The Guinness Partnership Limited (202312143)

Decision
Case ID	202312143
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	23 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lived in a flat within a scheme for older people. She complained about the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff. She also complained about its handling of her reports that her neighbour was causing a noise nuisance by banging doors late at night. The resident also complained that her property was too hot because the landlord keeps the communal heating on all the time. The resident has since moved to a new home.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Concerns about staff conduct.
   2. Reports of noise.
   3. Issues with the heating system.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that:
   1. The landlord’s handling of concerns about staff conduct are outside of our jurisdiction.
   2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of noise.
   3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of issues with the heating system.
   4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

 

 

 

Summary of reasons

Concerns about staff conduct.

5. We have not investigated the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. These are outside our jurisdiction. While the resident complained about the issue in 2021, she did not complete the landlord’s internal process. When she complained about the issues again 2 years later, the landlord acted in line with its policy when it explained the issues had occurred too long ago for it to investigate.

Reports of noise.

6. The actions available to the landlord were limited by a lack of evidence and by the resident not wanting it to handle the issue as antisocial behaviour (ASB). However, the landlord did not consider her request for other options such as sound insulation. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue.

Issues with the heating system.

7. The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of issues with the heating system by carrying out repairs recommended by its contractor. However, it failed to carry out a risk assessment in relation to her concerns about the impact of the heat on vulnerable residents. It also failed to investigate and respond to her concerns about the impact on the heating service charges.

Handling of the complaint.

8. There were minor delays in the landlord’s complaint responses. The landlord however did not address the resident’s concerns about the impact of the heating issues on her service charges.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior officer. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 20 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £400 made up as follows: £100 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of noise. £200 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of heating issues. £100 for time and trouble in relation to its handling of the complaint. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 20 February 2026
4	Service charge investigation The landlord must investigate the resident’s concerns that issues with the heating system have caused increased costs for residents. If it finds avoidable costs have been incurred, it must consider whether it should reasonably reimburse residents. Its response must be provided in writing to the resident and the Ombudsman.	No later than 20 February 2026
5	Risk assessment If it has not already done so, the landlord must carry out a risk assessment to determine whether the heating issues are causing hazards in the scheme. It must provide a plan of how it will mitigate any identified risks.	No later than 20 February 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Neighbourhood management policy If it does not already have one, the landlord should consider implementing a neighbourhood management policy in line with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 September 2021	The landlord provided a stage 1 response. We have not seen the original complaint. It said it was unable to investigate the resident’s concerns that a member of staff had behaved inappropriately. It said this was because the member of staff had resigned.
21 August 2023	The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to raise a stage 1 complaint for the resident. We said she wanted to complaint about its handling of: Her concerns about the behaviours of a former member of landlord staff. Noise nuisance from her neighbour who was slamming doors. Her reports that the communal heating was on all the time.
5 September 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It said: Staff conduct It was unable to investigate her concerns about staff conduct as the staff member had left the organisation. As the events had taken place more than 6 months earlier, it would not investigate further. This was in line with its complaints policy. Noise nuisance When she reported noise from her neighbour, she had explained that it was not ASB but “daily living sounds” from her neighbour’s property. It had tried to contact her following her reports but she had not responded. It had found no failings in its handling of her reports. It had provided advice about the issue and had asked her to complete diary sheets and noise recordings. This would allow it to understand the source, frequency, and severity of the issue. She had declined these options. To consider appropriate action it needed such evidence. Communal heating It had taken it 7 days to respond to her concerns about the heating. This was not within its agreed timeframes. It apologised and offered her £10 compensation. It had discussed her concerns with her. Its contractor then attended and completed an assessment. It reduced the temperature controls but she said this had not made a difference. She said her floorboards were hot due to the pipes. It was awaiting further recommendations from its contractor and would update her.
23 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: When she reported the staff conduct at the time it occurred the landlord said it would investigate. However, it didn’t. While her neighbour did not intentionally behave antisocially, his actions in the night were antisocial as they woke her up. She should have the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property. Her property remained too hot even when her heating was off. This was due to heat from pipes under her floor.
28 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 2 response. It said: Staff conduct It could not investigate because it did not have the necessary information available as the issue occurred in 2021. Noise nuisance It had acted in line with its ASB policy. It had attempted to contact her my telephone and home visit. It had spoken to her neighbour about the behaviour and he agreed to be more considerate. It had asked her to complete diaries and recordings but she had not done so. It could not do anything further without evidence. Heating It had installed further software to the system. This would cause the heating to shut off when internal and external temperatures hit certain levels. There were pipes in building which ran through dwellings under flooring. This may give off heat when her heating was off. It had no plans to carry out further works.
26 April 2024	The resident escalated the case to the Ombudsman. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her complaint as it had not resolved the issues she had reported. Since escalating her complaint to us, the resident has moved to a new home with a different landlord.

 

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	Concerns about staff conduct.
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

9. The resident complained about staff conduct in 2021. She said the staff member had raised his voice at her and had been sarcastic and unprofessional.
10. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord explained that it had started an investigation when the resident had initially reported her concerns. However, the staff member had then resigned. It explained it had therefore been unable to continue its investigation. The resident did not escalate her complaint at this time. The complaint therefore did not complete the landlord’s internal complaint process.
11. She did not raise a further complaint until 2 years later in 2023. In response, the landlord said it would not investigate issues which had occurred more than 6 months earlier. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy.
12. In summary, we have not investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. This is because we find that these are outside of our jurisdiction. The resident failed to bring them to the landlord’s attention, and to complete its internal complaints process, within a reasonable period of the matter arising.

Complaint	Reports of noise.
Finding	Service failure

13. The resident first reported noise from her neighbour in May 2021. She said he was banging his doors at night. She did not however make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issue until August 2023.
14. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable making it difficult to conduct a thorough investigation and make informed decisions. Taking this into account, this assessment has focussed on the period from March 2023 onwards. This is where records indicate events started leading up to the resident’s complaint.
15. In March 2023 the resident reported that her neighbour was loudly banging his doors in the night and early hours of the morning. She said this happened every night and she was struggling to sleep due to the noise.
16. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 4 occasions and tried to visit on another occasion to discuss her reports. It would have been reasonable for it to write to her and explain it had been unable to contact her about her reports. That it did not do so was a missed opportunity.
17. We have not seen any further reports from the resident until August 2023. She said her neighbour was making a noise by opening and closing his internal doors and cupboards during the night. She said however that he had insomnia and so she did not want the landlord to handle the issue as ASB as it was not his fault. The resident asked the landlord to install soundproofing to address the issue.
18. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on noise identified that, as in this case, noise transference is a key issue. It encouraged landlords to consider prevention through the installation of sound insulation. This said, the landlord is not contractually obliged to provide sound insulation. This would be considered an improvement and not a repair. We recognise that the cost of such works may be prohibitive.
19. We have not seen any evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s request for soundproofing. This was unreasonable. It should reasonably have considered and responded to her request. If it decided not to install soundproofing, it should have explained its reasoning to her.
20. In its complaint response the landlord said that the noise reported by the resident was “daily living sounds” and not ASB. The Spotlight report recommended that landlords differentiate between general living noise and ASB. We have recommended that the landlord consider implementing a neighbourhood management policy if it does not already have one. This would reduce the likelihood of similar failures in service happening again.
21. The landlord said it had spoken to the resident’s neighbour and that he had agreed to be more considerate. We have not seen any evidence of this communication. This indicates issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
22. The landlord said it had asked the resident to complete noise diaries and obtain sound recordings to help it understand the source, severity, and frequency of the issue. We have seen no evidence that it made this request. This indicates further record keeping issues. The landlord said the resident had declined to keep a diary or record the noise and that it therefore had insufficient evidence to demonstrate that action was required.
23. The landlord clearly explained that the actions it could take were limited as the noise was a result of “daily living” activities. The noise described by the resident could be described as normal daily living activities. The timing of the noise however, in the early hours of the morning when most people were likely to be asleep, was not reasonable. Even so, without further evidence to corroborate the reports, the actions available to the landlord were limited, particularly as she the resident did not want action taking against her neighbour.
24. Overall, the actions available to the landlord were limited by a lack of evidence, and by the resident not wanting it to handle the issue as ASB. However, it did not consider her request for other options such as sound insulation. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue. We therefore find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise.
25. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by its failings. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Issues with the heating system.
Finding	Maladministration

26. The resident had reported issues with the heating since at least 2021. She reported her property was too hot due to the communal heating. The landlord carried out several investigations and repairs to address the issue.
27. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable making it difficult to conduct a thorough investigation and make informed decisions. Taking this into account, and because there was a gap in the resident’s reports between October 2021 and August 2023, this assessment has focussed on the period from August 2023 onwards. This is where records indicate events started leading up to the resident’s complaint.
28. In August 2023 the resident reported that even when she turned her radiators off, her property was too hot due to hot water pipes which ran under her floors. She said the landlord told her that, due to a slow leak in the system, the boiler had to be on permanently. She raised concerns about the impact this would have on the service charges residents were paying for heating.
29. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that the issues with the heating system were increasing service charge costs for residents. This was unreasonable. We have ordered that it investigate her concerns and update her with its findings.
30. The resident raised concerns about the impact of high temperatures on herself and other residents at the scheme, many of whom were elderly. She explained her health issues and the effect the heat was having on her. Given her concerns, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment. We have not seen any evidence that it did so. This was a failing.
31. The landlord’s contractor attended 12 days later. It turned the heating down and recommended that a specialist operative fit further sensors. The contractor reported back to the landlord that the heating controls could be optimised but that this would require “major work”.
32. Internal emails show the landlord investigated the resident’s concern that there was a slow leak in the system. It examined its repair records and found there had been a leak in December 2022 but this was resolved. There is no evidence however that the landlord communicated this to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to set her mind at ease and demonstrate it was investigating her concerns.
33. The landlord’s contractor installed further software to the heating system in September 2023. This would shut off the heating when internal and external temperatures reached set levels. The contractor did not recommend any further work.
34. Internal communications show that the landlord was aware that the heating system was old and inefficient. They demonstrate that it considered major works to improve the system but that the cost of such works was very high and that it was unable to fund the works. While this was a reasonable decision, it would have been appropriate for it to communicate this to the resident.
35. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that it had responded outside target timeframes to her initial report. It offered her £10 compensation for this. This was reasonable. It outlined the repairs it had carried out and said it had no plans to carry out further works. This was in line with its contractor’s recommendation and was therefore reasonable.
36. Overall, the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of issues with the heating system by carrying out repairs recommended by its contractor. However, it failed to carry out a risk assessment in relation to her concerns about the impact of the heat on vulnerable residents. It also failed to investigate and respond to her concerns about the cost of the heating. We therefore find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about issues with the heating system.
37. Our remedies guidance suggests that compensation of between £100 and £600 is appropriate where there has been a failing which has adversely impacted a resident. We consider that £200 is proportionate in this case for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

38. The landlord did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint as its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says it should. It took the landlord 11 working days to respond to the complaint. While this exceeds the 10-working day timeframe in its policy and the Code, the delay was minor and did not cause any detriment.
39. The landlord’s stage 1 response was reasonably detailed. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns about the heating service charge costs. The Code states that landlords must address all issues of the complaint. We acknowledge that, until April 2024, adherence to the Code was not mandatory. However, the landlord’s complaint policy said it would adhere to all requirements of the Code.
40. It took the landlord 24 working days to respond to the complaint. This exceeds the 20-working day timeframe in its policy and the Code. While the delay was minor, the landlord failed to acknowledge it and apologise in its final response.
41. The landlord again failed to address the resident’s concerns regarding the service charge costs in its stage 2 response. As previously outlined, this was a failure to meet the requirements of the Code and its own policy.
42. Overall, there were delays in the landlord’s complaint responses, however these were not lengthy. The landlord however did not address the resident’s concerns about the impact of the heating issues on her service charges. This was a failing. We therefore find maladministration in its handling of the complaint.
43. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

44. There were gaps in the landlord’s records about its actions following the resident’s reports of noise. They did not however impede our investigation.

Communication

45. We found several failings in the landlord’s communication. It failed to address several of the concerns which the resident raised. It also failed to communicate the reasoning behind its decision making. This caused her avoidable distress, time, and trouble.