The Guinness Partnership Limited (202510295)

Background

1. The resident lives in a top floor flat with her 2 children. The resident and 1 of her daughters have asthma. She began reporting issues of damp and mould in her property from June 2024. The resident was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her and her children’s health.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
4. There was no maladministration for the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. There was unreasonable delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property. The landlord’s poor record keeping and internal and external communication led to poor follow up and cancelled repairs. It took a year to inspect and complete roofing repairs which was not in line with its repairs policy timescale.
6. The landlord offered the resident some support with heating costs which was reasonable, and it considered checking whether the property was habitable or whether alternative accommodation was needed in line with its damp and mould policy. However, it did not complete a risk assessment or consider the provision of dehumidifiers or the ventilation systems as outlined in its damp and mould policy.
7. The landlord failed to remedy the damp and mould in the property as it needed to raise further works order shortly after the end of its internal complaints process. The resident advised us during this investigation that the damp and mould issues have not been rectified.
8. The landlord’s complaint handling was reasonable. Although its final complaint response was delayed, it explained the delay to the resident and then issued its response when it said it would.

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.

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.

What we did not investigate

9. The resident was concerned about the impact of the damp and mould on her and her family’s health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. This is because courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they 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 under any of the complaint grounds. We can decide the overall distress and inconvenience and if a landlord should pay compensation for this.

What we did investigate

10. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident’s initial report of damp and mould was made on 18 June 2024. The landlord’s repair records noted that the ceiling was bad and there was slight mould in the flat. It requested a roofer to inspect the loft, but its contractor reported no access on 24 and 25 June 2024. The landlord completed a mould treatment on 2 July 2024 within its repairs policy timescale which was reasonable. It is not clear from the landlord’s records what the outcome was of the roof inspection. The landlord arranged a stain block; however, the resident cancelled a scheduled appointment for 16 July 2024 as she had completed this work herself.
11. The resident reported damp and mould again 4 months later on 15 November 2024. The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response of 14 March 2025 that it had cancelled a works order to complete a repair in error. It apologised for this which was appropriate. The landlord scheduled an appointment for 22 November 2024. The landlord’s repair records show some insulation in the loft and a request for follow up work to the roof tile vents and to install some shorter chutes. It is not clear from the landlord’s records exactly what work, if any, had been completed. Its stage 1 complaint response does not reference this appointment.
12. The resident chased the landlord on 6 January 2025 for the follow up work advising that when the operative attended before Christmas, they had said there was no point in cleaning the mould until they could check where the damp was coming from. The landlord’s records noted that nothing had been raised yet evidencing the landlord’s lack of follow up. The landlord needed to ensure the timely completion of work to get to the root cause of the damp and mould, given that the issue was initially reported in June 2024. This was especially important as it was aware of the resident and her household’s vulnerabilities.
13. The landlord completed a further mould treatment on 17 January 2025 as an emergency repair after the resident’s further 16 January 2025 damp and mould report. The resident told the landlord on 3 February 2025 that the operative had only stayed 10 minutes. The landlord therefore raised a further works order for a mould treatment that was completed on 3 March 2025 after some access issues due to the resident advising that her daughter was ill. The further treatment was completed within 29 days, so this was not quite within the landlord’s repair policy timescale, however, this was not entirely the landlord’s fault.
14. The landlord also arranged a welfare check for 28 January 2025 that the resident cancelled due to her daughter being ill. It also tried to phone the resident and text between 30 January 2025 to 3 February 2025 regarding the damp and mould issues which was reasonable. This was to provide the resident with further advice in line with its damp and mould policy on controlling condensation and mould. It also said it needed to consider if the property was habitable and whether temporary housing would be appropriate, though in the end the landlord did not temporarily rehouse the resident.
15. The landlord also offered the resident £100 on 17 February 2025 to help towards fuel costs as part of a project to help households impacted by damp and mould, which it later agreed to change to a supermarket voucher. These were all reasonable actions for the landlord to take that were in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
16. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it will take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way where this is to do with a repair issue. It will also communicate clearly and regularly regarding any actions it will take. Where issues recur, it should undertake a comprehensive risk assessment. This may result in actions to support a resident, such as provision of dehumidifiers, the installation of positive pressure, mechanical or passive ventilation systems, and could include moving a resident to alternative accommodation.
17. We have not seen further records that the landlord completed a risk assessment as per its damp and. This was inappropriate.
18. The landlord’s records show it attempted to contact the resident between 3 to 14 February 2025 to arrange a visit to the property on 6 February 2025. This was to decide the best course of action which was reasonable. However, it was unable to gain access for the appointment. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 February 2025 to advise it had raised a works order to treat the mould and to check the roof and guttering. Its contractor checked the roof on 3 March 2025 and found that it was leaking. The landlord therefore arranged for its subcontractor to provide a quote. It had taken the landlord 9 months to come to this conclusion which was too long and not in accordance with its repairs policy.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response said it was unable to gain access to the property on several occasions. This was also replicated in the landlord’s repair records. As it sometimes struggled to access the property it needed to ensure it checked with the resident when would be a good time to visit for any appointments. There was some evidence had done this but after the no access, it needed to ensure it updated its records. Its repair works order records stated that the resident would be unavailable during school run periods. Despite this, there was some evidence of contractors turning up unannounced and on one occasion during the school run period which was inappropriate.
20. There was further delay with the landlord completing the roofing repairs as it needed additional quotes as the first quote was higher than anticipated. The landlord also needed to question where scaffolding should be erected to complete the roofing works. The landlord’s internal email of 26 March 2025 noted the fact that the issues were still outstanding following its stage 1 complaint response. This again evidenced an inappropriate lack of follow up. In its further internal of 10 April 2025, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been reporting the issue from June 2024. It recognised the need to compensate the resident for the entire period.
21. The resident said in her complaint escalation request of 30 April 2025 that 2 different subcontractors had called. She said one had arrived without a ladder and the other arrived as she was due to collect her daughter from school. The resident also reported to the landlord on 30 April that she had a card through and was not sure whether it was for the landlord’s contractor to quote for works but they had randomly turned up. This highlighted the importance of the landlord communicating effectively with its contractors to ensure that its contractors gave prior notice of appointments and had the right equipment.
22. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in completing the roof works on 2 May 2025 which was appropriate. Its contractor visited on 8 May 2025 to provide a quote which was not approved until 3 July 2025. The landlord’s contractor confirmed that work to the roof had been completed between 16 to 17 July 2025 and it provided some pictures of the completed work. It therefore took the landlord over a year to complete the roofing work from 18 June 2024. This was an unreasonable delay that was not in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy or repairing obligations.
23. Following on from the landlord’s final complaint response, the resident reported damp and mould in the property between 21 July 2025 to 4 August 2025 which evidenced that work to alleviate the damp and mould was unfinished. The landlord said it was waiting for a further quote in its internal email of 5 August 2025, and its contractor would arrange an appointment with the resident.
24. The landlord spoke to the resident on 12 August 2025 and advised her that the damp and mould was likely caused by a leak from the roof. It said that its contractor needed to check the loft insulation which may have been damaged by the leak. It said it would book work in. It is not clear whether this was an additional leak or whether its contractor had not completed all the work that was necessary in July 2025. The landlord scheduled further work between 1 to 3 October 2025. The resident advised us during this investigation that the landlord had failed to rectify the damp and mould issues, and it did not provide her with its damp surveyor’s inspection report on her request.
25. For the failings we have identified we would have found maladministration. However, the landlord offered a total of £1,100 in compensation to the resident for the delays, poor communication and its contractor’s poor performance in its final complaint response of 3 July 2025. This offer was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.  However, we have seen evidence, from the landlord’s repair records, along with the resident’s report, that the damp and mould issues were not resolved at the point it issued its final complaint response. The landlord had to schedule further work as above. The Ombudsman has therefore found service failure in this case.
26. After carefully considering our guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a further £500 in compensation to reflect the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident through the landlord’s failings. We have also ordered the landlord to complete an inspection of the property using a suitably qualified surveyor and to provide a copy of its report to us and to the resident.

27. The resident raised her complaint on 24 February 2025. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 3 March 2025. This was within 5 working days in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
28. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2025 within 9 working days which was again in line with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code. The landlord’s complaints policy and the Code require complaints to be acknowledged within 5 working days. A response should be sent at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord can extend complaints at stage 1 by 10 working days and at stage 2 by a further 20 working days contacting a resident to explain any extension.
29. Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response the landlord received the resident’s feedback as noted in its internal emails of 26 March 2025. The resident had advised she was unhappy with the level of compensation awarded. The landlord then agreed to increase this to the £650. The landlord showed reasonableness in seeking a suitable resolution to the resident’s complaint.
30. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 30 April 2025. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 June 2025 to advise that as it did not have a date to repair the roof it would need to extend the time to provide a final complaint response. It advised that it would provide an interim update by 3 July 2025. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent on 3 July 2025 which was 44 working days after the resident’s complaint escalation request was made. This was delayed; however, the landlord did write to the resident to explain the reason for the delay, and it responded when it said it would. The Ombudsman considers that there was no maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.

Learning

31. The landlord set out its learning at both complaint stages which was appropriate. It said it fed back the resident’s experience to relevant teams so that they could review ways of working to avoid the same failings happening again. The landlord has completed a self-assessment against our Spotlight report on damp and mould (October 2021) and following up report (February 2023). This should help it improve its approach to identifying properties with damp and mould issues as well as providing support to residents who experience this. It could also consider its approach to gaining access to inspect and complete repairs in properties to ensure timely completion of work.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. There were some record keeping issues in this case and the landlord’s repair records were not always clear as to what work had been completed. The landlord also identified that some works orders had been cancelled in error that contributing to the failings identified in the case. We have previously recommended to the landlord that it reviews its knowledge and information management in line with our Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and follow up report (January 2025) for a previous case (reference 202429863). This should help the landlord in improving its records management.

Communication

33. The landlord’s communication was sometimes more responsive rather than proactive. However, it was reasonable to try to phone the resident and text between 30 January 2025 to 3 February 2025 when it was unable to get a response. It needed to ensure it acted in line with its damp and mould policy in providing regular updates to the resident, particularly when there were issues with the progress of the roofing repairs. It also needed to communicate effectively with its contractors so that they were reminded to not turn up unannounced and to turn up with the correct equipment.