The Guinness Partnership Limited (202538966)

Background

1. In August 2024, the landlord introduced a “waking watch” fire safety service at the resident’s block of flats following a fire risk assessment. This meant trained staff patrolled the building to detect fire and warn residents. The resident was concerned about the cost and asked for evidence of how the landlord funded the service.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about how the landlord responded to queries about the funding of its fire safety service.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to queries about the funding of its fire safety service.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Reasons

How the landlord responded to queries about the funding of its fire safety service

6. The resident asked how the landlord funded the waking watch service and whether it received any government funding. The landlord confirmed it used its own resources to pay for the service. It also explained it did not qualify for government funding because it did not recharge the cost of the service to leaseholders, which was a key eligibility criteria. The landlord said it could not provide evidence of applying for government funding, because it had not done so. This was understandable.
7. As explained by the landlord, section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to provide information about service charge costs. The landlord confirmed it did not charge residents for the waking watch service. The cost was also not listed in the resident’s 2025 to 2026 service charge statement. As such, the resident’s request for information did not fall under the scope of this legislation.
8. The landlord refused the resident’s request for evidence about how it funded the service. It said it was not obliged to evidence or explain its internal financial decisions for costs that it did not charge to residents. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision and felt its lack of transparency was not in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). While we note his concerns, the landlord gave a clear and reasonable explanation. There is no requirement for the landlord to provide information about its internal budgets or financial resources. As such, we have found no failing in its response.

The complaint handling

9. The landlord accepted it delayed providing its stage 2 response as it failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request promptly. It took 45-working-days to respond which was 25-working-days beyond the target timescale set out in the Code and its complaints policy. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay. However, it did not offer compensation to put this right, which would have been reasonable in the circumstances. As such, we have found 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.