The Guinness Partnership Limited (202329094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329094

The Guinness Partnership Limited

6 October 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 reports of repairs and associated damp and mould.
2. the resident’s complaint.
We have also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy for a 3-bedroom house. This began in August 2008. The resident lives at the property with his wife and dependent children. The resident made the landlord aware during his complaint that his wife and children have asthma.
The resident told us that his property had been experiencing damp and mould since 2016. More recently he said the landlord was aware from December 2022 that there was a problem with these issues following an inspection. The resident also reported leaks in February 2023. The landlord said it conducted mould treatment, and raised jobs to fix the felt, tiles and batons of the roof.
On 7 July 2023 the resident made a complaint. He provided a chronology of his reports and repair events between 12 December 2022 and 22 June 2023. He explained:
1. He had been living with damp and black mould for over 6 years. And the conditions at the property were deteriorating. His family members had asthma and this was being impacted.
2. The landlord missed appointments, communicated poorly, and failed to make lasting repairs to resolve the mould.
3. He asked the landlord to:
  1. Complete effective repairs in a reasonable timeframe.
  2. Provide copies of survey reports.
  3. Arrange for immediate treatment of the black mould while considering the presence of asbestos.
  4. Replace the doors and windows – as he felt this was also contributing to the damp and mould.
  5. Improve its communications and provide a reliable point of contact to provide him with updates on its progress.
On 1 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said:
1. Following reports in 2019 of damp and mould, it completed repairs to treat the mould and improve the ventilation. And it had no further reports until 2022.
2. It had responded appropriately and in a timely manner to reports of a leak in the bathroom, blocked gutters, and the blocked overflow pipe between February and September 2022. The resident made no further reports of damp and mould until December 2022.
3. After which, it attended and found the loft insultation was saturated. It completed a mould wash and assessed the roof, brickwork and pointing. It recognised there was a delay in raising this work, and it had delayed in completing work to the roof on 6 March 2023.
4. There was further internal work needed but before this could be completed it had to conduct an asbestos survey. Although it had offered to complete mould treatments in the meantime, it said this had been declined and that the resident cancelled the appointments. It said there were no health and safety implications involved with applying treatment to the Artex ceiling in the bathroom.
5. It acknowledged it was responsible for some of the delays. It said its overall communications were poor, and that it had let the resident down on multiple occasions.
6. It apologised, offered the resident £600 for its repair approach and £100 for its complaint handling delays. And said it would “feedback” to its repair teams. It also confirmed it was due to install ventilation on 21 September 2023 and would monitor this work.
The resident escalated his complaint on 22 September 2023. He provided a further chronology of reporting and repair events. The request included some of the following points:
1. He felt there were a large number of inaccuracies in the landlord’s timeline of events. This included:
  1. Missing some of his verbal reports about the mould from 2016.
  2. The gutters had not been cleaned since the beginning of the tenancy. And an extractor fan had not been fitted historically.
  3. The landlord’s recollection of the events surrounding the appointments for the leaks in 2022.
  4. No mould treatments had been completed, nor was an extractor fan installed more recently because of the asbestos. He explained the landlord should not be treating the mould because he was worried it could disturb the Artex.
2. The landlord should have responded urgently to the leak in bathroom on 10 March 2022, but it had not until a year later.
3. There had been a series of unannounced visits by the landlord’s contractors.
4. The pointing on the gable end of the property remained incomplete.
5. The leak in the roof was not repaired until August 2023 despite recommendations from its contractor in March 2023.
6. He had found a damp patch and he wanted the landlord to investigate this to ensure it was not caused by an active leak.
7. He reiterated the impact of the property conditions on the health of his family.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 October 2023. It said:
1. It logged all reports of repairs including those made verbally. And the first record of mould being reported was on 16 January 2019.
2. It apologised because it had said in its stage 1 response that mould treatment was completed in 2019. But it should only have said that appointments were raised in 2019. It also agreed that extractor fans were not installed until 9 October 2023.
3. Its records showed the gutters were cleaned on 5 September 2022. But mould treatments were outstanding because the resident had refused attempts for this work. It reiterated there was no risk in treating mould on the Artex ceiling.
4. It confirmed no further repointing work was required at the property.
5. It attended on 11 March 2022 but could not find a leak. And it attended to do some roof repairs on 6 March 2023. But a further repair was completed on 9 August 2023.
6. It would investigate the damp patch the resident found and to check the guttering and arrange any mould treatment. It also said it would replace the flooring in the bedroom and hallway and confirm the appointment within 20 days.
The resident referred his complaint to us in or around January 2024 because the repairs at the property to resolve the damp and mould were incomplete and the issue was ongoing. He added that he wanted the landlord to appropriately compensate him for the distress and inconvenience caused by its repair approach.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident told us that his wife and children have respiratory conditions that were impacted by the damp and mould at the property over a protracted period. While 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 aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim where medical experts can be consulted accordingly.
The resident told us that the issues had been ongoing since 2016. While we do not doubt the resident’s experience, this investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from July 2022 onwards. This is 12 months before his complaint. Residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.

Record keeping

Our approach to record keeping is set out in our Spotlight Report ‘Knowledge and Information Management’ (KIM). Throughout this report we frequently refer to the landlord’s poor record keeping. Good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. It further states that a landlord’s failure to create and record information accurately results in it not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord’s records in this case failed to capture and/or share with us important information about all its repairs including:
1. When the resident made all the reports, when it carried out all its inspections and details of all the remedial work required.
2. Copies of all the surveys it conducted.
3. The reason for its delays.
4. Advice provided to the resident during visits.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, investigations, and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken, and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. As the landlord failed to provide this information to us, this hampered our investigation into this matter. For this reason, we have made a finding of maladministration concerning record keeping.
The landlord must conduct a review of its record keeping in this case. This is to ensure its management of repairs and associated communications are robust, up to date and shared with us. It must identify what went wrong, why, and how it can prevent this from happening in future. We strongly recommend that the landlord consider the recommendations in our KIM report when it completes its review.

Repairs and associated damp and mould

The landlord is legally obligated to carry out repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This includes the roof, drains, guttering, external pipes. It must also keep installations for the supply of water in repair and working order, including sinks and pipework. The resident’s tenancy agreement reflects this.
Where there is damp and mould and this is caused by leaks, the landlord will be responsible to ensure that it offers a full and effective repair to prevent the damp from returning. The landlord’s responsive repair policy commits to making safe emergency repairs within 24 hours. And attending to routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The resident explained that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s repair approach and communications between July 2022 and October 2023. He said there were delays in resolving the leaks, follow on work, and ultimately the damp and mould. He said there was a breakdown in communication about what the landlord was doing, why, and by when. This included but was not limited to the following:
1. Resolving leaks from the guttering.
2. Renewing the bathroom ceiling.
3. Resolving a leak from pipework in the loft and replacing the damaged loft insulation.
4. Repointing brickwork.
5. Installing a ventilation system and carrying out damp and mould treatments.
The landlord’s repair records show that it took the following action in relation to repairs at the property:
1. On 5 September 2022 it raised a job for “gutters, downpipes, leaking/overflowing, fascia damage, and missing roof tiles”. Although its stage 1 response said it completed this job, it did not provide any evidence of when it attended, what it found, and what it did. Therefore, we could not be satisfied it attended in line with its repairs policy, or at all.
2. On 12 December 2022 it raised a job to treat damp and mould in all rooms on the walls and the ceilings. It noted the damp, and mould was “severe” and said a subcontractor was required. The landlord appropriately raised a job with a target date for the next day, indicating this was an emergency job that needed to be completed within 24 hours. However, there was no evidence it attended until 16 working days later. The evidence does not suggest that this delay was unavoidable and as such the landlord failed to deal with the matter appropriately and in accordance with its repairs policy.
3. When it attended on 6 January 2023 it raised work to repair the roof, assess the brickwork and pointing. It is unclear why it raised further work to the roof because it did not share with us what it had found at the appointment. Nor did it evidence it had carried out the damp and mould treatment required. This would have also caused uncertainty to the resident. And was a missed opportunity to demonstrate it had mitigated the severe damp conditions and engaged with the resident about its approach.
4. On 23 January 2023 it noted in its repair logs the resident had contacted it and said he was expecting vents to be fitted in the loft and it to fix a bathroom leak on 18 January 2023. But nobody had attended. It is unclear, based on the records, whether there were missing reports/inspections about this issue because we could not find an associated appointment. However, there is no evidence it followed up on the resident’s concerns at the time by scheduling an operative to assess the bathroom leak. Therefore, we could not be satisfied it handled the resident’s concerns reasonably in the circumstances.
5. On 2 February 2023 it noted it had attended and completed damp and mould treatment to some of the property. But it could not treat the bathroom because of the resident’s concerns about it disturbing the asbestos in the ceiling. The landlord was aware from 12 December 2022 there was severe damp it needed to treat. This was an unreasonable delay of 35 working days. And this was the only action its records confirmed it had taken to try to mitigate the severe conditions at the time. This would have caused distress to the resident. There is also no evidence it appropriately provided advice and guidance to allay the resident’s health and safety concerns about the asbestos. This was also a missed opportunity to document it had engaged appropriately with him about this matter.
6. On 15 February 2023 it noted the resident reported a bathroom leak that had damaged the kitchen floor and ceiling. It raised an emergency job to trace and rectify the leak. It appropriately attended the same day, “drained the system, replaced the basic, taps, and refilled the system”. The next day it raised jobs to renew the guttering and any damaged roof tiles, felt, and battens. It also raised a job for an asbestos survey for the property. But the records were vague about what it considered to be the cause of the leak.

Further, the work to reinstate the bathroom following the leak was protracted. In part, this appeared to be because internal work in the bathroom could not be completed until the asbestos ceiling was removed. The resident told us this was not removed at the time of writing this report. The landlord told us this was because the resident declined some of its attempts to complete this. The resident disputes this.

There is not enough evidence for us to establish the reason for the delay during this period (February 2023 to October 2023). However, we would expect the landlord to have provided records to us evidencing its attempts to attend the property, had it done so. In the absence of this information the landlord failed to demonstrate it had taken appropriate steps to progress the repairs.
We also note the first appointment to remove the ceiling was scheduled for 2 May 2023. Given the asbestos report was returned on 23 February 2023, there is no evidence this was the earliest available appointment. In absence of evidence to the contrary, this was an unreasonable delay in engaging contractors to attend to resolve this issue. This would have contributed to the delay experienced by the resident and caused him distress.
There was also no evidence the roof work was raised nor monitored until the resident raised further concerns about this on 4 May 2023. The landlord then added the property to its loft insulation and cavity wall inspection programmes. It said these were programmed works. It later confirmed an appointment for this for 27 September 2023. This demonstrated a lack of monitoring and ownership for the repairs. This would have contributed to the delay the resident experienced. The landlord should not have to rely on the resident’s interventions to prompt it to carry out work.
We understand that on 1 August 2023 the landlord received contractor recommendations following issues being identified with the roof and insulation. It is unclear if this is because the September appointment was brought forward or if this was arranged separately. Further, the information about this situation was vague. For example, it had raised the “works” and noted “all roofing work [were] completed” by 4 August 2023. This was 117 working days after its initial contractor had made the recommendations in February 2023. We could not be satisfied this was the earliest opportunity it could have done so nor that this was an avoidable delay. This would have caused distress to the resident.
The resident told us that the damp and mould was ongoing throughout the period of the complaint. The landlord told us it made 4 attempts between April 2023 and October 2023 to attend to treat the damp and mould. But the resident declined this. The resident disputes this and said that the landlord often turned up unannounced, and its operatives would not complete mould treatment because of how severe the issue was.
We cannot reconcile the difference here and the landlord’s records are vague. Records ought to have included evidence of missed access attempts such as photographs, calling cards, and any associated escalation measures it was considering. In the absence of this evidence the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it appropriately tried to address the damp and mould during this time. We recommend the landlord implements a no access policy to document issues concerning difficulties carrying out repairs in the future.
We also understand it completed a damp survey in or around May 2023, but it did not provide us with a copy of this. Therefore, we are unclear about what the landlord’s specialist contractor’s opinion of the property conditions was at this time. This was a failure to share important information with us to help us with our investigation. We do know it raised ventilation work in or around May 2023 because the repair records confirmed a set of recommendations were made, but there were no details about what these were.
It is likely that when it raised jobs to install air vents, extractor fans and a ventilation system, these were linked to the results of the damp survey. But we could not be certain this was the case. The landlord said the resident declined “some” of this work. The resident disputed this. The records were not sufficiently clear enough to evidence which repairs may have been declined, why, and what had happened during this time. Nor were they clear enough to understand which works were completed. As such we could not conclude what the landlord did to appropriately progress the repairs at this time to alleviate the damp and mould.
A separate leak was also reported on 13 April 2023. The landlord raised an emergency job as the ceiling was bowing. It appropriately attended within 24 hours to make the ceiling safe. It noted from the appointment a “roof leak”. But the repair logs were vague about how it had come to this conclusion. This is because the contractor appeared to find a leak in the airing cupboard but could not access the loft. An emergency plumber attended the next day, carrying out a “temporary repair”. But said another appointment was needed to assess the issue. When the second plumber promptly attended on 21 April 2023, they noted the pipework, and fittings were “redundant and no longer made”. They recommended if problems persisted that the pipework up to the mains and water tank from the stock cock needed to be replaced. An appointment was set for 12 May 2023 to replace the pipework but then cancelled after the repairs officer deemed it unnecessary because it was no longer leaking.
It was reasonable for the landlord to make temporary repairs while it assessed the pipework more thoroughly. And the landlord was entitled not to replace the pipework if the leak was fixed, but its scheduling of further work showed poor management and oversight of the repairs which unnecessarily raised the resident’s expectations. It also failed to explain its decision making to the resident which caused uncertainty and distress when he already felt the landlord was not acting appropriately to resolve the overall repair issues.
The resident also explained to us that he has incurred costs relating to the landlord’s failures, including, damaged possessions, and increased heating, water, and electricity bills. There is no evidence this was raised to the landlord during the complaint. But we recommend it refers the resident to its insurer to appropriately assess this.

Conclusion

The landlord’s record keeping hindered our ability to fully assess its approach to the resident’s concerns about various repairs and associated damp and mould at the property. We have not been provided with sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landlord was taking appropriate action between December 2022 and October 2023. The records do not demonstrate that it consistently monitored, co-ordinated and completed all the repairs it believed were necessary. Nor that it attended to all the repairs within a reasonable period. For these reasons we found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this issue.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified. The landlord apologised and offered £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience, poor communication, and its failure to keep promises. It said it would feedback to its repair service.
We recognise the landlord acknowledged its repair approach impacted the resident. But we do not consider it adequately explained its delays nor set out what it would do differently as part of its learning from the complaint. In addition, the redress offered was not proportionate to address the frequency of the landlord’s failure to monitor and complete repairs, the severity of the property conditions during this time, and the associated impact on the resident. The resident explained to us this significantly impacted his enjoyment of the property. And undermined the trust he has in the landlord to complete repairs.
To put things right the landlord must write to the resident to apologise and offer an additional £500. The resident has also advised that the damp and mould are ongoing. It must therefore also provide a written update to the resident explaining what it intends to do to investigate and resolve the ongoing damp and mould, with associated timeframes. It must then commit to conducting a post inspection survey with the resident present to ensure its repairs are lasting and effective. The landlord must also provide a single point of contact to liaise and update the resident. And provide its updates in writing, including any appointments it intends to arrange with contractors.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time the resident made his complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints and issue a stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. And issue a stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The landlord issued its complaint responses as follows:
1. Stage 1 within 40 working days of the resident’s complaint.
2. Stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request.
The landlord recognised its delay at stage 1, apologised, and offered £100 compensation to acknowledge its failure. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Part of the landlord’s obligations under the former Code was to put things right. We set out earlier in this report that we considered the overall redress offered for the substantive issue was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case. We have also made orders to put this right. As this has already been considered, we will not duplicate our orders on this point. Nonetheless, we consider the landlord ought to have been reasonably aware of the failures we found, during its complaint investigation. And it had an opportunity to explain what went wrong, why, and what measures it would put in place to demonstrate it had sufficiently learnt from the complaint. As it did not do this, we have made a finding of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs and associated damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. Pay the resident £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its repair approach. This is in addition to the compensation already awarded during the complaint procedure.
3. Write to the resident to confirm:
  1. An appointment to assess the ongoing damp and mould at the property.
  2. Within 5 working days of its assessment set out to the resident:

(1) The outcome of its assessment, including whether it still considers the damp and mould to be severe.

(2) What, if any, further investigations are needed as well as associated timeframes for these.

(3) What, if any, measures will be put in place to mitigate the conditions at the property while it undertakes further investigations.

(4) Details of a singular point of contact for the repairs and how frequently they will provide updates.

The landlord must use its best endeavours to complete any outstanding repairs to resolve the damp and mould within 56 calendar days. If it is unable to meet this deadline, it must write to the resident and us to explain its delays and revised timeframes.
Within 5 working days of completing the repairs, it must conduct a post inspection survey with the resident to appraise any work conducted.

Within 56 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must assess its record keeping for the repairs investigated in this report. This must include identifying the minimum standards that ought to have been recorded in its repair log, which of these standards it failed to adhere to, and why. The landlord must provide a written report to the Ombudsman detailing its findings and any wider learning it has identified. To assist it in doing this it may wish to consult the recommendations in our Spotlight report on ‘Knowledge and Information Management’.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Implements a no access policy to help it to evidence its response to any difficulties accessing properties when carrying out repairs.
2. Refers the resident to its insurer so that he is in a position to make a claim for any costs he believes he incurred as a result of the landlord’s failures.