From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202405704)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202405704

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 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 damp and mould and replacement of the resident’s balcony door.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She lives with her young child in the property, a 1-bedroom first floor flat.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould to the landlord on 23 January 2024. She said mould was around her windows and on her walls. She was concerned as she had a baby living with her.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 February 2024. She was unhappy the landlord had not started repairs. She said its communication had been poor. She asked it to move her to temporary accommodation while it completed the repairs.
  4. The landlord’s damp and mould contractor completed an inspection on 1 March 2024. It recommended the landlord complete a mould wash. It also said the resident’s balcony door needed to be replaced.
  5. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 11 March 2024. It apologised for failing to keep the resident updated following her report of damp and mould. It awarded her £225 compensation broken down as £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience and £75 for its poor communication. It assured her it would complete the required repairs to her home.
  6. The damp and mould contractor completed mould washes in the living room and bathroom on 14 March 2024. It painted the balcony door with thermal paint as a temporary measure.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 March 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s communication. She felt she was having to chase up the repairs. She said a breakdown in communication between the landlord and its contractor had negatively impacted her. She wanted the landlord to fit a new balcony door and increase the compensation award to £500.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 10 April 2024. It apologised that its contractor attended her home on 1 March 2024 without instruction of what repairs it needed to complete. It said it treated the damp and mould on 14 March 2024. It assured her it would install a new balcony door no later than 3 June 2024. During its investigation it identified 11 contacts from the resident between 26 January and 26 March 2024. It apologised that it had not always responded to her. The landlord awarded the resident £500 compensation. That figure was broken down as £275 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £125 for its poor communication and £100 for complaint handling delays.
  9. On the same day as the landlord provided its stage 2 response, 10 April 2024 the resident reported damp and mould had returned.
  10. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 13 May 2024. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said she did not feel it had treated her situation with any concern or urgency.
  11. The landlord completed another mould wash sometime in May 2024. It also fitted a new balcony door on 30 May 2024. It noted that there were no signs of damp and mould in the property following that repair.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that the damp and mould returned on 2 occasions in 2024. She said the landlord did not fully resolve the issues until January 2025. She has also raised concerns about the later repair of a window. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint up to the landlord’s stage 2 response sent on 10 April 2024 and any assurances it made. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any later issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould and balcony door replacement

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that when it receives a report of damp and mould it will complete an inspection to identify the cause and determine what repairs it needs to complete to resolve the issues. It does not set a timeframe for how long it should take to complete the initial inspection. It says any repairs identified will be treated as a routine repair under its responsive repairs policy. It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  2. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, published in February 2021 recommended landlords clearly and regularly communicate with residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould. The report also recommended that landlords should ensure responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue. The landlord self-assessed against the spotlight report in 2022/23.
  3. While the landlord’s damp and mould policy does not have a timeframe for how long it should complete an inspection, when it raised a job on its system to inspect the resident’s home it set a target date of 30 January 2024. That was 7 days from the date she reported the damp and mould so it was not appropriate it took 17 days to complete its initial inspection on 9 February 2024. When it failed to return a call on 26 January 2024 after the resident asked for an update it did not show it was taking her concerns seriously.
  4. The resident raised concerns about her child being exposed to fumes from the chemicals used in a mould wash in her stage 1 complaint. She asked to be decanted, moved to temporary accommodation while the repairs were carried out. It was appropriate that internal emails showed the landlord considered her request. However, it was not appropriate that it did not call her back when she requested updates several times in February and March 2024. It missed an opportunity to explain to her it was looking into her request to be decanted.
  5. It was not appropriate that the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s home on 1 March 2024 without information about what repairs it needed to complete. It was only able to reinspect the mould. It caused further disruption to the resident of having an operative in her home without completing any of the outstanding repairs. The landlord did not show that it was effectively monitoring the repair as it said it should in its self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. It was not until 7 March 2024 that the landlord raised a routine repair job to complete the mould wash.
  6. The landlord responded quickly once its contractor recommended it replace the balcony door. Its door contractor attended to measure the door on 22 March 2024. The landlord placed an order to purchase a balcony door shortly after that. The time taken for the manufacture of the replacement balcony door was outside the landlord’s control. As such it was reasonable that it took the landlord longer than 28 days to complete the installation. It was also open about the timescales involved with the resident.
  7. The landlord’s approach at stage 1 was mainly reasonable. It was appropriate that it apologised and awarded compensation for its delay in responding to the damp and mould repairs and for its poor communication around the issues. While it had delayed in raising the repair job it put things right by assuring the resident it would complete the repairs on 14 March 2024. That was 7 days after it had raised the routine repair, which was within its 28-day timescale. It also showed it had taken her concerns about the chemicals used seriously when it told her it would use a non-toxic treatment to minimise disruption to her. However, it missed an opportunity to explain to the resident that it had decided it did not need to decant her while it completed the repair. It also did not address the impact its poor communication with its contractor had caused her.
  8. The landlord’s response at stage 2 was reasonable. It was accountable for its poor communication with its contractor. It also identified its failures to respond to the resident between January and March 2024. Given that it had not addressed the 1 March 2024 contractor visit at stage 1 it was appropriate that it increased its award of compensation. It provided the resident with her desired remedy, a total of £500 compensation and the assurance it would fit a new balcony door. It was appropriate the landlord completed that assurance within the timeframe it had set itself.
  9. When considering if the landlord went far enough in putting things right, we have considered its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. The landlord says it will pay a resident between £101 and £600 for a failure that adversely affected a resident. It considers that to be where the failure took a long time to resolve and resulted in moderate inconvenience but resulted in no permanent impact. The landlord’s policy is broadly similar to the maladministration banding of our remedies guidance.
  10. As the landlord’s compensation included £100 for complaint handling delays, we have deducted that amount from what it awarded when considering the amount of compensation. The £400 it awarded the resident for the substantive issue reflected that its delays caused her distress and inconvenience. As it completed the recommended damp and mould repairs in March 2024 and replaced the door within the time it said it would there was no permanent impact.
  11. Overall, it was not appropriate the landlord delayed in raising damp and mould related repairs. Its poor communication throughout the resident’s complaint did not show it was taking her concerns about how the damp and mould may affect her young child seriously. However, it resolved the damp and mould shortly after its stage 1 response and honoured its assurance of replacing the balcony door. The landlord was accountable for its failings in its complaint responses and in the Ombudsman’s opinion it made an offer of reasonable redress in its stage 2 response.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress regarding its handling of damp and mould and replacement of the resident’s balcony door.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £500 it awarded at stage 2 if it has not done so already.