The Guinness Partnership Limited (202425512)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425512

Shepherds Bush Housing Association Limited

22 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under a secure tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom basement flat and the resident lives there with her 3 children. The resident has asthma, 2 of her children have autism and 1 has chronic lung disease.
In January 2021, the landlord approved a management transfer and confirmed to the resident her priority banding would be updated. On 23 February 2022, the resident declined to a view a property as she did not like the area.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 response to a previous complaint, it carried out a damp and mould survey on 16 September 2023 and carried out repairs. On 20 March 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that damp and mould had returned. The landlord carried out a further damp and mould survey on 7 May, which found penetrating damp.
On 22 May 2024, the landlord invited the resident to view a property the next day, however she did not get the message and the landlord subsequently removed her from its transfer list.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 12 August 2024. She said her belongings had been ruined by damp and mould. She also said it had been incorrectly recorded that she refused a transfer property in May 2024, when she was unavailable to take the landlord’s call.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 28 August 2024, in which it said:
1. an appointment for a mould inspection in July was cancelled – an inspection was subsequently carried out on 13 August which identified work required
2. damp and mould was only visible on the basement entrance wall
3. it would be in touch by 6 September to arrange an appointment to reinstall a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit
4. on 23 February 2022, the resident declined to view a property due to its location – she did not attend a viewing on 23 May 2024 despite being given 24 hours’ notice
5. it could only make a maximum of 2 offers and it had not received a credible reason for rejecting either property so it would have to carry out a new housing needs review – it asked her to provide medical evidence by 11 September to support her staying in band A
6. it offered £100 compensation in relation to the damp and mould to recognise an appointment being cancelled and the PIV work not being followed up
The resident responded to the landlord the same day asking for the complaint to be escalated. She disagreed that there was no visible damp and mould as she said it was on her clothes, furniture, and other belongings. She said that she did not refuse to view a property in May 2024. She explained that she was not contactable as she was in hospital with her child.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 27 September 2024, in which it said:
1. further investigation was required to find the underlying cause of the damp and mould – it would carry out an inspection and a mould wash
2. its rehousing policy requires a response to an offer within 24 hours, however a new set of offers would be made when suitable properties became available
3. it increased its offer of compensation to £300
The resident contacted us on 1 October 2024 to ask us to investigate the complaint. She said her furniture had been ruined by mould and her child’s health had been affected.
On 3 December 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident again and said an inspection carried out on 16 October had prompted it to review its stage 2 response. It increased its offer of compensation to £750.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised previous complaints about damp and mould in 2022 and 2023. The historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2024 onwards, that were considered during the landlord’s most recent complaints process.
This is because in accordance with the Scheme, residents are expected to bring a complaint to the Ombudsman’s attention normally within 12 months of the landlord completing its complaints process. The resident contacted this service on 1 October 2024, more than 12 months after the landlord previously responded to a complaint about damp and mould.
The resident was approved for a management transfer in January 2021, however in her complaint she said she was unhappy with the landlord’s lack of action since October 2023. Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The historical issues provided contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has focussed on the landlord’s handling of the management transfer since October 2023.
The resident has raised concerns about her family’s health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, we are unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint.
These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident may have experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

Management transfer

The landlord’s management transfer policy states that where an application has been approved a maximum of 2 offers will be allowed. Where a second and final offer has been approved, but the second property is not accepted, the applicant will be removed from the management transfer list.
The resident had an Occupational Therapy (OT) assessment in April 2020 which recommended she have a ground floor property with a rear garden. In January 2021, the landlord approved a management transfer and confirmed to the resident her priority banding would be updated.
On 21 October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say she had not had any eligible bids since being approved for a transfer. It confirmed to her that she was correctly added to the register and should log in daily to check for properties. On 12 November 2021, the landlord told the resident it had approached the local authority about its available housing, however the resident confirmed she did not want to move borough. On 23 February 2022, the resident declined to a view a property as she did not like the area.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 July 2022 asking if she needed to have a new OT assessment done. The landlord responded on 22 July to say this was not needed as she was still band A, which was the highest priority it could award. However, it did not have any 3-bedroom properties available at that time.
On 25 November 2022, the resident’s MP contacted the landlord to ask what it was doing to find a suitable property for the resident. It responded on 6 December to say that she was the highest priority for a move. It explained that she was registered for a 3-bedroom property with level access in the local area. It said that due to a shortage of homes it could not confirm an expected offer date.
On 18 October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that she was told she would be offered the first 3-bedroom property in the area, but a property had become available which was being offered elsewhere. On 31 October it explained to her that this property had been removed from shortlisting. It was under review with its assets team and there were no immediate plans to relet, and it had not been let to someone else. It also confirmed that this property was not accessible. This was a reasonable explanation for it not being offered to her.
On 22 May 2024, the landlord left the resident a voicemail and sent her an email inviting her to view a property the following day. An internal communication of 17 June said that she was given 24-hours’ notice about viewing the property but had been in hospital with her son and had not received the notice. It treated this missed viewing as a refusal.
On 12 August 2024 the resident raised her complaint to the landlord. She said she had been chasing a management transfer since October 2023 and had been recorded as refusing a property in May 2024. She said this was not fair as she was not given notice as she was in hospital. The landlord’s internal communications of 23 August say that she did not provide the landlord with a credible reason for not attending the viewing. However, its records from June show it was aware she was in hospital at the time. It was not appropriate that it failed to acknowledge this reason and exercise discretion in relation to this second ‘refusal.’
In its stage 1 response of 28 August 2024, it said that it had given her 24 hours’ notice of the viewing via email and a voicemail. It could only make a maximum of 2 offers and told her it had not received a credible reason for rejecting either property offered. It said that rather than removing her from the housing list it would have to carry out a new housing needs review. This was not a reasonable action by the landlord, as she had provided a credible explanation of why she was unable to attend the viewing in May.
The resident responded the same day asking for the complaint to be escalated as she said she did not refuse a viewing. She reiterated that she was not contactable as she was in hospital with her child and did not speak to anyone to refuse the viewing.
In its stage 2 response of 27 September 2024 the landlord said that its policy required a response within 24 hours for a viewing. However, the landlord’s management transfer policy does not set out such a notice period or response time. It confirmed that a new set of offers would be made when suitable properties became available. The same day the landlord also wrote to the resident to say her medical evidence had been assessed and she was now band C.
An internal communication of the landlord from 26 February 2025 said that as band C the resident was no longer the highest priority for a move. It said she did not agree with this assessment. It confirmed to us in April 2025 that it has since applied management discretion and moved her back to band A, backdated to 2021. It is not clear whether the resident may have missed out on a suitable property during the period she was removed from band A.
The landlord told us that she requires a 3 or 4-bedroom property in a specific area with private garden and a parking space. It will make her 2 more offers when properties become available, but this is likely to be some time due to her specific requirements.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer. We appreciate that the resident is looking for a property with very specific requirements, which the landlord may not have available for some time. However, it did not act reasonably in removing her from the management transfer list due to the missed viewing in May 2024.
The landlord said it gave reasonable notice in line with its policy, however this policy does not state that it will only give 24 hours’ notice. It was unable to make contact with her over the phone on 22 May 2024, so did not establish that she knew about the viewing. Furthermore, it knew she had been in hospital with her child but still treated this as a refused viewing, which was not reasonable.
While the landlord did eventually reinstate her on the housing list with the correct date and priority, it failed to acknowledge its mistake during its internal complaints process. It did not recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused her or offer anything to put matters right.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400. This award has been made with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in mind to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by her being removed from the management transfer list and being initially reinstated with the incorrect banding.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will respond to emergency repairs and make them safe within 24 hours. It will aim to carry out all other repairs within 28 calendar days. It also says it aims to get repairs right on the first visit. Its damp and mould policy says it will:
1. provide dry, warm, healthy and safe homes free from any hazards
2. ensure fabric of homes is protected from deterioration and damage resulting from damp
3. treat residents reporting damp and mould with empathy and respect
4. take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way
5. support residents in resolving damp and mould where they result from the use of the home, and provide residents with appropriate, clear, sensitive, practical and accessible advice
6. communicate with residents clearly and regularly regarding any actions it plans to take
The landlord has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response to a previous complaint on 11 September 2023, in which it agreed to carry out a new damp and mould inspection. This was completed on 16 September and found no rising or penetrating damp. It recommended a wall vent be replaced with a silent running de-humidistat vent and a portable dehumidifier be placed in the bedroom for 1-2 weeks to speed up the drying out process. Work was signed off on 28 September.
On 20 March 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say that damp and mould had returned. A survey was booked for 27 March, however the contractor was unable to gain access to the property. The contractor told the landlord that the resident had said the landlord had contacted her to cancel the appointment and she was now at the hospital with one of her children. On 3 April, the resident let the landlord know that her child had been hospitalised for some time and she would need to delay the survey.
A survey took place on 7 May 2024. This found no rising damp, but did find penetrating damp around the entrance lobby and recommended work that was required to fix this. It also found that the entrance lobby did not have adequate heating. It said the radiator from the hall should be extended or an independent electric radiator be installed. Finally, it advised a complete and thorough inspection of the building externally.
The landlord’s internal communication of 17 June 2024 said that the resident was refusing the work as she had already been decanted twice. The landlord said that the work was required and it would follow its no access process if required. No evidence has been provided that the landlord made further attempts to gain access, which was not appropriate.
The resident raised her complaint on 12 August 2024. She said that a survey carried out in September 2023 had said that there was no damp, however damp has continued to be a problem. She said there was a foul odour and her belongings had been ruined. A further inspection was carried out on 13 August, which found that most of the property was free from damp and mould, however furniture did have mould spores on it.
In its stage 1 response of 28 August 2024 the landlord said that a work order had been raised to carry out the work identified in the survey on 13 August. It did not provide any explanation for why this work had not been carried out after the inspection in May, or why a further survey was required. This did not demonstrate that the landlord acted proactively, and there was an unreasonable delay in raising the works order.
The landlord said that as the previous PIV until was removed in January 2023 it would need to raise a new work order to investigate further. It said it would be in touch by 6 September 2024 to arrange an appointment. It offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise a cancelled appointment and the PIV work not being followed up. This offer was not proportionate to the landlord’s delay in carrying out works.
On 28 August 2024, the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint as she was unhappy the damp had recurred within 12 months of previous work being completed. She disagreed that there was no visible mould as there were spores on her belongings.
The landlord’s internal records from 10 September 2024 state that the resident was not allowing access to the property for work to be completed. In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 27 September, it said further investigation was needed to find the underlying cause. It said a further inspection would be carried out. It did not provide an explanation of why another inspection was needed when it had carried previous ones out in May and August and had already identified work.
The landlord failed to carry out works in line with the timescales set out in its repairs policy and did not demonstrate an ability to get things right first time in relation to its surveys, despite its repairs policy saying it aims to do this. It increased its offer of compensation to £300 however this was not proportionate to recognise its lack of effective action.
A further survey was carried out on 16 October 2024, which found ongoing water penetration in the property’s entrance hall. It was noted that the external masonry surfaces were in poor condition. It said that there was mould on the resident’s belongings, thought to be due to increased humidity levels as a result of the ongoing water ingress. The report concluded that the mould was not significant enough to present a hazard. However, there is no evidence a risk assessment was carried out, taking the family’s circumstances into consideration. This was not appropriate and did not demonstrate that the landlord considered its obligations under the HHSRS.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 December and said this inspection had prompted it to review its stage 2 response. It agreed that action taken previously had not rectified the damp and mould issues. Work carried out in the porch area had led to new water ingress issues. Defects in external brickwork were also causing minor water ingress in the front bedroom.
The landlord said there had been a lack of proactive steps taken to future proof the property, however a new schedule of works had now been agreed. It increased its offer of compensation to £750. It was reasonable that the landlord took the opportunity to review its complaint response, however it should have identified these issues during its stage 1 and stage 2 investigation.
A further damp and mould inspection was carried out on 19 February 2025. This found that there was no ventilation to a storage area near the entrance which was causing damp in the entrance hall. It said that due to the extent of condensation it was not possible to confirm at that stage whether there was rising damp. It recommended work be carried out both externally and internally.
We have seen no evidence that the work was subsequently completed. However, in a call with this Service in April 2025, the resident advised that work was outstanding and she was awaiting a temporary decant into alternative accommodation. She explained that due to her children’s additional needs, the landlord was having difficulty finding a suitable property.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The resident reported the recurrence of mould in March 2024, which remains unresolved. The landlord has carried out at least 4 inspections during that time, causing unnecessary inconvenience to the resident. These inspections have drawn different conclusions, and the landlord has failed to follow through with recommended work each time.
The Ombudsman appreciates the landlord has found it challenging to find a suitable decant property for the resident. However, its records do not show that it was looking to decant the resident until April 2025, therefore this does not account for most of the delay in completing work. We also appreciate that there were occasions where the landlord was unable to gain access to the property.
The landlord is aware that one of the resident’s children has a chronic lung condition, however it has provided no evidence it has completed a risk assessment or taken this into consideration in its handling of the repairs. The resident told the landlord on several occasions that she had to dispose of belongings damaged by mould. We have seen no evidence it has provided her with its insurer’s details in order for her to make an insurance claim, which would have been appropriate.
The landlord did offer £750 compensation in December 2024 to recognise its poor handling of the repairs. However, it still failed to take action to resolve the outstanding repairs at this time and has not acted in line with the commitments set out in its damp and mould policy. The landlord has not done enough to put things right for the resident, and she and her family are still living with the damp and mould.
Orders have been made for the landlord to carry out a risk assessment and create a plan, with timescales, of how it intends to complete the outstanding work. This should include consideration of whether, if no decant property is available, it can carry out the work with the resident remaining in the property.
An order has also been made for the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation of £500 to recognise the continued distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to carry out repairs. This brings the total compensation for this issue to £1,250.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £1,650, less any amount already paid during its internal complaints process, broken down as follows:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the management transfer
2. £1,250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by delayed repairs
A senior manager at the landlord to provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified within this report.
The landlord to provide the resident with its insurer’s details in order for her to make a claim for her damaged belongings, should she wish to.
The landlord to provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within 28 days of this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to:
1. Carry out a risk assessment based on the family’s circumstances and provide this Service and the resident with a copy of this.
2. Set out an action plan, agreed with the resident, of how it intends to carry out the outstanding work. This should include consideration of whether, if no decant property is available, it can carry out the work with the resident remaining in the property. It should consider all options available to it to get the work completed as soon as possible. A copy of this action plan should be provided to the resident and this Service.

Recommendation

The landlord to review its management transfer policy and consider its policy to give 24 hours’ notice when it is unable to establish contact with a resident.