The Guinness Partnership Limited (202515613)

Background

1. The resident lives in an end-terraced house. She complained that the landlord had not replaced the external doors at the property despite previously agreeing to do this. She was unhappy with its response to the repair issues that she raised and a lack of communication throughout.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
   1. External door repairs.
   2. Roof repairs and damp.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was:
   1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of external door repairs.
   2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of roof repairs and damp.
   3. Reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

External door repairs

5. The landlord caused unnecessary delay and inconvenience. Repairs remained unresolved for more than a year, with several visits made without appointments. The landlord also failed to identify that it had previously agreed to replace the doors until almost 4 months after it completed its complaints process.

Roof repairs and damp

6. The landlord did not act promptly on reports of roof leaks or damp. It made unannounced visits, took no meaningful action for long periods, and did not carry out a proper investigation to identify the cause of damp.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not acknowledge or respond to the resident within required timescales. It missed opportunities to update her on progress and failed to reply on several occasions. However, it apologised, offered compensation and demonstrated that it had learned from its complaint handling failures.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

8. We would expect a resident to raise a formal complaint with the landlord within 12 months of an issue arising. Based on this, we have started our investigation at the earliest event that we are able to evidence in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This was when she reported external door issues on 10 September 2024. This investigation considers how the landlord approached matters starting from this point and subsequently up to its post complaint review on 22 January 2026.

What we have investigated

9. The resident reported external door issues on 10 September 2024. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 20 working days. Its stage 1 complaint response said it had found no fault when it attended on 11 October 2024, which was 3 working days outside its timeframe for routine repairs. The landlord has not provided any evidence of this visit, which indicates an issue with its record keeping.
10. The resident next reported an issue with the doors on 6 April 2025. The landlord visited on 17 April 2025 but was unable to gain access to the property because no one was at home. However, there is no evidence that it contacted the resident beforehand, which meant she was unaware that it would visit. Although the landlord did not have a phone number for the resident, it is a failing that it did not provide her with written notice of its visit and ask her for a contact telephone number.
11. On 23 April 2025, the resident raised a formal complaint. She said the landlord had decided to replace the front and rear external doors before the country went into lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 21 May 2025 did not respond to this point. Instead, it said it would attend to the external doors on 16 June 2025, which was 16 working days outside its timeframe for responsive repairs from when the resident formally complained.
12. It was not until 25 July 2025 that the landlord queried internally whether it had previously agreed to replace the external doors. Then, over 2 months later in its stage 2 complaint response on 30 September 2025, the landlord said it would assess the doors before deciding whether to replace them. This highlights a lack of an effective system to track and monitor repairs. The landlord’s delays also likely caused the resident inconvenience.
13. The resident continued to take a lead in pursuing works regarding the external doors up until the landlord completed a post complaint review on 22 January 2026 in response to our request for evidence. The landlord said it had agreed to replace the doors in 2020 and taken measurements prior to the Covid-19 pandemic but did not progress this after the lockdown period ended. It said it had since completed works required for the doors and offered additional compensation. However, the resident has told us that works remain outstanding.
14. The resident experienced unnecessary delays and unannounced visits in response to her concerns about issues with the front and rear external doors. Despite repeatedly telling the landlord that it had previously agreed to replace them, it was not until nearly 4 months after its stage 2 response that the landlord found record of this. The landlord’s failings have led to a finding of maladministration.

What we have not investigated

15. We would expect a resident to raise a formal complaint with the landlord within 12 months of an issue arising. Based on this, we have started our investigation at the earliest event that we are able to evidence in the 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint. This was when she reported roof issues on 10 September 2024. This investigation considers how the landlord approached matters starting from this point and subsequently up to its post complaint review on 22 January 2026.
16. The resident said this situation had a detrimental impact on her health and wellbeing. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness, including stress. We cannot decide causation or liability for personal injury like a court can. However, we can consider the overall impact of the situation on the resident. We have considered the landlord’s compensation offers within our general assessment of the landlord’s handling of his concerns about the impact of repair works. If the resident wants to pursue a personal injury claim, she may wish to seek independent legal advice.

What we have investigated

17. On 10 September 2024, the resident reported that the roof was leaking but there is no evidence that the landlord took any action. This was not appropriate, as the landlord needs to ensure it raises repair requests at the earliest opportunity to ensure that it then completes repairs within its published timescales.
18. The landlord raised a job on 30 January 2025 due to the resident reporting a leaking roof. Its records indicate that a contractor was unable to gain access when it visited on 25 and 26 February 2025, but there is no evidence that the resident was aware of the visits. On the second of these, the contractor provided the resident with written notification that it would return on 28 February 2025. The contractor then told the landlord on 2 March 2025 that the roof appeared to be in good condition but recommended checking the loft and installing an extractor fan in the bathroom. A visit took place to inspect damp patches in the bathroom on 4 March 2025. This was in line with the landlord’s damp and mould policy, which says it will carry out a standard investigation within 10 working days to identify any works needed.
19. Although it was unable to identify the cause of damp during its inspection, the landlord took photographs that it passed on internally for further consideration, which was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that it then took any action, which prompted the resident to contact it on 6 April 2025.
20. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged an appointment with the resident to visit the property on 17 April 2025. Although the resident was at home when it attended, she could not provide access due to work commitments and gave the operative her phone number for future contact. The landlord was unable to gain access when it returned on 25 April 2025. However, the resident said she had told it that she would be working when it phoned to book the appointment. Although there is no evidence of a phone call prior to the visit, the failed visit indicates an issue regarding the landlord’s communication with the resident.
21. The landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would visit on 7 May 2025 to undertake damp and mould works, which prompted her to rearrange the appointment for 9 May 2025. The landlord replaced the extractor fan. However, there is no evidence that it investigated the cause of damp in the bathroom, which was not appropriate.
22. A lack of any further action from the landlord prompted the resident to pursue roof repairs and resolution of the damp issue on 21 May 2025, as well as request that it connect the extractor fan to a vent in the loft. However, the landlord took no action until 29 September 2025, when it raised a job to address these issues. It is unclear why there was a significant delay of over 4 months in the landlord doing this.
23. After the landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response on 30 September 2025, the resident continued to take a lead in pursuing roof repairs and resolution of damp in the bathroom. The landlord completed a post complaint review on 22 January 2026 in response to our request for evidence, in which it said it had completed relevant works and offered the resident additional compensation. However, the resident has told us that the damp issue remains.
24. The resident experienced excessive delays and unannounced visits in the landlord’s handling of her reports of roof repairs and damp despite repeatedly pursuing these issues over a prolonged period. However, there is no evidence that the landlord completed a substantive investigation to identify the cause of damp by way of risk assessments and moisture readings, which was not appropriate. The landlord’s failings have led to a finding of maladministration.

25. Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (the Code), effective from 1 April 2024, sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a published complaints policy that complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
26. The resident raised a formal complaint on 23 April 2025. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and issued a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days. Any extension would not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. The landlord confirmed an extension on 15 May 2025 and issued a stage 1 response within a further 4 working days, on 21 May 2025. Therefore, it acted in line with the timeframes specified in its complaints policy.
27. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 21 May 2025. In accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days. Any extension would not exceed a further 20 working days without good reason. The resident pursued a response on 2 June 2025. On 6 June 2025, the landlord said it hoped to contact her by the end of the day, but this was not forthcoming. The landlord’s failures to respond to the resident prompted her to contact it on a further 3 occasions, which likely caused her inconvenience. It was not until 4 August 2025 that the landlord acknowledged the complaint, which was 47 working days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy.
28. On 2 September 2025, which was 1 day later than it should have issued a stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed an extension to the complaint. It said it would provide an interim update by 16 September 2025. However, there is no evidence that it did this, which likely caused the resident inconvenience. The landlord then issued a stage 2 response on 30 September 2025, which, whilst in line with the timeframe specified in its complaints policy, was 93 working days after the resident had requested to escalate her complaint. The landlord has not provided a reason for the delay. Therefore, the delay was unreasonable.
29. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had found that it had not followed its procedures, which led to delays in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages of its complaints process. It also acknowledged that it failed to address her concerns about it replacing the external doors and identified areas of learning to improve its service moving forward.
30. Overall, the resident experienced complaint handling delays totalling 48 working days. The landlord also either failed to respond or update the resident on 3 occasions. However, given that the landlord apologised to the resident, offered her £100 compensation in recognition the impact of its complaint handling failures and demonstrated learning, we have made a finding of reasonable redress.

Learning

31. The landlord identified failings and provided internal feedback to improve its service and complaint handling.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord’s record keeping was poor in this case. It must consider completing a self-assessment against our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, if it has not already done so.

Communication

33. This investigation has identified communication failures of the landlord, in relation to each complaint issue. The landlord has not provided evidence that it communicated effectively with the resident.