The Guinness Partnership Limited (202423814)

Decision
Case ID	202423814
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	30 January 2026

Background

The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord. She lives in a flat in a low-rise block. The landlord provides various services to the block’s shared areas. The resident contributes to its costs through annual service charges. The block’s other residents are leaseholders. The block is part of a wider estate with a shared carpark. Tenants also live on the estate.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about access and security issues in the block’s communal areas.
2. Concerns about the block’s electric car charger.
3. Concerns about its handling and management of service charges.
4. Concerns about rubbish and storage issues in communal areas.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about access and security issues.
2. Maladministration in its response to her concerns about the car charger.
3. Reasonable redress in its response to her concerns about its handling and management of service charges.
4. No maladministration in its response to her concerns about rubbish and storage issues.
5. Maladministration in its complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Access and security issues

The landlord overlooked related delays and failures which adversely impacted the resident. The resident has told us that the access issues have not been resolved.

Electric car charger

The landlord delayed exploring ways to restore the block’s old electric car charger. It eventually explained its position to the resident. However, it overlooked a corresponding delay and related adverse impact.

Handling and management of service charges

The landlord arranged a number of service charge credits. It also acknowledged the distress and inconvenience it had caused to the resident. It awarded her £250 in compensation. This figure was reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with our remedies guidance. Ultimately, the landlord did enough to put things right.

Rubbish and storage issues

The landlord took numerous steps to try and improve the situation. Its actions were reasonable and consistent with its policy. There is no evidence to show it was responsible for any service failures that adversely impacted the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not always adhere to the relevant timescales. Its approach departed from its policy and the Code. It did not acknowledge the associated delays or related adverse impact to the resident

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. The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a relevant manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 02 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £700 made up as follows: £150 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her concerns about security and access issues. £150 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its response to her concerns about the car charger. £100 for the distress and inconvenience she was caused by its complaint handling. £300 which it awarded the resident during its complaints process. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 02 March 2026
	Update order The landlord must update the resident in writing about its position on access to the block and the disputed carpet clean. The update must confirm who should have access, and an action plan for removing any unwarranted access. It must also include the landlord’s view on whether its one-off carpet clean was satisfactory. If it was not, the landlord must arrange another cleaning appointment. It must share a copy of its update with us.	No later than 02 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord promptly inspects the block’s bin and bike storage areas to establish if any potential fire hazards are present. Having done this, it should share its findings with the resident.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
15 May 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that rubbish in the block’s communal areas was getting out of hand. She also said that tenants could access the block and were contributing to the problem. In summary, the resident’s other key points were: She had raised similar concerns with the landlord previously. The landlord had not done anything to resolve her concerns. The tenants were using services that they did not contribute towards.
3 June 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said it had ordered more bins, but the council had not provided these. It also said it had not known about the tenants, but it would restrict their access to a water tap. The resident escalated her complaint soon afterwards. Her key points were: The landlord had only addressed one aspect of the access issue. A tenant had been using the block’s facilities for about 3 years. The landlord should refund an equivalent amount of service charges.
Between 19 and 28 August 2024	The resident called the landlord about her escalation request. She requested a meeting to discuss her concerns. The parties subsequently had a meeting. At this stage, the resident added further issues to her complaint. These broadly related to the landlord’s service charges.
18 September 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It accepted that it had overlooked a wider issue at stage 1. It upheld the resident’s complaint and awarded her £50 for a complaint handling failure. In summary, the landlord’s other key points were: It would reimburse any overpaid service charges. All estate residents were charged for use of the bin area. It had promptly fixed any issues with the block’s CCTV system. It had arranged a new window cleaning service. It was working to remove unnecessary access to the block. Residents had rejected its proposal to install a new car charger. It would address any items incorrectly placed in the bike store. It would address any rubbish disposal issues on the estate.
Between 28 September and 4 October 2024	The resident raised further complaints with the landlord. With reference to specific issues such as CCTV and window cleaning, she said that the estate was poorly managed. She reiterated her previous request for a proportionate refund of charges over a 3-year period.
6 November 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said it had recently reviewed and refunded service charges as a result of the resident’s concerns. It awarded the resident £100 in compensation for related inconvenience.
6 November 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She referenced a £250 goodwill gesture which the landlord had offered to each of the block’s residents. Her correspondence included supporting evidence and some new complaint points. In summary, the resident’s key points were: The landlord’s £250 goodwill gesture was inadequate. It had not fulfilled commitments from its previous stage 2 response.
12 December 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 response. It confirmed that the resident’s evidence had highlighted a billing error. It awarded the resident £150 in related compensation. The landlord only considered issues which the resident had raised during the initial stage of her second complaint.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In January 2025, the resident told us that tenants were still accessing the block. She also said there were ongoing rubbish and storage issues. She wanted the landlord to resolve her concerns and compensate her. Later, she told us that the landlord should improve its performance.

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	Access and security issues
Finding	Maladministration

In summary, the resident is unhappy that tenants have used the block to access a communal bin store. She says the landlord gave them key fobs. She also says the tenants have benefited from the block’s facilities and caused damage. She has repeatedly asked the landlord to refund a proportionate amount of her service charges.
The resident has supplied evidence of her previous reports to the landlord. Her related correspondence shows that she raised similar security concerns with the landlord on 21 June 2023. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was not aware of an access issue until the resident complained in May 2024. This assertion was incorrect.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it decided to update the block’s entry system in June 2024. This was to restrict unwarranted access. The landlord accepted that it had delayed obtaining a quote for the update. However, the above shows it did not recognise the full extent of its delays and failures or the related adverse impact to the resident.
Based on the period between 21 June 2023 and 18 September 2024, the evidence points to an avoidable delay of at least 15 months. Ultimately, the resident reported the issue a number of times before the landlord began to address it. Given the nature of her reports, the delay may have been distressing. It is likely that repeating herself was inconvenient.
On 6 November 2024 the landlord wrote to each of the block’s residents outside of its complaints process. It said it was aware of growing concerns about access by residents from neighbouring homes/blocks. It said it was trying to remove this access. It offered each of the block’s residents £250 as a goodwill gesture. This was a positive step.
We find that the landlord’s goodwill gesture was reasonable. Similarly, that it was proportionate to address the prolonged access issue that had occurred beforehand. We note that the landlord’s calculation was broadly equivalent to £80 per year over a 3-year period. In our opinion, it would not be feasible for the landlord to precisely calculate the volume of services that the tenants had used.
For example, it is unclear how the landlord could establish how much the tenants had used/benefited from the block’s communal electricity in any charging period. Similarly, it is not clear that the landlord could reasonably assign them an equal share of the block’s costs given that they live elsewhere (and presumably pay related service charges).
In response to the resident’s second complaint, the landlord said it had no evidence to show who had caused damage to the block. We have not seen any information to the contrary. However, the landlord offered to deep clean a carpet that had been soiled by rubbish. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
In January 2025 the landlord told a local MP that its carpet cleaning works were delayed. In January 2026 the resident told us that an operative had ultimately visited the block to complete these. She also said the landlord had invoiced the works, but these were not carried out. From the information seen, we were unable to establish what happened.
In her recent update, the resident also told us that the landlord had recovered one access fob from a tenant. However, it was understood she felt that it had granted them access to the carpark instead. The evidence shows that the landlord changed its approach to the access issue after it responded to the resident’s related complaint in 2024. Again, we have seen limited information about its subsequent handling/changed approach.
We were mindful of the resident’s comments about ongoing carpet cleaning and access issues. Since there is evidence of a delay, we have made an order for the landlord to address these.
In summary, the landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to offset costs relating to a prolonged access issue. However, it overlooked related delays and failures that adversely impacted the resident. As a result, it did not attempt to put things right for her. This was inadequate. The resident has told us that the access issues have not been resolved. We have ordered the landlord to pay her a proportionate amount of compensation. Our calculation reflects the case evidence and our remedies guidance.

Complaint	Electric car charger
Finding	Maladministration

The resident is unhappy that the block’s electric car charging facility cannot be used. She says it is one of the reasons why she bought the property. It is understood that she did not have an electric car when she moved in. By April 2023 the landlord was aware that she wanted to use the facility. At that point, it said it was exploring ways to restore this.
From the information seen, it took the landlord about 17 months to confirm its position to the resident. This is based on the date of its final response to her complaint in 2024. The evidence points to an unreasonable delay. The resident wanted to use the charger during the interim period. It is reasonable to conclude that she was adversely impacted by the landlord’s lack of clarity.
In its final response, the landlord said that most of the block’s leaseholders had opposed works to restore the charging facility. Since they would be liable for some of the related costs, it was appropriate for the landlord to consult them. We have seen evidence of the landlord’s consultation in May 2024. There is no indication this was inadequate.
The landlord also said it had declined the resident’s proposal to run her own charging cable from her flat to the carpark. It said it would not be “feasible” for her to install a cable. The resident says this is possible from a technical standpoint. The lease agreement shows she is not entitled to alter or add to the block’s electrical systems without the landlord’s permission. Ultimately, the landlord was entitled to decline her proposal.
From the wording of the lease agreement, it is not clear that the landlord is obliged to provide a solution for the resident. If she wants to pursue the matter further, we encourage her to take legal advice.
In summary, the landlord delayed exploring ways to restore the block’s old electric car charger. Although it eventually explained its position to the resident, it overlooked an associated delay and corresponding adverse impact. This was inadequate. We have ordered it to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right.

Complaint	Handling and management of service charges
Finding	Reasonable redress

In her initial complaint, the resident said she had paid for CCTV systems that were not working and window cleaning services that were not provided. In response, the landlord said it had promptly repaired 2 CCTV faults. The evidence supports this assertion.
For example, records show that on 4 July 2024 the landlord was unable to retrieve footage due to a fault. Its contractor returned the following day and updated software. The update was unsuccessful and the contractor recommended a new system. On 19 July 2024 a new system was installed. This was 10 working days after the failed update.
The landlord’s repair policy does not include a specific timescale for CCTV repairs. It does show that the landlord should complete most repairs within 20 days. In this case, the landlord repaired 2 separate faults within 10 days. This was a reasonable timeframe. We have not seen evidence of any additional faults during the period in question.
In its initial stage 2 response, the landlord said it was in the process of settling its charges for the previous billing period. This was in response to the resident’s concerns about window cleaning. The landlord said it would update her in due course. The evidence suggests that her second complaint was partly prompted by issues with its final accounts.
During her subsequent complaint, the resident emailed the landlord at least 4 times about general service charge issues. Her emails included at least 7 different billing queries. The resident also supplied evidence to support her concerns. Overall, she said that she had made significant efforts to correct the landlord’s mistakes. Her comments point to related distress and inconvenience.
To address the resident’s concerns, the landlord reviewed its charges over the previous 3 years. It also assigned some costs from the block to the wider estate (to redistribute the burden). From the information seen, it reimbursed each of the block’s residents more than £625 over 3 separate credits. It took these steps outside of its complaints process.
The above referenced figure points to significant errors in the landlord’s calculations. Its service charge policy says that, if the landlord gets something wrong, it will apologise, correct any errors, and credit service charge accounts. In some cases, it can provide a refund instead. In this case, the landlord took the appropriate steps in line with its policy.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience it had caused. In total, it awarded the resident £250 in related compensation. We find its calculation was reasonable, proportionate, and consistent with our remedies guidance. We therefore find that the landlord did enough to put things right for the resident.

Complaint	Rubbish and storage issues
Finding	No maladministration

The resident says the block’s bike storage and bin areas are often misused. She also says the landlord has not taken sufficient action to address this. During its complaints process, the landlord acknowledged issues with fly-tipping and items stored incorrectly. Ultimately, it disputed that it was responsible for any related service failures.
In its responses, the landlord detailed some preventative measures it had taken. For example, it said it had emailed the block’s residents about the bike store and removed metal railings that were encouraging fly-tipping. We have seen evidence of these actions. The landlord’s records and correspondence suggest that it also took the following steps in 2024:
1. Installed CCTV signs in the bin area.
2. Purchased new bins from the local council.
3. Arranged for its operatives to remove fly-tipped items.
4. Contacted a resident directly about left items.
5. Explored alternative options including installing gates and re-locating the bin area.
6. Inspected the bike store in line with a commitment in its stage 2 response.
The above shows the landlord took numerous steps to try and improve the situation. Its relevant estate management policy shows it will collaborate with external agencies (such as local councils) and proactively work with residents. In this case, we find that the landlord’s actions were reasonable and consistent with its estate management policy.
In its final response, the landlord said it would continue to monitor the situation. It also said it would manage any incorrectly stored items in line with its communal areas policy. It confirmed that the resident could report any issues that arose. It also confirmed that its monthly fly-tipping collection service would continue. This was a reasonable approach.
In 2026, the resident told us that the same issues were still ongoing. She said she was concerned about a related fire hazard. There is no indication that she mentioned fire hazards in her relevant complaints to the landlord. Similarly, we have not seen any information to show that it was put on notice about a potential hazard subsequently.
Ultimately, there is a lack of evidence to support any hazard related failures by the landlord. However, we have made a recommendation in light of the resident’s comments.
In summary, the landlord took numerous steps to try and improve the storage and rubbish issues in the block. In doing this, it worked with the resident and local council. Its actions were reasonable and consistent with its policy. There is no evidence to show that it was responsible for any service failures which adversely impacted the resident.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out how and when a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case is the 2024 edition (effective April 2024). The landlord’s relevant complaints policy says it complies with the Code.
It took the landlord 12 working days to issue its initial stage 1 response. The Code shows that landlords must respond to complaints within a maximum of 15 working days at stage 1. In this case, the landlord adhered to the relevant timescale. While this was appropriate, it overlooked key aspects of the resident’s complaint at this stage.
It took the landlord around 77 working days to issue its initial stage 2 response. The Code shows landlords must respond to complaints within a maximum of 25 working days at stage 2. More time is available (at each stage) providing the resident is kept informed.
In this case, there was a delay because the landlord overlooked the resident’s initial escalation request. In August 2024, she chased its outstanding response. It is reasonable to conclude that chasing the landlord was both avoidable and inconvenient. The resident was adversely impacted because the landlord departed from its policy and the Code.
At stage 2, the landlord acknowledged that its previous response was incomplete. It addressed the overlooked concerns and awarded the resident £50 in related compensation. This was a reasonable and proportionate approach to the matter.
However, the landlord did not acknowledge the above identified delay (about 10 weeks). As a result, it did not attempt to put things right for the resident. This was inadequate. It should routinely check for delays during its complaint investigations. This will allow it to identify and address procedural issues.
In relation to the resident’s second complaint, it took the landlord 27 working days to issue a stage 1 response. This timescale was not consistent with the Code. In the interim period, the resident chased the landlord for its complaint acknowledgement. The evidence points to a further delay and a related adverse impact. The landlord has not acknowledged this.
It took the landlord 26 working days to issue its second stage 2 response. During this period, it promptly acknowledged the resident’s complaint. Its acknowledgment included a revised deadline. The landlord subsequently adhered to this deadline. This approach was consistent with the Code.
In summary, the landlord did not always adhere to the relevant timescales. Its approach departed from its policy and the Code. It did not acknowledge the associated delays or related adverse impact to the resident. Our finding is proportionate to this impact. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation.

Learning

General learning

The landlord should promptly follow up agreed actions or complaint resolutions. In this case, unresolved issues added to the complexity of the resident’s complaints in 2024. The landlord could provide related feedback to its staff.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord was able to supply key case evidence. Our investigation did not highlight any record keeping issues.

Communication

The quality of the landlord’s complaint responses improved over time. Our investigation did not highlight any significant issues with the landlord’s communications.