The Guinness Partnership Limited (202346393)
|
Decision |
|
|
Case ID |
202346393 |
|
Decision type |
Investigation |
|
Landlord |
The Guinness Partnership Limited |
|
Landlord type |
Housing Association |
|
Occupancy |
Assured Tenancy |
|
Date |
16 April 2026 |
Background
- The resident lives in a flat within a block served by shared drainage systems. She reported that drains were backing up in her property. She complained after the situation worsened, and flooding occurred in her bathroom. She raised health and safety concerns about exposure to human waste from neighbouring flats, while she was unwell and undergoing cancer treatment. She said the wastewater damaged her personal belongings and the flooring in her newly refurbished bathroom.
What the complaint is about
- The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of blocked drains and flooding in her bathroom.
- We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.
Our decision (determination)
- We have found there was:
- Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of blocked drains and flooding in her bathroom.
- Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
Summary of reasons
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of blocked drains and flooding in her bathroom.
- The landlord did not attend the resident’s initial reports of blocked and backing-up drains within the 24-hour timescale set out in its repairs policy. The drainage issue was left outstanding for 11 days until the resident reported the issue had resulted in flooding. In its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge its service failures.
The landlord’s complaint handling.
- The landlord responded to the complaints within its published timescales. However, when the resident escalated the complaint, she identified an error in the landlord’s stage 1 response about the initial reported repair date. The landlord did not respond appropriately to this point and did not acknowledge its service failure.
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:
|
No later than 14 May 2026 |
|
|
Compensation order
The landlord must pay the resident a total of £400 consisting of:
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 14 May 2026 |
Our investigation
The complaint procedure
|
Date |
What happened |
|
6 – 17 February 2024 |
On 6 February 2024, the resident reported drains backing up in her toilet, bath and sink. On 17 February 2024, the resident reported the issue had worsened and human waste was flooding her bathroom. |
|
22 February 2024 |
The resident complained to the landlord that:
|
|
26 February 2024 |
The landlord acknowledged the complaint. |
|
5 March 2024 |
In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said the issue was reported on 17 February 2024, and it attended within 24 hours in line with its policy. The landlord apologised for the damage caused by leak, also for the impact and frustration to the resident. It said that flooring replacement works were raised. However, it said to claim from her own insurer for the other damaged items. |
|
6 – 10 March 2024 |
The resident escalated the complaint. She said she first reported the issue on 6 February 2024, not 17 February 2024 as stated in its stage 1 response. She said this meant it had not responded within 24-hours.
The landlord told the resident it was investigating the issue only from the report dated 17 February 2024. It explained it could investigate the report from 6 February 2024 as a separate complaint if she wished to raise it. |
|
15 March 2024 |
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not change the stage 1 outcome. It said the complaint remained not upheld as it had responded to the reports within 24-hours of 17 February 2024. In its conclusion, it said it acknowledged the stress the situation may have caused to the resident. However, it said it could not have foreseen the incident. It explained it would not pay compensation unless it had acted, or failed to act, in a way that caused the issue. The resident responded and said she remained dissatisfied that the landlord had still failed to recognise that she first reported the issue on 6 February, not 17 February 2024. |
|
Referral to the Ombudsman |
The resident brought her complaint to us on 15 March 2024. |
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 |
Landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of blocked drains and flooding in her bathroom |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and working order basins, sinks, baths, flushing systems and waste pipes at the property.
- It was appropriate that the landlord raised an emergency repair on 6 February 2024 when the resident reported drains backing up in her toilet, bath and sink. However, it was not appropriate that the landlord closed the repair job the following day and recorded it as resolved without evidence that it attended the property. This was a significant failure, as the landlord left the emergency repair unaddressed after closing the job. The landlord’s records were also inadequate, as it did not record the reason why it closed the repair as resolved.
- On 17 February 2024 the resident reported that human waste from other flats was flooding into her bathroom. The landlord recorded that the resident was extremely upset and in tears. It also recorded she was concerned because she was unwell and undergoing cancer treatment while having to clean up human waste from other flats. The landlord raised another emergency repair and attended within 24-hours, in line with its policy. It resolved the issue and found that other flats had disposed of inappropriate items down their toilets.
- It was appropriate that the landlord thoroughly cleaned the bathroom immediately after stopping the flooding. It was reasonable that it replaced the damaged bathroom flooring shortly afterwards.
- The landlord did not uphold the stage 1 and 2 complaintsbased on its belief it attended within 24-hours after the report on 17 February 2024. It did not recognise the resident first reported backing up drains from 6 February 2024 (we also refer to this point below in the complaint handling assessment section).
- The resident asked the landlord to reimburse damaged bathroom items. The landlord recorded a claim received for 3 mats at £6.77 each, towels costing £32, and a unit costing £50 (total £102.31). The landlord rejected the compensation claim because it said it had responded within 24-hours, and therefore believed it was not negligent. We do not have jurisdiction over a landlord’s insurers and cannot comment on the decisions they make. However, we can order a landlord to pay compensation where we identify failures that caused distress and inconvenience. Our calculation of compensation below has considered the possibility that the landlord’s delay in resolving this issue contributed to damaged belongings, as reported by the resident.
- To summarise, the landlord did not act in line with its repair policy after the resident’s report on 6 February 2024. As a result of this failure, the drainage issue was not addressed at the time, and flooding later occurred on 17 February 2024. The records show the flooding caused the resident significant distress, inconvenience and upset while she was unwell and undergoing cancer treatment.To recognisethe impact of the landlord’s service failure, we have ordered it to apologise and paythe resident £300 compensation. This amount aligns with our remedies guidanceforservicefailuresthat have had anadverse effect on aresident and takes account of her vulnerabilities.
|
Complaint |
The handling of the complaint |
|
Finding |
Maladministration |
- The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of the timescales.
- It was appropriate that the landlord issued its stage 1 and 2 responses within the required timescales.
- However, the landlord’s complaint investigation was not robust, as it did not acknowledge the resident’s initial report made on 6 February 2024. Instead, the landlord based its decisions using the later report of 17 February 2024. When the resident raised this error in her escalation request, the landlord said it could investigate it as a separate complaint. This response was inappropriate, as the issue related directly to the same repair issue and the accuracy of the landlord’s complaint investigation. The resident highlighted the same error again after receiving the stage 2 response, indicating ongoing dissatisfaction and frustration with the landlord’s handling of this point.
- Because the landlord relied on an incorrect initial report date, it did not uphold the complaint. This resulted in detriment to the resident, as she had to escalate the complaint further and then refer the matter to this service. If the landlord had identified the correct initial report date, it could have recognised its service failure and addressed the complaint earlier. It could also have considered appropriate redress without the need for further escalation.
- To recognise the complaint handling failure, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. This amount aligns with our remedies guidance where poor complaint handling has had an adverse effect on the resident, and the landlord has not acknowledged its failings.
Learning
Knowledge information management (record keeping)
- The landlord did not record sufficient detail when the repair was first raised and closed, which prevented us from carrying out a robust investigation. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM) explains that poor data management can prevent landlords from using information effectively to improve services. The landlord should also strengthen its processes for keeping accurate records and providing clear, timely communication to residents about responsibility and next steps. The spotlight report also provides eLearning and tools that can assist landlords in improving its information management practice.
Complaint handling
- The landlord should ensure staff understand how to log details of complaints accurately and carry out a robust investigation. The landlord should also strengthen quality checks to prevent inaccurate responses and ensure all available evidence is considered before issuing a complaint outcome. It should provide staff training on the Complaint Handling Code to reinforce expectations about ownership, communication and learning from complaints. The landlord should use this case as an example to support that training and improve its overall approach.