The Guinness Partnership Limited (202307786)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307786

The Guinness Partnership Limited

1 August 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. Fire alarm tests in the block.
2. The resident’s reports of pests.
3. The resident’s reports of damp, mould and foul-smelling odour.

Background

The resident lives in the property, owned by the landlord, under an assured tenancy. The property is a ground-floor flat. There is a basement underneath which is not part of her property. When escalating her complaint, she let the landlord know that the issues she had reported were causing her health problems.
The resident first reported to the landlord that there were rats in the floor and walls of her property on 28 February 2022. On 27 July there was a leak in the basement and damp and mould repairs were carried out in August. The resident told the landlord there was damp and mould in her home in October. On 5 December she told the landlord there was a foul smell in her home due to ventilation problems.
On 8 March 2023 the resident called the landlord to say she had registered a complaint on its website. She said she had been contacting it about pests for weeks with no response. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 4 May about her reports of pests and her issue with the fire alarm tests. It said:
1. There was an incident in January 2023 where the fire alarm was not taken offline before being tested. It apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused.
2. Pest contractors had attended on 28 April 2023 and found pests in the bin area. Treatment was started and was due to be completed by 4 May.
3. It apologised for its delayed complaint response and offered £60 compensation to recognise this.
The resident responded on 10 May 2023, and said the landlord had not checked the basement for gases. She also said that when the landlord had visited it was dry and cold. She told it that the flat was affecting her health. She contacted it again on 24 May, saying residents should be notified about fire alarm tests. She told it there had been a considerable increase in rat activity since December 2022. The landlord sent its stage 1 response to the damp and mould complaint on 29 June 2023. It accepted failures in communication and partially upheld the complaint. It further provided £50 for poor communication and £75 for the delayed complaint response.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response about the fire alarm and rat issues on 29 August 2023, in which it said:
1. It wrote to residents on 1 February advising that fire alarms are tested monthly. It told her that this may occasionally need to be on a weekend.
2. It is not always practical for it to give advance warning of testing and it was not in its policy or procedures to do so.
3. It instructed pest control and liaised with other agencies within a timely manner. It would continue with pest control on an ad hoc basis as and when evidence of pests was provided.
4. It acknowledged that it failed to call her back as promised and offered £25 compensation to recognise this.
5. It also offered £60 compensation to recognise the delay in responding to her complaint.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to the damp and mould complaint, in which it said:
1. In its stage 1 response, it had found that she had previously complained about damp and mould. A survey had been carried out and no damp or mould was found in her home.
2. Some damp and mould were found in the basement, however this was not uncommon. It was not a cause for concern as the basement is not a habitable space. No further action was needed.
3. A further inspection would take place on 31 August.
4. It offered £250 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for poor communication.
  2. £75 for the delay in its stage 1 response.
  3. £75 for the delay in escalating the complaint.
  4. £50 for the delay in its stage 2 response.
On 30 August 2023 the resident contacted us and asked us to investigate the complaints.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has raised concerns about her health and the impact on this by the issues raised. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is 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 it 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.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response about damp and mould on 30 August 2023, however the resident has continued to report the issues frequently since that time. As the issues have persisted, and the landlord has not raised new complaints for the resident, this investigation has considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s continued reports of damp and odour as the matters remained the same, in line with the Scheme.
The resident first reported rats in the building in February 2022, however did not raise a complaint about rats until March 2023. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint. However, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the residents reports of rats from February 2023, that were considered during the landlord’s internal complaints process. This is because residents should raise a complaint with the landlord within 12 months of the issue arising.

Fire alarm

The landlord’s fire safety policy says it will test all fixed and portable fire safety equipment on a regular basis. The policy does not stipulate that it will give residents advance notice of fire alarm testing.
In its stage 1 response of 4 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged that there was an incident in January 2023. The fire alarm was not taken offline when it was tested, which resulted in the fire brigade attending. The landlord apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and said feedback had been provided to ensure it did not happen again. This was a proportionate response from the landlord.
The landlord explained that it could not provide advance notice of fire alarm tests, as it may not always be able to keep to a schedule. In its stage 2 response of 29 August 2023, it further explained that as it managed various sites it could not always be sure where its resource would be.
The Ombudsman does not consider there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of fire alarm tests in the block. It apologised for the incident in January 2023, which was caused by mistake. Its policy does not require it to provide advance notice to residents and it has provided a reasonable explanation of why this is not possible.

Rats

The landlord’s pests policy says that infestations inside a resident’s home or garden are their responsibility in accordance with their tenancy agreement. It says it will deal with infestations:
1. In communal areas.
2. Where there is clear evidence the pest is entering via a defect to the building.
3. Where there is evidence it is a direct result of disrepair.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it categorises repairs as either emergency or routine. Emergency repairs should be completed or made safe within 24 hours. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days.
The first record of the resident reporting hearing rats in her flat on 28 February 2022. The records do not show what work was carried out by the landlord at that time.
The resident again reported hearing rats to the landlord on 14 February 2023. It contacted her the same day to say it would review the basement. No evidence has been provided that it did this, or that it kept her updated with its actions. On 28 February she told the landlord the rats were causing her problems with sleeping.
On 8 March 2023 the resident called the landlord and said that she had been contacting it for weeks about pests with no response. On 6 April the landlord raised a repair to fill gaps that could be allowing rats to enter, which was completed on 4 May. It is not clear from the landlord’s records when it became aware there were gaps that needed to be filled. However, its repairs policy says that repairs should be carried out within 28 calendar days. Given that the resident reported the rats on 14 February and it told her the same day that it would review the basement, there was an unreasonable delay in carrying out works to resolve the issue. There is also no evidence it kept her updated during this period, which was not appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 4 May 2023 said that contractors had attended on 28 April and found pests in the communal bin area and begun treatment. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 24 May, saying that there had been a considerable increase in rat activity since December 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 29 August 2023. It said that it had spoken to her on 10 March and confirmed a pest control contractor had visited, but its records do not show when this visit was, or whether they took any action at that time. It acknowledged that it had failed to return calls to her and that its complaint response was delayed. It offered £85 compensation to recognise this, which was reasonable.
The resident has raised a more recent complaint with the landlord about rats in September 2024, which it is investigating separately. Although there may be a new rat problem, we have seen no evidence that the landlord’s contractor did not effectively deal with the problem at the time. More than a year passed before the resident reported further rat activity, so it is reasonable to conclude the problem was resolved at the time.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests. Its records do not demonstrate that it carried out repairs to prevent rat access into the building within its policy timescale. It also did not keep the resident updated with its actions and the reason for the work being delayed.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100. This order has been made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy to recognise the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.

Damp, mould and odour

The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will:
1. Provide dry warm, healthy and safe homes for its residents.
2. Ensure the fabric of its homes are protected from deterioration and damage resulting from damp.
3. Take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way.
4. Communicate with residents clearly and regularly.
The landlord’s records show that there was a leak in the basement in July 2022 which was resolved in August. On 7 October the resident reported damp and mould in her home. The landlord’s records illustrate it attended on 11 October 2022 and its inspection resulted in no finding of damp and mould. The landlord visited the property on 13 November following a report of a faulty extractor fan but found this to be working.
The resident reported damp and mould again on 21 November 2022, saying there was a smell of damp in her home. She asked for a survey to be carried out, and an appointment was booked for 5 December. Records illustrate the landlord contacted the resident on 5 December 2022 to rearrange the appointment originally scheduled for 6 December 2022 to 15 December 2022. Records indicate a voicemail was left on 5 December 2022 to inform the resident the appointment had to be cancelled, as well as successful contact on 9 December 2022 which confirmed the appointment was to take place on 15 December 2022. I further note the landlord’s records initially provided also referred to an appointment dated 5 December 2022 which contradicts the information above. Records also indicate the appointment was attended to on 23 December 2022. In consideration of the dates, the landlord attended the appointment outside of the timescales expected.
On 21 December 2022 the landlord raised a job for leaking gutters, which was completed on 8 January 2023. On 5 January a job was raised to fit a vent, which was completed on 1 March, which was not in line with its repairs policy timescale of 28 calendar days.
On 10 May 2023 the resident raised a complaint about damp and mould. She said that the landlord had carried out a visit when it was dry and cold, and it did not check the basement for gases. She said that the condition of the flat was affecting her health. On 2 June she told the landlord that a combination of warm and wet weather made the issue worse. On 23 June she emailed the landlord to say the vapour was originally coming from the floor but was now coming from the walls too.
A damp and mould job was raised on 29 June 2023, however the resident cancelled this job online on 4 July. On 12 July she told the landlord she was running dehumidifiers almost constantly. On 18 July the landlord acknowledged escalation of the resident’s complaint. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s stage 1 response.
On 6 August 2023 the resident completed the landlord’s repairs webform. She said she was concerned about a mouldy section of the fireproof ceiling in the basement. On 9 August the landlord said it would look to inspect the basement on the next communal visit. The resident chased this up on 19 August and on 22 August the landlord said it was due to visit that week. It said it would leave a calling card in her letterbox with the outcome of the inspection.
On 26 August the resident emailed the landlord to say she had received no correspondence through her letterbox nor been approached by its staff carrying out a visit. There is no evidence the landlord responded to apologise or explain why no visit had been carried out, which was not appropriate.
In its stage 2 response of 30 August 2023 the landlord said that at stage 1 it had found that it had previously carried out a damp inspection and no sign of damp and mould was found. It is not clear when this inspection took place, and no copy of an inspection report has been provided. It is important that a landlord keeps robust records so that it is clear on what it has done and what its next steps should be. In this case it has not demonstrated that it kept good records so it is has been unable to show that it took reasonable steps in line with its damp and mould policy.
The landlord said that damp was found in the basement but that this was not uncommon as basements generally have limited airflow and high moisture readings. It said that as the basement was not a habitable space there was no cause for concern and no further action was needed. It said it did not believe that replacing the fireproof ceiling in the basement was necessary. We have been provided with a photo of the basement ceiling, which shows a section of the ceiling tiling was mouldy.
The Ombudsman expects landlords to ensure inspections are carried out by suitably qualified person, with reports provided to show findings and recommendations. An inspection was carried out on 8 September 2023.
The landlord agreed for an additional inspection to go ahead on 31 August 2023, which it said would be carried out by an experienced operative. It would then arrange any repairs if these were required. It offered the resident £250 compensation to recognise delays and poor communication in relation to its handling of the complaint, which was reasonable.
On 1 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to say the inspection of the basement was complete. It said it would be visiting on 8 September to carry out humidity readings, including within her flat. She responded the next day to say that she was in a lot of pain and discomfort due to the mould and vapour. She said the landlord should send a Surveyor rather than one of its repairs operatives.
The inspection report dated 8 September 2023 confirmed a leak was found above the firestopping which was repaired on the same day. It further confirmed two operatives were needed to reinstate firestopping once dry. The recommendation was to reinstate firestopping below the repaired area of the leak.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 September 2023 to say it had received a copy of the report following its visit. The landlord said that it had identified a minor leak which had caused part of the ceiling to become mouldy. It said the mouldy section was removed during the visit and would be reinstated once it had dried out. No smells or fumes were identified in the basement or the neighbouring flat. It said she would not allow access to her flat for it to inspect for fumes. The landlord’s actions were appropriate at this time, given that it was unable to access her flat.
On 21 September 2023 the resident said that she had to sleep on a relative’s floor as she felt the flat was uninhabitable. The landlord responded to say that the old fireproof ceiling would be removed on 26 September, which contradicted what it had said previously about it having been removed during the visit. It has not provided any documentation that confirms when the mouldy ceiling was removed. It has again failed to demonstrated that it has kept robust records, meaning it is unclear when it took action to remove the mouldy part of the ceiling. So, it does not appear that it removed this at the earliest possible opportunity, which was not appropriate.
The landlord also said she had declined its offer to inspect her home, and she responded to say it had already had multiple opportunities. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s frustration, however for the landlord to investigate matters, it required access to her flat. On 10 October 2023 it said that while it had previously visited, as this was some time ago it would arrange a new visit.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that a further visit to investigate damp and mould was completed. The resident raised the damp and mould issue again on 25 January 2024, however she refused access when it tried to visit on 29 January. She emailed the landlord on 12 February and said that the guttering was leaking, despite contractors attending. She also said that a fusty smell was spreading through her flat during wet weather. She said she had 3 dehumidifiers on all the time which was preventing mould growth but did not stop the smell.
Scaffolding was required for the guttering to be cleared, and the work was completed on 20 March 2024. An internal email of the landlord on 8 April said that the resident was complaining but was not allowing access. However, the landlord’s records do not show that it had made any further attempts since 29 January to visit.
On 12 April 2024 the landlord emailed the resident to say that it had found a small patch of mould in the basement, which would be addressed. It was looking to replace the window in the basement with one with vents to allow for additional air flow. On 17 April the resident completed the landlord’s complaint webform, saying that repairs were outstanding and the basement ceiling was still mouldy. There was no evidence that a new complaint was raised. The landlord stated this was as a stage two complaint was open at the time. In this instance, as a stage one response was provided in February 2024, the Ombudsman understands why the landlord opted to include the concerns dated 17 April 2024 in its stage two response. However, the Ombudsman would have expected this to be raised as a new complaint as this would have allowed the resident to escalate the matter to stage two, which is essential to a complaints process as this allows the resident two stages of concerns being investigated.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response dated 13 June 2024 in response to moisture in the property stemming from the basement. It determined it was unable to uphold the complaint, however provided a £50 for poor communication as its should have ensured a visit with its Customer Liaison Manager was organised as part of the promised future action.
The landlord carried out a damp and mould survey on 23 August 2024 and has provided us with a copy of this report. This survey found:
1. The guttering to the front elevation was visibly blocked with vegetation. There was damp staining on the underside of a gutter union joint and a t-joint to the fall pipe.
2. A gap was observed where the basin waste pipe exited through the external wall, which may allow water to penetrate.
3. An overflow pipe from an above flat was actively discharging water. The resident had placed a bin below to stop the water pooling against the wall.
4. The report recommended the following external work:
  1. Gaps in masonry should be filled.
  2. Rainwater goods should be overhauled.
  3. Moss growth should be removed and regularly maintained.
  4. The plumbing issue in upstairs flat should be resolved.
5. It was unable to accurately assess the internal humidity as the resident had been running dehumidifiers. However, there was no evidence of rising or penetrating dampness.
6. Means of ventilation were blocked/obstructed. Trickle vents were closed and there were draught excluders at the bottom of doors. Natural and cross flow ventilation was poor due to this.
7. There was a slightly stale odour in the entrance hall, bathroom and bedroom but no evidence of damp or mould growth.
8. The living room and bedroom were heavily congested with stored items.
9. Kitchen and bathroom extractor fans were not performing as required.
10. The report recommended the following internal work:
  1. Installation of new fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
  2. Doors should be adjusted to have a 10mm gap at the base and trickle vents should be left open (apart from the ones in the kitchen and bathroom).
  3. The landlord could alternatively consider installing a positive input ventilation (PIV) unit.
While the landlord did carry out earlier visits, it has not provided copies of reports from these visits to show it carried out a thorough survey. Without a copy of these reports, it is not known whether the issues found in the August 2023 survey were present when the resident first reported damp and odour issues. However, it is clear that in August 2023 there were several issues both internally and externally. These issues could have been contributing to a build up of moisture in the property.
The landlord should have carried out a full internal and external survey during its original investigation of the complaint. It represented an unreasonable delay that it did not identify these issues until 2 years after the resident first raised an issue with damp and odours. When sending the report to us, the landlord did not send a schedule of works or confirm any work would be taking place. So, it is not clear whether the damp and odour issue has been resolved.
The Ombudsman considers there to have been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and foul-smelling vapour. It has failed to provide evidence that it carried out a full internal and external survey when the resident initially reported the problem. Its actions were not in line with the commitments set out in its damp and mould policy.
When the landlord found mould on the ceiling of the basement, it took too long to remove and replace this part of the ceiling. It has also not provided any evidence that it has carried out work to resolve the issues found during the damp survey.
An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to fully investigate and resolve the damp and odour issues. This award has been made in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. It also reflects that there were times when the landlord tried to arrange visits but was not given access by the resident.
An order has also been made for the landlord to provide evidence to this Service that work has been completed in line with the recommendations of the survey report of 23 August 2024. If work has not been completed a schedule with timeframes for completion should be provided to us and the resident. The landlord should also carry out a post-work inspection to check that the work has resolved the issues.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in its handling of fire alarm tests in the block.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pests.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and a foul-smelling odour.

Orders

Within 28 days of this report the landlord to carry out the following actions and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Pay the resident total compensation of £500, broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience in relation to the rats.
  2. £400 for the distress and inconvenience in relation to the damp and odour.
2. Apologise in writing for the failures identified within this report.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord to:
1. Conduct an inspection of the resident’s basement including concerns surrounding safety as well as damp and mould. It should then consider implementing the recommendations of the inspection, and explain why, if it is unable to do so. A schedule of repairs should be provided to both the resident and this service.
2. Provide evidence to this Service that work has been completed in line with the recommendations of the survey report of 23 August 2024 and any further works identified. If work has not been completed a schedule with timeframes for completion should be provided to us and the resident.
3. Schedule a post-work inspection to check that the work completed has resolved the damp and odour issues.