The Guinness Partnership Limited (202338400)

Decision
Case ID	202338400
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	05 February 2026

Background

1. Around 6 months after the resident moved into her newbuild property, the developer of the building went into administration. The resident raised concerns to the landlord about fixtures and fittings installed by the developer in her property. She also raised concern about communal facilities.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about repairs within her property.
   2. Response to the resident’s concerns about communal facilities.
   3. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs within her property.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communal facilities.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Repairs in the property

6. When the developer went into administration, the landlord voluntarily committed to resolve the internal repair issues within the resident’s property. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident in respect of delays to replace wardrobe doors.

Communal facilities

7. The landlord acknowledged there had been issues with some communal services it was responsible for and took reasonable action to resolve these.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord provided its complaint responses in line with its complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the 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.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 compensation to acknowledge the effect of its poor communication in respect of the delay with the wardrobe doors. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 05 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reoffer £50 compensation it offered to the resident after its internal complaints procedure for its complaint handling.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
30 November 2023	The resident made a complaint to the landlord and said as follows: Issues in the property The shower in the wet room flooded the rest of the bathroom when in use. The alternative shower options suggested by the landlord would devalue her property. Her front door handle had fallen off and she had been locked in her property. The landlord had replaced the door handle but she did not believe the door handle was fit for purpose. The finish on the wardrobe doors had scratched off. Communal issues The communal bin cute would regularly block and the bin store door was locked. The communal entrance door had repeatedly broken. The landlord had told her to enter the block via the bike shed. It had taken 13 months for her windows to be cleaned. The concierge service was on a temporary site. The allocated rooftop and joint working space had not been finished.
1 December 2023	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
14 December  2023	The landlord advised it needed more time to respond to the complaint.
20 December 2023	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process. It said as follows: Issues in the property Shower It had offered 3 alternative options to put right the issues to affected tenants. These included 2 different types of shower and enclosure. The other option was an offer of £2,500 for tenants to source their own shower. Wardrobe doors It had not received reports from other tenants of the wardrobe doors scuffing. As such, it could not conclude there was a manufacturing defect. It had ordered replacement wardrobe doors for the resident and would fit them once received. Door handle It apologised for the issue with the resident’s front door handle and the effect this had on her. It confirmed it had replaced the door handle and had not received any further concerns from the resident about the door handle. Communal issues Bin chute In the last 6 months, it had unblocked the communal bin chute 4 times. These blockages had been caused by improper use. During times the chute was blocked, it had arranged for an alternative bin outside the building. There was a 24/7 concierge on site to help tenants dispose of their waste. It had provided portal updates informing tenants of the status of the chute, how to use it correctly and where to dispose of their waste. The basement area and bin stores had not been handed over to the landlord due to ongoing construction work. Window cleaning It had explained to the resident why the windows had not been cleaned and its plan going forward. It confirmed it would not charge the resident for this service for the time it had not been received. Communal door There had been 2 occasions when the communal door had broken and been repaired. It had kept residents updated about these repairs via its portal. Personal safety It acknowledged there had been bike thefts from the block. It had been working with the police to improve security. It had issued a portal update to residents about the thefts. It had viewed CCTV following the report made by the resident of someone trying to enter her property. It had not seen any unauthorised or suspicious entry. It advised her to report such matters to the police. Rooftop and joint working space It had provided regular updates on the progress of these areas on its portal. It apologised the areas had not been completed. Summary It concluded it had acted appropriately in response to the concerns raised. It outlined learning taken from the complaint.
22 December 2023	The resident escalated the complaint. She said the landlord had not addressed her concerns about a number of facilities not being fit for purpose.
3 January 2024	The landlord said it would respond at stage 2 by 30 January 2024.
26 January 2024	The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure. It said as follows: The developer of the block had gone into administration in June 2023. Following this, the landlord had taken on the outstanding works. However, it had been unable to complete some aspects of the development as originally scheduled. It had appointed another development company in November 2023 to complete the outstanding works. Issues in the property Shower The issues with the shower design had affected 54 properties in the block. After the developer had gone into administration, the landlord had taken over trying to resolve the issue with the showers. It had designed and tested alternative solutions. It explained to the resident it could not install shower trays due to building regulations. It had consulted the resident and affected tenants over the proposed solutions, however an agreement could not be reached. As such it had offered 3 options, including different shower designs and an offer of £2,500 for tenants to source their own solution. It could not install the demonstration shower options in a studio apartment as they all were occupied. It confirmed that tenants who had opted for one of the other shower options had reported no issues with the new design. Communal issues Bin chute The most common cause of the bin chute being blocked was incorrect use by tenants. It had provided information to tenants on how to use the chute correctly. It had put up signs to inform tenants how much it cost to unblock the chute and how the incorrect disposal of waste could impact their service charge. During times the chute had not been in use it had offered alternative solutions for disposing of rubbish. It had explained the basement bin store had not been handed over to the landlord as construction work was ongoing. Window cleaning It had provided regular updates to the resident and affected tenants about the lack of window cleaning. Following the developer going into administration, there had been missing documentation relating to safety equipment. This had prevented its contractor using the equipment to clean the windows. It had identified an alternative solution in September 2023, and window cleaning had begun shortly afterwards. It committed to refund the resident and affected tenants the service charge paid for window cleaning for the period the cleaning did not take place. Wardrobe doors It had not received concerns about the wardrobe doors from any other tenants. It apologised for the issue but concluded it could not agree there was a defect with the wardrobe doors. As such, it was confident a like for like replacement would resolve the issue. Door handle It had replaced the resident’s door handle. It acknowledged some properties in the block had experienced issues with door handles. However there was nothing to suggest there was an inherent defect with the door handles. Communal door It had reviewed the repair history for the main communal door in the 6 months leading up to the complaint. In that time, 2 faults had been reported. There was nothing to suggest that the door was defective or not fit for purpose. It explained it had not advised residents to access the building via the bike store. Personal safety It acknowledged there had been a bike theft. It said this had occurred after the perpetrator had followed a tenant into the building. It had a constant concierge presence and they patrolled the estate at night. If it was to have more security staff, this would increase tenants service charges. It advised the resident to call the police if she was concerned for her safety. Communal facilities not ready It explained it had informed tenants there would be delays to works in the block as a result of the developer going into administration. It had tried to get phase one works back on schedule and had appointed a contractor to manage the phase 2 works. It had provided regular updates and communications to residents about the progress of the outstanding block works.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred the matter to us and said as follows: The landlord had not provided a viable option in respect of the shower. The lack of window cleaning meant there had been no natural light in her property. The landlord would not change her front door handle to a different type of handle. She had wanted different material for the wardrobe door as it had worn quickly. The communal door would get jammed in the wind. It had broken 6 times since she had moved in. She did not feel safe in her property. The landlord had refused to look at CCTV in respect of her being followed to her property. The landlord had not provided a solution for the bin chute being blocked. The rooftop had taken a year to complete and another 4 months to furnish. More work was now being carried out to the rooftop. She could not access the coworking space.

 

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 response to the resident’s concerns about repairs within her property
Finding	Maladministration

9. The resident raised concerns about issues within her property, namely the shower, her front door handle and wardrobe doors. These fixtures and fittings were installed by the developer of the building. As such, these items would have been covered by the developer’s defects liability period.
10. Around 6 months after the resident moved into the property, the developer went into administration. At that point, the landlord voluntarily took over the management of the project and instructed another developer to complete outstanding works.
11. We have considered how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns of the issue within her property separately for clarity.

The shower

12. From the evidence we have been provided with, it is clear a number of properties within the block experienced flooding issues with the design of the showers installed by the developer in the wet room style bathrooms.
13. The resident’s lease says the resident is responsible for repair and maintenance of the shower. However, during the developer’s defects liability period, the developer would be responsible for responding to any issues experienced with the workings of the shower.
14. As the issue with the shower occurred during the defects period, there was no obligation on the landlord to take any action in respect of the shower. However, in light of the developer going into administration, the landlord voluntarily took on the resolution of this issue, both for the resident and other effected tenants in the block. This was over and above what it was required to do but demonstrated a resolution-focused approach to help its tenants in the unforeseen circumstances.
15. The landlord consulted with the effected tenants and liaised with architects and surveyors about possible solutions. Following the advice of its specialists, the landlord suggested 2 alternative shower and enclosure designs. It advised the resident that building regulations meant it could not install shower trays. The landlord also offered a cash alternative of £2,500 should the resident wish to source her own shower.
16. Not only did the landlord offer suitable alternatives, it installed these in a property without occupiers. This gave the resident the chance to see the proposed solutions before deciding on an option. The resident visited the empty property with the landlord to see the new design. However, she but did not feel it was appropriate for the layout of her property.
17. The resident asked to see the shower design in a property with the same layout as hers. The landlord advised this would not be possible as it did not have any empty properties with the same layout as the resident’s.
18. The landlord explained that should the resident wish to take the monetary payment and seek her own solution, it would work with her to ensure the chosen solution did not impact the building insurance.
19. In summary, the landlord voluntarily took responsibility to resolve the shower issue to help its tenants. It offered options to the resident in respect of a solution. Although the resident believed the options offered would devalue her property, this is a speculative concern which we cannot consider. We are satisfied the landlord’s offer of 3 options to the resident were fair and reasonable to resolve the issue.

Door handle

20. The resident’s lease says the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the door handle to the resident’s front door to her property.
21. Following a report from the resident that her front door handle had fallen off and she had been locked in, the landlord replaced the handle. The landlord did not provide us with records to show how long this repair took, however, the timeframe for the repair was not something the resident raised in her complaint. The resident’s concern was that she felt the like for like replacement door handle was not sufficient. She believed the door handle was not fit for purpose and felt the landlord should have provided a different door handle.
22. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the issue with the door handle and the effect this had on the resident. It noted that since it had replaced the door handle, the resident had not reported any further issues with it.
23. The resident maintained her concern that the door handle was not fit for purpose. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that other properties in the block had experienced an issue with the door handles. However, it concluded this did not mean the door handle was defective or that a different handle was needed.
24. The landlord demonstrated it replaced her door handle, apologised and investigated whether it was a wider issue. The evidence shows the landlord complied with its obligation to provide a working handle.

Wardrobe doors

25. The wardrobes were installed by the developer of the building and were covered by the developer’s defects liability period. The resident’s lease says she is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the wardrobes.
26. Following the developer going into administration, a contractor inspected the resident’s property on 24 July 2023. They noted the coating of the wardrobe doors was peeling off. Theyrecommendedthe wardrobe doors be renewed.
27. We have not been provided with any evidence the landlord took any action following this finding. The resident subsequently reported the issue with the wardrobe doors to the landlord in August 2023.
28. Despite not being responsible for the wardrobes, the landlord committed to put this right for the resident by replacing the wardrobe doors on a like for like basis. The resident was not satisfied with this as a resolution as she believed the wardrobe doors were not fit for purpose.
29. The landlordexplained within both of its complaint responses that it had not had any other similar reports from tenants in the block. As such, it had concluded it was not a fault with the materials used for the wardrobe doors. It reiterated that it would replace them like for like.
30. The landlord’s repairs policy says that it aims to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. If parts need to be ordered, or the item needs to be manufactured, this may take longer.
31. We have seen correspondence from the landlord which confirmed the replacement wardrobe doors had to be ordered from the manufacturer. We have also been provided with a number of emails from the resident chasing this work between August and December 2023.
32. At the time of the landlord stage 2 response in January 2024, it had not replaced the wardrobe doors. This was 6 months after the issue had been identified. It failed to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident by this delay and the time she had taken to repeatedly chase the landlord for an update.
33. Although the landlord was not required to replace the wardrobe doors, once it had committed to do so, it should have done so in line with the timeframes in its repairs policy. It is reasonable to assume more time was needed by the landlord to carry out the works due to the need to manufacture the doors, however, the landlord failed to keep in regular and proactive contact with the resident about this matter as could reasonably be expected. The failure to communicate caused unnecessary frustration.
34. We have been provided with evidence that, following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord replaced the wardrobe doors in March 2024.

Summary

35. In summary we have found the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs could have been better on account of  its failure to effectively communicate with the resident in respect of the replacement wardrobe doors. As such, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about repairs within her property.
36. To acknowledge the effect of this on the resident we have ordered £100 compensation. This is within a range recommended by our remedies guidance where a resident was adversely effected by a failure of the landlord.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communal facilities.
Finding	No maladministration

39. The landlord is responsible for the communal areas and communal facilities of the building. For clarity we have addressed each aspect of concern separately.

Waste disposal

40. Within her complaint the resident raised concerns that the communal bin cute was regularly blocked and the bin store door was locked.
41. The landlord explained within both of its complaint responses that blockages of the waste chute had been caused by tenants using it incorrectly. It set out the steps it had taken to educate tenants on correct usage of the chute, including portal updates and signs in the area. The landlord told tenants that incorrect usage could lead to increases to service charges for repeated repairs.
42. The landlord set out the alternative provision it had in place for when the waste chute was not in use. This included another bin and the concierge service should tenants need more help to dispose of items.
43. The evidence shows it responded to the resident’s concerns about the bin store not being available. It explained the bin store area had not been handed over to it yet due to ongoing construction works.
44. It is understandable that the waste chute being out of service on a number of occasions caused frustration to the resident. However, the landlord responded reasonably to her concerns by explaining the action it was taking to resolve the matter, and it offered alternative waste disposal solutions.

Window cleaning

45. The landlord acknowledged that window cleaning had not been carried out to the resident’s property windows. It explained this was due to missing documentation for safety equipment following the developer going into administration. The landlord explained that without the documentation, its contractor had not been able to use the required cleaning equipment.
46. The landlord apologised that the window cleaning had not been carried out. To acknowledge the lack of the service, it advised it had not charged the resident for window cleaning for the period it was not carried out. The landlord’s explanation and commitment to not charge for the service not received was reasonable in the circumstances. The failure to clean the windows was not due to a failure by the landlord, and its response to the complaint was reasonable in the circumstances.

Communal front door and security

47. The resident raised security concerns to the landlord in March and June 2023. She said on the first occasion, someone had buzzed the entrance buzzer in the early hours of the morning. On the second occasion, she said someone had tried to get into her property.
48. On both occasions we have seen evidence that the landlord checked its CCTV as requested by the resident. It told the resident the CCTV had not recorded any suspicious behaviour on either occasion.
49. The landlord acknowledged there had been bike thefts and said it had been working with the police in respect of these thefts. It advised the resident to report any instances of concerning behaviour to the police. This advice was appropriate as the police have primacy to investigate whether a potential crime has occurred.
50. Within its stage 2 response the landlord explained its concierge service was available 24/7 should she have security concerns that she wanted to raise with the landlord. It explained that any additional security provision at the block would lead to an increased service charge for tenants of the block. The landlord’s response demonstrated it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and had managed her expectations as to why it could not easily increase security staff.
51. We have seen reports on the landlord’s internal records from July, August and November 2023 to note the communal entrance door was not operating correctly. It is not disputed that the landlord carried out repairs to the communal door following these reports. The landlord did not provide us with records to show how long these repairs took, however the timeframe for the repairs was not something the resident raised in her complaint. The resident’s concern was that the communal front door was not fit for purpose. She believed this created a security risk.
52. The landlord acknowledged there had been faults with the communal door but advised there was nothing to suggest the door itself was defective or not fit for purpose. This is mirrored in the repairs records which note that parts had been repaired. In the circumstances and in line with the faults found by contractors, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out repairs to the communal door, rather than replace it.

Rooftop garden and coworking space

53. Following the developer going into administration, the landlord advised its tenants that the completion of the phases of the build would be impacted and delayed. The developer going into administration was outside of the landlord’s control.
54. We have seen evidence that the landlord provided regular updates to tenants on the progress of the construction via its online portal. The landlord apologised within its stage  2 complaint response that the areas had not been completed and explained it had appointed a contractor to manage phase 2 of the build.
55. Whilst it is understandable that the resident was frustrated by these areas not being completed, the landlord took reasonable steps to complete the work by appointing another contractor and update tenants about the progress of the works.

Summary

56. In summary, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the communal areas and services.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

57. The landlord operated a 2 stage complaint process. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time said at stage 1, it aimed to acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. Our Code allows for 5 working days for an landlord to acknowledge a complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy went on to say that it aimed to respond at stage 1 within a further 10 working days. At stage 2, it aimed to respond in 20 working days. These response timeframes mirror the timeframes in our Code.
58. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 1 working day. It provided its stage 1 response within a further 13 working days from the acknowledgement. Although this was 3 working days over its stated timeframe, the landlord had told the resident that it needed to extend its response timeframe. The landlord’s total time to respond at stage 1 was in line with the timeframe set out in the Code, as was the ability to extend timescales when the resident was informed.
59. The landlord took 22 working days to respond at stage 2. This was 2 working days outside of its stated timeframe. During this time, the landlord had contacted the resident to advise it needed more time and would respond by 30 January 2024. It provided its stage 2 response in line with this extended timeframe.
60. Our investigation has found the landlord acted in line with its complaints policy during its internal complaints procedure by letting the resident know that it needed more time to respond. The additional time taken of 2 working days cannot be said to have caused detriment to the resident. As such, there was no maladministration.
61. We note the landlord reviewed its handling of the complaint following our involvement. Within this review, it noted its response had been delayed and offered £50 compensation. We have not identified any failures in the landlord’s compliant handling that required redress to be provided. This is because, despite the short delay, it had kept the resident informed of needing additional time to respond and acted in accordance with the Code. Although we have not identified any failures, it was encouraging the landlord acknowledged it could have done better in its complaint handling and sought to rebuild the landlord tenant relationship.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

62. The landlord did not provide us with all of its records in respect of when it had carried out repairs works. Although the resident did not complaint about the timescales of repairs, the landlord should ensure its logs include when repairs were completed and what was carried out.

Communication

63. The landlords should consider how it can improve its communication with residents in respect of repairs. It should consider how it will be proactive when items have to be ordered and repairs cannot be completed in line with the timeframe of its repairs policy. It should ensure such communications are transparent and manage resident expectations about timescales.