The Guinness Partnership Limited (202342170)

Decision
Case ID	202342170
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured tenancy
Date	28 January 2026

Background

1. The resident brought a previous complaint about her landlord to us in 2023, following which we ordered the landlord to visit her. During this visit, the resident raised concerns about overgrown trees in her garden and repairs to her bathroom and kitchen. These concerns later became the subject of a new complaint with the landlord.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of internal and external repair works.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of internal and external repair works.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of internal and external repair works

5. The landlord unreasonably delayed in completing the required work and failed to communicate effectively with the resident on several occasions. However, the landlord put things right for the resident in a manner we consider to be proportionate to the level of impact.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the complaint in line with its complaints policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

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
The finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of internal and external repair works has been made on the basis that the £300 offered at stage 2 has been paid, along with the £100 in decoration vouchers and £50 for the shed repair. It is recommended that the landlord pays this amount to the resident if it has not already done so, or evidences that the payment has been made.
We recommend that the landlord writes to the resident to: clearly set out its position regarding the decoration of the kitchen ceiling and boxing discuss any ongoing concerns she may have about possible damage caused to her patio slabs by the tree contractors.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 May 2024	The resident complained that the landlord had failed to resolve several ongoing repair issues. She said the lack of communication from the landlord and the state of disrepair in her house had affected her mental health. She asked the landlord to take the issues seriously.
23 May 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: it upheld aspects of the resident’s complaint about the bathroom and the kitchen repairs, but not about the garden works it was sorry for the resident’s experience, and offered a total of £125 compensation for repair delays and poor communication there were delays in it completing works to replace the resident’s bath panel and decorate and replace leak-damaged boxing in the kitchen the resident had reported poor workmanship on both the bath panel and boxing repairs, and it was waiting for her to confirm her availability so it could schedule in remedial works there were delays in completing fencing and tree removal works, but these delays were found to be reasonable and were explained to the resident it had previously agreed to pay the resident £1,000 to arrange her own bathroom repairs, and this payment had been processed on 4 April 2024.
23 May 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said she found the £125 compensation offered by the landlord to be “offensive” as it was not reflective of the time she had taken off work for the repairs. She said she was not available for weekend visits and was unwilling for the landlord to carry out repairs when she was not at the property.
3 June 2024	The resident emailed the landlord with further information on her escalation request. She said: her toilet was still leaking despite the operative who last attended saying it was fixed the tree contractor had damaged her garden shed and some patio slabs, but had not told her or fixed the damage she was told the tree contractors would also replace her fencing between her garden and her neighbour’s garden, but this did not happen her kitchen was ruined by the bathroom leak and subsequent repairs and needed completely redecorating.
7 June 2024	The landlord emailed the resident and said it had reviewed her concerns in line with the agreements it had already made and its current service offer, and its decision was as follows: it had agreed to erect new fencing and remove overgrown trees as a goodwill gesture, and was happy with the works completed it had not agreed to replace the fencing between the properties as this was the resident’s responsibility, as per the tenancy agreement it had left the tops of some of the fence posts long in case the resident wanted to add a trellis in the future, as she had previously voiced concerns about privacy it agreed that the damage caused to the resident’s shed by the contractors had not been repaired satisfactorily, and offered the resident £50 for a patch repair the completion photos provided by the tree contractor did not show any issues with the resident’s patio slabs, and the contractor did not confirm that it caused any damage it had completed works to the boxing in the kitchen, which was ready for decoration it had offered £100 in decoration vouchers towards the painting of the ceiling and boxing, as per an agreement made on 2 April 2024 the sealing to the bottom of the bath panel was satisfactory, but there was a very minor leak from the pipe to the rear of the toilet which it believed to be a new leak it would arrange for a plumber to attend and rectify the new leak.
1 July 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response and said: it had increased its compensation offer to £300, made up of £100 for poor communication and £200 for time, trouble and inconvenience caused an engineer had completed the works to the bath panel and kitchen boxing on 5 June 2024 it had offered the resident £100 in decorating vouchers to complete the required painting and stain-blocking in the kitchen, but had not yet heard back from her its contractor confirmed that it had completed the tree removal works on 17 April 2024, and had accidentally damaged the resident’s shed roof  the contractor said it had put the shed roof right during its visit, but the landlord had reviewed photos and found that the damage had not been repaired satisfactorily it had offered the resident £50 for the shed roof damage, but had not yet heard back from her the resident had reported a new leak from her toilet, and it would visit to remedy this on 2 July 2024.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. She said the bathroom leak kept recurring and she was being inconvenienced by frequent repair visits. She said she had not received the decorating vouchers she was offered, and nobody had addressed the damage caused by the tree contractors. She wanted the landlord to address the outstanding issues and provide adequate compensation.

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 internal and external repair works.
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

7. We have previously investigated the landlord’s handling of several repairs at the resident’s property under case reference 202216536, including repairs to the bathroom. Our investigation concluded in November 2023 and considered the landlord’s actions between August 2022 and October 2023. At the time of our report the landlord had agreed a schedule of works with the resident to commence in December 2023.
8. The resident complained that some of the issues previously investigated have been ongoing. She confirmed that her bathroom was replaced but she has since experienced a recurring leak. She said this affected her kitchen, damaging the ceiling and boxing.
9. We may not consider complaints that seek to raise matters which we have already decided upon. Therefore, we will not investigate the landlord’s actions prior to October 2023. The case has been mentioned for context only.

What we have investigated

Internal works

10. It is unclear when the landlord first became aware of the bathroom and kitchen repairs involved in the complaint. However, the landlord raised a works order to trace and remedy a leak from the bathroom into the kitchen on 21 December 2023. It attended the next working day, in line with its repairs policy timescale of 24 hours for emergency repairs. It said it had not found any fresh leaks, and the cause was found to be residual water from a repair that had taken place the previous day. The landlord recorded that it had completed a precautionary repair and closed the job.
11. The landlord raised a further works order to decorate the water damaged kitchen ceiling and boxing on 22 December 2023. It recorded that it was unable to gain access on its first visit as it did not confirm the appointment with the resident. The landlord apologised for this communication failing in its complaint responses, which was reasonable. In its stage 1 response, it said it had decorated the boxing on 12 January 2024, which was within the 28-calendar day timescale for routine works set out in its repairs policy. It did not confirm whether it had also decorated the ceiling as instructed.
12. The landlord raised a further works order to trace and remedy a leak through the kitchen ceiling on 21 February 2024. It attended on 22 February 2024, within its 24-hour emergency repair timescales. We have not seen evidence such as job notes to confirm whether this was the same leak as before or had a different cause. In any case, the landlord raised a follow-on job on 29 February 2024 to supply and fit a new bath panel and replace the damaged kitchen boxing. The landlord did not complete this work until 2 April 2024, which was outside of its 28-day routine repair timescales.
13. The landlord re-raised the job relating to the bath panel and boxing on 2 April 2024 following reports from the resident that it had been completed to a poor standard. The landlord did not re-attend until 5 June 2024, over 2 months later. However, the landlord said this delay was agreed with the resident in its complaint responses. We have not seen evidence to confirm this, but as the resident has not disputed the landlord’s claim it is reasonable to conclude that it is correct. The landlord showed that it tried to put things right earlier by offering to visit on a Saturday, but this was declined.
14. The landlord’s email to the resident on 7 June 2024 was confusing and suggested that the landlord had not previously been clear on its position regarding the kitchen boxing and ceiling. It is unclear why the landlord previously attended a job to decorate the boxing and ceiling but then offered decoration vouchers for the resident to do it herself. The landlord’s repairs policy states that decorating is the resident’s responsibility, but the inconsistency in the landlord’s position in this case was an oversight. We have recommended that the landlord writes to the resident to clarify this.
15. Following its email, the landlord did not raise a new repair for the toilet leak until 28 June 2024. It attended on 2 July 2024. This was 25 calendar days after the landlord was put on notice of the issue, so was within its routine repair timescales. However, it is unclear why it took the landlord 21 days to raise the works order after it said it would. Given that the resident had been dealing with recurring bathroom leaks for 6 months at this point, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise the repair in a timelier manner to avoid causing further distress and inconvenience.

External works

16. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had agreed to remove trees from the resident’s garden in February 2024. It raised a works order to a specialist contractor on 26 February 2024. In an internal email dated 21 March 2024, the landlord said it was looking to start the works as soon as possible following delays due to some fencing needing to be removed. It agreed to replace the fencing following the tree works.
17. The contractor booked the works in for 3 to 5 April 2024. Internal correspondence shows that it cancelled on 2 April 2024 as it needed to attend an emergency job. We understand that this was outside of the landlord’s control. The landlord acted appropriately by relaying the information to the resident on the same day and confirming her availability to rebook the works. The contractor then attended between 15 and 17 April 2024. This was almost 2 months after the works were first raised, outside of the timescales for routine works set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
18. The contractor told the landlord the resident’s shed had been damaged by a rogue tree branch, but it had repaired the damage and discussed it with the resident. The resident disputed this so the landlord asked her to send it details so it could investigate. It was reasonable for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns and offer her £50 compensation for a patch repair.
19. Following the resident raising concerns about damage to her patio slabs on 3 June 2024, it was reasonable for the landlord to investigate this by reviewing completion photos and speaking with the contractor. The landlord had a right to rely on the evidence that it received in relation to the issue. However, as the resident has said the issue was not resolved, we have recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any ongoing concerns she has about possible damage caused to her patio.
20. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain its position around the fencing in its email dated 7 June 2024. The landlord’s repairs policy is clear that dividing fences are the resident’s responsibility, so it acted in line with its policy by only replacing the boundary fencing.

Summary

21. While there were failings in the landlord’s communication and delays in completing the required works, the landlord recognised and apologised for these failings in its complaint responses. The landlord took steps to explain the reason for the failings and attempted to put things right for the resident.
22. The landlord offered the resident a total of £300 at stage 2. Our remedies guidance suggests awards of between £100 and £600 for failures that have adversely affected the resident with no permanent impact. The landlord’s figure was within this range, and we consider it to be reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

23. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition. 
24. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a full stage 1 response to the resident within 10 working days. At stage 2, the resident should receive an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a formal response within 20 working days.
25. The landlord’s acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaint at both stages in line with its policy. Its complaint responses were thorough and clearly addressed all complaint aspects. We found no maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

26. The landlord identified learning from the resident’s complaint in both of its complaint responses. The landlord provided a detailed overview of how it reviews and monitors complaints.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

27. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was poor and at times impacted our ability to carry out a fair and thorough investigation. The landlord failed to provide completion notes or reports relating to the garden works, which made it difficult to determine what work had been completed and the extent of damage caused. It also failed to provide clear contact records to demonstrate that it communicated with the resident about repair visits.

Communication

28. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance recommends that landlords provide residents with a clear schedule for repair visits. The landlord failed to confirm all repair appointments with the resident, which led to avoidable delays. The landlord also failed to be clear on its position around decorating the kitchen boxing and ceiling. More effective communication in this case would have likely avoided causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident.