The Guinness Partnership Limited (202435497)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202435497

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 September 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a leak from the flat above and subsequent repair issues.
   2. Concerns about her temporary move.
   3. Complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, living in a 2-bedroom flat. The flat above is not a tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident’s advocate raised a complaint to the landlord on 5 December 2022 about a persistent leak from a privately owned flat above. The resident had contacted the owner of the property, but they had not progressed the repairs. The resident was concerned the ceiling would collapse.
4. The resident continued to chase the landlord about the leak throughout 2023. The landlord temporarily moved the resident into a hotel on 20 June 2024. The resident viewed a property for a long-term temporary move on 15 August 2024.
5. The resident raised a further complaint on 11 October 2024 as the landlord failed to extend her hotel booking, which left her in an unstable situation. She was reluctant to accept the landlord’s temporary accommodation offer as the property had damp and mould, and no flooring.
6. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 9 December 2024. It said:
   1. It did not receive notice of the leak that started on 5 December 2022 until it received a letter from the resident’s advocate on 11 January 2023. The resident raised a disrepair claim and it advised the resident on 30 January 2023 to contact her solicitor.
   2. The resident further reported a leak from above on 7 March 2023. The landlord does not own the above property so it attempted to contact the neighbour and their landlord. It raised an emergency repair on 8 March 2023 to attempt to stop the leak but attended the following day and was unable to gain access. It arranged to visit the flat above on 4 April 2023.
   3. The resident reported a further leak on 8 June 2023. It raised emergency repairs for an electrician and plumber to attend. It was still attempting to gain access to the flat above and considered obtaining an injunction.
   4. The resident reported damp on 14 June 2023, and the landlord attended on 21 July 2023 to treat it. It repaired the extractor fan on 26 July 2023.
   5. It moved the resident to a hotel from 20 June 2024. It also offered a long-term temporary move and addressed the resident’s concerns with the condition of the new property, but she declined it. It was ready to complete works to the resident’s property but needed access. The resident was concerned about her valuables, so it had agreed to install locks on some of the rooms and put her belongings in storage.
   6. It offered £50 compensation for poor communication and £100 for its poor complaint handling.
7. The resident escalated the complaint in a call to the landlord on 14 February 2025. In the complaint acknowledgement, the landlord noted the resident remained dissatisfied as it did not consider the full length of time she had reported the leak, it failed to recognise previous complaints, and it had not considered the personal impact on her or offered suitable support. She also said the landlord failed to adhere to her requests for appointments and communication to consider her work schedule. She added that the temporary accommodation the landlord offered was in poor condition.
8. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 12 March 2025. It said there were factors that limited its ability to resolve the leak as it was from a leaseholder property, but it should have done more to support the resident. It said staff changes and absences led to oversight in its management of the resident’s concerns. It recognised it failed to take proactive action to arrange temporary accommodation and extend the hotel stay were necessary. It had contacted the resident numerous times to arrange repair works to her property. It apologised for the delay in requesting invoices and receipts to assess the resident’s reports of damaged belongings. It offered £1250 compensation, comprised of £200 for poor communication, £250 for the complaint handling delays, and £800 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
9. The resident referred the complaint to the Service as she remained dissatisfied that the works to her property remained outstanding. She wanted the landlord to complete the repairs and provide a clear timeframe for the works with suitable notice. She said that the landlord had not addressed the ceiling repair issues in the schedule of works. She was concerned that the landlord only intended to do patchwork repairs. She did not think the compensation was sufficient due to the cost of the damage to her belongings. She also incurred additional travel costs when living in the hotel.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the flat above and subsequent repair issues

10. In accordance with the repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property and keeping the electrical wiring in good repair. The policy states that it will complete emergency repairs, which have an immediate health and safety risk, within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
11. The resident’s advocate emailed the landlord on 5 December 2022 and said there was a persistent leak from a privately owned flat above, and she was concerned the ceiling would collapse. The resident had contacted the neighbour, but they were dismissive of their repair responsibilities. The landlord was not responsible for repairing the leak as it did not own the property the leak originated from. However, given the resident had unsuccessfully tried to contact the neighbour, the landlord should have contacted them to attempt to arrange the necessary repairs. There is no evidence it took such action or advised the resident on the steps she could take. Further to this, regardless of whether the landlord was able to immediately resolve the leak, it should assess whether the resident’s property was safe and habitable. There is no evidence it did, which is unreasonable given the resident raised concerns that the ceiling may collapse.
12. The resident continued to contact the landlord between January 2023 and March 2023. However, there is no evidence that it took any action until it raised a repair on 9 March 2023 as the resident reported flooding and the water contained faeces. This is a serious health concern. A contractor attended the same day but was unable to gain access to either of the flats. It was reasonable that the landlord promptly attended, and the delay caused due to not being able to gain access was outside of its control. However, there is no evidence that it attempted to arrange a follow-on appointment.
13. The resident said the landlord’s plumber attended on 3 April 2023 and advised she needed to talk to the neighbour as their property was the source of the leak. The landlord was already aware that the property above was the source of the leak, so this appears to have been an unnecessary appointment which caused further inconvenience to the resident. Additionally, as the leak had been ongoing for several months, it should have been clear to the landlord that the resident required further support liaising with the neighbour to resolve the issue. If the neighbour refused to engage with the resident or complete the repairs, the landlord should have escalated the issue and considered obtaining an injunction to complete the works. There is no evidence that the landlord made any further attempt to contact the neighbour until it attended on 30 May 2023, which is an unreasonable delay.
14. The landlord internally noted on 5 June 2023 that the neighbour’s contractor needed to assess the resident’s property to confirm where the leak originated from, but she was not providing access. This delay was outside the landlord’s control.
15. The landlord’s repair records show it attended on 9 June 2023 and found that there were safety concerns, and the electric was turned off by the fire brigade. The landlord’s repairs policy states it should handle a complete loss of power and a leak that presents the risk of causing an electric shock as an emergency repair. There is no evidence to confirm whether the landlord undertook the necessary repairs to safely reinstate the electrics within this timeframe. The landlord raised a further work order on 14 June 2023 to assess whether the property was habitable. It is unclear what the outcome of this appointment was, so there is insufficient evidence to confirm whether it took reasonable action.
16. The landlord noted that the resident advised it on 19 June 2023 that the repairs to the leak were completed. It visited the resident’s property the following day to assess the condition. The resident chased an update on the works on 17 July 2023. The landlord could have managed this better by providing the resident with regular updates.
17. The landlord completed works to address the damp and mould on 21 July 2023 and an inspection on 27 July 2023. The resident reported that the leak was now intermittent. The surveyor also noted that further investigation to the flat above was required before works could be undertaken in the resident’s property. It therefore appears the works completed to the flat above did not provide a full and lasting resolution.
18. The resident continued to pursue the landlord to resolve the leak between September 2023 and November 2023, but it did not take any meaningful action to progress the repairs. On 5 February 2024, the landlord internally noted that it had not properly managed the case in the absence of a staff member. This caused significant delays in resolving the issue. The landlord should have a system in place to have sufficient oversight of repairs regardless of staff absences. However, it is reasonable that the landlord demonstrated it learned from the outcome of the case as it improved its systems to ensure all communication is centralised to prevent issues if a staff member is off or leaves the business.
19. Following this, the landlord made several attempts in February 2024 to call the resident and visit the property, but it was unable to contact her. There was no further action until it raised a repair on 14 May 2024 to treat the damp and mould but again it was unable to gain access. The landlord noted on 10 June 2024 that it visited the neighbouring property but was unable to gain access so it would consider an emergency injunction. Given the length of time the issue had been unresolved, it would have been appropriate to have taken this action at an earlier date.
20. The landlord moved the resident to a hotel on 20 June 2024 due to the property condition. At this stage, the landlord should have taken all reasonable action to complete the repairs as soon as possible to prevent the resident having an extended period in temporary accommodation.
21. The landlord raised several work orders between June and July 2025 to address the repair issues in the resident’s property, including electrical issues and damp and mould. It then contacted the neighbour’s contractor on 18 July 2024 requesting evidence that they had completed works to resolve the leak. The contractor disputed that the issue originated from the neighbour’s property and said that it may be a communal issue which the freeholder was responsible for. It is unclear whether the landlord is the freeholder of the building. Regardless, there is no evidence that the landlord promptly took any action to further investigate this or refer the matter to the freeholder (if it was not the freeholder), which was unreasonable.
22. The landlord noted on 22 August 2024 that it was seeking legal assistance to gain access to the neighbour’s property. There is no evidence to confirm whether it took any meaningful steps to progress the legal process, which was unreasonable given the length of time the issue had been ongoing.
23. On 18 October 2024, the landlord attended the resident’s property, asked the neighbour to run the taps, and confirmed the leak had been rectified. It therefore took almost 2 years to resolve the leak in full. The delays were somewhat outside of the landlord’s control as it was not responsible for repairing the leak. However, it should have regularly chased the neighbour and considered legal action at an earlier stage to take all reasonable steps to ensure the repairs were completed as soon as possible.
24. During the appointment on 18 October 2024, the landlord identified the necessary remedial works to the resident’s property. It told the resident on 20 November 2024 that it was ready to complete works to her property, but it required access and for the resident to advise which belongings she wanted in storage. The following day, the landlord noted that the resident refused to engage with the works. This caused delays in completing the repairs, which was somewhat outside of its control. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord sought to understand the reasons for the resident not engaging with the works, so it could identify any possible resolutions.
25. The landlord regularly contacted the resident between 5 December 2024 and 7 February 2025 in attempt to gain access. This was a reasonable approach. It then visited the resident on 14 February 2025 to discuss storing her belongings. Given the sensitive nature of the issue, as the resident reported items were stolen by previous contractors, this was a reasonable step to show it was taking her concerns seriously. During the visit, the resident said that despite several requests she had not received details of the works to be carried out. She added she needed to know which rooms she needed to clear to decide which items needed to be put in storage. She also asked if the damaged ceilings, walls, and laminate flooring would be redecorated and replaced.
26. In response on 27 February 2025, the landlord advised it was unable to provide a schedule of works until the resident provided access, as it needed to assess the property condition. It added that if the resident would not provide access, it would obtain an injunction to complete the works. The landlord’s response was reasonable as it clearly managed the resident’s expectations about the steps to progress the repairs.
27. On 9 March 2025, the resident said she was dissatisfied that the landlord booked an appointment on 7 March 2025 but failed to notify her. The landlord should always provide sufficient notice of appointments, so the resident has a reasonable opportunity to provide access and prevent any avoidable delays. The landlord then asked the resident to confirm suitable dates to attend, and she said 7-9 April 2025 would be suitable. It does not appear that the landlord took any steps to accommodate appointments on these dates or propose an alternative.
28. There is no evidence that the landlord proposed a new appointment date until May 2025. The resident told the landlord that her son had passed away, so she was unable to facilitate any appointments. This is understandable and it was reasonable that the landlord internally noted that it needed to handle the case sensitively. The landlord subsequently attended on 24 July 2025 to assess the works. The landlord provided a schedule of works on 28 August 2025. It is unclear why it took over a month to provide this information following the appointment, particularly as the resident had advised on several times that she wanted such information before progressing the works. On 4 September 2025 the resident said she would provide access but needed written confirmation of the storage arrangements for her belongings.
29. The schedule of works included a mould treatment, stain block, and redecorating the kitchen, bedrooms, hallway, living room, and bathroom. It would also renew the glazed units in the bedroom and assess the kitchen and bathroom. It said the scope of works were subject to change as it may identify further repairs during the works. It said any changes would be assessed and communicated accordingly.
30. Due to the extensive nature of the works, it is understandable that the landlord explained the scope could evolve during the process. It is understood that this caused the resident some anxiety. However, the landlord’s approach was reasonable. It should commit to providing prompt updates if the works change, including advising the resident of any changes in the timeframe for the works to manage her expectations.
31. The resident told the Service that the schedule of works does not include any ceiling repairs. Given that the resident has previously raised concerns that the ceiling would collapse due to the leak, the landlord should confirm its position on the repairs and complete a further inspection if required. If it deems no further ceiling repairs are required, it should provide evidence to confirm how it has determined the ceiling is safe and in good repair.
32. In its final response the landlord offered £1000 compensation, comprised of £200 for poor communication and £800 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses 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.
33. The Service’s remedies guidance states that compensation of £1000+ is appropriate in cases where there have been a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident. In this case, the compensation was sufficient for the identified failings at the time of the final response. This is because although there was a significant impact on the resident, it is recognised that the landlord was not directly responsible for repairs to the leak, which limited the actions it could take.
34. However, the repairs have remained outstanding for 9 months following the final response. The landlord is not responsible for the full length of the delays due to periods the resident would not provide access. However, the landlord’s actions contributed to the delays including failures in its handling of appointments and a delay in providing the schedule of works. As such, it must pay the resident an additional £300 compensation. An order has also been made to address the outstanding repairs.
35. The resident also requested compensation for her damaged belongings, including her sofa, bed, laminate flooring, carpet, wardrobe, and a few clothing items. The compensation policy states that it will only be responsible for paying compensation for damage caused to personal belongings by a water leak if it is at fault. However, the landlord told the resident on 11 October 2024 that it agreed to replace her damaged furniture. It also asked the resident on 14 February 2025 to provide evidence of the cost of the damaged items. It has therefore set the resident’s expectation that it will provide compensation or replace the items. As the issue remains outstanding, an order has been made for the landlord to honour its proposal to replace the damaged furniture or enable the resident to make a claim through its liability insurer.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about her temporary move

36. The landlord’s decant policy states that “It will find, or assist tenants to find, emergency accommodation where, as a result of fire or flood or other event, it is unsafe or unreasonable for them to live in their home. Once the initial emergency is over, we will reassess the tenant’s circumstances and may offer temporary housing or refer the tenant to the local authority”.
37. The landlord visited the resident’s property on 10 June 2024 following a leak recurrence and noted it booked an electrician to make the electrics safe, and the resident would possibly need to be temporarily moved. It then booked a hotel on 20 June 2024. The resident has not yet moved back into her property, so remains in temporary accommodation.
38. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not always promptly extend the resident’s hotel stay when it became evident that she would not be moving back into her property before the current booking expired. She raised such concerns on 19 July 2024, 11 October 2024, and 29 November 2024. In its complaint response, the landlord recognised occasions there was lack of oversight over the hotel bookings. However, it noted that on each occasion it extended the booking the same day. As such, the resident was not without overnight accommodation at any point. Nonetheless, the issues caused the resident distress, inconvenience, and additional time and trouble chasing the matter. It is positive to note that the resident told the Service that the landlord is now better managing the hotel bookings, demonstrating that it has learned and improved from the outcome of the complaint.
39. The resident viewed a possible long term temporary property on 15 August 2024. It was reasonable that the landlord offered the resident a different property, as this would offer more stability for the resident rather than living in a hotel for an extended period. However, the resident was unhappy with the offer as there was damp and mould and no flooring. The landlord said its voids team had inspected the property and completed repairs and full decorations. It also said it had installed new carpets and blinds. The landlord therefore took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns.
40. The resident then told the landlord on 29 November 2024 that the proposed property was too big for her to manage, was poorly heated, and she did not feel safe living on the ground floor. While the landlord must complete any required repairs, it would not necessarily be required to meet all the resident’s preferences when offering temporary accommodation. The decant policy states the landlord will make one offer of temporary accommodation which it considers reasonable. It was therefore not required to make a further accommodation offer in line with its policy. However, there is no evidence that it addressed the resident’s concerns, so it failed to explain why her preferences could not be met.
41. The decant policy states “when we require the tenant to move out of their home temporarily, we will pay for reasonable costs arising as a direct, natural, and unavoidable consequence of the move”. It was reasonable that the landlord included meals within the hotel bookings so that she would not incur additional costs due to not having kitchen facilities. It also promptly addressed the resident’s concerns when there were issues with the meals provided.
42. The resident raised concerns to the Service that she incurred additional travel costs due to having a longer commute to work. We have not seen evidence that she raised this to the landlord, so it has not necessarily had the opportunity to address the issue. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to request evidence of the additional costs and provide reimbursement in line with its policy if required.
43. The landlord’s overall approach to providing temporary accommodation was in line with its relevant policy. However, there were instances where it failed to suitably monitor the hotel booking. This caused inconvenience to the resident as she had to leave the hotel at short notice, albeit the landlord promptly took steps to resolve the issues. Its communication could have been improved to better manage the resident’s expectations regarding the actions it could take to support her. Although the landlord recognised the failings in its complaint response, the overall compensation was not deemed sufficient to cover both the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the temporary move. In view of this, £200 compensation is warranted.

Complaint handling

44. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
45. The resident’s advocate requested to raise a complaint on 5 December 2022. The landlord failed to respond, which was inappropriate and caused significant delays in resolving the complaint. In its complaint response, the landlord said that the letter did not include any contact details for her advocate. Regardless, the letter clearly included the resident’s name and address so it should have contacted her directly to progress the complaint. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised in its complaint response that it should have taken such steps.
46. In its stage 2 response, the landlord also noted that it failed to recognise further complaints from the resident’s advocate on 3 April 2023 and 30 May 2023. This failure unreasonably prevented the resident from accessing the complaints process.
47. The resident raised a further complaint on 11 October 2024. The landlord then issued its stage 1 response on 9 December 2024. This exceeded its response timeframe by 31 working days, which is an unreasonable delay.
48. The resident escalated the complaint on 14 February 2025, and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 12 March 2025. This was within the complaint response timeframe.
49. There were significant delays in exhausting the landlord’s internal complaint process due to the failure to recognise the resident’s initial complaints, and the delay in issuing the stage 1 response. It was appropriate that the landlord identified such failings in its complaint responses. The landlord offered £250 compensation for its complaint handling failures. This was in line with the Service’s remedies guidance, which states that such amounts are appropriate when there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. It has therefore reasonably redressed this element of the complaint.

Determination

50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the flat above and subsequent repair issues.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the temporary move.
52. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint, it made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which resolved matters satisfactorily.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

53. In addition to the £1250 compensation already offered, the landlord must pay the resident:
    1. £300 for the delays in completing repairs to the resident’s property following the final complaint response.
    2. £200 for the failings in the landlord’s handling of the temporary move.
54. The landlord should confirm to the resident a start date and estimated timeframe for completion for the repairs included in the schedule of works dated 28 August 2025. It should commit to providing prompt updates to the resident if additional works are required or the timeframe increases.
55. The landlord should confirm to the resident whether any repairs to the ceiling are required. It should complete a further inspection if required. If it deems that ceiling works are no longer needed, it should provide evidence to the resident and the Service to confirm how it has determined the ceiling is safe and in good repair.
56. Before commencing the works, the landlord should write to the resident to confirm the rooms that need to be cleared and the steps it will take to put her belongings in storage.
57. The landlord should write to the resident and confirm its position on the resident’s request for compensation for her damaged belongings. It must honour its proposal to replace the damaged furniture or enable the resident to make a claim through its liability insurer.
58. The landlord should provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

59. It would be reasonable for the landlord to request evidence of the additional travel costs incurred by the resident while she was in temporary accommodation, and to provide reimbursement in line with its decant policy if required.