The Guinness Partnership Limited (202334737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334737

The Guinness Partnership Limited

24 March 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s decision not to upgrade the back door of the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the back door.
We have also considered how the landlord handled the complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bed house.
On 23 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord when it would upgrade the back door of his property. It told him it would only consider renewing the door from 2029 onwards. He made a complaint about this on 5 December 2022.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 8 December 2022. It said the information it had provided about replacement was correct, and it would seek to repair doors rather than replacing them. It said it had booked a repair appointment for the next day. The resident tried to escalate his complaint on 4 January 2023. The landlord did not escalate it, as it said the request was more than 15 days after the stage 1 response. It has since accepted that it should have escalated the complaint.
The resident raised further complaints in January, February, March, and November 2023. The landlord only logged the November 2023 complaint. It issued a stage 1 response on 24 November 2023. It said an operative visited on 6 November 2023, carried out some works, and reported that the door needed no further repairs.
The resident escalated his complaint on 29 November 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 January 2024. It said it attended and carried out repairs within 20 working days of each report about the door, and that the door did not need to be replaced. It accepted there were failings in its communication and complaint handling. It offered £25 compensation for poor communication, and another £25 for failings in its complaint handling.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we may not investigate events which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process, or which were not brought within a reasonable time (usually 12 months). When he referred his complaint to us, the resident set out details of repairs going back to 2018. In line with the Scheme, we will only consider the landlord’s actions from December 2021 (12 months before his complaint) up to the stage 2 response. While we may refer to events after the stage 2 response for context, we cannot investigate them as part of this complaint.

The decision not to upgrade the back door

The resident said the door was due to be replaced in 2020, but this did not happen because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The landlord told him in November 2022 that it was not planning to replace the door until 2029. It said it did not need to replace the door when it could repair it.
The landlord is required to carry out repairs to the door under both its repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is not required to carry out improvements, or to replace a door when it can repair it.
When he raised concerns about the door in November 2022, the resident said the replacement was to improve energy efficiency and make the door more modern. He told the landlord that the door did not need repairs at that time as it had recently repaired it. He said he was unhappy the landlord told him it would not replace the door until 2029.
We have seen no evidence to show the door was in a state of disrepair which required a replacement at that time. The resident confirmed when making his complaint that there were no outstanding repairs. As such, the replacement would be an improvement rather than a repair.
The landlord told the resident it was not required to replace the door, and it would usually try to repair rather than replace a door. This was appropriate and in line with its repairs policy. It also reasonably managed the resident’s expectations by explaining when it was likely to consider renewing the door. It confirmed that, instead of replacing the door, it had booked an inspection. This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy and standard industry practice.
As the landlord had no obligation to replace the door at that time, we find there was no maladministration in its decision not to do so.

Door repairs

The resident said he had been reporting issues with the back door since 2018. He said the landlord kept doing the same repair repeatedly, and he had to live with damp and cold in the property because it would not replace the door. He said a surveyor who did a stock condition survey said the door needed to be replaced. The landlord said it responded to each report within 20 working days, and its operatives did not report any need to replace the door. It accepted that it had failed to return the resident’s calls on 3 occasions.
As set out above, we will only look at events in the 12 months leading up to the resident’s complaint, up to the stage 2 response. The landlord’s repair logs for that time show the resident reported that the back door was draughty in November 2021 and January 2022. The logs say the landlord completed repairs, and we have seen no evidence of the resident raising any further concerns with the back door until November 2022. There is no evidence of any failings by the landlord in that time.
In November 2022 the resident told the landlord that the door had issues with heavy mould and water ingress when it rained. He confirmed on 24 November 2022 that no repairs were needed as the landlord had recently carried out repairs, but he wanted the landlord to replace the door.
On 28 November and 5 December 2022 the resident told the landlord that the door was becoming mouldy again when there was cold and wet weather. The landlord is required to complete repairs within 20 working days under its repairs policy. The landlord booked an appointment for 9 December 2022. This was within the timescale set out in its policy. Its operative confirmed that the door was ‘sound’ with ‘no issues’. Its notes from that day say that the resident had reported mould appearing on the door, so further assessment would be necessary. The landlord then told the resident it would not replace the door, told him to report any repair issues in future, and closed the repair.
It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection of the door, and to explain to the resident that it would not replace the door based on the operative’s findings. However, it was not reasonable to close the repair job when it was aware of mould issues with the door, and had noted that further assessment to resolve the mould issue would be necessary. This demonstrates that the landlord failed to take reports of mould seriously, despite its internal notes identifying that this was a potential hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 and 19 December 2022 to chase any follow-on works. The landlord promised it would call him back, but has provided no evidence of doing so. This was unreasonable, and shows its poor handling of his reports of mould were then made worse by poor communication.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 3 January 2023. He said he disputed the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with the door. He said the landlord sent someone to look at the door that day, but it sent a plumber to look at a wooden door. He said there were mould issues with the door. The landlord’s repair logs say its operative eased and adjusted the door, and renewed the draught excluder and bottom brush strip. However, it has provided no evidence of any investigation into the cause of the mould on the door at that time.
A landlord can only carry out a lasting repair to resolve damp and mould issues when it has done an appropriate investigation into the cause of those issues. While the landlord raised a works order for mould treatment on 3 January 2023, it has provided no evidence of any real investigation into the cause of the mould. This was despite the resident reporting that he had to clean the door with mould cleaner every 2 days. This was inappropriate, and demonstrates it did not take the reports seriously.
The evidence the landlord has provided shows no further action until February 2023, save for telling the resident that it would not replace the door. Its investigation notes say the resident reported that, during the landlord’s stock condition survey, the surveyors said the door needed to be replaced. The landlord has provided no evidence of calling the resident back, which shows further poor communication. It also logged a repair to inspect the door, but marked it as completed. It has provided no evidence of any action being taken before it marked the repair as completed, and its notes indicate this was based on an inspection 2 months before. This was demonstrably unreasonable.
The landlord’s investigation notes say it did not accept the door needed to be replaced, and it said ‘these surveyors are making life very difficult at the moment’. It said its internal operatives had agreed that the door did not need to be replaced, so requested a decision from someone more senior. There is no evidence of it taking any further action, or doing any further investigation, at that time. This caused unreasonable delays, and demonstrates a failure to thoroughly investigate the resident’s concerns.
The resident chased a response on 25 and 27 March 2023, after hearing nothing from the landlord for a month. The landlord has provided no evidence of ever returning the resident’s calls. In the absence of such evidence, we can only conclude that the landlord again failed to provide the resident with any updates, or to return his calls. This was unreasonable, and shows further poor communication.
The landlord concluded on 29 March 2023 that the repair could be closed. A landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified contractors or repairs staff in the absence of evidence to the contrary. However, in this case there was evidence to the contrary. The landlord did not dispute that its stock condition surveyor said the door needed to be replaced.
The information the landlord holds from the survey does not suggest the surveyor recommended an immediate replacement of the door. The evidence does not show whether the surveyor told the resident the door needed to be replaced now, in the future, or if it could be replaced as an option rather than a requirement. Given the resident’s comments, we would have expected the landlord to clarify this with the surveyor, or to arrange an independent survey. It did neither, and the evidence indicates this was based on its comments about surveyors making life difficult rather than an assessment of evidence.
Given that there were reports of ongoing issues with mould (and its records show no evidence of any investigation or mould treatment up to that point), together with contradictory reports of whether or not the door needed to be replaced, it was unreasonable for the landlord to close the repair and take no further action. This was not in line with its repairs policy or standard industry practice, and demonstrates it did not take the reports seriously.
The evidence provided shows the landlord then took no action for over 5 months, despite being aware of reports of mould affecting the door. This was demonstrably inappropriate and unreasonable. Its records show it took no action regarding the reports of mould on the door until the resident made a further report on 5 November 2023.
On 5 November 2023, the resident reported that there was an ongoing issue with water ingress through the rear door, as well as mould on the door. He said he had young children living in the property with him, and that someone in the household had respiratory issues. The landlord attended the following day, which was reasonable. However, while it drilled weep holes and planed the door, it has provided no evidence of carrying out any investigation into the underlying cause of the reported water ingress and mould. This was unreasonable.
The landlord’s internal communication at this time further demonstrates it did not take the reports seriously. It stated that the resident ‘will never be happy’, and that several operatives confirmed the property did not need a new door. This was despite its various failures set out above. It is apparent from the landlord’s inappropriate internal communication that it failed to take the reported mould seriously, and instead sought to minimise the resident’s concerns. This was inappropriate, lacking in empathy, and a missed opportunity to put things right.
On 5 December 2023, the resident told the landlord that the previous operative had added an extra seal, but this had not stopped the water ingress and had instead made the door difficult to close. The landlord arranged an inspection on 12 December 2023, and logged a repair to sand and stain the rear door, and reseal the window. It carried those works out on 5 January 2024. This is the first evidence of the landlord doing works to deal with the mould, more than a year after the resident reported there were ongoing issues with mould. This was a significant delay, for which the landlord has provided no reasonable explanation.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it attended and completed repairs within 20 working days on each occasion. This is not supported by the evidence provided. While it did attend on a number of occasions, it also failed to respond to reports of mould for a significant length of time, and failed to carry out any investigation into the underlying cause of the mould. It also closed off jobs without attending, and has provided no reasonable explanation for why it did so.
After we contacted the landlord to confirm we would be looking into this complaint, it increased its compensation offer to £100 for poor communication. It also arranged an inspection of the door. The inspection did not include any assessment of damp and mould. This not enough to put things right, and the landlord still did not recognise most of its failings in handling the repairs.
For the reasons set out above, we find there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the door. We have therefore considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
In addition to an apology, the landlord should pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the repairs (including its poor communication), and the resident’s time and trouble in having to continually chase repairs. The £100 offered is insufficient. We consider that the landlord should pay the resident £350 compensation for the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble up to the point of its stage 2 response. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact. For the avoidance of doubt, this is inclusive of the £100 compensation the landlord offered to resolve the complaint.

Complaint handling

The resident sought to escalate his initial complaint in January 2023. The landlord refused to escalate the complaint on the basis that the escalation request was more than 15 working days after its stage 1 response. It accepted in its stage 2 response that the January 2023 complaint included new issues which did not form part of the original complaint, so it should have logged a new stage 1 complaint. It offered £25 compensation.
After we confirmed we had accepted the complaint for investigation, the landlord increased the compensation for its complaint handling to £200. It accepted that it should have escalated the original complaint to stage 2, and that there were delays in escalating and responding to the November 2023 complaint.
The compensation offered would be sufficient for those failings had they been the only failings, and had it made that offer in its stage 2 response. However, it only made the offer following contact from the Ombudsman. It has also not acknowledged that it failed to log further complaints from the resident on multiple occasions throughout 2023. As such, we find there has been maladministration in its complaint handling.
Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, we consider that the landlord should pay the resident £250 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact. This is inclusive of the £200 the landlord offered on 28 May 2024.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been:
1. No maladministration with regard to the landlord’s decision not to upgrade the back door.
2. Maladministration with regard to the landlord’s handling of door repairs.
3. Maladministration with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £600 compensation for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £350 for its poor handling of the door repairs, including its poor communication.
  2. £250 for its poor handling of the resident’s complaints.
The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales set out above.