The Guinness Partnership Limited (202421926)

Decision
Case ID	202421926
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	18 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lives in a ground-floor flat and has been reporting water ingress into his living room to the landlord, who is the freeholder, since February 2023. The resident was dissatisfied with the actions the landlord had taken to address the problem.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress.
   2. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its handling of the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress

5. There were unreasonable delays in the landlord’s handling of the reports of water ingress. Its communication with the resident throughout the process was poor. While the landlord has acknowledged its failings and made some attempt to put things right, its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

6. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. However, it acknowledged this and offered redress in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £800 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the reports of water ingress. The landlord may deduct form this total the £500 previously offered if this has already been paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This amount does not include any offers the landlord made for its handling of the issues after the stage 2 response.	No later than 22 January 2026
	The landlord must write to the resident to: Outline its position regarding the fee incurred by the resident in obtaining the independent report. It should set out whether it can reimburse this, in line with any relevant policies. The landlord should also refer to the findings we have made in relation to its request to obtain the report. Outline the process the resident would need to follow should he wish to make a claim for any personal belongings, whether this be an internal process or a claim via the landlord’s corporate insurers.	No later than 22 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £200 as agreed in the final complaint response. Our finding of reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
We recommend that the landlord reviews its process for monitoring any follow up actions required in repair cases. This is to ensure it has adequate means of tracking any actions through to completion.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
27 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. He said he originally contacted it in February 2023 and reported water ingress into his living room. He was unhappy it had still not resolved the issue and said its communication was poor. The resident reported that his carpet, furniture, and other belongings were deteriorating due to the excess damp.
10 November 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It acknowledged that it failed to complete the necessary repairs within a reasonable timescale and apologised for this. It offered the resident £250 compensation.   The landlord also said that: its contractors had inspected the windows on 30 October 2023, but this was insufficient to identify the root cause of the issue it would complete drain works within the next 28 working days once the water ingress was resolved, it would replace the resident’s carpet as a gesture of goodwill and provide him with decorating vouchers.
7 December 2023	After the resident told the landlord he had not received its stage 1 response, it resent it to him by email. The landlord also said it had raised an emergency appointment for a plumber to attend for a possible burst pipe in the living room.
11 February 2025	The landlord confirmed that the resident requested to escalate his complaint on this date.
14 May 2025	The resident told the landlord he wanted to make a complaint as nothing had been done since his last contact.
21 May 2025	The landlord noted a new complaint. It said it had advised the resident of the complaint timescales.
2 June 2025	The landlord escalated the resident’s previous complaint to stage 2 of its process.
7 July 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said that it should have escalated the resident’s complaint in February 2025 and apologised for not doing so.   It said that while it had completed the drain works it promised at stage 1 of its process, it failed to monitor the repairs to ensure the situation was fully resolved. It acknowledged that the resident arranged independent inspections, after it had suggested the issue could be caused by a leak from an internal pipe. The landlord said its surveyor inspected on 18 March 2025 and recommended minor brickwork and bay window resealing. It completed these works in April 2025 but later found more work was needed, which would be done within 30 days. The landlord said it would oversee the complaint to ensure no further issues remained outstanding.   The landlord apologised for not resolving the issues sooner and increased its previous offer of compensation to £500. It also offered £200 for complaint handling delays.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint because he said that the landlord failed to resolve the root cause of the problem. He said independent reports confirmed rising damp. He wanted the landlord to instruct a surveyor and resolve the issue.   Since the referral, the resident confirmed that the landlord has resolved the water ingress and redecorated the affected areas of his living room. However, he felt that the landlord should pay him more compensation for the prolonged inconvenience and reimburse him for the cost of the independent report. He also said that his belongings, including furniture, had been damaged by damp and mould.

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.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress.
Finding	Maladministration

7. The resident told us that he experienced health issues because of the damp and mould caused by the water ingress into his property. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The landlord confirmed it was first notified about the water ingress in February 2023. There is no evidence the issue posed an immediate health and safety risk meaning that its 28-day policy timescale for routine repairs applied. In May 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for delays, which was appropriate as it had already missed its policy timescale. It said it would inspect the property within 15 days and complete follow-up works within 4 weeks.
9. The landlord failed to fulfil its commitments as it inspected the property 77 days later. It found that there was potential rainwater ingress at the bay window area but noted there was no evidence of rising damp. On 1 September 2023 the landlord told the resident it had raised works to resolve the bay window leaks which it marked as urgent. It told him it would follow up with dates and replace his carpet once resolved.
10. There was no further progress until the resident submitted a complaint. The landlord said its contractors inspected the windows on 30 October 2023 but did not remove the cladding, which was necessary to identify the root cause of the ingress. There is no evidence the landlord arranged for this to be investigated further.
11. Following the complaint, the landlord completed drain works which it said would take the majority of the rainwater away from the ground. However, it did so 15 days later than the timescales it had promised the resident. On 7 December 2023 it told the resident it had raised an emergency plumber appointment for a possible burst pipe, but no one attended. Between January and March 2024 the landlord noted on several occasions that further investigation was required, including a survey.
12. On 6 September 2024 the landlord raised another emergency plumber appointment. Its plumber told the resident that internal leaks were his responsibility. The landlord did not explain why it suspected an internal leak. It said the resident should obtain a report if he believed the issue was structural. Asking for an independent report would normally be reasonable if the landlord had grounds to believe the issue was not its responsibility. However, this did not appear to be the case, as the landlord had previously identified that the water ingress was related to the bay window. It noted further investigation was required but took no such steps before asking the resident to provide independent evidence. This was unreasonable.
13. The resident obtained an independent report and shared it with the landlord on 8 January 2025. The report confirmed rising damp as the suspected cause and found no internal leaks. The landlord failed to respond within a reasonable timescale.
14. The landlord inspected the property on 18 March 2025, after the resident chased it. It identified that a section of the window needed resealing and minor brickwork pointing was required. It also noted that the damp proof course could be seen from outside. The landlord completed the works it had identified as necessary. However, 2 weeks later the resident confirmed water was still entering his living room.
15. Despite the resident’s reports that the issue persisted, the landlord took over 2 months to inspect the property again. It said the resident was not in at the time of its inspection and it is unclear whether it had arranged this visit in advance. However, it inspected the bay window from outside and found that the sealant around it required renewal. This raises questions about the effectiveness of its earlier investigations and repairs, given they also involved resealing sections of the window.
16. The second window repair did not resolve the problem, which led to further investigations. In September 2025 the landlord concluded that the issue was caused by rising damp. It completed the necessary works and redecoration in November 2025.
17. We appreciate the resident’s frustration that the rising damp was not identified sooner, even though he supplied a report confirming this. However, water ingress can be difficult to diagnose and often requires investigative work. The landlord carried out inspections by different specialists, all of whom concluded the issue related to the bay window. The landlord was entitled to rely on the professional advice of its staff, so it was reasonable it completed the recommended repairs first. However, it should have acted when it first identified the problem in 2023. Its lack of proactivity and poor management of the repair caused unnecessary delays.
18. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the process was also poor. It left it up to the resident to chase progress on multiple occasions. This was at odds with the landlord’s “right first time” commitment in its repairs policy which says that where further investigation is needed, it will communicate clearly with the resident explaining why the repair cannot be completed at first visit. The policy says it will outline what it intends to do and what should happen next, including when it will return to complete the repair. While the landlord identified next steps on multiple occasions, it failed to uphold several of its promises, and it did not follow up with the resident.
19. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, we will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
20. The landlord acted fairly by apologising for its failings. It demonstrated it had learned from the outcome of the complaint by sharing feedback with the relevant areas within its organisation and identifying training needs. It attempted to put things right by completing the repairs which was in keeping with the commitment it made to oversee the complaint to ensure no further issues remained outstanding. The landlord also redecorated the interior, which was reasonable, and offered the resident £500 compensation.
21. Overall, the landlord took positive steps to resolve the complaint in line with our principles. However, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. There was a series of failings by the landlord that cumulatively had a significant impact on the resident. His use of the living room was affected for longer than necessary because of the delays. He reported excess damp as early as July 2023. He said he had to use dehumidifiers almost constantly, but despite this, mould growth had appeared on some of the walls.
22. As a result, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident an additional £300 for the likely distress and inconvenience its failings caused him. This brings the total compensation to £800, which aligns with our remedies guidance for situations where there were failures which had a significant impact on the resident.
23. Additionally, the resident requested reimbursement for the cost of the independent report. We can see the resident mentioned this to the landlord in May 2025 and said he was previously advised that he would be reimbursed. However, the landlord did not respond. The resident also said his furniture and belongings were damaged by damp and mould. We have ordered the landlord to consider reimbursement of the survey cost and explain how the resident can claim for damage to his belongings.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Finding	Reasonable redress

24. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Complaint Handling Code (April 2024). The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.  
25. The landlord issued its stage 1 response in line with the timescales set out in its policy. However, it acknowledged that it failed to escalate the resident’s complaint when he originally asked it to on 11 February 2025. We can see that the resident told the landlord he wanted to make a complaint on at least 3 further occasions before it escalated the complaint on 2 June 2025. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint in line with its policy caused a delay of almost 4 months, leaving the resident without an answer to the issues he’d raised.
26. The landlord apologised for the impact its delay in escalating the complaint had caused and offered the resident £200 compensation. This amount was consistent with our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. It reflected the likely distress and inconvenience caused. The landlord also demonstrated it had learned from the outcome of the complaint by providing additional training to its staff. Therefore, its offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles.

Learning

27. Landlords should ensure that repair actions focus on identifying and addressing the root cause of issues. In this case, delays were compounded by lack of a meaningful investigation early in the process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord demonstrated generally good records of its investigations and repairs. However, it does not appear to have an adequate record to ensure any follow up actions are logged, monitored and completed.

Communication

29. The landlord’s failures in this case highlight the importance of proactive communication and following through on commitments made. This is essential to maintaining trust and avoiding situations where residents are left to chase progress.