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

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202448810)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202448810

The Guinness Partnership Limited

18 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows and external doors.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in February 2010. The property is a 3-bedroomed house. The housing records confirm the resident has arthritis, fibromyalgia and asthma. Her son also has asthma.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 8 March 2023 that there was a draught from the windows. The landlord attended on 15 March 2023 and resealed all the windows and replaced the handles on the upstairs windows. She told the landlord on 8 November 2023 that there was a roof leak. The landlord referred the matter to its solar panel contractor as it believed the leak was coming from the solar panels located on the roof. The solar panel company was unable to gain access to the resident’s home.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 7 March 2024 there was damp and mould in the living room. She also said the wall tiles were broken and water was entering the house via the boiler. The landlord made a further referral to the solar panel contractor on 11 March 2024. It applied a mould wash to the living room walls on 12 March 2024 and sealed around the boiler flue on 20 March 2024.
  4. The solar panel company confirmed on 5 April 2024 that rainwater was entering the property through the roof tiles and recommended further investigations were undertaken. The gutters at the front of the property were replaced on 17 June 2024 and the roof tiles around the solar panels replaced on 18 June 2024. The landlord applied a further mould wash around the windows and external doors on 11 December 2024 following reports of damp and mould from the resident. It resealed the gutter joints and replaced broken gutter brackets on 20 December 2024
  5. The resident made a complaint on 23 December 2024. She said there was damp and mould in the property and noted there were gaps around the windows in the living room and bedrooms and this led to water ingress. She also noted the back door needed to be replaced, there was a draught under the front door and water seeped in through a gap in the brickwork.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 January 2025 and said:
    1. The resident reported damp and mould on 7 March 2024. It attended on 12 March 2024 and applied a mould treatment in the living room.
    2. The resident reported further problems with damp and mould around the windows and external doors on 9 December 2024. It attended on 11 December 2024 and applied a mould wash around all of the upstairs windows and the back door.
    3. The resident reported further damp and mould on 6 January 2025. It visited the resident’s home on 13 January 2025. No mould was identified during the visit.
    4. The resident reported concerns about draughts around the windows on 21 January 2024. It attended on 5 February 2024 and confirmed the windows needed to be resealed internally and externally. The windows were resealed and the hinges renewed on 14 March 2024.
    5. The resident reported the window handles were faulty on 3 April 2024. It attended on the same day and noted more time was needed to carry out the work. The window handles were replaced and the bedroom window frame resealed on 5 June 2024.
    6. The resident reported draughts from the windows on 13 November 2024. It repaired the bedroom window handle on 27 November 2024. It also applied silicone under the front door and noted the back door had bowed.
    7. The back door was assessed on 12 December 2024. It agreed to replace the door on 16 December 2024 and passed the request onto its contractor on 14 January 2024. Whilst it could take up to 12 weeks to fit the new door, it would ask its contractor to arrange an appointment to measure and fit the door as soon as possible. It could have referred the request to replace the front door to its contractor earlier.
    8. The resident reported a leak on 7 March 2024. Its contractor sealed the top of the flue on 20 March 2024. It would arrange an inspection, given the resident’s ongoing concerns about water ingress. The inspection would take place on 17 January 2025.
    9. It had identified 1 occasion when it failed to respond to the resident’s communication.
    10. It would offer the resident £75 compensation. This included £25 for its poor communication and £50 to cover the cost of the curtain she had purchased to block out the draughts.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 16 January 2025.
  8. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 26 February 2025 and said:
    1. It carried out an inspection on 18 February 2025 and found no evidence of damp or mould or water leaks. It did note, however, there were water stains on the bedroom ceiling and found the roof insulation was water damaged. Whilst it had arranged for the damaged insulation to be replaced on 21 March 2025, it should have taken action to investigate the cause of this further.
    2. The delays in arranging for the solar panels to be inspected in November 2023 was due to its contractor being unable to gain access. Its contractor found no evidence of any internal leaks during the inspection in February 2024 and recommended further investigations were carried out.
    3. Its contractor sealed the boiler flue on 20 March 2024 and noted on 21 March 2024 that the guttering was damaged. It inspected the gutters on 3 April 2024 and arranged a follow-up appointment to replace the gutters at the front of the property. The work was completed on 17 June 2024.
    4. The delay in the solar panel contractor carrying out a follow-up inspection in April 2024 was due to poor internal communication. The tiles around the solar panels were replaced on 18 June 2024.
    5. It replaced and resealed the guttering joints and brackets on 20 December 2024 following reports of leaks from the resident. A stain block was applied in one of the bedrooms on 21 January 2025 after it was identified the ceiling was water stained.
    6. A further inspection was carried out on 18 February 2025, during which it identified the loft insulation was water damaged. There were no signs of any leaks. It had arranged for the damaged insulation to be replaced and the gutters checked on 21 March 2025.
    7. There were delays in referring the job to replace the back door to its contractor. The new door would be fitted by 19 March 2025.
    8. Whilst it responded to most of the resident’s repair reports within timescale, there were several occasions when it failed to do this. Its communication with the resident was also extremely poor at times.
    9. It would offer the resident £900 compensation. This included £150 for the poor communication, £150 for its complaint handling failures and £600 for the impact and inconvenience caused.

Post complaint events

  1. The landlord increased its offer of compensation by £250 on 13 June 2025. It said this was because the works to replace the insulation and repair the guttering were not completed until 22 April 2025. It also noted that the repairs to the windows raised in February 2025 were outstanding and not due to be completed until 16 June 2025. The landlord sealed all of the windows on 16 June 2025.
  2. The landlord told this Service that no further issues of damp and mould have been reported by the resident since it issued its final complaint response. It also noted the boiler was replaced in March 2025 and no further reports of leaks had been received. There are no plans to replace the windows before 2030.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In considering the landlord’s response to the issues raised by the resident, it is noted that she has referred to a possible impact upon her health. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that the Ombudsman is not in a position to make findings about the possible impact of the issues under investigation on a resident’s health, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.
  2. It is acknowledged that the resident has been reporting concerns about draughts and water ingress for several years. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlord in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
  3. Taking account of the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events leading up to when the resident made a complaint in December 2024, up to February 2025, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has an obligation to ensure it complies with the Housing, Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
  2. Whilst reasonable timescales are not defined in law, the potential health risks from damp and mould are significant. It is this Service’s view that landlords should take urgent action following reports of damp and mould.
  3. This Service’s spotlight review on damp and mould (published October 2021) recommends landlords adopt a zero-tolerance approach to reports of damp and mould. It also highlights the importance of landlords taking a proactive approach to identifying problems and communicating clearly with residents to ensure they have confidence in it and understand the next steps. This includes explaining if follow up work is required and providing a clear timetable for any future works. If there is any slippage to the timetable, landlords are encouraged to inform residents as soon as possible and explain why the timetable has changed.
  4. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes gutters, external doors, windows and the roof. The resident is required to provide access to her home.
  5. The landlord’s damp and mould policy says it will diagnose and resolve issues with damp and mould in a timely and effective manner. This includes visiting residents’ homes to determine the cause of the damp and mould and resolving the issue. No timescales are included in the policy for carrying out damp inspections or completing remedial works.
  6. Where damp re-occurs, the landlord undertakes a risk assessment and identifies actions to support residents. This includes providing dehumidifiers, applying mould resistant coverings and providing positive pressure ventilation systems. Residents are kept up to date about property inspections and planned works.
  7. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will comply with legislative, regulatory and contractual obligations. Repairs are prioritised into the following categories:
    1. Emergency repairs which represent an immediate health and safety risk are completed or made safe within 24 hours. Leaks that cannot be contained or cause a risk of electric shock are classified as emergencies.
    2. Routine repairs are completed within 28 calendar days.
  8. The landlord aims to complete repairs at the first visit. Where this is not possible (for example where further investigations are required or parts need to be ordered), it will communicate clearly with the resident. This includes telling the resident when it will return to complete the work. The landlord says it normally repairs elements rather than replacing them.
  9. The landlord’s complaints policy comprises of 2 stages. Complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and a reply at stage 1 issued within 10 working days. The landlord responds to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days. If more time is needed, the landlord says it will contact the resident to advise them.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will offer an apology and consider offering compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused if it gets things wrong. Awards above £700 are made where there has been a significant inconvenience caused to a resident and which is likely to have caused long-term distress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

  1. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 7 March 2024 there was damp and mould in the living room. The landlord was placed on notice at this point and had an obligation to meet its repairing responsibilities under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  2. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 12 March 2024 and applied a mould wash in the living room. This was consistent with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
  3. The resident reported damp and mould around the windows and external doors on 9 December 2024. The landlord attended on 11 December 2024 and applied a mould wash around all of the upstairs windows and the back door. This was consistent with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
  4. The resident told the landlord on 23 December 2024 that the damp and mould returned every winter. She told the landlord on 6 January 2025 that there was damp and mould on the bedroom ceiling and in the bathroom. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 13 January 2025 and confirmed there was no mould present.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 January 2025.
  6. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
  7. In this case, the landlord set out the action it had taken to address the resident’s concerns and confirmed it had followed its responsive repairs policy. It also confirmed this aspect of the resident’s complaint was not upheld. This provided clarity.
  8. The landlord confirmed on 26 February 2025 in its final complaint response that no damp and mould was found during the visit that took place on 13 January 2025.
  9. In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and arranged for mould washes to be completed in a timely manner. No evidence of damp and mould were found in the property following the inspection in January 2025. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

  1. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 7 February 2024 there was a leak. There is no evidence to indicate that the leak could not be contained or could cause an electric shock. The landlord referred the matter to its solar panel contractor as it believed the leak was coming from the solar panels located on the roof. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The solar panel contractor visited the resident’s home on 21 February 2024. No leaks were identified on the solar thermal system and it was noted the leak was due to rainwater entering the loft space through a pipe exit panel. It was recommended that the solar panels were removed to allow for the roof to be repaired. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this information. This was a failure and meant the landlord did not meet its repairing obligations under the resident’s tenancy agreement.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 7 March 2024 there was a leak in her property. The landlord’s heating contractor attended on 20 March 2024 and sealed around the boiler flue. A further repair was raised on the same day to inspect the gutters. The landlord attended on 3 April 2024 and identified that the guttering at the front of the property needed to be replaced. A follow-up repair was ordered to do this.
  4. The landlord’s solar panel contractor visited the resident’s home again on 5 April 2024. It was noted that rainwater was entering the property through the roof tiles adjacent to a plate that was exiting the roof. It was recommended scaffolding was erected so that further investigations could take place. The gutters at the front of the property were replaced on 17 June 2024 and the roof tiles around the solar panels replaced on 18 June 2024. This was some 4 months after the solar panel company inspected the roof and was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s “repairs policy.
  5. The resident reported a further leak on 25 November 2024. The landlord resealed the gutter joints and replaced broken gutter brackets on 20 December 2024.
  6. The landlord noted on 16 January 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that it had arranged to visit the resident’s home on 17 January 2025 given her concerns about the ongoing leak. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident.
  7. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 17 January 2025 and noted that the leak was likely to be coming through the boiler flue. There is no evidence a repair was ordered. It arranged for a stain block to be applied on one of the bedroom ceilings after identifying it was water stained. There is no evidence the landlord checked the loft space to establish the cause of the water stain or if there was a leak in the roof. This was a failure. A stain block was applied on the bedroom ceiling on 21 January 2025.
  8. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 18 February 2025 and could find no evidence of a leak. It did, however, note that the loft insulation was water damaged. It said this was due to the previous leak. The landlord agreed to replace the loft insulation and check the gutters, with an appointment arranged for 21 March 2025.
  9. The landlord acknowledged on 26 February 2025 in its final complaint response that it did not take the correct actions to investigate the cause of the leak. This demonstrated that the landlord took learning from the complaint. This element of the resident’s complaint was upheld. The landlord also increased its overall offer of compensation from £75 to £750. The landlord’s offer was reasonable in the circumstances.
  10. In summary, whilst the landlord took steps to identify the cause of the leak, it did not resolve the matter within a reasonable timeframe. This included failing to act on the information provided by the solar panel contractor in February 2024. There were also delays in arranging for the gutters at the front of the property and the roof tiles to be replaced following the follow-up visit by the solar panel company. Moreover, the landlord failed to inspect the loft space and only identified the insulation was water damaged in February 2025.
  11. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response that it failed to take the correct action to investigate the cause of the leak. It offered an apology and compensation for the identified service failures. Whilst it has not been possible to establish what proportion of the compensation related to this element of the resident’s complaint, the offer was fair in the circumstances. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows and external doors

  1. The resident told the landlord on 21 January 2024 that the windows were rotten and there was a draught entering her home. The landlord visited the resident’s home on 5 February 2024 and identified a number of window hinges needed to be replaced and the windows resealed. The landlord replaced the sealant and hinges on all of the affected windows on 14 March 2024. This was consistent with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 25 March 2024 that there was a draught from the external doors. The landlord attended on 3 April 2024 and identified the door gaskets needed to be replaced on both the front and rear doors. The work was completed on 20 May 2024.
  3. The resident reported further faults with the windows and external doors between June 2024 and December 2024. The landlord attended on each occasion and undertook work in accordance with its repairs policy. This included replacing window hinges and sealing the windows internally and externally. It also replaced the silicone under the front door. It confirmed on 27 November 2024 that the back door was bowing and needed to be replaced. Whilst the landlord agreed to replace the back door on 12 December 2024, it did not arrange for its contractor to measure the door at this point. This caused delays.
  4. The resident told the landlord on 23 December 2024 that water was seeping in through the back door and it needed to be replaced. She also noted the mastic around the windows in the living room and bedrooms had worn away and water was seeping in through the gaps. There is no evidence the landlord acted on this information at this point or her subsequent email of 7 January 2025 in which she noted that her house was freezing and the situation was affecting her health. This was a failure and meant the resident was unclear what steps the landlord was taking to address her concerns.
  5. The landlord told the resident on 16 January 2025 in its stage 1 complaint response that it had responded to her repair request in relation to the windows in a timely manner and in accordance with its repairs policy. It said it would carry out a further inspection on 17 January 2025 given the resident’s ongoing concerns. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The landlord acknowledged that it could have acted sooner in relation to her concerns about the back door. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. It confirmed the new door would be installed no later than 19 March 2025. It offered the resident £50 as a goodwill gesture towards the cost of the curtain she had purchased to cover the door. No compensation was awarded for the delay in ordering the replacement door.
  7. The landlord carried out an inspection on 17 January 2025. It arranged a job to ease and adjust the front door on 19 January 2025, with an appointment booked for 21 January 2025. It also arranged for the window hinges in the bedrooms and kitchen to be replaced. The repairs to the front door and replacement of the window hinges were completed on the agreed dates.
  8. It is unclear why the landlord arranged for all of the windows to be resealed again on 29 January 2025 given the repairs that had previously been completed. This was not consistent with the landlord’s ‘‘right first-time approach’’ and caused the resident inconvenience. The work was not carried out on the agreed date. This caused delays and further inconvenience.
  9. The landlord acknowledged on 26 February 2025 in its final complaint response that there were delays in raising a job for its contractor to replace the back door. It said this was due to poor communication and confirmed it could take up to 6 weeks to manufacture a new door. The landlord said the backdoor would be fitted by 19 March 2025. This provided clarity. The landlord also noted that whilst it attended to most of the resident’s repair request in accordance with its repairs timescales, there were several occasions when it failed to do so. The landlord increased its overall offer of compensation from £75 to £750. This was consistent with its compensation policy.
  10. In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the windows in a timely manner in the main. It is, however, unclear why multiple visits were required to reseal the windows. There were also delays in replacing the backdoor and resealing the windows. The landlord apologised for the service failures and offered the resident compensation. Whilst it has not been possible to establish what proportion of the compensation related to this element of the resident’s complaint, the offer was fair in the circumstances. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows and external doors.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. It is unclear from the housing records when the resident made a complaint.
  2. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on 23 December 2024. It acknowledged the complaint on 3 January 2025. This was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst it confirmed the nature of the complaint, it did not tell the resident when she could expect to receive a reply. This was a failure.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 16 January 2025. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on the 16 January 2025. The complaint was acknowledged on the same day and the landlord confirmed it would provide a response within 10 working days. Further acknowledgements were sent on 24 January 2025 and 31 January 2025. This caused confusion. The landlord confirmed in its final acknowledgement letter that it would provide a response by 28 February 2025.
  5. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 26 February 2025. This was consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
  6. The landlord noted that the resident made a complaint on 9 December 2024, but it failed to register the complaint until 23 December 2024. It also noted it failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its complaints policy and did not address this in its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord also said it did not fully address the points raised by the resident and should have reviewed its records in more detail. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the complaint. It offered the resident £150 compensation for its poor complaints handling. This was consistent with its compensation policy.
  7. In summary, the landlord did not follow its complaints policy at times. It acknowledged its poor complaints handling in its final complaint response and offered £150 compensation. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the windows and external doors.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord pays the £1,150 previously offered to the resident, if not already paid.