The Guinness Partnership Limited (202332746)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332746

The Guinness Partnership Limited

23 October 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 residents reports of issues with:
   1. The communal front door lock.
   2. The building’s intercom system.
   3. The cleanliness of the communal area.
   4. A lift.
   5. The temperature of the building.

Background

2. The resident lives in a flat in a five storey building under an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. Her tenancy started on 18 June 2018. The resident has arthritis that affects her mobility.
3. The landlord is not the freeholder of the building. The freeholder has appointed a managing agent for the building. The landlord has a lease for a number of properties within the building which shows the freeholder is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the building’s communal areas and all heating related issues. These are managed by the managing agent.
4. From 2023, the resident raised several complaints to the landlord about multiple issues in the building. These included issues with both lifts in the building breaking down, the cleanliness of the communal areas, and that the communal front door lock was often broken. She also said the building, both in the flats and communal areas, was excessively hot and the building’s intercom system had never worked.
5. One of the resident’s complaints completed the landlord’s internal complaints process on 31 January 2024. Across both stages the landlord did not uphold any elements of her complaint. It said it, and the managing agent, had taken necessary action on each issue.
6. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said the landlord had failed to resolve the issues with the building’s temperature, the cleanliness of the communal areas and the lift nearest her property. She said it had fixed the issues with the intercom and the communal front door lock, but she believed it took too long to do so. She wanted it to apologise and offer compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. From 2023 onwards the resident raised multiple complaints to the landlord. Each complaint covered the resident’s issues with the building temperature and issues in the communal areas. It provided stage 1 responses to each complaint raised. She only escalated one of these complaints (TGP-1597052) to stage 2 and it provided its response on 31 January 2024.
8. The Ombudsman may only consider complaints that have completed both stages of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP). Therefore, this determination is solely based on complaint TGP-1597052. Any mention of any other complaints are for context reasons only.

Communal front door lock

9. Part of the resident’s complaint was about the communal front door to the building. She said the door lock had been repeatedly damaged due to antisocial behaviour. She said each time the landlord had replaced it with poor quality locks that were not fit for purpose and easily rebroken. She said this affected the security of the building, as well as sometimes causing access issues.
10. In the landlord’s complaint responses it explained the managing agent, on its behalf, had replaced the lock multiple times following reports of vandalism. It said it had tried several different locks, some with keypad entry included. It advised the most recent lock seemed to be working, with no reports of damage or access issues, and therefore the issue was resolved.
11. The evidence confirms the landlord did ask the agent about what actions had been taken regarding the lock. It relayed the agents response in its complaint responses, which was not unreasonable to do. However, no evidence has been provided to support the agents actions, such as repair logs or invoices for work. Without such evidence it is not possible for this investigation to assess the soundness of the landlord’s reasoning. This, in itself, is a failing.

Intercom system

12. Part of the resident’s complaint was that the intercom system in the building was not operational. She said it had not worked since they moved in 2018. She said the impact was she, and other residents, had to continually climb the stairs to let in visitors or collect deliveries. She said as she had mobility issues this was not suitable, particularly when the lift was not working.
13. In the landlord’s complaint responses it said its managing agent had confirmed the intercom system was not operational. It said the agent had advised it had no immediate plans to fix the issue as there were higher priority repairs needed in the building. It said the agent had advised residents could give the door lock code to visitors to allow them remote access. It also advised it was looking into installing a parcel locker to allow deliveries to be collected when convenient.
14. The landlord has told this Service the managing agent managed issues such as the intercom system on its behalf. When the resident complained, the landlord raised this concern with the agent. They advised the system could not be repaired, but instead needed full replacement. It advised there were higher priority repairs needed in the building, particularly to the boiler system, and therefore they had no immediate plans to replace the intercom. It suggested sharing the door code with visitors.
15. On the face of it the landlord’s response was not unreasonable, at least as a short-term solution. It allowed visitors or delivery drivers access into the building remotely, therefore resolving the issue of access. However, no evidence has been provided showing how the agent or landlord considered the situation and reached their decision that the intercom was a lower priority. Without such evidence it is not possible for this investigation to assess the soundness of the landlord’s reasoning.
16. The resident has since advised that the intercom system has since been replaced and has resolved the matter. Nonetheless, the landlord has not provided evidence supporting its explanations, which was a failing.

Communal cleanliness

17. In the resident’s complaint she said the building’s communal areas were dirty and not being cleaned sufficiently. She said the cleaners responsible for these areas never turned up.
18. In the landlord’s complaint responses it said its managing agent had confirmed the communal areas were cleaned weekly. It also said it conducted its own checks of the cleaning each quarter and had found no issues. It also advised the agent had recently written to all residents in the building about an issue with fly tipping by the outdoor bin area.
19. The landlord’s response was appropriate. It raised the resident’s concerns about the cleaning with the managing agent. The agent confirmed weekly cleans were taking place.
20. Furthermore, the landlord was conducting its own inspections of the communal areas each quarter and compiled a report following each visit with supporting photos. These reports showed it had found the communal areas to be of a suitable standard. The reports did highlight an issue with fly tipping by the bin area, but the agent was already working with residents to resolve this.

Lift

21. The resident complained that the lift nearest her flat had not been working for some time. She said as she had mobility issues this made accessing and leaving her flat difficult. She said while there was another lift in the building, this was further away from her flat and frequently broke down also.
22. In the landlord’s complaint responses it said the managing agent was responsible for the repair and maintenance of the lifts. It said the managing agent had advised while not ideal, there were two other lifts in the building the resident could use. It felt this was sufficient to cater to all the residents in the building.
23. The landlord’s response was not reasonable for several reasons. There is no evidence showing it raised the resident’s concerns about the lift to the managing agent. It should have done so, as the lift was the agent’s responsibility. Had it done so, the managing agent may have been able to provide it with an update on works or its plans for the lift which could have been passed to the resident. Not doing so evidenced poor communication.
24. Additionally, the resident has told this Service that with one lift down, there was only one other useable lift in the building that was a considerable distance from her flat. In its response, the landlord said there were still two other lifts she could use.
25. It is not apparent from the evidence seen which was correct. Nevertheless, regardless of how many lifts were available, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to ensure the resident was able to access them safely. This was not appropriate as the resident had been clear the issue, combined with her mobility issues, was affecting her ability to leave or enter her flat. The landlord should have ensured the resident was able to come and go from her property safely, particularly when considering fire safety. Not doing so was not appropriate or reasonable.
26. Also, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s comments that the remaining lift often broke down as well. This was not appropriate, as this was an important element of her complaint. It also does not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which says landlord’s must respond to all elements of a complaint.

Building temperature

27. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for central heating installations and communal areas. The landlord has informed this Service the managing agent is responsible for all heating issues in the resident’s building. This includes both individual flats and the communal areas.
28. The resident complained that the building was excessively warm, affecting both communal areas and individual flats. She described the heat in her home as unbearable and explained that opening windows wasn’t an option due to noise from a nearby road.
29. In the landlord’s complaint response it said while it was aware the building was warm, this only affected the communal areas. It said this was due to the design of the building. It said both it, and the managing agent, had explored different options to fix the problem with external organisations, including the local council’s environmental health team, but nothing could be done. At stage 2, it arranged to visit and inspect the temperature in her flat and communal areas to see if anything else could be done.
30. The landlord visited the resident as promised its complaint response. The evidence shows one of its officers visited her flat on 1 February 2024. Notes from the visit said it found the temperature in both her flat and the communal areas to be acceptable and had no concerns. It also said the resident was able to ventilate her flat by opening the windows.
31. The landlord also raised the issue with the managing agent on several occasions. The agent’s response was that the issue was due to the design of the building, it only affected the communal areas and there was no solution.
32. On this basis, the landlord’s response was reasonable. It raised the issue with the agent, conducted its own check and found no issue.
33. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord sought advice from any external agencies about the temperature of the building. In speaking with the Service, it confirmed it has never asked an agency, such as environmental health, to check the building temperature. It said this was because the issue was the managing agent’s responsibility instead. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord to say it had arranged these checks in its complaint response. Nor is there evidence that the agent did so either.
34. Excessive heat is a known risk and hazard in homes, and one that any landlord must take seriously. It would have been reasonable and good practice for the landlord to seek extra reassurance from appropriate organisations as it told the resident it had. Its subsequent admission that it had not actually done so, and not providing evidence of its agent doing so were significant failings.
35. Overall, part of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the building temperature was reasonable. It raised the concerns to the agent responsible and it completed a check itself. However, it did not arrange for appropriate external agencies to investigate the issue, or ask for proof from its agent that it had done this instead. Given the potential health and safety aspects of the issue, that was a significant omission.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of issues with the cleanliness of the building
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of issues with the temperature of the building.
38. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of issues with:
    1. The communal front door lock.
    2. A lift.
    3. The building’s intercom system.

Orders

39. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation. This is comprised of:
    1. £300 for its failings in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the property temperature.
    2. £300 for the lack of evidence supporting its actions and explanations in regards to the intercom, lift and door lock.
40. Within 6 weeks the landlord must discuss with the resident her concerns about access to and from her home considering her mobility disabilities when all of the lift services are out of operation.
41. Within 6 weeks of this report the landlord must provide evidence of consulting with the local council’s environmental health team, or a similar organisation, about the potential hazard or risk posed by the temperatures in the resident’s home and the building’s communal areas. The evidence must be shared with the resident, along with the landlord’s plan of action if a risk is confirmed.
42. Provide evidence of the above to this Service.