The Guinness Partnership Limited (202415543)

Background 

1. The resident is an assured tenant living in a house. In May 2023, she reported a physical assault by her neighbour to the landlord. It opened an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case and investigated the matter alongside the police. The landlord approved her for a transfer application on 10 August 2023, due to the identified risks. The resident has not transferred to another property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Transfer application.
   2. Report of ASB.
   3. Associated complaints.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Service failure in its handling of the resident’s transfer application.
   2. No maladministration in its handling of the resident’s report of ASB.
   3. Reasonable redress in its handling of the associated complaints.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. While the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application was appropriate, its communication about closing the application was confusing. It has also failed to provide evidence that it fulfilled the commitments made in its final complaint response.
5. The landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s ASB case was appropriate. It provided reasonable advice to the resident and investigated her report of a negative experience she had with a staff member.
6. The landlord accepted failings in its handling of the resident’s complaints. It apologised and offered compensation, which was sufficient to put things right during the complaints procedure.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. In exceptional or urgent circumstances, such as a serious safety risk, the landlord’s allocation policy allows tenants to be relocated outside the standard allocation process through a transfer. The landlord acted appropriately by accepting the resident onto its transfer list in August 2023, reflecting the severity of the risks identified following a physical assault by a neighbour earlier that year.
8. As part of the resident’s complaints, she referred to the condition of her property. We understand that at the time relevant to this investigation, the resident was experiencing issues with repairs and pests which she said should have contributed to her prioritisation for rehousing. We will not investigate matters where a resident has had the chance to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. In this case, we can see that a legal claim was filed at court on 8 July 2024. The resident had the chance to raise the repair and pest issues during those legal proceedings. For this reason, we will not investigate matters relating to the condition of her property.
9. By the time the resident made her complaint on 13 May 2024, her transfer application had been live for around 9 months. While we acknowledge the likely distress she was experiencing and her legitimate urgency for a move, the landlord’s allocation policy does not commit to moving residents within a specific timeframe. The landlord’s ability to move a resident depends on a suitable property becoming available, which is largely beyond its control. When one does become available, it must also consider other residents who have been assessed as needing an urgent move. Therefore, a delay in offering a property does not necessarily indicate a failure by the landlord.
10. The resident spoke with the landlord on at least 10 occasions during this period about her transfer. The landlord’s records show it responded to her queries and advised her on several occasions that it would make contact when a suitable property became available. This was appropriate; however, it would have helped manage her expectations if the landlord had explained the potential reasons for delays in more detail from the outset. We have seen no evidence that it did so.
11. While the landlord recorded that it spoke to the resident on at least 2 occasions during this period about the transfer process, it did not record what advice it gave. This means we cannot confirm whether the advice was appropriate, and it falls short of our record-keeping expectations. Good record-keeping is essential because it provides transparency, supports accountability, and helps us assess whether landlords acted reasonably.
12. It was appropriate that the landlord took steps to support the resident in improving her rehousing prospects during this period. We identified that it:
    1. Advised her to register for housing with the local authority.
    2. Accepted her onto its main housing register in August 2023, in addition to the transfer list.
    3. Informed her about mutual exchange options and provided assistance when she requested support.
    4. Reviewed her selected rehousing areas and bedroom entitlement during contact, ensuring her application reflected her needs and circumstances.
13. The resident expressed dissatisfaction in April 2024 because she had not received a weekly list of properties to bid on, as she said she had been promised. We have found no evidence that the landlord committed to doing this. Its records confirm that it investigated the matter and reached the same conclusion. In the absence of evidence showing that it made this commitment, and as its allocation policy does not require it to do this, we cannot say this was a failure by the landlord.
14. The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response (23 May 2024) to explain that it had been unable to offer the resident a suitable property due to limited property availability. On this basis, it extended the resident’s transfer application. It also provided a detailed explanation of the transfer process. Its response was appropriate and detailed. However, as stated above, it may have helped if this had been explained sooner.
15. In its response, the landlord also said that it did not own properties on the road which the resident had referred to in her complaint. However, in its stage 2 complaint response (23 July 2024), it acknowledged that this was incorrect and apologised for the error. It explained that it did own properties on the road, but none had become available during the time she was being considered for a transfer. It also advised that the wait for a suitable property was likely to be “quite substantial” due to the high demand and limited availability of suitable properties in the areas she had selected for rehousing.
16. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices, including the need to provide accurate information and manage residents’ expectations. In this case, the landlord’s initial error caused the resident unnecessary distress, and records show she felt the landlord was intentionally avoiding her concerns. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the error in its final complaint response, explaining it had confused the road with another. It apologised and told her that the mistake had not affected her position for a move. It also offered £125 compensation for these failures. The landlord took appropriate steps to put things right.
17. By the time the landlord issued its response, it had closed the resident’s transfer application. Internal records show that the landlord assessed the resident no longer met the criteria under its allocations policy. The landlord completed a review, which confirmed its decision, as the ASB reported was not sufficiently severe to justify a transfer.
18. We have seen no evidence that the resident had reported ASB serious enough at the time to warrant keeping the transfer application open, such as threats of violence or actual harm. The landlord would only be expected to move a resident due to ASB if the ASB was serious enough to mean they may not be safe to remain in their own property. However, the landlord acknowledged that neighbour disputes were ongoing. It confirmed that the resident’s main housing application would remain active and that she could also pursue rehousing through a mutual exchange or via the local authority’s housing register. This approach was reasonable at the time.
19. However, the landlord’s communication of this decision lacked certainty. The closure letter the landlord has provided us contains placeholder text and does not explain the decision or show consideration for the resident’s circumstances. It states the application was closed because it had been unable to move the resident, despite the application remaining open for over a year. This is incorrect. At the time of its decision, the resident’s application had been open for less than a year and the letter does not fully reflect the landlord’s decision–making. In contrast, its stage 2 complaint response (23 July 2024) says the closure was due to no further ASB reports being made and a lack of suitable properties. This also does not accurately reflect the landlord’s internal decision–making as the resident had made further ASB reports. This may have led the resident to feel that her lived experiences had been dismissed, causing her further distress.
20. Additionally, the landlord committed to contacting the resident to discuss her application, rehousing options, and the ASB she said she was continuing to experience. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for evidence that it did this. However, it stated that it had already provided all relevant evidence. The landlord has not shown that it discussed the resident’s ongoing ASB reports or rehousing options at the time. Therefore, we can only conclude it did not do so. This is a breach of the Code, which requires landlords to follow through on commitments made during the complaints procedure. By failing to do so, the landlord likely caused the resident additional distress, which may have undermined her confidence in its commitment to putting things right.
21. Based on the above, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.
22. Given the failings identified, the landlord’s offer of £125 did not fully put things right for the resident. Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation and is published on our website. The guidance explains that compensation of up to £100 may be appropriate where an offer of redress does not fully reflect the impact on the resident. In this case, we have decided that a further award of £100 is reasonable to put things right.
23. The resident has told us she has continued to experience ASB of varying severity after the landlord’s decision to close her transfer application. She told us that the landlord has said she does not qualify to be re-added to the transfer list despite these incidents. These issues have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. In line with our Scheme, we have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first through its complaints process. There is no evidence the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of subsequent transfer applications as a formal complaint. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.
24. The resident can raise further complaints about the landlord’s handling of the more recent ASB incidents and her ongoing transfer request if she wishes to. If she remains dissatisfied after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, she may be able to bring those complaints to the Ombudsman for consideration.

25. This investigation is concerned with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of ASB on 17 April 2024. We accept that the resident has made various other reports of ASB to the landlord. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of these other reports. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues
26. Additionally, in September 2025, the resident told us that the ASB she has experienced has significantly affected her health. We acknowledge the resident’s statements. However, it is outside our remit to consider the specific impact on health from any action or inaction by the landlord. Matters of liability are better suited to consideration by a court or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). The resident can seek independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue a liability claim against the landlord for damage to health.
27. On 17 April 2024, the resident reported a new incident of ASB, stating that she had received threats of violence. The landlord acknowledged the report in line with its published timescale of 2 working days and arranged a call to discuss the ASB.
28. During the call, the resident referred to a physical assault that occurred in 2023, which had already been investigated by both the police and the landlord. It was reasonable for the landlord to say it would not take any further action regarding this incident as it took place a long time ago and had already been addressed.
29. The landlord recorded that during the call, the resident also reported noise nuisance and concerns about illegal substances. The landlord advised the resident to use noise recording apps and to report concerns about illegal substances to the police. This advice was appropriate and proportionate. However, the landlord noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the advice and ended the call. It was appropriate that the landlord offered a further call in its final complaint response if the resident needed further assistance.
30. The Code requires landlords to address all points raised in a complaint. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about its staff member’s conduct during the phone call in its stage 1 complaint response, which may have caused the resident to feel her concerns had been dismissed and likely led to distress.
31. In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for not making its position clear in the stage 1 response and for any frustration this caused. This was appropriate. It confirmed it had spoken with the staff member’s manager and provided feedback to the individual. It advised that discussions had taken place about the impact on the resident and how to prevent similar issues in future. This response was reasonable and demonstrated that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and took steps to put things right.
32. On this basis, we find there was no maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

33. The landlord accepts that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s complaints, as shown by its complaint responses and compensation offers. In such cases, our role is to consider whether it did enough to put things right for the resident. When doing this, we assess the landlord’s actions against our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
34. The landlord issued its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses for the complaint about ASB within the 10 and 20 working day timeframes set out in its complaint policy. The 20 working day extension at stage 2 was in line with the policy and the Code.
35. We have not seen a copy of the resident’s escalation of her ASB case complaint to stage 2, which is a failure by the landlord to maintain accurate complaint records. This means we cannot confirm that the stage 2 response addressed the resident’s concerns in full.
36. The resident escalated her transfer application complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process on 24 May 2024, and the landlord acknowledged it on 30 May 2024. It extended the stage 2 response on 2 July 2024, after the original 20 working day deadline had passed. While extensions are permitted, they should be communicated before the deadline to maintain transparency. The final transfer application complaint response of 23 July 2024 was correctly issued within the extended timeframe.
37. The stage 1 transfer application response incorrectly stated that the landlord could not consider the resident’s repair concerns due to legal action. This was not in line with its complaint policy, which excludes complaints only where legal proceedings have formally begun, such as the filing of a claim form to court. At the time, this had not occurred. The landlord acknowledged the error in its stage 2 transfer application response and confirmed that, as proceedings had since begun, the issues could no longer be considered. While the final decision was appropriate, the initial error likely caused confusion and inconvenience to the resident.
38. The landlord has offered the resident £225 for its complaint handling failures. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance (as referenced above) for failures that cause distress and inconvenience to the resident but do not result in a permanent impact. Therefore, there was reasonable redress for errors in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is unclear if the landlord has paid the compensation it offered to the resident. We recommend that the landlord pays the compensation if it has not already done so.

Learning

39. The landlord’s transfer application acceptance letter lacks detail about its transfer process. It may wish to consider reviewing the content to ensure it clearly sets out next steps, communication expectations, and a summary of the transfer process. This would help manage residents’ expectations from the outset and support more transparent communication.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

40. The landlord should review its record-keeping practices to ensure it maintains accurate and detailed records that provide a clear audit trail. It should also review how it ensures relevant records are shared with us to support effective complaint investigations.

Communication

41. The landlord should ensure it explains its decision-making clearly to residents. This includes setting out the reasons for its decisions and how they relate to its policies. Clear explanations help residents understand outcomes and reduce the risk of further complaints.
42. The landlord’s stage 2 ASB case complaint response showed good learning. The landlord apologised for its earlier complaint response lacking clarity and sympathy for the resident’s situation. This is an example of learning from outcomes and putting things right for the resident.