Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202433128)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202433128

The Guinness Partnership Limited

16 October 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:
    1. Reports of damp and mould.
    2. Window repairs.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house. During the timeframe of this complaint, the resident lived at the property with up to 7 family members. However, 4 have subsequently moved out. The landlord is aware the resident has health conditions which include COPD.
  2. For context:
    1. The resident reported damp and mould on multiple occasions from May 2022 onwards.
    2. We acknowledge the landlord attended on 3 occasions between June 2022 and January 2023 and treated mould at the property.
    3. It also provided information to the resident on how to avoid damp and mould.
    4. The resident reported the roof was leaking on 7 February which he chased on 7 March 2023. The landlord’s repair records showed a brickwork repair was completed a month later on 7 April 2023. It was unclear whether this repair addressed the leaking roof.
  3. Between April 2023 and April 2024, the resident continued to report damp and mould, as well as issues with the windows, at the property. He requested the landlord contact him on 18 April 2024. He said:
    1. “The mould had been looked at multiple times and the issue comes back.
    2. He was told the full window unit would be replaced [in his daughter’s bedroom] but only the glass was replaced.”

After receiving no call, he raised a complaint about the damp and mould and windows 5 days later.

  1. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, in which it partially upheld the complaint, on 24 June 2024. It said:
    1. It had attempted to resolve damp and mould by:
      1. Completing mould washes/treatments.
      2. Completing repairs to external brickwork, windows and the gutters.
      3. Inspecting the roof.
      4. Providing a leaflet with information how to avoid damp and mould.
    2. Finding a cause of damp and mould was not always straightforward and it was sorry it was yet to be resolved.
    3. Its contractors had:
      1. Replaced a bedroom window.
      2. Completed repairs to a second bedroom window. It would not replace the second window as there were no issues with the frame.
    4. It acknowledged poor communication and delays raising the complaint. It offered £450 compensation made up of:
      1. £100 for complaint delays.
      2. £300 for personal impact.
      3. £50 for poor communication.
  2. There was no evidence of further mould reports between July and September 2024, however it is noted these are the summer months. A landlord contractor installed more loft insulation on 20 September 2024. The resident emailed the landlord the same day and said the loft insulation contractors had said:
    1. “There were holes in the roof.
    2. They found a dead bird in the loft.”

6 days later the resident emailed again and asked the landlord to “look at the loft insulation report and… the state of the roof that the roofers left when they butchered the roof repair.”

  1. The landlord’s roofing contractor inspected the loft on 11 October 2024. The inspection provided photographs and noted:
    1. “The loft insulation met current standards.
    2. Water stained rafters which could indicate previous water ingress.
    3. Nothing evidential regarding any roof leaks.”
  2. The resident chased in relation to the roof on 14 November 2024. He said:
    1. “2 people came out, took pictures, and said it needed replacing.
    2. Mould had started growing back on his bedroom ceiling.”
  3. The resident reported the damp and mould was getting worse approximately 2 weeks later and said it was affecting his health. The landlord completed a mould wash for the bedroom ceiling shortly afterwards.
  4. There was no further action until February 2025 when the landlord:
    1. Raised a survey for all the windows in the property on 3 February 2025.
    2. Installed a positive input ventilation (PIV) system in the resident’s loft on 6 February 2025. Around a week after the PIV installation, the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2.
    3. Visited the property on 14 February 2025 and noted all the damp and mould had been painted and treated [on 6 December 2024] but the resident wanted someone to check the loft insulation.
    4. Inspected the windows on 17 February 2025.
    5. Called the resident to acknowledge the complaint escalation on 19 February 2025. It noted the resident said:
      1. “The loft and roof appeared to be the main issues [regarding the damp and mould] and both he and contractors had noticed holes in the roof.
      2. He fought for years to get a new bedroom window. Two contractors were involved: one replaced the glass, and another replaced the whole window a week later. His daughter’s window was also replaced, but mould had already returned.
      3. A PIV had been installed but there were no extractor fans in the bathroom or kitchen.”
  5. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 18 March 2025, in which it  upheld the complaint. It said it:
    1. Apologised for distress caused.
    2. Had completed a number of repairs to address the damp and mould between June 2022 and August 2023. It also attended on 26 January 2024 and treated all visible damp and mould at the property.
    3. Had:
      1. Added additional loft insulation.
      2. Completed repairs to some windows.
      3. Installed a PIV.
    4. Had arranged to replace the windows after the inspection. It said it found the windows were unsuitable and contributed to damp and mould.
    5. Wanted to offer an additional £500 compensation, taking the total compensation to £950. This was made up of:
      1. £750 for time, trouble and inconvenience.
      2. £100 for poor communication.
      3. £100 for poor complaint handling.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The landlord raised a damp and mould inspection on 20 March 2025 after the resident said he was unable to sleep in his bedroom due to the mould.
  2. The landlord visited on 2 April 2025 and raised further repairs. A roofing contractor visited the property 2 days later and emailed the landlord on 8 April 2025. It said:
    1. It had checked the loft and found multiple places where the roof membrane had split.
    2. The roof felt had collapsed along the ridge line leaving sections of the roof vulnerable to water ingress.
    3. Several areas of loft insulation were missing or had been poorly installed. This resulted in cold bridging and contributed to ongoing damp and mould.
  3. The landlord applied more mould resistant paint on 24 April 2025. It completed roof repairs in early May 2025. However, the resident emailed the landlord on 13 May 2025 and said repairs to the loft insulation, extractor fans, and windows had not been completed.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 August 2025. It said:
    1. It had replaced the windows on 30 July 2025.
    2. It would consider a claim for items damaged by mould if the resident could provide photos and proof of ownership of items.
    3. It wanted to offer a further £400 compensation made up of:
      1. £300 for additional personal impact.
      2. £100 for poor communication.

This took the landlord’s total compensation offer to £1,350.

Assessment and findings

 Scope of investigation

  1. The events of February 2022 to March 2023 are noted above for context, but there is no evidence of a formal complaint being made until April 2024. We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of issues arising. This is so the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. Therefore, we will consider events from April 2023 onwards (12 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint). Therefore, this is taken as the starting point for this investigation.
  2. The resident also told us about the impact the condition of the property had on his health. We empathise with his situation. But we also cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and his health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy says when a resident reports damp or mould it will:
    1. Attend the property to diagnose the cause. Immediate issues will be addressed; further investigation may be needed if the cause is unclear.
    2. Diagnose and action. If the issue is due to a repair (e.g. leaks, rising or penetrating damp), the landlord will take responsibility and carry out the necessary work.
    3. If the issue is due to condensation, the landlord will:
      1. Provide advice on ventilation, heating, and moisture control.
      2. Work with the resident to manage the issue.
    4. In severe or recurring cases, a risk assessment will be conducted. Possible actions include:
      1. Providing dehumidifiers
      2. Installing ventilation systems
      3. Applying mould-resistant treatments
      4. Dry lining walls
  2. It aims to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.

Landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould

  1. A landlord should keep good records. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither we, nor the landlord, can properly investigate without accurate records and this could result in unfairness to the resident. The record keeping in this case was overall of a reasonable standard, but there were a number of appointments when where there was no record of what happened. It has therefore not been possible to fully understand what action was taken at every stage of the complaint. This has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. We would also not usually comment on typing errors within repair records. However, it should also be noted there were a number of inaccuracies. Some examples were:
    1. 5325818, noted as attended 13 February 2022 instead of 2023.
    2. 5644556 noted as completed 6 March 2023 when it was 2024.
    3. 6011517 noted as completed 30 July 2024 instead of 2025.

This caused some confusion.

  1. The repair records showed the landlord raised a work order to treat damp and mould on 26 April 2023. The landlord attended in time and treated the mould on the bedroom and bathroom ceilings, which was reasonable. However, the contact records showed the resident rang to report damp and mould on 9 June 2023. This was only 9 days after the mould had been treated. There was no evidence the landlord took any action until a month later when it raised a work order to treat the damp mould, which was a delay. The landlord then attended on 11 July 2023, within the landlord’s timeframe for a routine repair, and treated the mould, which was reasonable.
  2. There was no evidence of any further reports of damp and mould until January 2024, 5 months later. The landlord promptly raised a work order and attended 9 working days later to clean and treat the mould patches, which was reasonable.
  3. There was no further reports of damp and mould for another 3 months, which again suggests the landlord’s previous actions were sufficient. However, this time, the resident raised a complaint and said the mould “kept coming back.” There was no evidence the landlord took any action until it raised a work order on 23 May 2024 when the complaint was allocated, which was another delay. During this time the resident called twice to chase up the complaint, which caused inconvenience. The landlord cleaned the mould the same day, which was positive. However, this was the seventh time it had attended in 24 months to clean the mould. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to attend the property to diagnose a case in line with its policy at this point. But there was no evidence it did so, which was a failing.
  4. It was unclear what prompted the landlord to install additional loft insulation on 20 September 2024. However, this was 2 days after the work order was raised, which was prompt. The resident emailed the landlord the same day after comments from contractors about holes in the roof. The resident chased 6 days later and urged the landlord to look at pictures taken. The landlord then raised a loft inspection for 7 October 2024. While this was a reasonable approach to take, it was 17 days after the resident had reported the issue, which was a delay requesting the inspection.
  5. The loft was inspected on 11 October 2024 promptly after the inspection was requested. The roofing contractor said it found “nothing evidential regarding any roof leaks.” However, one of the photographs taken showed a hole in the roof with daylight coming through. While the landlord is entitled to act on the expert opinions of inspections received, there was no evidence it acted upon information from its loft contractors or the resident. Or looked at the photographs provided from the loft inspection, which was a failing. Further to that, there was no evidence the resident updated. This caused him to chase on 14 November 2024 and ultimately led to the complaint escalation.
  6. The landlord installed a PIV on 6 February 2025. This was positive and showed it still took the resident’s reports seriously and wanted to resolve the issue. After the complaint escalation the landlord visited again on 14 February 2025, which was positive. But there was no evidence it took any further action to the residents concerns raised in relation to the loft.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 response was a missed opportunity to address concerns raised in relation to the loft and roof. After speaking to the resident 2 days after the response was sent, the landlord visited on 2 April 2025 and requested a roofing contractor inspect the loft/roof. The roofing contractor visited 2 days later, which was prompt, and noted a hole in the roof. The roof repairs were completed in early May 2025. Pictures before the roof repair show missing tiles and holes in the roof and felt. This was over 7 months after the resident had reported holes in the roof, which was an unreasonable length of time for the resident to have to wait. Historic weather records for the area show rain in the area from September 2024 to April 2025, which can only have contributed to damp and mould. There was no evidence to confirm if the roof had missing tiles since February 2023.
  8. Overall, the evidence showed the landlord took positive steps to address the damp and mould at the property. It generally completed work orders within the policy timeframe, which was positive. And after both complaint responses it continued to take steps to address the damp and mould. However, the evidence suggests the landlord:
    1. Was reactive, rather than proactive in responding to the reports of damp and mould.
    2. Did not complete a risk assessment for recurring mould in line with its policy.
    3. Continued to paint over the mould, rather than try and establish a root cause.
    4. Delayed raising repairs in June 2023 and April 2024.
    5. Delayed raising a loft inspection in September 2024.
    6. Should have taken the reports of holes in the roof more seriously in September 2024. And should have looked at the pictures provided following the loft inspection which showed a hole in the roof.
    7. Did not follow-up on repairs. The evidence showing the resident has called on 3 separate occasions for scaffolding to be removed following different repairs. As well as the landlord being unaware if the roof repairs had been completed.

The landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right. However, taking into account the circumstances of the case, including the resident’s health vulnerabilities, half of the £1,250 compensation (£625) for its repair failings was for damp and mould was not proportionate. A finding of maladministration is made and an order of a further £300 compensation.

Landlord’s handling of window repairs

  1. The landlord completed an inspection of the property in August 2023. It raised a repair on 10 August 2023 to replace the front window handle and attended promptly 7 days later to complete the repair. The contractor noted the window had dropped. However, there was no evidence any further action was taken in relation to this, which was unreasonable.
  2. The landlord raised window repairs 6 months later, on 15 January 2024, after a call from the resident to report the window was draughty and glass was misted. The landlord attended promptly 2 days later, however it was unclear exactly what was done and the repair log showed follow-on work was arranged.
  3. Repairs raised on 31 January 2024 to stop the draughts were completed on 23 February 2024. The landlord’s repair records suggest it replaced the resident’s bedroom window shortly afterwards on 6 March 2024.
  4. After the resident complained about the window repairs, internal emails showed the landlord chased the window issue, which was positive. However, there was no evidence any further action was taken until the resident’s complaint was allocated. In a call with the landlord on 23 May 2024 the resident said a contractor had replaced one window, but the window in his daughter’s bedroom was not replaced. The landlord raised a repair the same day, which was positive, and attended 5 days later, which was prompt. It noted it eased and adjusted both windows and fitted the left hand handle the right way round. The landlord went on to clarify its position in relation to the windows in the stage 1 response, which was reasonable.
  5. The landlord used its stage 2 response to say it had inspected the windows on 17 February 2025 and requested new windows which it anticipated would take 6 weeks. The windows were replaced on 30 July 2025, 3 months after it had said. It was reasonable that the landlord offered a further £400 compensation on 21 August 2025 for the window delays. Overall, the landlord offered £1,250 for its repair failings. Assuming half of this, £625, is for the windows. There was reasonable redress offered.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaint policy:
    1. Stage 1 complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and investigated and responded to within 10 working days.
    2. Stage 2 complaint should be acknowledged within 5 working days and investigated and responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 response was sent 42 working days after it was logged which was outside of its policy timeframe. The resident chased an update on at least 2 occasions, which caused inconvenience. However, it was positive the landlord acknowledged complaint handling delays in its stage 1 response. It appropriately offered £100 compensation.
  3. It was positive the landlord’s stage 2 response was sent within the policy timeframe. However, the response did not address the resident’s concerns regarding the roof, which was a missed opportunity. It was positive the landlord acknowledged failings in the stage 2, and while the compensation for complaint handling was not increased, the overall compensation was. It was also positive the landlord learnt from the complaint and said that revised training had been given to staff.
  4. We welcome and encourage landlords to proactively revisit opportunities for the resolution of a complaint after the stage 2 response and a landlord is entitled to review its position. It was therefore positive the landlord offered further compensation for the delays installing the windows. Taking account of all the circumstances of the case, we find that the landlord’s response to the complaint (and the identified failings) was appropriate and proportionate, so a finding is made that the landlord had offered redress to the resident which resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Determination

  1. There was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.
  2. The landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, with respect to its handling of repairs to the windows, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  3. The landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident, with respect to its handling of the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Contact the resident and provide its position in relation to outstanding repairs to the loft insulation, and extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen. An action plan should be agreed with the resident as to when any necessary work will be completed.
    2. Pay directly to the resident and not offset against any monies owed £300 compensation for its handling of the reports of damp and mould.

Recommendation

  1. In a call with us, the resident mentioned outstanding repairs in his downstairs toilet. The landlord should contact the resident and discuss whether repairs are required.