The Guinness Partnership Limited (202313998)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313998

The Guinness Partnership Limited

9 May 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 level of compensation offered by the landlord following completion of roof repairs on the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. In May 2021, the resident reported a roof leak. He initiated the Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions in December 2021, which was settled in April 2023 out of court. The landlord repaired the leak in April and May 2023, with the final job of decorating the resident’s living room scheduled for 21 July and 28 July 2023. However, there was also a missing roof tile.
  3. On 5 May 2023, the resident reported pigeons accessed the loft area via the missing tile, causing him a noise nuisance.  Operatives inspected the property on 22 June 2023 and accidentally damaged the bedroom ceiling. On 5 July 2023, the resident reported that operatives had also damaged his wardrobe and personal effects. Pest control and roofing contractors attended the property again on 21 July 2023 and completed their respective jobs on 24 July 2023.
  4. Meanwhile, there was a mix-up scheduling the redecoration work for the resident’s living room. This meant that work started late on the first day. As a result, the job was completed a day later on 29 July 2023, causing the resident to miss a family event he had planned on that day. After completion of the work, the resident told the landlord the work was poorly done, and he had to purchase paint and redecorate the living room himself.
  5. The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 August 2023, saying that there has been a hole in his bedroom ceiling since 23 June 2023, and the landlord made no attempts to repair it. He said he had asked for compensation but received no updates from the landlord.
  6. The landlord responded on 15 August 2023. It apologised for the delay in repairing the bedroom ceiling, which it had now booked for 23 August 2023. It also acknowledged shortcomings in its communications with the resident. It offered £75 in compensation, consisting of £50 for its communications and £25 for the delayed repair.
  7. In his 16 August 2023 escalation request, the resident said the landlord failed to repair the hole in his bedroom, failed to investigate the damage to his belongings and failed to take responsibility for it. He said that £75 was inadequate compensation.
  8. The landlord completed remedial works on the resident’s bedroom on 6 September 2023, with a follow-up painting job on 29 September 2023.
  9. In its 20 September 2023 final response letter, the landlord said that it should have proactively kept the resident updated. It acknowledged it had failed to return the resident’s calls and recognised that its complaint response had not addressed all of the resident’s concerns. The landlord also recognised delays in raising and completing the bedroom repairs, and it offered its apology. It also said that while it was not disputed that its operatives had caused damage to the resident’s bedroom, the resident was unable to confirm the details necessary to justify the £700 reimbursement he had requested. Nevertheless, it said it had factored this into its revised compensation offer of £380, which included £250 for damaged items, £75 for the inconvenience caused, £30 for shortcomings in its communication, and £25 for not addressing all complaint points.
  10. When the case was brought to us, we offered the parties the opportunity to settle the dispute through mediation. The resident said that in addition to the £380 offered in stage 2, he sought an additional £700 to cover the cost of redecorating the living room, which he attributed to poor workmanship by operatives. He also requested compensation for the broken wardrobe, the loss of income due to allowing operatives to work, and for missing a family event because of the ongoing works to the living room.
  11. Following our request for information from the landlord, the landlord reviewed the case and wrote to the resident on 24 May 2024. It said that although it had acknowledged the delay in completing the repairs in its stage 2 letter, the compensation offer did not reflect the “unreasonable delay” the resident had experienced. In addition to the £380 it had offered in stage 2, it now offered £325, consisting of £300 for the inconvenience and £25 for the delay in its complaint handling, bringing the total to £705. The resident has not indicated they are satisfied with this resolution.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. Some aspects of the resident’s complaint were about the time it had taken to solve the leak he had reported in 2021. As issues become historic, evidence becomes difficult to obtain and authenticate, and accounts become less reliable. As such, this investigation will focus on events from May 2023, when the resident reported that pigeons had entered the loft space via the missing roof tile.

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following completion of roof repairs on the resident’s property.

  1. It is not disputed that there were delays in completing the repairs, and there were shortcomings with the landlord’s communications, which adversely affected the resident. Where the landlord has accepted that it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it offered puts things right and resolves the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes, as well as our own guidance on remedies. In this case, we believe that following our intervention, the landlord has made an offer of redress which was fair and proportionate to the failures identified.
  2. Operatives caused damage to the resident’s property on 22 June 2023. They contacted the landlord and asked that the landlord contact the resident and repair the damage caused. They included a photo of the damage to the ceiling but highlighted that the actual damage could be more extensive once the room was inspected from inside the property.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2023 and reported the damage to his wardrobe, drill and personal effects. On 31 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and said it was unable to find any evidence of the damage to the wardrobe. It asked the resident to provide photographs and evidence of the cost, such as receipts or bank statements. It said it would need these as evidence so it could consider a fair compensation amount. The resident responded that he had bought the wardrobe 15 years ago and did not have receipts. He sent a link to a similar wardrobe, showing the current price was £700. He also sent pictures of the damaged wardrobe.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy says that the purpose of compensation is to restore the resident to the position they were in before any damage occurred. The policy says that if the landlord caused damage, it would pay compensation based on the extent of the damage, the age and condition of the item to decide a reasonable compensation amount. In his escalation request, the resident said the landlord failed to investigate the damage caused to his property or take responsibility for it. The landlord had the opportunity to investigate the matter further to satisfy itself that it had applied its policy fairly and reasonably. It failed to do so, and it missed an opportunity to show its offer of £250 for damaged belongings was sufficient in restoring the resident to the position he was in before the damage occurred.
  5. Following our mediation, the landlord reviewed the case again and wrote to the resident on 24 May 2024. It increased the compensation to £705 in total. We consider the sum of £705 to be appropriate. This is in line with our remedies guidance, which says this amount would be reasonable in situations where a failure by the landlord adversely impacted the resident but did not have a permanent impact. In this instance, the landlord has recognised its failings and apologised to the resident. During its case review, it addressed the detriment to the resident, which was proportionate to the failings identified, and overall, a reasonable and fair offer to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident.
  6. In its May 2024 letter, the landlord also apologised, and it detailed its learning from the case. In summary, it said that since the complaint, it had:
    1. Launched a new training programme for its complaint handlers.
    2. Updated its complaint policy to reflect feedback from the Ombudsman’s casework.
    3. Restructured its repair teams.
    4. Implemented new software for recording repair outcomes and inspections, ensuring clearer record-keeping, dashboards for overdue repair actions, and senior management oversight of repairs it had committed to in its internal complaint process.
  7. Overall, the landlord acted fairly by recognising its errors, completing the repair, apologising to the resident, and offering compensation per our remedies guidance. It also identified learning from the complaint. However, it failed to investigate whether its offer of £250 offer was sufficient to restore the resident’s position, missing an opportunity to resolve the complaint within its internal complaint process. This was a service failure.
  8. We ordered the landlord to pay the resident £450, which is the difference between the cost to replace the wardrobe and the landlord’s offer of £250 for the damage belongings.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was a service failure in the level of compensation offered by the landlord following completion of roof repairs on the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Pay the resident an extra £450 to recognise the distress caused by the delay in offering the resident fair and reasonable redress to restore the position he was in before the damage occurred.
    2. The landlord must confirm to the Ombudsman that it has learned and understood that it must make fair offers of redress during the complaint procedure.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £705 that it offered. The finding has been based on the landlord making this payment to the resident.