The Guinness Partnership Limited (202347693)

Decision
Case ID	202347693
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 February 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a first floor flat where there is no lift. She intended to purchase an electric wheelchair and requested permission from the landlord to store it in a communal area of the property. It considered and declined her request. She raised concerns that its refusal failed to take her needs into account, and it did not offer an alternative solution.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request to store a wheelchair in a communal area.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to store a wheelchair in a communal area.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to store a wheelchair in a communal area

4. The landlord awarded compensation for its identified failings, however it did not evidence that it adhered to its commitment to review its decision or explore alternative solutions to support the resident’s needs.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

5. The landlord recognised its failings, apologised to the resident, and awarded proportionate compensation.

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.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its complaint responses for the substantive issue.   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 27 March 2026
3	Risk assessment order The landlord must complete a risk assessment as part of its consideration of the resident’s request for wheelchair storage. This must include a visit to the property to consider the outside space. The landlord must take reasonable steps to ensure it completes this by the due date. It should provide a copy of its assessment to this Service.	No later than 27 March 2026
4	Clarification order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss her medical needs. It must consider her request in view of its policies, procedures, risk assessment, occupational therapy assessment, and legal obligations. It then must write to the resident by the due date setting out its final position. It must provide a copy of its outcome letter to this Service.	No later than 27 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £275 compensation it offered for its complaint handling failures. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that the landlord pays the resident the £275 (offered in its final response) if not already paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 September 2023	The resident contacted the landlord and asked to speak to someone about arranging wheelchair storage in a communal area of the property. She asked if this could be done in a pre-existing structure, such as the rubbish shed, or if she needed to arrange a shed herself.
12 September 2023	The resident contacted the landlord to confirm following research, because of the size of space available only a storage tent would be suitable.
25 January 2024	The resident complained that she had not received a decision from the landlord. She was also dissatisfied with its communication. The resident referred the storage of the wheelchair would be “contained in a sturdy, tent-like structure that could easily be removed.”
25 January 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1.
15 March 2024	The resident requested a complaint update. The landlord informed her that it did not have a complaint registered.
20 May 2024	We contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident via its internal complaint procedure.
24 May 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It recognised delays in its communication and complaint handling. It explained that it declined the resident’s request due to safety and policy restrictions on communal spaces. It offered £400 compensation comprising: £200 for its failure to address her complaint £150 for her time, trouble, and inconvenience £50 for poor communication
6 June 2024	The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2, stating she was effectively housebound. She asked the landlord to explain how it considered the Equality Act 2010 when responding to her request. She proposed storing the wheelchair in a metal, fireproof box, about the size of a large suitcase, in an unused part of the garden, with the battery kept in her flat. She asked it to reconsider its decision.
10 July 2024	The landlord extended its response date for its stage 2 complaint review.
22 July 2024	In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord agreed to review its decision based on the resident’s information and said a liaison officer would contact her in August 2024 to gather evidence. It stated there was no guarantee its decision would change and repeated that its initial decision complied with its policies and procedures. It acknowledged other shortcomings and offered an additional £125 compensation (£50 for poor communication, £25 for an incorrect complaint reference number, and £50 for poor complaint handling), bringing the total award to £525.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response and asked us to investigate. She said it did not contact her as agreed in August 2024 and she wanted it to reconsider her request.

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 handling of the resident’s request to store a wheelchair in a communal area.
Finding	Service failure

What we have not considered

6. We have no legal powers to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equality Act 2010. Only the courts can do this. However, we can decide whether a landlord has properly considered its duties and followed its own related policies and procedures. If she wishes to pursue this further, she could contact the Equality, Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
7. The resident has referenced a separate matter concerning anti-social behaviour. We are considering this under a separate complaint. Therefore, we have not investigated this matter within this report.
8. The resident told us about an issue that occurred after the landlord’s complaint process ended, relating to its response to an occupational therapist (OT) report. We have not seen the OT report, and there is no evidence she complained to the landlord about this. As it has not had the opportunity to respond to her concerns, we have not investigated this further.

What we have considered

9. The landlord declined the resident’s initial request to store a wheelchair in an existing communal area or to erect her own storage option. It cited its neighbourhood management policy, which prioritises overall health and safety where mobility aids may pose risks.
10. The landlord stated internally that granting permission could set a precedent, potentially leading to several residents in the block storing items in the garden, creating clutter and safety hazards. While we appreciate it must adhere to its policies and safety practices, it did not demonstrate that it considered the resident’s individual needs or any detriment that may be caused.
11. The resident argued that the decision failed to consider her medical needs, impacted her independence, and offered no alternatives. She raised concerns about compliance with the landlord’s duty to make reasonable adjustments under relevant legislation. The landlord failed to properly address this within its complaint response.
12. Applicable frameworks include the Equality Act 2010, which may require consideration of reasonable adjustments for disabled tenants, and fire safety regulations mandating safe, unobstructed communal areas. National Fire Chiefs Council guidance discourages storage in escape routes but does not prohibit outdoor storage if a landlord manages risks.
13. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request, provided reasoning, and referenced various sections of its policy, demonstrating procedural fairness. While its concerns about setting a precedent and safety were legitimate, they were based upon hypothetical scenarios rather than a site-specific risk assessment. Furthermore, we have seen no evidence to suggest that it sought advice from a fire or health and safety expert. It did not show that it explored alternative options, such as designated storage or secure outdoor cabinets. This does not demonstrate that it gave due regard to the principle of fairness or to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
14. At times, the landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident. There were repeated delays in responding to her request for updates, which likely caused frustration and uncertainty. While its records indicate unsuccessful attempts to call her, it did not always follow this up in a timely manner. This lack of proactive engagement contributed to its shortcomings and did not meet the expected standard of service.
15. In recognition of the impact caused, the landlord offered £100 for its communication failings and £150 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused. The total award of £250 was in line with our remedies guidance.
16. Although the landlord’s decision-making was consistent with its policies, it was flawed in part, as outlined above. In addition, we have seen no evidence that it completed the review that it committed to within its stage 2 complaint response. These cumulative shortcomings amount to an overall failure finding, despite it offering reasonable monetary compensation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

17. Under the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), landlords must acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days of acknowledgement, with a possible 10-day extension. Stage 2 responses are due within 20 working days, extendable by another 20 working days. A landlord should not exceed these timeframes without good reason. It must explain the reason for any extension to the resident.
18. The landlord’s complaint policy is in line with the Code, including timescales and its definition of a complaint.
19. There was a delay treating the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint. Additionally, we note it did not respond at stage 1 until our involvement and there were issues providing a complaint reference number. Overall, we find its complaint responses were not adequate or in line with the Code.
20. That said, the landlord recognised its shortcomings through its internal complaint procedure and offered a total of £275 compensation. This was in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

General learning

21. When a resident expressly raises concerns about whether a landlord has had due regard to the Equality Act 2010, it would be appropriate for it to address this within its complaint response. It also should ensure it communicates effectively with residents and monitors agreed actions through to completion.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s record keeping was adequate within this case.