The Guinness Partnership Limited (202334735)

Decision
Case ID	202334735
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	29 October 2025

Background

On 22 March 2023 the landlord carried out an electrical installation condition report (EICR) at the resident’s property. This was to test the safety of the fixed electrical wiring. Following the testing, the resident reported the digital clock on their oven no longer worked.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about:
1. How the landlord handled reports of damage to the resident’s property.
2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. The was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of property damage.
2. The landlord provided reasonable redress for its handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The handling of reports of property damage

The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s report. It provided clear explanations about why it did not consider it was responsible for the alleged damage.

The complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to the complaint in line with its policies. It identified this failure in its complaint responses. It offered £125 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. We have found that the landlord’s offer was proportionate to its failings and provided a satisfactory resolution to the complainant.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend, if it has not already done so, the landlord pays the resident the £125 compensation offered in its complaint responses.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 April 2023	The resident raised their complaint that the landlord had damaged their oven clock. They said: The power in their property had been turned off during the electrical testing. When the power was turned back on the digital clock on their oven no longer worked. They had raised this with the landlord’s contractor and had been told someone would contact them. This had not happened. They wanted compensation for stress and aggravation that had been caused. They also wanted an apology for the poor customer service experience.
21 September 2023	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said it had spoken to its contractor about the resident’s issue. The contractor had: Confirmed it had not carried out any testing that could damage electrical items. Advised turning the power off could potentially damage complex electrical items such as computers. Because of this, it always asked for permission before turning the power off. Explained if the oven had been old or already faulty then this may have caused an issue when the power was turned off. However, an oven was not an appliance which would typically be affected by the power being turned off. The landlord explained it had been necessary to turn the power off to carry out the testing. Its contractor could not have anticipated or accounted for the oven clock malfunctioning when the power was turned off. It did not accept it was responsible for any damage that may have occurred. It recommended the resident contact the oven manufacturer for further advice and to make a claim through their contents insurance. The landlord apologised for its handling of the resident’s queries. It said it had failed to escalate the matter to a formal complaint when the resident had asked. It had also failed to call the resident back after promising to do so. The landlord offered £125 compensation in recognition of its failures. This comprised £100 for the failure to escalate the complaint and £25 for the failed call back.
3 October 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. They were unhappy the landlord had not taken responsibility for the damage. They said the clock could not be repaired and would need to be replaced.
5 October 2023	The landlord issued its final response. It said it had reviewed its stage 1 investigation and agreed with the findings. It said its offer of compensation had been fair and consistent with the identified failures.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate because they remained unhappy the landlord had not taken responsibility for the damage to the clock. They said they wanted the landlord to pay for a new clock and provide further compensation for its handling of their complaint.

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 reports of damage to the resident’s property
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

Our role is to determine whether the landlord acted in a way and handled the resident’s complaint in accordance with its policies and procedures and its approach and decision making was fair. Disputes as to the cause of the alleged damage to the resident’s oven clock or who was responsible would be more appropriately dealt with through an insurance claim or the courts. Our role is to consider whether the landlord appropriately considered the report that had been made.

What we have investigated

There is no dispute the landlord was expected and entitled to carry out the EICR. Completing this testing was in line with its Electrical Safety policy. There is also no dispute the resident gave permission for the contractor to turn off the power in their property while the testing was taking place.
Having received the resident’s report of damage, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask its contractor whether the testing could have caused any damage. The contractor has the knowledge and experience to be able to provide an expert opinion. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice and explanation the contractor provided.
The landlord provided a clear explanation about why its contractor was not responsible for causing any damage. The evidence shows the landlord conducted an informed investigation which explained the decisions it reached. There was no evidence which suggests the landlord failed to appropriately consider the resident’s concerns.
The landlord provided advice for the resident to contact the manufacturer of the oven for further advice or to consult with their contents insurer as a means to repair the oven’s clock. This was reasonable and appropriate advice for the landlord to give on the basis of the advice it had received from its contractor.
The evidence shows the landlord acted reasonably and fairly in its response to the resident and for these reasons, we find there was no maladministration by the landlord in how it handled reports of damage to the resident’s property.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. At the time of the resident’s complaint, it aimed to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It would provide a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It would provide a final response within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process.
The landlord did not log a stage 1 complaint until 8 September 2023. This led to a significant delay between the resident making their complaint and receiving the landlord’s stage 1 response. The landlord accepted in its complaint responses it had failed to handle the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its policies.
The evidence shows, during the period between the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s stage 1 response, the landlord was making attempts to resolve the resident’s concerns. It had asked its contractor to contact the resident to discuss their concerns. The evidence shows the contractor made multiple attempts before being able to speak to the resident on 27 July 2023. However, there is no evidence the landlord then followed up with the resident to clarify if they still had outstanding concerns. Had the landlord taken this step it may have allowed it to log the stage 1 complaint sooner.
The landlord’s offer of compensation, when assessed using our remedies guidance, was appropriate for a situation where failures have occurred and these have adversely affected the resident. As such, we assess the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate to its failings and it satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Learning

Communication and record-keeping

It is important landlords maintain a good level of communication with residents, particularly when things may have gone wrong. In this case it is clear the landlord was taking steps to address the resident’s concerns but it did not keep the resident updated about this.
Once the resident had contacted the landlord directly it should not have relied on its contractor making contact and/or providing updates. The landlord should have communicated directly with the resident to keep them updated.
In this case, the records do not show if the landlord regularly updated the resident. Providing regular updates may have better managed the resident’s expectations and avoided additional frustration and dissatisfaction.