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

Take part in the consultation

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202333226)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333226

The Guinness Partnership Limited

21 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s management of damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s management of intercom and skirting board repairs.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident has additional needs and the landlord’s records reflect this.
  2. The resident reported damp and mould on 15 December 2022. He sent a legal claim to the landlord in January 2023, and they agreed to a £1250 settlement in January 2024. The landlord completed the repairs on 15 February 2024.
  3. On 27 March 2024 the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint following contact from this Service, requested by the resident. The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of the damp & mould, a broken intercom and skirting board, and its complaint handling.
  4. On 18 April 2024, the landlord issued its Stage 1 response and did not uphold the complaint. It stated the disrepair case was settled in January 2024 and works completed, and it had completed other repairs within policy timeframes. It found no errors in the complaints process.
  5. The resident contacted this Service on 13 May 2024 because he had not received the stage 1 response. This Service contacted the landlord at the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. He complained that it had taken too long for the landlord to address the damp and mould. He said the landlord had not recognised the detriment to him of the broken intercom and the landlord had not repaired the skirting board.
  6. On 15 May 2024, the landlord acknowledged the Stage 2 complaint and responded on 6 June. It said it had already compensated the resident for damp and mould through a legal settlement, and he should speak to his solicitor if he was unhappy. The intercom was repaired within policy timeframes, though the landlord had been unaware of the resident’s additional needs. It claimed the skirting board was fixed on 30 April and asked the resident if that was incorrect. It offered £25 compensation because it could not show how it sent him the Stage 1 response.
  7. On 10 June 2024, the resident confirmed he would like this Service to investigate his complaint. He wanted compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused.

Events post internal complaints process.

  1. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 December 2024 following a review of the case. It offered an apology for poor service and compensation of £500 in place of the £25 it had offered at stage 2. The resident accepted the offer.

Assessment and findings

Damp and mould

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard.
  2. The landlord’s Damp & Mould Policy states that it would ensure the fabric of its buildings are protected from deterioration and damage. Following a report of damp and mould, it would inspect the property to identify the cause. It would seek to resolve the immediate issue and carry out further repairs in accordance with its Responsive Repairs Policy, which states it will carry out a routine repair within 28 calendar days.
  3. The Pre-Action Protocol for Housing Conditions Claims states that tenants must allow the landlord reasonable access for inspection and the carrying out of works in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The landlord should give reasonable notice of the need for access.
  4. The resident informed the landlord about the damp and mould on 15 December 2022. However, the evidence seen shows the landlord did not inspect or repair the property after the resident’s notification. This was inappropriate and not in keeping with its policy.
  5. The landlord raised a works order on 7 March 2023, after commencement of the pre-action protocol, and 82 calendar days after the resident’s 1st report of the damp and mould. This was an unreasonable length of time which was substantially outside its policy response timelines.
  6. An independent expert witness inspected the property on 17 April 2023. The expert attributed the damp and mould to blocked guttering and a blocked rainwater pipe outside and a broken extractor fan inside the property. It recommended repair works should be completed within 8 weeks and said the landlord was in breach of its statutory responsibilities.
  7. The evidence seen does not show that the landlord took any timely action to address the damp and mould following the expert report. This compounded its previous failure to comply with its statutory duties and its own policies.
  8. The landlord’s records on 18 July 2023 state the resident refused to have the work done because of the disrepair claim. It cancelled the works order. The resident has provided evidence to this Service that his solicitor had advised him on 5 January 2024 only to permit the landlord entry to inspect the property. It advised the resident to ask the landlord to put works on hold and to contact his solicitor. The resident’s position therefore inhibited the landlord’s ability to address the disrepair and prolonged the household’s unsatisfactory living conditions.
  9. However, the landlord’s records do not show efforts to gain access to the property or of the outcome of such efforts, until the system note of 18 July. This was 13 weeks after the expert report. Nor do its records evidence any attempt to address the blocked guttering and rainwater pipe. The landlord should have completed repairs to the outside of the property, as these were accessible to it. The landlord should have acted promptly upon the recommendations in the report, where it was possible for it to do so.
  10. Following the settlement agreement on 10 January 2024, the landlord made persistent efforts on 5 occasions to arrange access to the property to carry out the repairs. The resident consented to the inspection on 2 February, and the landlord completed the repairs on 6 February, which was a reasonable time frame, as the resident did not initially grant access.
  11. In summary, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould within its policy timeframes. It failed to undertake timely remedial action following receipt of the expert report. Its poor record keeping does not enable it to demonstrate that it was taking reasonable steps to address the damp and mould over the 13 month period December 2022 to January 2024. The resident was put to time and trouble in seeking legal advice to obtain a resolution.
  12. The settlement agreement included a compensation payment of £1250, which is more than this Service would usually award in similar cases. Our remedies guidance states that, for cases where service failures have caused significant impact, an award of between £600 and £1,000 might be appropriate. The resident had the opportunity to proceed with the legal claim if he considered the offer to be insufficient. However, the matter was settled upon the resident’s acceptance of the offer.
  13. In conclusion, the landlord’s offer through the settlement agreement and its prompt action to repair following that demonstrates that it was committed to resolving the situation. The landlord has been fair and put things right. This Service therefore considers there has been reasonable redress in respect of the damp and mould.

Intercom and skirting board.

  1. This Service notes previous issues with the intercom were reported and repaired in May to June 2022. We would normally only consider events which occurred 12 months prior to the resident raising the issue as a formal complaint and up to the conclusion of the internal complaints process. Therefore, after considering the evidence of the case, the investigation will focus on the intercom and skirting board repair issues from March 2024 until the conclusion of the internal complaints process on 6 June 2024.
  2. The resident reported the broken intercom on 15 March 2024. The repair was completed on 10 April 2024, 27 calendar days after the initial report. This was within the responsive repair policy timeframes.  
  3. The resident reported a broken skirting board on 3 April 2024. The landlord’s records show this was repaired on 30 April 2024. This was within the policy timeframes. However, the resident told this Service on 13 May 2024 the skirting board repair had not been completed. The landlord’s stage 2 response asked the resident to clarify. The evidence does not show any further complaint or communication about this matter from the resident. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider the repair completed.
  4. The resident has told this Service that the broken intercom had a significant impact upon him due to his additional needs. We empathise with the resident and do not doubt the difficulty he encountered. While it is unfortunate that the landlord did not complete the repair on the 1st visit, it did complete the repair within its published timescales, which was reasonable.
  5. However, after the internal complaints process was exhausted, the evidence shows the resident continued to report problems with the intercom. This suggests the landlord may not have resolved the original underlying problem.
  6. In its letter dated 4 December 2024, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it could have better considered the resident’s needs and explored reasonable adjustments regarding the faulty intercom. It explained that it had identified and made changes to its service and was reviewing processes on recording resident vulnerabilities and implementing reasonable adjustments. This is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.  
  7. On 4 December 2024, the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation for poor service in respect of the intercom repair. While it is positive the landlord increased its offer, it is unclear why it wasn’t made during the original complaint process. As the offer came after the resident complained to this Service, it cannot be considered reasonable redress.  Consequently, there was service failure in the landlord’s management of the intercom repair.

Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy complies with the Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
  2. The landlord sent its Stage 1 response 12 working days after acknowledging the complaint, slightly outside its 10-day policy, but there’s no evidence the delay caused any significant detriment. However, the resident said he didn’t receive the response, and because the landlord couldn’t confirm how it was sent, this was a service failure. The Stage 2 response was sent within the required 20 working days, acknowledged the earlier failure, and included a £25 compensation offer.
  3. However, this Service considers the amount offered to be fair and so no further compensation is ordered. Overall, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handing.

Determination (decision)

  1. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s management of damp and mould.
  2. There was service failure in the landlord’s management of the intercom repair.
  3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the previously offered compensation of £500 directly to the resident, if it has not already done so and provide evidence of compliance to this Service.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord clearly communicates its policy and enforcement framework regarding access, particularly in situations where tenants deny entry, to ensure it can meet its repair obligations.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord establish procedures to document when and how communications are issued to residents, including responses to complaints.