The Guinness Partnership Limited (202322043)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322043

The Guinness Partnership Limited

30 April 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould and subsequent repairs to the guttering, the facias, the soffits, roof, doors and window frames of the property.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 11 June 2015. The property is a 2 bedroom house.
On 10 January 2023 the resident raised a report of damp and mould. The landlord arranged a damp and mould wash on 9 February 2023.
A further appointment was scheduled for 16 February 2023 to assess the cause of the damp. During this appointment it was reported that:
1. The front and back door needed to be adjusted.
2. Draft excluders needed to be fitted.
3. The windows needed to be assessed.
4. A damp and mould specialist would need to assess the damp and mould.
During March 2023, an operative attended the resident’s property to assess the windows, door, soffits and facias. The resident stated she was informed the windows and doors were too rotten for a repair to be completed.
A technical inspection of the front door was completed on 11 April 2023. This concluded there were defects with the door and it needed to be replaced.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord about damp and mould in her home. This had been assessed, however she did not feel it was resolved. The landlord issued a stage one response on 11 April 2023. In this response:
1. The landlord apologised that a resolution to the damp and mould had not yet been found and for the outstanding repairs.
2. It confirmed it had previously sent a £100 decoration voucher and would resend this.
3. It explained that due to staff absence the stage one reply took longer to issue. It further explained it was unable to conduct and conclude a full investigation prior to stage 2 and apologised. In recognition of the delay the landlord offered the resident £60.
During May 2023 the resident chased the landlord about repairs. As she remained unhappy with the landlord’s findings, the complaint was escalated. The landlord issued a stage two response on 10 May 2023, which said:
1. It acknowledged that whilst it attended some of the repairs within timeframes, there had been delays.
2. It confirmed the windows did not need to be replaced, as repair was possible. It explained this should be completed within 20 working days.
3. It confirmed an appointment was booked for 18 May 2023, to assess the soffits and roof repair.
4. It explained the timeframe to replace the door was 12 weeks.
5. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for delays in completing repairs and its poor communication. In recognition of this, it offered the resident £50 for stress and inconvenience caused by delays, and £25 for poor communication.
The resident brought the complaint to our service as she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. In order to resolve the complaint she was seeking for:
1. All windows and wooden surrounds to be sanded and treated for mould, and for the paint to match the colour of the new door as agreed with the landlord.
2. Mouldy facias and soffits to be replaced with PVC or wooden ones.
3. Back door to be removed and re-fitted by the same window specialist who fitted the front door.
4. Kitchen window trickle vents to be fixed as they were open to the elements and had fallen out after the window was removed for new seals.
5. Guttering on the rest of the property to be replaced. Only the front gutter was completed. However the roofer had advised they all needed doing as there was leaking into eave trays, causing damp.
6. Compensation.
During June 2023 contractors attended to complete work to the gutter, eave trays and replace a broken tile on the roof. The resident was unhappy and stated they had only been instructed to carry out part of the works needed. She stated she was previously told by contractors that all guttering, facias and soffits needed to be replaced.
During July 2023, works were completed to the door, and the windows. The landlord replaced the front door.
In its submission to us, the landlord confirmed that all associated repairs to this complaint were completed by the end of August 2023.
During September 2023, the resident further chased for repairs to the windows. The landlord raised a work order to repair the windows, however the contractor informed it had no access when it attended. During November 2023 the contractors informed the landlord it would be better to complete the work when the weather improved, due to the windows needing to be left open all day.
A further work order was raised on 7 March 2024 and contractors completed works to the window on 5 April 2024.
On 21 May 2024 the resident provided an update on the ongoing condition of her property. She stated that:
1. The roofer insisted facias and soffits needed changing, but the landlord would not replace them. She confirmed its contractor completed work with mastic which is a sealant so water cannot penetrate. However she believed this would not last.
2. The landlord was supposed to sand back and repaint wooden facias and soffits over a year ago. It had since decided it would not.
3. She was still experiencing damp and mould in the same bedrooms as before. Damp treatment and repainting had not worked as mould bled through.
4. There was black mould on both the soffits and facias of the windows and walls adjacent. The mould bled through 2 bedrooms and the bathroom.
5. There were gaps in soffit boards and huge cracks to exterior walls.
6. Windows were repainted but now were a different colour to the facias, soffits and porch. The landlord had refused to match this.
7. Back door leaks and fills with condensation – this had never been looked at despite being in the resolution plan from landlord.
8. She was unhappy with its compensation offer.
The resident informed us during April 2025 that the window frames have split again. She also stated that damp and mould has appeared under the side of the front porch.
The resident had stated the render to the front of the property was cracking. She says the landlord had acknowledged this but explained a different department would need to address this. She had not heard back regarding this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord issued its stage two response on the 10 May 2023. Generally we would not consider matters that have occurred after its internal complaints procedure. However repairs that were the subject of this complaint remained outstanding after the formal response. It is therefore appropriate for us to take these into consideration in this investigation, in order to assess how the landlord resolved matters.
We understand the resident had raised further concerns about the quality of repair. We have not considered this in this investigation as the landlord has not had an opportunity to look into the matter. We recommend the landlord contact the resident regarding these further issues.
The resident expressed concerns about damp and mould and the impact it had on her children who are asthmatic. She stated this resulted in her child having a chest infection which was caused by the bacteria in the mould. Whilst we have noted this as context, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s damp and mould policy states residents are required to report any problems as soon as possible. It will then arrange for an operative to attend to determine the cause and seek to resolve the immediate issue. It states:
1. If damp and mould is caused by condensation. It will work with residents to take appropriate measures to prevent this. It may consider advice on:
  1. How to control moisture levels.
  2. Increased ventilation.
  3. Heating.
2. If a severe or reoccurring damp or mould issue is identified it will undertake a comprehensive risk assessment. This may result in the following actions to support the resident:
  1. Funding dehumidifiers.
  2. Installing a positive input ventilation system, mechanical or passive ventilation systems.
  3. Dry-lining the walls.
  4. Applying mould resistant coverings.
3. It will keep residents informed of timelines, inspections and diagnosis of the issue.
4. In instances where there is intrusive building work or a serious health risk, it will consider alternative accommodation.
Any repairs required will be dealt with in accordance with its responsive repairs policy. It categorises repair requirements as either:
1. Emergency – It will either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair to make the situation safe within 24 hours of the report.
2. Routine – It aims to fix repairs within 28 calendar days.
In this instance when the resident reported she was experiencing damp and mould in the bedrooms, window frames, facias and soffits, the landlord arranged an appointment to have this assessed.
The landlord’s repairs history shows several work orders for damp and mould related works were made between 2023-2024. These were:
1. 10 January 2023 – To treat damp and mould in bedrooms. This was cancelled as a duplicate order.
2. 23 January 2023 – Duplicate order for work order raised on 10 January 2023. Resident had reported damp and mould on ceilings and walls. It noted the resident had a young child who is asthmatic. This work was completed on 9 February 2023.
3. 5 March 2023 – The landlord had raised a work order for a damp and mould survey to be conducted. This was completed on 10 May 2023.
4. 17 March 2023 – To look at soffits and roof, completed on 13 June 2023.
5. 30 March 2023 – To clear out gutters. This was completed on 3 May 2023.
We understand a visit occurred during March 2023 to assess the damp and mould and conduct a mould wash. In its formal response the landlord stated a further appointment was scheduled for 4 April 2023, however the repairs history does not reflect if this appointment occurred.
The evidence shows that, since the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the landlord had:
1. Arranged inspections.
2. Completed damp and mould washes.
3. Arranged repairs to the gutter, roof, and eave trays.
It was correct for the landlord to conduct an inspection and carry out any necessary repairs, and we see that it was actively taking steps to resolve the damp and mould. Looking at the repairs history above we see that there were some delays in having repairs completed within the 28 days timeframe as specified in the landlord’s policies. This investigation goes on to consider further delays below.
We note that during 2024 the resident said she was still experiencing damp and mould in her home. There is no evidence to suggest what the cause of the damp and mould was.It is not clear that the landlord was informed of this. However, as the resident reports that the issue has persisted, we recommend the landlord contact the resident to discuss her current concerns and assess whether it needs an inspection or any other action it needs to take.

The facias, the soffits, guttering

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and the exterior of the property in repair. Annex 2 of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy also sets out theseresponsibilities. Therefore, when the landlord was informed of issues concerning the gutter, soffits and facias, it was appropriate that it investigated the matter.
The resident had reported concerns to the landlord about the soffits and facias, in particular that they were black and mouldy. She was also concerned about the guttering, and explained during winter rainwater would bleed through into the bedroom.
The evidence show contractors attended to clean the gutter in May 2023. In its stage two response the landlord explained its operative would be attending on 18 May 2023 to assess the soffits and roof repair. The repair history confirms an assessment was completed on 13 June 2023.
The resident explained she was told by contractors that all facias, soffits and guttering were to be replaced. But instead when they attended on 13 June 2023 she stated they were only instructed to:
1. Change one gutter at the front of the house.
2. Fit new eave trays to the roof.
3. Replace a few broken tiles which were letting water in.
We have reviewed the information provided and have not seen evidence to satisfy us that the landlord was required to replace the whole of the soffits, facias and gutter. This is supported by an email which was sent by the contractor to the landlord on 15 June 2023 which confirmed they did not need replacing. Whilst we understand the resident’s frustration on the matter, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the information provided by its contractors.
The evidence shows the resident was frustrated when an operative attended her property without informing her first. This occurred during May 2023. This was not in line with the landlord’s guidelines to keep residents informed. We also see the landlord acknowledged and apologised for this. In recognition of the poor communication it offered £25. We find its response was proportionate. The issues, while inconvenient, did not result in significant disruption. The compensation reasonably acknowledged the landlord’s service failure and impact on the resident.
During May 2024, the resident stated the landlord was supposed to paint the facias over a year ago but had decided it would not. She stated this was a part of the stage two response settlement.
We have reviewed the landlord’s stage two response. We have not seen evidence to suggest painting the soffits and facias was agreed. We also have reviewed the repair records and cannot see a record to reflect this work or agreement.
The evidence shows that during August 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that its contractors had stated the soffits and facias needed painting however it would not be carrying this work out. This was because this would be considered external decoration and usually completed by its planned delivery team rather than repairs.
Whilst we recognise the resident’s frustration in the landlord not painting the facias and soffits, its explanation around its commitments was reasonable. As there is no evidence that the works required immediate action, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry these out under its planned maintenance programme.

Repairs to the doors

The resident had expressed concerns about the landlord’s handling of reports and the delay in getting the works to the door completed.
On 9 February 2023 it was reported to the landlord that the door needed to be adjusted. The evidence shows the resident chased for an update on her door during March 2023. Subsequently a technical inspection was completed on 11 April 2023. This confirmed the front door was very bowed and a new door was required.
We see the resident further chased during May 2023 about timeframes for when her door would be replaced. It was then confirmed in the landlord’s stage two response that the timeframe for a replacement door was 12 weeks. The work was confirmed as completed on 3 July 2023.
It is clear that there were delays in having the landlord attend to the door. But we also understand that this type of work would not have been a routine repair. Due to the outsourcing of materials it is understandable this type of repair would taken longer than 28 days. Whilst we see the landlord informed the resident of the expected timeframes in its stage two response, it could have better communicated with her prior to this, to prevent her having to chase it.

Window frames

The resident had informed the landlord that she was told by its contractors on 24 March 2023 that her windows were too rotten to be repaired and needed replacement. She further said that her windows were measured at the inspection.
We understand the resident wanted the windows to be replaced with UPVC ones. However the landlord had decided it would not be replacing the windows and explained this to the resident, further stating its contractors said they could be repaired.
We have reviewed the evidence and can see a conversation took place between the landlord’s contractors and sub-contractors. Its sub-contractors had attended 20 March 2023 and stated the windows were roughly 30 year old timber with no track or ventilators. They advised these could not be repaired to the desired standard, however explained the windows were in working order. A further issue highlighted was the sash was warping, causing a draught issue. There was a conversation between the contractors and it was confirmed this was to be repaired not replaced.
Whilst we acknowledge what the resident stated she was told, we have reviewed the information and have not seen evidence to satisfy the landlord had advised its contractors to replace the windows. In such circumstances it is often more appropriate for a landlord to carry out repairs rather than a full replacement, as this approach is cost-effective and ensures continued functionality. As we have not seen evidence to confirm the windows were beyond economic repair, the landlord had no obligation to replace the windows.
We see a work order was raised on 12 May 2023 to add trickle vents, seal the window, install hinges and to apply mastic. This was to be completed by 14 July 2023. The repairs history shows this was completed in the expected timeframe.
A further work order was raised on 23 August 2023 to paint all windows to the property. The correspondence between the landlord and operative suggest the operative attended but the resident refused access to repaint external window frames due to this not being what was agreed via a previous email.
A work order was then raised on 15 September 2023 to rub down, fill, undercoat and gloss the timber frame windows inside and out. We see the contractor had attended but had no access. The evidence shows during November 2023 its contractors had stated that preparation work required windows to be left open all day, however it was not ideal in the cold weather. This resulted in a further delay to the works being completed. We see works were raised again on 7 March 2024 and completed on 5 April 2024.
There have been significant delays in getting the works completed to the windows. Whilst we understand the contractor had stated at one point the resident had refused to have these works done, we also see that she was chasing for these repairs to be completed, and that the work order remained outstanding past the landlord’s expected timeframes. Overall we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the window frames.
This service has not seen that the landlord has reviewed its compensation offer when the work to the windows were finally done. Therefore, in recognition of the ongoing issue remaining for a considerable period following the landlord’s final response, we have made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for further compensation to reflect the impact caused on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, mould and subsequent repairs to the guttering, the facias, the soffits, roof, doors and window frames.

Orders and recommendations

Order.

If not done so already, the landlord to pay the resident £135 compensation offered in its formal response.
The landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of its delays and poor communication and resulting distress and inconvenience. All orders should be completed within four weeks of the date of this letter. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance to our service.

Recommendation.

The landlord should contact the resident to check any current concerns relating to damp and mould or repairs in the property and then action as needed.