to this complaint in our report has been made for context only.
  2. We also note that the issues referred to in that complaint are similar to those matters raised by the resident in the more recent complaint he made during January 2024. For clarity, our investigation will focus on the resident’s more recent complaint that he made in January 2024, and assess whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably in all the circumstances.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident explained that the planned maintenance works had been ongoing for 4 years, and that it had seriously impacted his mental health and wellbeing. This included increased visits to his GP and the medication he needed to take.
  2. While this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. The resident has the option to seek legal advice on these matters if they remain a concern.

Recent concerns about noise disturbance

  1. The landlord explained that since April 2022, it had been carrying out extensive safety and improvement works to the flats within the resident’s building. It said that this was due to continue through to 2025. This included:
    1. fire detection works.
    2. retrofit sprinkler system installation both inside dwellings and across building.
    3. front door replacement and windows servicing.
    4. intercom system upgrade.
    5. CCTV upgrade.
    6. evacuation system to support the fire service in raising for a staggered evacuation.
    7. intercom replacement.
    8. kitchens and bathroom replacements.
    9. internal and external (up to the first floor elevation) decorating.
    10. internal flooring replacements.
  2. Between January 2023 and March 2024, the resident expressed the following concerns to his landlord:
    1. contractors were not contacting the resident before loud drilling works were started.
    2. the major works were impacting on his welfare and enjoyment of the property. Including having to stay elsewhere during the day for 2-3 times a week.
    3. contactors parking near the service lift, which was next to his home. Including vans being loaded and unloaded before 9am, which was disruptive and causing frustration.
  3. The landlord evidenced that it had taken the following steps to respond to the resident’s concerns:
    1. issued monthly newsletters to provide updates on the phases of planned works, including timescales and target completion dates.
    2. arranged for tenant forum consultations to allow residents the opportunity to discuss the plans and raise any concerns they had.
    3. provided a respite room within the building for daily use so that residents could have a space that was away from the noise disturbance. It is noted that the resident raised concerns that this was inside the building where the noise was being made. After which, the landlord also provided an additional respite room in another nearby building.
    4. placed signs in the building stating that work was being undertaken in various flats in the area. And apologising for the inconvenience caused.
    5. conducted an impact equality assessment on the resident during January 2024. It identified the residents vulnerabilities, the impact of the noise on these, and steps it would take to mitigate this. These steps included:
      1. use of ear defenders.
      2. use of respite facilities.
      3. advanced notification of works inclusive of times for any disruption, which was usually 9am – 4pm Monday to Friday.
      4. speaking with contractors to limit noise and unnecessary shouting.
    6. overall, responding to the resident’s concerns promptly when they were raised. This included both the use of email and telephone.
    7. reviewing the GP letters the resident provided and liaising with the housing options team at the council to monitor and review his banding on the social housing waiting list.
    8. discussing a referral with the resident to adult safeguarding and providing a factsheet about the types of support that could be offered.
  4. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it had spoken with its contractors to try and minimise further disturbances. It referred to its code of conduct for contractors, which states that contractors should: “Be polite, considerate and well-mannered when dealing with colleagues and customers alike.” It also asked the resident to report any further instances so it could raise this with them and so it could offer him support.
  5. We consider it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise the resident’s concerns with its contractors and to remind them of the code of conduct it had agreed with them. However, there is no evidence to demonstrate it had contacted the contractor, what was discussed, and any agreed change of approach. We have also seen various letters from the contractors to the resident setting out when work is due to take place. But these did not further demonstrate any agreed changes in terms of conduct. It is unclear if this is because the landlord failed to record its actions or because it failed to share this information with us.
  6. Given the resident’s distress and about this issue, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shared clear records with us about the actions it took. And to demonstrate it had clearly communicated to the resident which changes had been agreed to as well as ensuring that he was aware he could make further reports that it would monitor. This was a missed opportunity to explain to the resident the changes that were being agreed to and to manage his expectations around these changes. This was evidence of poor record keeping. This meant we could not be satisfied the landlord had taken appropriate action with its contractors to address the resident’s concerns or to follow the steps set out in its equality assessment action plan.
  7. Our spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ states that “If a housing provider is asked to explain what happened, and why, good records will enable it to do so. Poor quality or absent records result in the landlord being unable to answer questions or being unable to provide evidence to support its explanation. Records should tell the full story of what happened, when, and why. A record should be clear about if an action was taken, about who did what, and when; or for planned actions, state who will do what and by when.
  8. Part of the resident’s complaint centred around the communication from the landlord about when works were due to be started and finished. We have seen evidence provided by both the resident and the landlord that it sent several letters advising of the times of the disruption, as well as signs distributed in the building. In addition, the monthly newsletters demonstrated an ongoing update of its progress, as well as forums to discuss the works with all residents.  We consider this was reasonable in the circumstances because the landlord was engaging with the resident and generally all the residents in the building to notify them of the work and address any wider concerns.
  9. The resident explained as part of his report that the noise disturbance was impacting his autism and Asperger’s. He said that he was having to leave the property 2-3 times a week throughout the summer and winter to get respite from the noise. He also explained he felt frustrated and angry when contractors would be noisy before 9am as this would often wake him up. This was particularly a problem when the service lift was being used while the kitchen and bathrooms were being replaced. He said that he was having to see his GP and be prescribed more medication to help him deal with day to day life.
  10. When the landlord responded in both in formal and informal communications and during its complaint responses it did so empathetically. It acknowledged the impact and the distress caused by the disruptions. It also referred the resident to the use of the respite room, support directly from his housing officer, and a referral to adult safeguarding. It evidenced it carried out the majority of the actions in the equality impact assessment, except for feeding back to contractors. It also tried to manage his expectations by explaining it had assessed his need and felt there were alternative solutions available to support him.
  11. While we do not doubt the impact of the disruption on the resident, we consider the landlord explained its position, offered alternative means to support him and managed his expectations about what it could do. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  12. The resident requested that the landlord provide him with temporary accommodation while the improvement works were ongoing. The landlord said in its stage 1 response that due to the timescale the works were planned to go on for, it could not provide temporary accommodation. In its stage 2 response it advised that it could only provide this if the home was uninhabitable, not if there were planned works being completed during sociable hours.
  13. The landlord’s decant policy states that it does not offer temporary accommodation for major repairs, unless they cannot be done safely or effectively while the tenant is in situ.
  14. We consider the landlord’s initial position in its stage 1 response was incorrect based on the conditions its decant policy sets out for when it will consider temporary accommodation. There is nothing in the decant policy that precludes it from offering temporary accommodation due to the length of time work is due to take. Therefore, we consider its initial decision making did not align with its decant policy and this was a failure. Therefore, it initially failed to communicate appropriate reasons for its decision making.
  15. However, we note in its stage 2 response, it acted reasonably when it set out that it could not offer this option because it was reserved for emergencies for a short period while a property was uninhabitable, and that it did not consider the planned works being completed in sociable hours to fall within this definition. This was in line with its decant policy.
  16. The decant policy also states that when deciding whether or not the work can be done with the tenant living in the home, it will consider any health conditions that may be significantly aggravated by the work. The landlord demonstrated it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities as set out earlier in this report. However, given the resident had requested temporary accommodation, and its decant policy sets out that this is a factor it will consider when deciding whether to offer, it would have been reasonable to have explicitly addressed this element of the resident’s concerns.
  17. This was a missed opportunity to explain that it had considered all the relevant parts of its decant policy and how it had come to its decision not to offer the resident temporary accommodation based on consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.  We also note that given the landlord’s efforts to assess those vulnerabilities, that its decision was unlikely to have been changed and ultimately the resident’s position may have remained the same. Nonetheless, it ought to have ensured it considered all of its decant policy given the resident’s circumstances. This would have fully addressed the resident’s concerns about the impact of the disruptions on his vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

  1. Overall, the landlord acted promptly to communicate with the resident, assess his vulnerabilities and action the measures set out in its equality assessment action plan. However, it failed to demonstrate it had provided feedback to contractors to minimise the disruptions caused to the resident and manage his expectations about the changes that had been agreed. And it did not explain how it had applied all the relevant parts of its decant policy to the resident. For these reasons, we consider there was service failure in the landlord’s handling.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified. The landlord failed to identify these issues during its complaint procedure, therefore it did not provide redress.
  3. The landlord must apologise to the resident for the failures set out above. It must also pay the resident £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience these.
  4. To learn from outcomes, it must conduct a record keeping review of this case to identify why important communications with its contractors was not captured and/or shared with us. We also recommend the landlord also provides refresher training and/or guidance to relevant staff members to develop their knowledge of the decant policy and how it applies to vulnerable residents. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding.

Complaint handling

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time the resident made his complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints as follows:
    1. issue a stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
    2. issue a stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response (30 January 2024), 8 working days after the resident’s complaint (18 January 2024). This was appropriate and in line with the timeframes set out in the former Code.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 2 response (4 March 2024), 21 working days after the resident’s escalation request (2 February 2024). While this was outside of the timeframes set in the former Code, the delay was slight. As such, the impact on the resident would have been minimal. The landlord, however, is reminded that it ought to respond within the timeframes set by the Code or to explain its delay to residents.

Conclusion

  1. Within the landlord’s complaint responses, it set out the parts of the complaint it was responding to, the reasons behind its decision making, the resident’s escalation rights, and our contact details. Overall, we found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about noise disturbance raised in June 2023 is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of recent concerns about noise disturbance from improvement works.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
    2. pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by the failings related to its handling of the noise disturbance.
    3. assess its record keeping for the communications with its contractor investigated in this report. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its system, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified.

Recommendation

  1. We recommend the landlord also provides refresher training and/or guidance to relevant staff members to develop their knowledge of the decant policy and how it applies to vulnerable residents. This is to ensure any complaint responses are more robust when explaining its decision making.