The Guinness Partnership Limited (202329838)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202329838

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Damp and mould in his bedroom.
2. Staff conduct.
3. Service charges.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom flat situated within a block.
On 21 September 2022, the resident reported signs of water ingress. He said that this was causing damp and mould in his bedroom. A job was raised on the landlord’s internal system for the external gutters to be inspected and repaired. The evidence shows that this did not happen.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 November 2022. Within his complaint he expressed his dissatisfaction with:
1. The landlord’s delay in responding to his concerns regarding damp and mould. He said that this was causing damage to his belongings and having a detrimental impact upon his health.
2. The conduct of a member of staff during a recent telephone call.
3. A service charge for air conditioning/ventilation. The resident disputed this charge and said that there was no such provision within the building.
Following a home visit on 30 November 2022, the landlord’s records stated that the damp and mould was “far worse” than expected. It documented that the resident’s clothes were “covered in mould” and there was a distinct smell of damp. It also noted that the resident had an extra fan heater and a dehumidifier.
On 7 December 2022 the resident was decanted to a hotel in order for the landlord to carry out internal works to remedy the damp and mould.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 December 2022. It said that:
1. With regard to the damp and mould:
  1. It was sorry that it failed to repair the guttering following the resident’s initial report in September 2022. In addition, it apologised to him for its poor communication.
  2. Arrangements had been made for the roof and guttering to be checked and any necessary repairs to be carried out.
  3. A temporary decant had been arranged in order for the internal repairs to be completed.
2. With regard to staff conduct:
  1. It had been unable to listen to the specific call. However, it understood how difficult the experience had been for the resident and apologised for any upset caused.
  2. The relevant manager would review the complaint and take any “necessary action”.
3. With regard to the service charges:
  1. It carried out an annual review and residents only paid for services that had been provided.
  2. The charge for air conditioning/ventilation systems had been added in error. The charge would be removed, and the resident would be sent an amended statement.
4. In recognition of the failures identified it offered the resident £150 compensation. This was broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the unreasonable delays to complete repairs and the stress and inconvenience caused.
  2. £50 for the poor communication and failure to keep its promises.
The resident was dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage 1 response and the compensation offered. He escalated his complaint on 13 December 2022.
The resident returned to his property on 21 December 2022.
On 23 January 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. The internal damp and mould repairs were completed on 17 and 18 December 2022, while the resident was decanted.
2. External follow–on works would be required “over the next few weeks”. These included repairs to the flashing and an inspection of the roof.
3. Its stage 1 response had appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and service charges.
4. In respect of the additional repair delays, it offered the resident an additional £75 compensation. This was broken down as follows:
  1. £25 for further repair delays.
  2. £25 for its poor communication and the delay in issuing its stage 2 response.
  3. £25 for the stress and inconvenience the resident experienced.
5. The landlord also agreed to reimburse the resident with £210 for a replacement mattress. This was in response to his reports that his mattress had been damaged by the damp and mould.
The evidence suggests that scaffolding was erected in January 2023 in order for the landlord to carry out the external repairs. The landlord has not provided this Service with details of what work was completed following this.
The resident approached this Service in November 2023. He said that the issue had not been rectified and that he continued to be impacted by damp and mould.
During a recent telephone call with the resident he has confirmed that the repairs have now been completed. However, heremains dissatisfied with the delays and the service he received.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

During the complaint journey, the resident stated that the damp and mould was having an impact upon his health. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns. However, we are unable to establish a causal link between the mould and any impact these may have had on the resident’s health. Instead, we will consider the overall distress and inconvenience that the issues in this case have caused. A determination relating to damages (including damage to health) is more appropriate for the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim.
The resident’s complaint concerns the landlord’s response to the queries he raised about the accuracy of his service charges. In line with paragraph 42.e of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. As such, this report will not determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable, or whether any reimbursement of the service charge is due to the resident. Instead, it will focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge are best suited to be considered by the First–Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on taking this element of his complaint further.

Damp and mould

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the roof and the gutters of the building.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that when it receives a report, an operative will attend to determine the cause and seek to resolve the immediate issue. It will carry out repairs in accordance with its responsive repairs policy. Its responsive repairs policy states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards, and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report. In its stage 1 response it apologised that it had failed to act sooner. It offered the resident £150 compensation and committed to carrying out the necessary repairs. The compensation offered was in line with the landlord’s policy. However, it did not take into consideration the damage caused to the residents belongings or the costs he incurred as a result of operating a dehumidifier. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to address these concerns within its response.
It was appropriate for the landlord to decant the resident while the internal works were carried out. However, these did not resolve the underlying cause of the damp and mould. The evidence shows that external factors such as guttering, cracks and potential roofing issues still needed to be addressed following the decant. It would have been more appropriate for the landlord to resolve these external issues prior to treating the internal walls.
It is noted that there was some confusion regarding the external works. The landlord’s records show that several jobs were raised but access was refused by the resident. While this may have contributed to the delays, it was ultimately the landlord’s responsibility to monitor and ensure that the works were completed.
While the landlord sent this Service details of the repairs raised during the period of the complaint, detailed reports of inspections, findings or actual works carried out were not provided (bar the internal works in December 2022). The repair history provided did not include any of this information. This was not appropriate. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs found it was vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of disrepair and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted appropriately in line with its obligations.
The landlord’s communication in keeping the resident updated with the repairs was poor, and usually only after he had chased for a response (although it is recognised that this did improve once the stage 2 complaint was received). This again was not appropriate. Good customer service and multi–team working promote good information sharing and keeping relevant parties updated. This is also highlighted as good practice in our spotlight report on repairs, where we found that poor communication between landlords, contractors and subcontractors was often the root cause of delays.
The landlord did acknowledge the further delays to the external repairs in its stage 2 response. It apologised and offered additional compensation of £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. However, this was not proportionate to its failures, taking into account the length of time the repairs were ongoing, the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and the impact that he said this had on his wellbeing.
This Service recognises that the landlord reviewed the complaint after the resident brought his complaint to this Service, and made an improved offer, which demonstrated learning. However, because it increased the offer after the complaint was duly made, reasonable redress is not an outcome that this Service can consider. This is because the landlord should have thoroughly reviewed its compensation offer at stage 2.
In summary, the landlord appropriately recognised its errors, apologised, and offered compensation. However, this did not adequately reflect the fact that it took in excess of 12 weeks to act on the resident’s initial report. Furthermore, at the time of the resident’s escalation to this Service he was still experiencing damp and mould within his property (11 months after raising his complaint with the landlord). It is reasonable to conclude that the excessive delay was due to the landlord’s poor management of its contractors and keeping an audit trail. It failed to follow its policies and put things right for the resident. These failures amount to maladministration.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the amount of £700 compensation would provide adequate redress for the failures identified. This is in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy for issues that have taken a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience and distress. It is also in line with our remedies guidance.

Staff conduct

As part of his complaint, the resident raised concerns about the manner in which he was spoken to during a telephone call with the landlord. He said that the tone was “unprofessional”, and he was not provided with answers to the questions asked. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this Service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out a suitably thorough internal investigation. For example, the landlord would generally conduct interviews, consult any contemporaneous records and gather evidence from all parties, making an informed decision based on its findings.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that: “Complaints about the conduct or behaviour of staff will be addressed in line with human resources and contract management policies. Complainants will be given relevant information about the outcome of their complaint, but personal data and employment-related information will not be shared with them in line with our duties around staff confidentiality and data protection.”
In this case, the landlord said that it had been unable to listen to the call due to call monitoring restrictions on certain lines. This is of some concern as without the ability to review conversations, the landlord was less able to demonstrate that it had carried out a thorough investigation. Where available, call monitoring is beneficial to both residents and staff and can help the landlord to identify any training requirements. Applying any call monitoring practices consistently may help to show transparency, provided the parties are appropriately made aware that they are being recorded. If there was a reason for placing restrictions on certain lines, the landlord could have explained this (and the reason for making the call using a restricted line) to the resident.
In summary, we find there has been service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct. While the landlord has apologised to the resident for any upset that the staff member may have caused, it failed to provide the resident with sufficient evidence that it had taken his concerns seriously or an adequate explanation of its decision making. A recommendation regarding call monitoring has been made below.

Service charges

Within his complaint the resident queried a service charge relating to air conditioning and ventilation. He said that there was no such provision within the building, and therefore he did not feel that he should paying for this.
Within the landlord’s complaint responses it said that the charge had been added in error. It confirmed that there were no systems of this nature installed in the building and that it would look “to remove this charge”. There is no evidence that the charge was removed or that the resident received an amended statement.
The evidence provided to this Service by the landlord is not consistent with the response it provided to the resident. The landlord told us that the service charge is correct and relates to the maintenance of fans, extractor fans and other ventilation equipment in communal areas of the block.
It is not appropriate that the landlord apparently has not updated the resident on its position. As a result of this lack of clarity and transparency, the resident has been expecting a refund for 28 months. Therefore, the landlord has failed to address the resident’s concerns and manage his expectations. This amounts to a service failure and compensation has been awarded in line with the landlord’s policy.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in his bedroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about service charges.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send a written apology to the resident, by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report. This letter must also clearly set out the landlord’s position in relation to the service charges for air conditioning/ventilation.
2. Pay to the resident the sum of £1,000. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £700 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the repair delays.
  2. £100 for the distress caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding staff conduct.
  3. £200 for the landlord’s failure to appropriately respond to the resident’s concerns about service charges.
  4. Any amounts already paid following the stage 2 response can be deducted from this total (this does not include the £25 offered for the delayed complaint response or any further compensation paid for additional costs incurred).
3. Contact the resident to arrange a further damp and mould inspection. The resulting report or summary of the findings must be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its current call monitoring practices, including the appropriateness of any restrictions in place.