Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202319272)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319272

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. concerns regarding estate signage.
    2. associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a joint assured tenant of the landlord and has held this tenancy since 1995. The property is a one bedroom second floor flat.
  2. On 29 June 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the estate signage. In summary he:
    1. provided a brief history of when the estate was built, and how it was named and said a larger estate was built across the road around the same time.
    2. said that approximately 15 years ago a sign displaying the name of the larger estate was installed at the entrance of his estate and residents immediately complained because this caused confusion with deliveries and taxi’s etc.
    3. said that after residents’ complaints there was a site visit resulting in the sign being temporarily removed. It was then replaced with a larger sign, still displaying the other estate name, with an additional 3 identical signs added throughout his estate also.
    4. said that armed police had mistakenly attended his estate that day looking for a suspect in a firearms incident, rather than going to the correct building in the other estate across the road. This incident had prompted the resident’s complaint.
    5. suggested the landlord remove the signs.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023. It said:
    1. it had considered the resident’s concerns about the signage.
    2. there had been no other resident complaints about the signage.
    3. there had been no contact from the police, the local authority, or any other external agencies about the signage.
    4. its present decision was not to change the signage, but if required this would be reviewed.
    5. it recognised that it had not initially registered the resident’s concerns as a complaint and that he had had to chase a response.
    6. it was sorry for the poor communication and the delay in investigating his concerns and offered £50 compensation, made up of:
      1. £25 for poor communication
      2. £25 for the delay in investigating his complaint.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 October 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 November 2023. In this it said:
    1. it agreed with the stage 1 response regarding the delay in registering the resident’s complaint and the offer of compensation was fair and reasonable to acknowledge the service he had received.
    2. it had reviewed the signage and decided it was adequate and did not require removal or replacement.
    3. it had installed the signage to make it clear which buildings were owned and managed by it as this was previously unclear.
    4. it had reviewed its complaints and confirmed that no other resident or external agency had concerns about the signage.
    5. the signage was fit for purpose.
  5. The resident brought his complaint to us and as a resolution said he would like the signage removed.

Events after completion of the internal complaints process

  1. The landlord has provided evidence of the updated signage recently installed on the estate. It has told us that this was part of a wider programme to update and refresh signage across its properties, as since it had rebranded in 2015 it had been replacing outdated signage across its properties to reflect this change.
  2. The resident has told us that the landlord has added the previous estate name to the existing signage and installed a block map beside this and remains unhappy as he feels the signage remains confusing to non-residents.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that he originally complained to the landlord about the signage approximately 15 years ago when it was first installed. We understand that this was addressed with the landlord at that time and because this was more than 12 months ago the details of that complaint and the landlord’s response will not form part of this investigation. This has been mentioned only to provide context of when the signage was first installed, and the issue was first raised.

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ concerns regarding estate signage.

  1. When the resident raised his complaint about the estate signage it was appropriate that the landlord considered this in line with its estate and neighbourhood management policy, in which it commits to “work with residents and provide additional services to address a specific issue or improve the neighbourhood”.
  2. As the concerns raised by the resident were of a general community nature it was positive that the landlord reviewed its internal records to establish if there had been any similar concerns raised.
  3. Once it established that there hadn’t been any complaints from other residents, the local authority or other agencies, it used its complaint responses to inform the resident that it had decided not to change the signage on the estate as it considered them adequate and fit for purpose.
  4. However, the resident’s complaint included his understanding of the history of the estate and how it became known by its former name. His complaint included his belief that the landlord had changed the name of the estate from what it was originally known. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address or confirm if it had changed the estate name or if the estate name displayed on the signage was correct. Not addressing this was a failure, as a key part of the residents’ complaint was how misleading he felt it was to have two estates, across the road from each other, with the same name.
  5. We have asked the landlord if the estate name had been formally or informally changed or if it always formed part of the other estate. The landlord has told us that it was not aware of any formal or informal name change in relation to its estate nor could it confirm if it had always been considered part of the other estate (by the local authority).
  6. Since we have not been provided evidence of the estates official name, as recorded by the local authority we are unable to determine if the estate name displayed on the signage is correct and an order has been made for this information to be established and shared with the resident.
  7. Overall, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ concerns about the signage. This is because it failed to fully address the residents’ concerns regarding the estate signage by confirming the accuracy of the estate name the signage displayed.

The landlords handling of the residents’ associated complaint.

  1. When the resident raised his concerns on 29 June 2023 the landlord did not recognise this as a complaint. This was a failure and not in line with its complaint policy in which it defines a complaint as “‘An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by us, our staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual customer or group of customers or person who is affected by our services”. The resident had to chase the landlord twice before it registered and acknowledged this complaint.
  2. Once registered as a complaint on 1 August 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 August 2023, in line with its complaint policy to issue stage 1 responses within 10 working days. In this it recognised its poor communication and delay, apologised and offered compensation as redress for its failures.
  3. The resident accepted the compensation on 11 August 2023 and escalated his complaint on 24 October 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy states an escalation request should be made within 15 working days, therefore it was positive that the landlord accepted the resident’s escalation request, given this delay. The resident explained to the landlord that he thought he had already escalated this complaint but had confused this with another complaint he had with the landlord. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 9 November 2023, which was in line with its complaint policy to issue stage 2 responses within 20 working days.
  4. Where the landlord admits failings, our role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s issue satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, we assess whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The landlord’s level of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance and proportionate to the failures identified in this investigation. Our guidance suggests that this level of compensation is used for failures where a landlord’s action or inaction have caused short term distress and inconvenience and minimal time and trouble for a resident.
  6. The landlord also demonstrated learning from this failure, telling the resident that it had given feedback to its complaints team to ensure all expressions of dissatisfaction from its customers were registered as a formal complaint to prevent delays like this from re-occurring.
  7. We have, therefore, found that overall, the landlord offered reasonable redress to put things right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding estate signage.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £100 compensation for the impact of not fully addressing his concerns regarding the estate signage.
    3. establish the official name of the estate and provide confirmation of this to us and the resident.
    4. provide us with evidence of compliance with this order within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered in its formal responses if it has not already done so. We have found reasonable redress based on this being paid to the resident.