The Guinness Partnership Limited (202430718)

Background

1. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom flat with his partner and his mother. His mother is in her 90s and has Alzheimer’s. The resident has reported leaks in his property over a number of years.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of leaks and roof repairs.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks and roof repairs.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of leaks and roof repairs.

5. The landlord has been aware of roof leaks for a significant amount of time. The landlord only completed the roof repair recently. The landlord has not demonstrated that it was proactively trying to get the works completed, and its communication with the resident was poor. The landlord has also not evidenced that it considered the impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

6. We identified delays in the landlord’s complaints handling. Its stage 1 response did not provide an outcome as it said the resident had already requested a stage 2 response. While we identified failings, the landlord offered £100 for these which we consider to be reasonable.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. We are aware the resident has been reporting issues with his roof and leaks for several years. The landlord responded to a previous complaint regarding the roof on 26 May 2023 in which it committed to erecting scaffolding. The landlord’s records say that it erected scaffolding, and completed roof repairs on 27 June 2023. In line with our Scheme, for the purpose of this investigation we have considered events since 27 June 2023. This is because events prior to this were subject to a separate complaint. Any previous events are for context only.
8. Internal emails dated between 20 and 21 September 2023 identified that there was a further roof leak at the resident’s property. It also queried whether there was asbestos at the property. We would expect the landlord to investigate the leak and confirm to the resident what actions it would take to resolve this. We have not seen any repairs records which confirm the actions the landlord took at this time. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord noted the resident reported 5 leaks between 20 and 30 September 2023. On 2 occasions it said it attended as an emergency as there were concerns with water coming through the electrics. Whilst the landlord has said it took action to address any urgent matters, we have not seen evidence that it was carrying out repairs which would resolve the leak permanently.
9. On 12 October 2023 the landlord noted that it needed to visit the property. This was to check whether it needed to remove broken tiles or all tiles that contained asbestos. We have not seen evidence that the landlord completed this action, or that it updated the resident.
10. On 13 November 2023 the landlord identified in internal emails that flashing and soakers at the resident’s property had failed and needed renewing. On 23 November 2023 an internal email asked if there was a date for this appointment to take place. We have not seen evidence that the landlord replaced the flashing or soakers at this time.
11. On 29 April 2024 the landlord received a report of a new leak from the resident. The leak was coming through the electrics. The landlord’s repairs policy said it will treat leaks that have a risk of electric shock as an emergency, and that it attends to emergency repairs within 24 hours. We have seen a repairs record dated 30 April 2024 which said an electrician was on its way. We have not seen a further record confirming it completed the appointment. On balance we consider it likely the landlord attended the repair as an emergency; however, we are unable to say what actions it took. Further, we consider that as this was a new leak we would expect the landlord to consider the underlying cause and review the actions it was taking to get a permanent resolution to the roof leaks.
12. On 14 May 2024 the resident reported a new leak in his bedroom. We have not seen evidence that the landlord took any action regarding this report, or that it responded to the resident. On 29 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord again to advise the leak was spreading to other rooms in the property. There is no evidence the landlord responded to him at this time.
13. On 11 June 2024 the landlord sent an internal email asking if works raised in November 2023 to replace the flashing and soakers had been completed. We cannot see that this query was resolved, or that the landlord followed up on this. The landlord has not demonstrated that it was taking ownership of the underlying cause of the leaks or treating the matter with urgency. This is likely to have caused distress to the resident as the leaks continued.
14. On 31 July 2024 the resident emailed to say he had not heard from the landlord since raising his complaint. He advised his mother-in-law was living with them and she had Alzheimer’s and was 90 years of age. He noted that there had been no light in the bathroom for 2 years due to a leak which had come through the lighting. He said the landlord had not taken action and the leaks continued to spread to other rooms. On becoming aware that there was a vulnerable adult in the property, we would expect the landlord to consider whether it needed to provide additional support for the resident while the repairs were outstanding. We would also expect the landlord to consider if there were any health and safety concerns, given the resident had reported that there was no light in the bathroom. The landlord responded to the resident, but only to say he would be compensated. We have not seen that the landlord considered the concerns the resident raised and provided an appropriate response.
15. On 21 August 2024 the landlord said in internal emails that it needed to do an asbestos survey. It first identified this in October 2023. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it completed the asbestos survey on 30 September 2024. An internal email dated 14 October 2024 said it was still trying to get a date for the asbestos survey. We consider the time the landlord took to action the asbestos survey to be unreasonable, and it has not provided an explanation for the delay. We also note that there was internal confusion as to whether it had completed an asbestos report.
16. In the stage 2 response the landlord noted that it completed roof repairs on 21 October 2024. We have not seen evidence of these repairs and have not been provided with details of what took place. The landlord noted that water ingress was still occurring and as such, whilst we do not dispute the landlord took action on 21 October 2024, the repairs did not resolve the issues with the leaking roof.
17. Between 30 October 2024 and 28 November 2024, the landlord discussed the roof repairs internally. It identified that it needed to do a survey to establish where the leaks were coming from. Whilst a survey to establish where the leaks were coming from was an appropriate action, we note that the landlord had been aware this was required for more than a year.
18. The landlord wrote a letter to the resident on 3 September 2025 offering increased compensation because it had not honoured its commitments as per the stage 2. It said the roof repairs were outstanding. We consider the delay in the roof repairs to be unreasonable, and we have not seen that an adequate explanation for the delay has been given.
19. The resident raised that scaffolding had been up at his property for some time in his complaint. He had concerns regarding the health and safety of this due to it not being inspected for a number of years. While the roof repairs were outstanding, it may have been necessary to keep the scaffolding up. However, we would expect the landlord to have responded to the resident regarding any safety concerns he had. We have not seen it did this.
20. The landlord attended the property when there were emergency concerns, such as water coming through electrics. The landlord has said it has carried out roof repairs on a few occasions. However, the records for the repairs are limited and it is evident that the repairs did not resolve the ongoing issues the resident was having. The landlord has not demonstrated that it considered the resident’s circumstances or offered any additional support. The landlord did not address the resident’s reports that the bathroom had no light for 2 years due to the leak, and it did not address the resident’s concerns that the leak affected multiple rooms in his property. The landlord has not evidenced that it provided the resident with updates. We note the landlord accepted in its stage 2 that its handling of the roof repairs and its communication with the resident was unacceptable. However, we have not seen that it learned from this and improved its communication after the stage 2. We therefore consider that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs and leaks,
21. The landlord initially offered £600 compensation. We would not consider that to be proportionate to the findings identified in its report due to the impact the matter had on the resident and the time that the matter was outstanding. After the stage 2 the landlord increased the compensation to £1,350 which we consider to be reasonable inline with our remedies guidance. This was to recognise that there had been further delays and that it had not completed the roof repairs, as it had said in its stage 2 response. As the increase happened after the stage 2 response, we have still made an adverse finding in line with our Scheme. However, we have not made an award for further compensation.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The landlord took 119 working days. This delay was unreasonable.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not provide its position on the complaint. It said this was because the resident had requested the complaint be addressed at stage 2. In line with the complaint handling code, we expect a landlord to provide a full response at stage 1. The delay in responding to the stage 1 resulted in the resident requesting an escalation. The landlord’s response subsequently did not give any information regarding the complaint and implied this was due to the actions of the resident. This is likely to have caused frustration as the resident had already waited a significant period of time for an update.
24. The landlord logged the escalation on the same day as the stage 1 response was issued. Its complaints policy says it will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It took 47. It has not responded in line with its complaints policy.
25. In the stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that it had not followed its complaints process as it had not responded within the timescales if is complaints policy. However it did not recognise the failure to provide a full response at stage 1. We consider an additional £100 compensation is appropriate. This is to recognise that the stage 1 response is likely to have cause distress and inconvenience.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

26. We have identified a number of records were not provided, including records of repairs visits. We have seen an internal email from 30 August 2025 reviewing the resident’s complaint. In this the landlord has noted that a number of records were missing. Whilst it is positive that the landlord has recognised this, we would encourage it to consider how it can learn from this in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

27. The landlord was not proactively updating the resident regarding repairs. There were several times when the resident requested updates, and no response was provided. We consider there to be poor communication with the resident. The landlord should review the communication in this report and consider how it can ensure it provides regular updates to the resident moving forward.
28. We have noted that the repairs were outstanding for a significant period of time. There are internal communications that suggest members of staff were trying to get repairs arranged but did not get responses from other departments. These communications were not followed up meaning the main repairs were never completed. This has resulted in unreasonable delays to the roof repairs.