The Guinness Partnership Limited (202414626)

Decision
Case ID	202414626
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	16 April 2026

 

Background

1. The property is a flat within a building with communal areas. A freeholder owns the building and appointed a management company (the MC) which is responsible for arranging and managing repairs. The landlord is the leaseholder. There were necessary communal repairs and residents’ gas and water had to be turned off at the mains for safety reasons. The resident did not agree to the proposed dates for this.

 

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns about communal repairs.
   2. Associated complaint.

 

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the communal repairs.
4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Summary of reasons

5. There was a communication failure regarding the date of the works. The landlord recognised this and offered proportionate compensation.
6. The landlord gave its complaint responses within the required timescales.

 

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.

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay the £50 compensation offered at stage 2, for inconvenience caused to the resident. The finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis of this sum being paid.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 January 2024	The resident complained that his utilities had been turned off for communal repairs without prior notice. He said the landlord had not responded to his request for an explanation.
9 February 2024	The landlord gave its stage 1 response. It said it had communicated regularly with the resident but he could not agree to a suitable date for the repairs. The repairs had to progress to avoid further delay.
13 February 2024	The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2.
12 March 2024	The landlord gave its stage 2 response. It said efforts were made to do repairs around the resident’s availability, but they had to go ahead. It acknowledged poor communication regarding the date repairs were completed and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was not happy with the amount of compensation offered.

 

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	Handling of the resident’s concerns about communal repairs
Finding	Reasonable redress

7. In November 2023 the MC informed the landlord of planned, structural work in the communal hallway. This involved turning off the gas and water mains for approximately 3 hours. The contractors also needed to access the property to carry out some tests. The landlord appropriately advised the resident of this and gave a proposed date of 4 December 2023.
8. The resident told the landlord he could not take time off work on that date. The landlord tried to find a solution and communicated back and forth between the resident and MC. Weekend dates were offered, to not impact the resident’s work, but he did not agree to them.
9. The landlord asked the resident to propose a date and time. This showed flexibility and willingness to work with him. The MC had stressed the importance of the works. The landlord appropriately reminded the resident of his commitments under his tenancy agreement, which says he must allow access to the property at “any reasonable time” to allow for repairs.
10. The resident responded that he would not listen to anything the landlord said and would ignore any letters it sent. He said he would not allow access, due to annoyance at the MC for not completing other repairs. This left the landlord in a difficult position. The MC said further delays would incur costs to the residents through the service charge. The landlord continued proposing dates to the resident, which were all refused.
11. On 15 January 2024 the communal repairs took place. The resident’s gas and water was turned off for approximately 3 hours to allow this. He was not told in advance it would happen on this date. This was disappointing and not in accordance with the tenancy agreement, which said 24 hours notice should be given. The resident felt annoyed and inconvenienced by this.
12. The landlord explained it was unaware the work would happen on this date. The MC made the decision and did not inform the landlord or the resident. This was somewhat out of the landlord’s control. The resident had been told multiple times the work was required. He was given the opportunity to choose the most convenient day and time. It was reasonable for the mandatory repairs to go ahead, although he should have received notice of the date.
13. The MC said it chose a date the resident had previously said he was not at home, to limit the inconvenience. Notwithstanding the lack of notice, this was fair in the circumstances. The landlord acknowledged the resident should have been told his utilities were being turned off. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation. This was proportionate to the level of service failure, which caused minor impact of short duration.
14. When identifying service failure, we consider the events that prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to that. We will make a finding of reasonable redress if the landlord has fully acknowledged and remedied any shortcomings. This is appropriate here. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £50 offered, if not already paid. The reasonable redress finding is made on this basis.

Complaint	Handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

15. The stage 1 response was given within the landlord’s 10-working day target timescale. On receipt of the complaint, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss his concerns. The written response was thorough and accurate. The £50 compensation offered for inconvenience at stage 2 could have been made at stage 1. This was an earlier opportunity to acknowledge the lack of notice provided by the MC.
16. The stage 2 response was given within the 20-working day target. When the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord acknowledged it the same day. It contacted him to ensure it understood the reasons for escalation.
17. The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint was reasonable, and in line with its complaint policy. Therefore, there was no maladministration in its complaint handling.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. There were sufficient records to allow for the investigation.

Communication

19. There was regular communication between the landlord and resident. The lapse in communication occurred between the MC and the other parties.