The Guinness Partnership Limited (202453238)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202453238

The Guinness Partnership Limited

22 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Health and safety issues caused by a gap between the scaffolding and the wall outside her property.
2. A defective push-to-exit button for the lower ground floor block entrance door.
3. The noise from the building works affecting her mental health.
4. Unsafe electrical wiring in the building.
5. Unsuitable housing conditions requiring her to be permanently rehoused.
We have also decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor of a block and the resident has an assured tenancy which began in January 2022. The resident has 3 children who are under 10 years of age. The landlord confirmed that the resident has advised she has various conditions affecting her mental health, including anxiety, depression, complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). One of her children is also registered disabled due to ADHD.
Following the start of cladding works to the resident’s block in 2024, she wrote to the landlord on 13 January 2025 to report safety hazards both in her property and in the block. She said that the electrical wiring was unsafe, there were structural issues, the lift was unreliable and the push-to-exit button for the building entrance door on the lower ground floor was faulty. She also raised various issues regarding the cladding works that were in progress, particularly regarding the noise from the building work and concerns about a gap between the scaffolding and the wall outside her front door. The resident requested permanent rehousing as she said her mental health was being severely impacted by the building work and because her family were overcrowded.
The landlord’s Housing Services Manager spoke to the resident on 28 March 2025 and discussed her housing options. The landlord then sent its stage 1 response on 29 January 2025 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord had raised the subject of the gap outside the resident’s property with the contractor who was carrying out the cladding works to the building. The contractor had measured various gaps, including the one reported by the resident, and confirmed they were within the 225mm allowed for in the scaffolding regulations.
2. The contractor said there was a handrail in place for safety and in response to the resident’s concerns it had fitted an additional ‘toe board’. The contractor confirmed that the gap would be much smaller when the new replacement cladding was fitted.
3. The landlord had raised an order on 14 January 2025 regarding the electrical wiring. Its electrical supervisors had then checked the wiring in the communal area and reassured the resident that the temporary wiring she was concerned about was safe as it was fixed to the ceiling.
4. A contractor had attended to repair the push-to-exit button and decided that the button needed to be replaced. The landlord had therefore raised a follow-on order to replace it.
5. In terms of the resident’s request for rehousing, the landlord said the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. It attached a copy of its allocations and lettings policy and confirmed that the Housing Services Manager had spoken to her regarding her housing options.
6. The landlord said it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 and 31 January 2025 and said she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response because she did not consider the landlord had addressed her ongoing health and safety concerns. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 13 March 2025 in which it said:
1. Its Senior Repairs and Operations Manager had visited the property on 7 March 2025 to get a clearer idea of the resident’s concerns. He said that although the gaps were compliant with the building regulations, he still believed that further safety measures should be considered.
2. The landlord upheld the complaint regarding the resident’s concerns about the gaps and said it would discuss the matter with its Building Safety Team.
3. During the inspection on 7 March 2025, the landlord had checked the lower-level door and found it was operating correctly as the push-to-exit button had been replaced.
4. The landlord explained that the cladding works were essential building safety works and the contractor had put in place measures to reduce disturbance and inconvenience. However, it was unable to completely eliminate noise and dust because of the nature of the work.
5. The landlord advised the resident that her medical grounds for requesting a transfer would be reassessed if she provided new information.
6. The landlord said it had spoken to the contractor regarding the resident’s concerns about the electrical wiring in the communal areas and the contractor had confirmed the wiring was safe.
7. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £25 because there had been a delay in responding to her complaint.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 response

The resident contacted us on 28 March 2025 and said the landlord was failing to provide her with a safe home. She said she had endured dangerous and uninhabitable conditions for the past 3 years. She said there was a gap outside her property and she was concerned her youngest child could fall through it. She also said there was a gap near the lift. She explained that she had struggled with her mental health over the past 3 years because of overcrowding and the building works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 March 2025 and said its Building Safety Team had again spoken to the contractor regarding the gap outside the resident’s property and the contractor had once again confirmed that the gap was within the allowable size for temporary scaffolding. It said it would therefore not be taking action to close the gap further.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 August 2025 and said, following a merger with the resident’s previous landlord, it had reviewed the complaint handling and found it had fallen short of the required standard. It apologised and offered the resident additional compensation of £100.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her stage 2 complaint dated 29 January 2025, the resident said that the reported safety hazards and living conditions had severely affected her mental health. She explained that she had various mental health conditions and these had been made worse by the stress of living in such a hazardous environment. We are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
Some of the evidence we have received relates to events that took place after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 13 March 2025. A key part of our role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information we are investigating as part of its complaint response. In this case, we consider it is fair and reasonable to focus our investigate on matters raised by the resident during the complaint process and addressed by the landlord in its final response.
The resident advised us on 28 March 2025 that she had endured dangerous and uninhabitable conditions over the past 3 years. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords 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. Therefore, taking into account 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 that led to the resident’s complaint in January 2025.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of health and safety issues caused by a gap between the scaffolding and the wall outside her property

As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident reported her concerns about a gap outside her property between the external building wall and the scaffolding that had been erected by the major works contractor. She said that her youngest child had almost fallen through the gap. The landlord spoke to the contractor on the same day about the resident’s concerns. The contractor took measurements of various gaps between the external walls and the scaffolding, including the one outside the resident’s property. It confirmed that all of the gaps were smaller than the maximum gap of 225mm allowed between an external wall and temporary scaffolding. It provided the landlord with the measurements of each gap and confirmed there was already a safety handrail in place. However, it explained that following the resident’s concerns, it had fitted an extra toe board to the scaffolding to reduce the gap. The contractor said that the gap would be reduced to about 10mm once the cladding works were completed.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord advised the resident of the action the contractor had taken in relation to her concerns about the gap. Our view is that the landlord’s initial actions in relation to the resident’s concerns were reasonable because:
1. It spoke to the contractor on the same day as the resident had raised her safety concerns.
2. The contractor had taken measurements of the gap on the same day and checked they were within the maximum gap allowed within the scaffolding regulations.
3. The contractor had confirmed there was a safety handrail in place and had added a toe board to the scaffolding to close the gap further.
4. Having obtained advice from the contractor, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s expertise.
5. In order to reassure the resident, the landlord used its stage 1 response to inform the resident of the contractor’s advice and the actions taken in relation to her concerns.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 29 and 31 January 2025 and said, regardless of whether the gap outside her property was within the limits set out in regulations, she still believed it posed a danger. She said the additional toe board was not enough to address this danger and also referred to a gap near the lift. She attached photos showing the gap outside her property.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 February 2025 and said that, having reviewed the photos she submitted, it had instructed the contractor to seal the affected areas completely and provide evidence that it had done so. The landlord added that it would carry out an inspection to ensure there were no further gaps between the scaffolding and external walls of the building. The landlord then stated in its stage 2 response dated 13 March 2025 that its Senior Repairs and Operations Manager had inspected the gaps on 7 March 2025 and was of the view that further safety works should be considered in relation to the gaps. The landlord therefore upheld this part of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 March 2025 to set out its final position regarding the gaps. It stated that its Building Safety team had considered the information from the Senior Repairs and Operations Manager and had concluded that no further action was needed by the contractor in relation to the gaps. The team was satisfied that the gaps were within the allowable limits and that the actions taken by the contractor in terms providing the handrail and adding the toe board were adequate.
As Building Safety teams are responsible for assessing risks and monitoring safety compliance, the landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of the team in making its final decision regarding the gaps. However, we have found that the landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations effectively in relation to this matter because:
1. It advised the resident on 3 February 2025 that it would instruct the contractor to seal the gaps completely.
2. It advised the resident at stage 2 of the complaints process that it would consider further safety works in relation to the gaps and upheld this part of her complaint.
It is important for landlords to manage residents’ expectations because failure to do so can lead to unnecessary disappointment for the resident and can be detrimental to the landlord/resident relationship due to a loss of confidence in the landlord. We have therefore made a finding of service failure due to the landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations. In making our finding we have taken all of the circumstances into account, including the following mitigating factors:
1. The landlord’s failure to manage the resident’s expectations was over a relatively short period before it wrote to the resident setting out its final position.
2. The failure to manage the resident’s expectations during this period would not have affected the overall outcome for the resident in relation to the gaps between the scaffolding and the external wall.
We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 to the resident to reflect the disappointment and distress experienced by the resident. The amount is within the range of sums set out in our remedies guidance for service failures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a defective push-to-exit button for the lower ground floor block entrance door

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy identifies the following repair priorities:
1. Priority 0 – immediate response within 4 hours.
2. Priority 1 – emergency response within 24 hours.
3. Priority 2 – urgent response within 5 working days.
4. Priority 3 – routine jobs within 20 working days.
5. Priority 4 – complex & major repairs within 40 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 January 2025 to report that the push-to-exit button for the main security door on the lower ground floor was faulty. The landlord raised an order on the same day, which was appropriate in order to avoid delays in the contractor attending. A contractor attended on 13 January 2025, which was 4 working days after the landlord had raised the order. The contractor had attended within the 5– working day timescale for urgent jobs, which was reasonable as the resident had explained that the matter was urgent.
The operative who attended on 13 January 2025 decided that a new push-to–exit button was needed and therefore the contractor ordered the new button. The landlord’s records show that the new button was fitted on or about 6 February 2025, which was 18 working days after the operative had attended. We consider the time taken by the landlord to replace the button to have been reasonable because:
1. The work was completed within the 20-working day timescale for routine repairs following the operative’s attendance on 13 January 2025. This was reasonable given that the replacement button had to be ordered.
2. As the resident had concerns about health and safety in relation to the button not working, the landlord had written to her on 3 February 2025 to provide reassurance. It said that in the event of an emergency, such as a fire, the door locking magnets would automatically be released to allow residents to safely exit the building.
In summary, we have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a defective push-to-exit button for the lower ground floor door. This is because the landlord replaced the button within a reasonable timescale and reassured the resident that in the event of an emergency, residents would be able to use the door to safely leave the building.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the noise from the building works was affecting her mental health

The resident advised the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that the construction noise from the cladding work was affecting her and her daughter’s mental health. She stated that her mental health conditions were being exacerbated by the noise and loud banging. The landlord’s Housing Services Manager contacted the resident on 28 January 2025 to discuss her housing conditions and concerns. This was reasonable as it allowed the manager to hear first-hand about the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s notes stated that the manager agreed the resident would approach her doctor to obtain medical evidence for assessment by the landlord’s medical advisers.
As the resident had said that her medical conditions were being affected by the major works, it was reasonable for the landlord to agree she would obtain medical evidence that could be assessed by its medical advisers. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 reply that the resident could provide new medical evidence at any time and it would be sent to its medical advisers for assessment. It was reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed this advice in its complaint response so the resident was clear that this option was available.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord added that the cladding was being removed as part of essential building safety work. It said that although the contractor had put measures in place to reduce disturbance and inconvenience, it was unable to eliminate dust and noise completely. The landlord’s records show that, prior to the start of the works in 2024, the contractor had submitted a risk and method statement setting out measures it would employ in relation to dust suppression and reducing noise/vibration. It also included information about working hours, which were from 8am to 4pm. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that the contractor had put measures in place to reduce disturbance and inconvenience.
Overall, we have found that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the noise from the building works affecting her mental health because:
1. The landlord advised the resident that she could submit medical evidence regarding the impact on her health and this would be assessed by its medical advisers.
2. It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that the contractor had put some measures in place to reduce disturbance and inconvenience but that dust and noise could not be completely eliminated due to the nature of the work.
3. It was reasonable for the landlord to reassure the resident that the removal of the cladding was essential building safety work (rather than non-essential work).

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of unsafe electrical wiring in the building

The resident advised the landlord in her stage 1 complaint that there was unsafe electrical wiring in the building. The landlord raised an order on 14 January 2025 to investigate hanging electrical wires in the communal area. One of the landlord’s electrical supervisors attended on 22 January 2025 and the resident advised him she was concerned about temporary wiring in the communal area outside her property. The supervisor told the resident that the contractor had added the temporary wiring to supply communal lighting while the major works were in progress. He said the wiring was safe as it was fixed to the ceiling.
The landlord arranged for an electrical supervisor to check the wiring within a reasonable timescale from when the resident had reported her concerns (7 working days). The electrical supervisor had checked the wiring and the landlord was entitled to rely on his findings that the wiring was safe.
In her stage 2 complaint dated 29 January 2025, the resident said that the temporary connections were a serious safety risk. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had spoken to the site manager for the major works and the site manager had reiterated that all of the lights were safe. The landlord added that the site manager had confirmed that any cables not in use had been disconnected from the electrical supply. Given the resident’s continued concerns about the electrical wiring, it was reasonable for the landlord to have spoken to the contractor responsible for the works on site and obtained further assurances that the lighting was safe. Having received these assurances, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on this advice.
As part of its investigation of the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the landlord visited her on 7 March 2025 to find out more about her concerns. The landlord’s records show that during the visit, it noticed a light pendant in the resident’s living room had been removed. It therefore raised an order on 17 March 2025 to check the electrics in the property and reinstate the pendant. The landlord raised the order as a priority 3 (20-working day) job and the work was completed on 28 March 2025, which was 9 working days after it was raised.
It was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not raised an order immediately after the landlord’s visit on 7 March 2025 to reinstate the light pendant and this was therefore a shortcoming on its part. However, we have not identified this as a service failing because the landlord had taken a total of 15 working days to complete the work after its initial visit on 7 March 2025 and this was within the 20-working day target.
Overall, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of unsafe electrical wiring in the building because:
1. The landlord’s electrical supervisor checked the wiring in the communal area within a reasonable timescale and reassured the resident that it was safe.
2. Following continued concerns by the resident, the landlord spoke to the site manager of the major works contractor to check the wiring was safe. He also confirmed that it was safe.
3. The landlord checked the electrics and reinstated the light pendant in the resident’s property within a reasonable timescale after noticing it was missing on 7 March 2025.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of unsuitable housing conditions requiring her to be permanently rehoused

The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states:
1. “Due to the high demand for housing outweighing supply; we expect that residents, especially those who are statutorily overcrowded, to present themselves to the local authority or apply for a mutual exchange”.
2. It will only consider offering available homes to those with an immediate and urgent need to move, such as those who are overcrowded by two-or-more bedroom spaces and have a medical need or disability which is made significantly worse by the overcrowding.
The resident asked the landlord to rehouse her due to her current housing conditions. We would not order the landlord to move a resident as part of our investigation. This is because we do not have access to information regarding the availability of suitable vacant properties owned by the landlord at any point in time and we do not have details of any other prospective tenants waiting to move who may have higher priority than the resident for rehousing. We have, however, recommended that the landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property.
As part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident said that a 2-bedroom property was unsuitable for a family of 4. She added that her 6-year-old daughter urgently needed a room of her own due to her disability. As previously stated, it was reasonable that the landlord’s manager had spoken to the resident on 28 March 2025 regarding her housing options. It was also reasonable that it had advised the resident she could submit any new medical evidence for assessment by the landlord’s medical advisers.
Also, as part of its stage 1 response, the landlord attached a copy of its allocations and lettings policy. This was reasonable as a means of helping the resident to understand its approach in relation to allocations and lettings. The landlord advised the resident that she could consider a mutual exchange and she could register for housing with the local authority. Both of these options are mentioned in the landlord’s allocations and lettings policy and therefore the advice it gave was appropriate.
The landlord added that it would look out for anyone looking to downsize their property and would try to match them with the resident for a mutual exchange. This was a helpful suggestion on the landlord’s part as it could provide an opportunity for the resident to exchange to a larger property.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy makes it clear that due to the high demand for properties, residents who are overcrowded (including those who are statutorily overcrowded) are expected to approach the local council or apply for a mutual exchange. We have therefore found that the advice given by the landlord was in line with its policy and was appropriate. As a result, we have found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of unsuitable housing conditions requiring her to be permanently rehoused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. At both stages it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days. It will then reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these timescales for responding. However, the extensions will not exceed a further 10 working days at stage 1 or 20 working days at stage 2 without good reason. The landlord will explain the reason to the resident and inform them of the expected timescale of the response.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 13 January 2025 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale which was in line with its policy. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 29 January 2025, which was 12 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint. This was longer than the 10-working day timescale stipulated in its complaints policy. However, it had written to the resident on 24 January 2025 to request an extension of time. As the landlord had written to the resident to request an extension of time, we have concluded that it responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 29 January 2025, which the landlord formally acknowledged on 6 February 2025. The landlord took 6 working days to acknowledge the complaint, which was slightly longer than the 5-working day timescale set out in its complaints policy. This was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part, however, we have noted that it had written to the resident on 31 January 2025 to confirm that it had sent the resident’s complaint to the relevant team.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 13 March 2025, which was 25 working days after it had formally acknowledged the complaint. The time taken to respond to the resident’s complaint was inappropriate as it was outside the 20 working day timescale set out in its policy. Furthermore, we have not seen any evidence that the landlord requested an extension of time. The evidence shows that the resident was anxious to receive a response to her complaint as she chased the landlord for a reply on 24 February 2025.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £25 compensation for the delay in replying. However, we have noted that the landlord did not apologise to the resident for the delay in replying. Therefore, based on the sum offered by the landlord and the lack of apology, we do not consider that the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failing. We have found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
We have noted that on 8 August 2025 the landlord offered the resident an additional £100 compensation to recognise the poor service she had received. However, we have not made a finding of reasonable redress in this case because the offer was made after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after our involvement. Nevertheless, the revised financial offer was reasonable and therefore we have not ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation for complaint handling. Instead, we have ordered the landlord to pay the combined sum of £125 it offered on 13 March 2025 and 8 August 2025.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of health and safety issues caused by a gap between the scaffolding and the wall outside her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a defective push-to-exit button for the lower ground floor block entrance door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of the noise from the building works affecting her mental health.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of unsafe electrical wiring in the building.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of unsuitable housing conditions requiring her to be permanently rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to provide evidence that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Paid the resident a total of £225 compensation comprised of:
  1. £100 for its failure to manage the resident’s expectations effectively in relation to her reports of health and safety issues caused by a gap outside her property.
  2. £125 offered by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling if this has not already been paid.

Recommendation

The landlord should continue to support the resident with her request to transfer from her current property.