The Guinness Partnership Limited (202400570)

Decision
Case ID	202400570
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	18 March 2026

Background

The resident told the landlord that she was concerned about the conduct of an operative who visited her to carry out a fence repair.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
We have also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
2. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord failed to demonstrate that it carried out a reasonable and proportionate investigation into the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The landlord offered sufficient compensation to put matters right for 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.

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 15 April 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £125 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 15 April 2026

Order

What the landlord must do

Due date

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 specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic.
It has due regard to our apologies guidance.

No later than

15 April 2026

Compensation order

The landlord must pay the resident £125 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

No later than

15 April 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
Our finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s complaint handling was made because it offered £150 compensation for its failings. Therefore, it should pay this compensation, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should review its procedure and practices in relation to staff conduct complaints to ensure that staff members have meaningful and robust guidelines to follow.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
28 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord. She said that when its operative (‘Operative A’) came to repair the fence that day, they were “aggressive and shouted at her” when she told them that they could go into her neighbour’s garden to obtain the fence panels. She said that she did not want them to come to her home again and added that another operative (‘Operative B’) had heard them shout from their van. She later asked the landlord whether it carried out Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks on its operatives.
13 March 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It gave a summary of events that was provided by Operative A’s manager. It explained that as it differed from the resident’s version, it could not find any evidence that the operative did not comply with its employee code of conduct. It said, however, that it had requested that Operative A did not attend the resident’s home again. It explained that it did not carry out DBS checks on all employees.
19 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said: Operative A did not provide ID when they came to her home. Although Operative B did not witness the conversation she had with Operative A, they heard them shout when they were at their van. She wanted to know whether the references were from Companies House. That the manager of Operative A was involved in this complaint was a conflict of interest because she had made a complaint about them too. There were inaccuracies in the landlord’s version of events.
18 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It: Acknowledged that Operative A did not show their ID when they came to her home on 28 February 2024. It explained that it had fed this back to their manager. It was procedure for managers to investigate concerns about their staff members’ conduct. The manager was professional, transparent and impartial in the investigation. Acknowledged that its stage 1 comment was inaccurate. This related to the fact that the resident’s neighbour was not home, and therefore, it could not gain access to their garden for the fence panels at the visit. Acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s 5 call back requests in relation to her complaint. Acknowledged that Operative A had attended the resident’s home since its stage 1 response, although it had requested that they did not do so. Explained that there was no legal requirement for it to carry out DBS checks on its operatives. The landlord offered the resident £175 compensation, made up as follows: £25 for Operative A’s failure to show their ID. £100 for its poor communication. £25 for the inaccurate information it provided in its stage 1 response. £25 for its poor complaint handling at stage 1.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred her complaint to us as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns about staff conduct and asked us to investigate.

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	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct
Finding	Maladministration

While it is not our role to say whether misconduct occurred, in these circumstances, landlords should conduct a reasonable and proportionate investigation into the matter. This would include, for example, interviewing the staff members involved and any witnesses. The outcome of the interviews then should be recorded on their system, alongside any other steps they took as part of the investigation.
In this case, the evidence available suggests that the landlord’s response that it had not found any concerns about Operative A’s conduct was based on their manager’s own recollection and commentary of the event only. There is no evidence that the resident’s allegations were discussed with Operative A following her complaint for comment.
The resident also explained to the landlord that, while Operative B was not present for the conversation where she considered that Operative A was aggressive, she said that they had witnessed them shouting by the van outside. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered interviewing Operative B. This would have ensured that it fully investigated the matter. There is no evidence that it did.
Given the above, the landlord has not demonstrated that it carried out a sufficiently meaningful investigation into the resident’s concerns. That is unreasonable.
While the landlord’s code of conduct states that staff must treat residents with courtesy and respect, it is unclear how it investigates concerns about staff conduct and whether it has adequate internal guidance to follow in such instances. Therefore, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review its procedures and practices to ensure they are robust. This should mitigate against the failings highlighted in this investigation occurring again.
It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £25 compensation because Operative A did not show their ID badge when they visited her. That was reasonable. However, given the additional failings highlighted, we have made an order for the landlord to pay a further £100 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord issued its complaint responses within its complaint policy timescales and those of our Complaint Handling Code. That was reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged that it did not respond to the resident’s call back requests during the complaint process. There was also inaccurate information in its stage 1 response, and Operative A attended the resident’s home after the landlord said that they would not do so. In recognition of these failings, it offered the resident £150 compensation. Taking into consideration the distress and inconvenience caused, this was reasonable, proportionate, and in line with our remedies guidance.
It is also noted that the landlord provided appropriate responses to the resident’s concerns about its DBS checks and potential conflict of interest in relation to its investigation into Operative A’s conduct.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

While there is no evidence of any record keeping issues in the landlord’s handling of this case, we encourage all landlords to engage in proactive learning to ensure their processes and practices remain robust. The landlord may therefore wish to complete our eLearning module on knowledge and information management, available in the Centre for Learning section of our website.

Communication

The landlord’s communication during the complaint procedure was poor. This suggests that it may need to strengthen its communication with residents during the process. Therefore, it may wish to complete our eLearning on complaint handling and communication, which it can find on the Centre for Learning section of our website.