The Guinness Partnership Limited (202325460)

Background

1. The resident has a contact agreement in place with the landlord since November 2021. On 20 July 2023 he wrote to it requesting a meeting with its officers to discuss concerns about outstanding repairs and antisocial ball games. 

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Roof/guttering repairs.
   2. Contact arrangements and the resident’s request for a meeting.
   3. Reports of antisocial ball games.
   4. A Subject Access Request.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. roof/guttering repairs.
   2. contact arrangements and the resident’s request for a meeting.
   3. reports of antisocial ball games.
   4. the complaint.
5. We have found that we cannot consider the complaint about the Subject Access Request.

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

Summary of reasons

6. In summary, we found that the landlord:
   1. Delayed responding to the resident’s ongoing reports of guttering issues. It did not do so, even agreeing to raise a repair in its stage 2 response.
   2. Unreasonably delayed agreeing to meet with the resident to discuss his ongoing concerns.
   3. Delayed responding to his reports about antisocial ball games and then did not complete a risk assessment or action plan. It did not fully consider all appropriate action because of its delay in agreeing to meet with him.
   4. Failed to resolve issues effectively through its complaints process as a result of its unreasonable position on meeting with the resident. Further, it did not ensure repair actions it had committed to were completed.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

7. We have not seen records of the resident’s communication with his previous point of contact. However, when he wrote to the landlord on 20 July 2023, he said he had ongoing issues with his guttering. Its repairs policy says that it will complete routine repairs in 28 days. The landlord should have responded to confirm how it would meet its repairs responsibility in the required timescale. That it did not do so was a failing.
8. When the landlord eventually responded to the resident’s communication, it said that it had completed guttering clearing in September 2023. If this date is accepted as when it cleared the gutter then it had failed to meet the timescale in its repair policy by taking approximately 2 months. It said a scheme inspection the following month had not identified any faults. But it has provided no records of this guttering work or the scheme inspection. For this reason, it is unclear if the work/inspection had covered the resident’s own property.  Records we have seen show only that it had cleared guttering at the resident’s property in November 2022.
9. When the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 March 2024, it said it would raise a guttering repair. It acknowledged that it should have done so earlier given he had reported an ongoing leak. Its delay in doing so since 20 July 2023 was a further failing.
10. The resident contacted the landlord about the guttering repair in early April 2024. When it responded on 4 April 2024 it said it was still within the 20-working day timescale set out in its stage 2 response. But it said it would chase the repair. The 20-working day timescale would end on 9 April 2024. The resident told it in June and July 2024 that he was still waiting for it to complete the repair. But we have seen no evidence it provided any clear response to him about what was happening. We have also seen no evidence it attended a guttering repair during this time.
11. The landlord should have taken the action it had agreed in its stage 2 complaint response and communicated this to the resident. That it did not was a further failing. During later communication with the landlord between March and June 2025 the resident said the guttering issue was still not resolved. He said water was coming down his house and had caused damage near his front door. We have seen no evidence the landlord made any attempt to inspect issues until August 2025.
12. Contractors who attended on 15 August 2025 noted the resident said there was a leak in the front room. He would not allow them into the property. The contractors took photographs of the outside of the property and recommended work to clear gutters. The landlord later recorded a drainage repair was completed by the contractor on 12 September 2025. However, records do not clearly show what this work was or that it was completed to the resident’s address. Further, the resident has told us since that the guttering issue has not been resolved and no work has been completed.  The landlord should ensure that it records sufficient information to show what work it has completed. Without doing so it cannot adequately demonstrate that it has responded to repair reports. This is a record keeping failing.
13. We have identified failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of roof/guttering repairs that amount to maladministration. It delayed responding to his report of July 2023. It then failed to complete action agreed in its stage 2 complaint response to inspect issues. We acknowledge it attended in August 2025. But it has not demonstrated it has since taken appropriate action to complete work to address guttering issues the resident had reported.
14. We have ordered that the landlord contact the resident and complete work to resolve any ongoing concerns about roof/guttering including any internal issues caused by any leak. The resident told us that water running off the roof had damaged his garden furniture. We also have ordered that the landlord contact him to obtain further information about this. It should then consider his concerns under its compensation policy or by providing him with details of how he may submit a claim to its insurer.
15. So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £75 in recognition of the delays in raising a guttering repair. This amount does not adequately recognise the impact of its failings. We have ordered that it make a further award to the resident of £425. This is aimed at recognising frustration caused, as well as time and effort the resident spent chasing repairs since July 2023. This award is line with the range set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

What we have not investigated

16. Since November 2021 legal undertakings, made by the resident and agreed through the County Court, have set out how he should contact the landlord. These are in place until November 2026 and outline that he should contact the landlord’s customer service team for urgent issues or a named officer for other issues. We cannot consider this contact agreement. If the resident has ongoing concerns about it, he may wish to seek legal advice.

What we have investigated

17. We have considered how the landlord responded to communication the resident sent and his request for a meeting. The resident set out to the landlord in his letter of 20 July 2023 that his previous point of contact at the landlord (Ms C) had left. He said he had been notified that a different officer (Ms D) was to be his point of contact. He requested a meeting to discuss his repair and ASB concerns.
18. When the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in January 2024 it appropriately acknowledged and apologised for not responding to his communication earlier. It said it had not done so due to a misunderstanding.  It also acknowledged that it did not contact him even after he chased a response on 21 September 2023.
19. The landlord explained in its stage 1 complaint decision that the resident’s point of contact had not yet changed as he had not responded to contact from its legal team. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the resident considered it had not met his request for a meeting. In response it said that it could arrange to meet with the him once he had responded to its legal team to agree the new point of contact.
20. Following the stage 2 response, in April 2024 the resident told the landlord that he had refused to sign a revised undertaking but did not refuse Ms D as his new point of contact. In response the landlord said its legal team asked him to swear to a revised version of the undertaking to reflect the new point of contact. It said that the resident had refused to agree to the new undertaking during an injunction hearing in September 2023, and that the judge had said they had no jurisdiction to amend the undertaking. The landlord said that, as the resident had not agreed a new point of contact, the undertaking was still in place until 2026. It said he could continue to write to/email his previous point of contact (Ms C) and another officer would pick this up and respond. Alternatively, it said that he could swear to a revised version of the undertaking agreeing a new point of contact. 
21. But the landlord did not state or explain why it could not arrange to meet with the resident in the interim. It was aware he did not want to sign a revised undertaking. There was nothing within the current undertaking stating it could not meet with him. Its position, that it would only do so after the resident had agreed a new undertaking, was therefore unreasonable. Failings we have identified amount to maladministration.
22. Following a further complaint by the resident the landlord set out to him on 9 June 2025 that his point of contact was now another officer (Mr M). It said this person was the current customer liaison officer for the resident’s area. It said it would arrange for Mr M to contact the resident to arrange a visit. But it should reasonably have taken this action much sooner. 
23. In May 2025 the Ombudsman published a Spotlight report: Repairing Trust. This outlined how trust plays a significant role in how residents feel about their housing service. It is apparent the landlord’s actions have contributed towards a breakdown of trust between it and the resident. He told us that he felt it had bullied and discriminated against him. He has experienced frustration and concern as a result of the landlord unreasonably delaying its offer to meet with him. He has spent time and effort in communicating further with it and us as a result. We have considered all the circumstances and referred to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. We have ordered that the landlord make an award to the resident of £350 in recognition of the impact of the failings we have identified.
24. We acknowledge that the resident has expressed some concerns about the impact of staff changes within the landlord. It told us that it is committed to communicating to the resident any changes in advance. That is appropriate. However, we have identified that has contributed towards a breakdown of trust. We have ordered that a senior manager for the landlord review steps it can now take to rebuild this trust. This should include clearly setting out in writing the current position with the undertaking and contact details for his point of contact. We have also ordered that it repeat its offer to meet with him.

25. The resident told the landlord when he wrote to it in July 2023 of his concerns about antisocial ball games within the estate. He said he worked at night and found it hard to enjoy his home due to noise from ball games.  Its ASB policy sets out that ASB includes playing ball games where it is not permitted. In line with this policy, the landlord should have acknowledged this new report within 2 working days. It has provided no evidence that it responded to the resident about this until its stage 1 decision of 16 January 2024. The resident had said how issues were affecting him. In line with its ASB policy, the landlord should have completed a risk assessment and action plan. Such action would have allowed it to assess the impact on the resident, agree action and how it would update the resident about this. But we have seen no evidence it has completed either at any point. That was a failing.
26. While the landlord noted that it had told the resident on 26 October 2023 that it considered “no ball game” signs on the estate to be sufficient, it has not provided evidence of this communication. That is a record keeping failing. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that it had checked the estate on 25 October 2023 and found 3 “no ball game” signs to prevent ball games from being played on grass around his home. It said that the resident’s home was near a park, and it could not prevent members of the public entering the area.
27. When the resident escalated his complaint, he said that “no ball game” signs were missing and that an officer for the landlord had agreed to replace these several years before. We have not seen records relating to the resident’s earlier concerns about missing signs. The landlord’s stage 2 response, in which it said it considered the number of signs to be appropriate, was reasonable.
28. The landlord sent letters on 26 April and 8 August 2024 reminding all residents that ball games were not permitted. But it is unclear why it did not consider this action earlier. That it did not do so was a failing. In response to the landlord on 4 April 2024 the resident said that he had video evidence showing a ball game problem was from other residents. He said he wanted the landlord to meet with him to view evidence. Had it done so it could have considered this evidence and any further information about his concerns. This would have allowed it to fully consider the extent of issues and explore any other appropriate action. Its failure to meet with him limited its understanding of his concerns and the effectiveness of its response.  We acknowledge the landlord took some action. But overall, we have found maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns.
29. It is clear the resident remains concerns about antisocial ball games. Given the failings we have identified, we have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to fully consider his concerns in line with its ASB policy. We have also ordered that it make an award to him that is aimed at recognising the impact of its earlier failure in its handling of issues. With consideration to all the circumstances and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered that the landlord make an award of £300. This is in line with the range set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is considered an appropriate amount to recognise the impact of its failings.

30. The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of a SAR. In its complaint response it appropriately told him it had sent his request to its information governance team. We cannot consider the resident’s ongoing concern about the landlord’s handling of his SAR requests. He may wish to contact the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) if he remains unhappy about this. We note he has previously done so.

31. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how the landlord should respond to complaints. When the resident complained to the landlord, the relevant Code was the April 2022 edition. We have found that:
    1. The landlord’s published complaints policy complied with this Code in respect of timescales.
    2. The landlord delayed logging a complaint after the resident expressed dissatisfaction on 21 September 2023 about its lack of response to his letters. It identified this during its later complaints response and its award of £250 was appropriate.
    3. It defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction. In line with this it should have treated his letter of 20 July 2023 as a complaint. That the landlord failed to recognise this was a failing.
    4. It appropriately contacted the resident when its stage 1 response was going to be delayed and agreed an extension with him.
    5. Its stage 2 complaint response was provided within its target timeframe.
32. The landlord set out its position within its complaints responses and subsequently on meeting with the resident. It said it would arrange a meeting after he had signed an amended contact agreement. But as outlined earlier, this was unreasonable. Its position on this impacted how effectively it responded to the resident other concerns about repairs and antisocial ball games. Further, the landlord agreed action on the resident’s guttering concerns but did not ensure they were completed. Its complaints process should have been used to help resolve outstanding issues, but it did not ensure it did so. These were complaint handling failings that amount to maladministration.
33. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have ordered that the landlord make a further award to the resident of £200 in recognition of the additional complaint handling failings we have identified. This amount is line with the range set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Learning

34. The landlord did not act reasonably when responding to the resident’s request for a meeting. It should consider how to ensure it still responds appropriately to such requests when it is in the process of agreeing contact arrangements.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord referred to repairs in its complaint responses but did not provide evidence of these to the Ombudsman. Other records did not provide adequate information about the repair completed. The landlord should ensure it makes and stores adequate records to fully demonstrate the repairs it has completed.

Communication

36. The landlord did not communicate appropriately with the resident about his ongoing concerns about the guttering and antisocial ball games.