The Guinness Partnership Limited (202338277)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338277

The Guinness Partnership Limited

19 September 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 reports of:
1. A water leak in the kitchen.
2. Broken gates.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. She has told us that at the time of the events, she lived at the property with her husband, 2 children and father.
In November 2022, the landlord issued a final complaint response in which it committed to the completion of the repairs to a leak in the kitchen coming from an external stairwell. The landlord closed the repair order in February 2023. It said it had been unable to gain access to the property to complete the repairs.
In May 2023, the resident reported that a gate serving her property would not close properly. The landlord’s contractor inspected it the next day, said a replacement was required and that the works needed to be passed to a subcontractor. However, the subcontractor later stated that only a repair was needed.
In August 2023, the resident again contacted the landlord to report that the kitchen leak was still ongoing and was causing damage to her kitchen ceiling when it rained. A contractor attended on 25 September 2023, and recommended that the works be completed by a subcontractor.
The landlord has said that on 17 November 2023, the resident refused access to its subcontractor to complete repairs to the leak. The landlord raised another repair order with the subcontractor on 24 November 2023.
The resident formally complained to the landlord on 28 November 2023, stating that the leak persisted and continued causing water damage and her gate was still broken.
On 22 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it would not uphold the resident’s complaints about the leak and gate repairs, because of the access issues it had encountered and as the resident had refused the gate repair because she wanted a replacement. However, the landlord identified communication failures in that on at least 3 occasions it had failed to respond to the resident’s contact either within its standard timescales or altogether. For these failures, it offered £25 compensation.
On 27 December 2023, the resident reported that her kitchen electrics had been affected by the leak. The landlord said it completed the repairs on 11 January 2024.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process in January 2024. As part of her escalation she:
1. Reported problems with her kitchen electrics due to the leak and a small garden gate that was in poor condition.
2. Denied that she had not allowed access for repairs.
3. Said she felt that the compensation offered was inadequate for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced to date.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 23 January 2024, the landlord:
1. Acknowledged that it should have allocated the repairs to a subcontractor sooner after its contractor attended in September 2023. It said this delay was due to an administrative error.
2. Apologised for the lack of detail in its earlier response about the access issues it had referred to. It provided more detail of the events which led to the closure of the repair order in February 2023.
3. Confirmed that it had scheduled the outstanding repairs for completion on 6 and 7 February 2024. It said it would not close the complaint until the leak had been stopped and repaired.
Additionally, it reviewed its earlier compensation offer and replaced it with:
1. £100 for the delays in completing the repairs.
2. £25 for poor communication.
3. £25 as an apology for initially promising a gate replacement that had not been agreed.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 29 January 2024 because she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered and the fact that the repairs remained unfinished.

Events after the landlord’s final complaint response

Soon after the leak repairs were completed in February 2024, on 23 February 2024, the resident reported to the landlord that they were ineffective, and the leak had recurred. Based on the landlord’s records and the resident’s account, the leak was not resolved until around June 2024.
In November 2024, the landlord apologised for further failures it had identified. It said that:
1. The gate repairs were delayed but it completed the leak repairs within the timescale it committed to.
2. It recognised that there were further communication failures about the repairs, which were “unacceptable”.
3. It had implemented new training for complaint handlers and was introducing software to improve repair oversight, as part of learning from its failures.
In recognition of the further failings, it offered £300 compensation in addition to the £150 offered in its final complaint response, consisting of:
1. £250 for the further repair delays.
2. £50 for further communication failures.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This report focuses on the key events, communications and evidence that materially impact the outcome of the complaint. While we have reviewed and considered all information provided by both parties, this report does not refer to or document every interaction, correspondence or repair activity that occurred during the investigated period. Our findings are based on the evidence available at the time of the investigation.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. We have not considered some matters that the resident has told us about but were not raised with the landlord during the complaints process which this investigation is concerned with, including:
1. Damage caused by the leak to kitchen appliances and countertops.
2. Damage caused to the kitchen floor which the resident said occurred when she slipped and fell on the wet floor caused by the leak.
3. The theft of bicycles from her garden and other security concerns which arose because of the delayed repairs to her garden gate.
4. The quality of make good works to the kitchen ceiling.
5. Ongoing incomplete repairs to the kitchen lighting. The landlord has said this damage is because of a later leak in December 2024.
We understand that the resident has recently complained to the landlord about some of the above matters. She can raise further complaints if she wants to, about the issues which she has not included so far. If she remains dissatisfied after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, she may be able to bring those complaints to this Service for consideration.
The resident has told us that she slipped and fell on the wet floor caused by the leak. She said that 2 days later, she experienced a heart attack and could not return to full-time employment for several months while she recovered, which resulted in a loss of earnings. We acknowledge the resident’s statements and we understand this was a very difficult and distressing time for her and her family. We can review the landlord’s response to her health concerns and any distress or inconvenience the landlord’s actions caused. However, it is outside of our remit to consider the specific impact on health and the resulted loss of earnings, from any action or inaction by the landlord. Matters of liability are better suited to consideration by a court or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). The resident can seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue a liability claim against the landlord for damage to health.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak in the kitchen

The landlord’s repair policy states that it will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days and respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord was obliged to complete the repairs to resolve the leak and consequential damage caused to the property structure and installations for which it is responsible.
The landlord’s decision to close the repair order in February 2023 for the works it had committed to in its earlier complaint response was not appropriate. While the evidence indicates that partial repairs had been completed, the landlord was required to complete the full scope of repairs it had identified and committed to undertaking. The landlord has said that repair appointments were scheduled, but multiple appointments were cancelled by the resident because she needed to attend private appointments. On 21 January 2023, the landlord made a final attempt to complete the repairs but recorded a no access outcome. Consequently, it closed the correlating repair order in February 2023.
We understand that there may be legitimate reasons why residents cannot allow access for appointments, but the landlord would not be responsible for the delays this caused. While we acknowledge it encountered unavoidable delays, this did not permit the landlord to close the repairs order while the works remained incomplete. The landlord remained responsible for keeping the property in a good state of repair and free from hazards. In such circumstances, landlords should work with residents to identify solutions to ensure the completion of repairs. If unsuccessful, landlords should seek to use formal access procedures as appropriate to get the repairs done. The landlord failed to fully follow its repair policy, which says it will take such approaches to completing repairs.
On 17 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the leak was again causing damage to her kitchen ceiling when it rained. On 13 September 2023, she called the landlord for an update on the matter, but we have seen no evidence that it provided one. This lack of transparency left the resident in a position of uncertainty, which may have added to her distress.
On 25 September 2023, a contractor attended the resident’s property and inspected the leak, 39-calendar days after the repair order was raised. We have been unable to determine the cause of this delay and why the landlord failed to follow its repair policy timeframes. As such, we can only determine that this was unreasonable and would have further added to the resident’s distress.
The contractor suggested that a subcontractor complete the repairs. While this was an appropriate recommendation, the landlord failed to act upon it by raising a repair order with the subcontractor until November 2023. This delay was unreasonable and demonstrated ineffective repair management by the landlord, which would have added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience as the leak remained unresolved. In its stage 1 response, the landlord did not acknowledge this failure. This lacked accountability. However, in its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the delay, which was appropriate.
The landlord also said that in November 2023, the resident refused access to a subcontractor to complete the leak repairs. We understand that the resident felt frustrated that the repairs had been referred to a subcontractor for an inspection when multiple contractors had previously attended and the issue remained unresolved. This formed part of the resident’s initial complaint. It does not appear that the landlord clearly communicated the reason to the resident for subcontracting the leak repairs. While it was appropriate to do so, it should have communicated its decision-making to the resident as part of ensuring transparency and delivering a resident-focused repairs service.
The subcontractor inspected the leak on 14 December 2023. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said that the identified repairs had been scheduled for completion on 6 and 7 February 2024, as this was when the subcontractor could commit to doing so. We understand why this further delay would have been frustrating for the resident. However, it is understandable that there may have been some delay due to the impact of the Christmas break. Although, it is reasonable to assume that had the earlier failures not occurred, the repairs may have been completed sooner, thereby reducing the overall impact on the resident.
The resident has told us that when the subcontractor attended to complete the inspection, she was led to believe that they had the availability to complete the works sooner than subsequently arranged. While we do not disregard the resident’s account, as an evidence-based service, as there is no documented evidence of what was discussed during this conversation, we cannot determine what was and was not said. We have recommended that the landlord remind its contractors and subcontractors of the importance of managing residents’ expectations appropriately regarding work schedules and timescales, and not to suggest earlier completion dates unless it has approved in advance.
The formatting and lack of detail in the landlord’s records have made it difficult for us to determine whether it completed the repairs on 6 and 7 February 2024 as scheduled. This represents a record-keeping failure by the landlord. Landlords should ensure that their records are accessible, detailed and understandable by staff and the Ombudsman. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to review its record-keeping as part of ensuring positive knowledge and information management practices.
While we have not been able to verify what day the landlord completed the repairs, we know that the resident contacted the landlord on 23 February 2024, stating that the recently completed repairs were ineffective, as the leak had recurred.
Although we acknowledge the additional distress and inconvenience residents may experience when repairs are ineffective, we recognise that resolving complex issues such as leaks can sometimes take multiple attempts. This is because in some cases, landlords may need to try multiple different repairs before they prove to be effective and lasting. This would not necessarily indicate a service failure by the landlord, provided it takes reasonable efforts to complete the repairs.
The landlord raised a repair order with the description of it being a “recall deployment” on 1 March 2024. It is unclear why the landlord did not raise the repair order on the same day as the resident’s contact. The landlord also has not recorded a completion date for this order, signifying further failures to maintain accurate records. However, based on an email that the subcontractor sent to the landlord on 3 June 2024, it is reasonable to assume that the repairs were completed by this date. The resident has also told us that she recalls the repairs being completed towards the summer of 2024.
As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for more information about the overall repairs it completed to resolve the leak and make good the damage caused. On 9 September 2025, the landlord responded to us, advising “separate leaks, separate incidents” and provided a complete repair history for our consideration. We do not dispute that there were multiple concurrent repairs raised before, during and after the period that this investigation is concerned with. However, we are satisfied that upon reviewing the evidence, the kitchen leak we have investigated is the same recurring leak. We have based this on:
1. The leak occurred in the exact location, coming from the external stairwell.
2. The landlord’s complaint responses indicate that the leak reported in August 2023 was recurring and not separate from what it had considered in its November 2022 complaint response.
3. The February 2024 repairs proved ineffective, and the leak continued for several months afterwards.
4. An internal landlord email sent in March 2024, which said that the leak needed to be resolved “once and for all” as it had been ongoing for years.
Between the resident reporting the leak in August 2023 and the completion of the repairs around June 2024, the landlord has recorded that on at least 2 occasions, the resident had said that she had slipped and fallen on the wet kitchen floor caused by the leak. On both occasions, the landlord recorded that it had completed health and safety incident reports. While we have not seen these reports, it was appropriate that it did so. These incidents should have prompted the landlord to reassess the urgency of completing the repairs to resolve the leak. However, based on the evidence provided to us, we are not satisfied that it did so, which signifies a failure to have sought to implement appropriate risk mitigation measures. Understandably, this would have significantly compounded the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
On 24 October 2023, the resident reported to the landlord that the leak was affecting her kitchen electrics. The landlord has not recorded details of how the electrics were affected and did not raise a separate repair order for the electrical issues. Given the potential safety implications and the landlord’s repair policy definition of emergency repairs as those where it needs to address “immediate health and safety risks”, it would have been appropriate to attend and complete an electrical safety inspection on an emergency basis to eradicate any risks of harm to the resident. The landlord’s failure to do so suggests it did not adequately assess the potential risks.
On 27 December 2023, the resident again reported electrical issues, which the landlord’s stage 2 response said were related to her kitchen lights and oven. The landlord’s records do not provide a clear audit trail of whether this was related to earlier reports of electrical issues or if it was separate. In its complaint response it stated that it completed repairs to her electrics on 11 January 2024. We have not seen clear evidence to show that it had attended beforehand to assess the potential risks to the resident. It is understandable that the resident may have felt distressed during this time. This is a further failure by the landlord.
In September 2025, the resident told us that she was without working kitchen electrics from “around” November 2023 until June 2024. The landlord has told us that it received no reports that the kitchen lacked working electrics and that it had isolated the electrics as a safety precaution while awaiting the leak repairs. Where there is a dispute over the facts, without supporting evidence to confirm what happened, it is not possible for us to determine what was and what was not the case. Without documented evidence of the landlord being made aware of the full extent of the electrical issues, we cannot determine that the landlord failed to fulfil its repair obligations. However, this does not excuse the failings we have identified, nor does it diminish the consequential impact on the resident.
While the leak was ongoing between August 2023 and June 2024, the resident had to chase the landlord for updates on multiple occasions due to poor communication and a failure to maintain transparency with the resident about the status of the repairs. The landlord’s repair policy commits to delivering an effective repair service, yet its handling of this matter demonstrates a reactive approach that does not align with its policy expectations. Poor communication can significantly increase the distress and inconvenience to a resident.
Based on the failings above, we have made a finding of maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
While the landlord wrote to the resident in November 2024 to apologise for the further failures that took place after its final response, we are not satisfied that the landlord’s increased offer of compensation applied to its handling of this matter. We have interpreted it this way as in the letter, it said that it had completed the repairs within the timescale it committed to. It then proceeded to reflect on the delays in repairing the resident’s gates and communication of these repairs (assessed in the section below). On this basis, we have not considered the additional compensation when assessing what it offered for its handling of the leak repairs.
We have referred to our remedies guidance (published on our website), which sets out our approach to compensation. The guidance states that for findings of maladministration, we may order between £100 and £600 to put things right for the resident, with the exact amount depending on individual circumstances. Considering the overall impact of the landlord’s failings, we find the landlord’s stage 2 compensation offer of £60 for its handling of the resident’s report of the leak and poor communication inadequate to fully put things right. We have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 in compensation to reflect the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its errors. It can deduct the £60 it offered previously from this total if it has already been paid.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of broken gates

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord must maintain and repair boundary fences and gates. We understand the gate reported broken in May 2023 is a driveway gate that forms part of a boundary fence. The landlord was responsible for repairs and appropriately arranged for a contractor to inspect the gate within a day of the resident’s report.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said the subcontractor tried to schedule a repair, but the resident declined. The landlord’s records show it closed the repair order on 13 September 2023, with an email stating the resident refused the works during a call because the subcontractor planned to repair, not replace, the gate. However, the available evidence makes it difficult to determine when this telephone call occurred. The lack of accessible and detailed records emphasises the importance of the landlord acting upon our record-keeping recommendation.
The resident was dissatisfied that the subcontractor informed her that they would repair rather than replace the gate, contrary to what the landlord’s contractor had initially advised her. The landlord’s records show she contacted it on 9 October 2023, expressing that she was “unhappy” about the conflicting information. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that the replacement promise had been made without approval.
While we recognise the resident’s frustration, it was reasonable for the landlord to try repairing, rather than replacing, the gate. Landlords are not obliged to replace items if repairs resolve the issue, and the landlord’s repair policy confirms this approach for value for money. However, it should have told the resident why it decided this. It failed to communicate and did not oversee what information the resident received. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had given contractors feedback to avoid promising replacements without prior approval. We welcome the landlord’s actions to address these failures and learn from them.
Despite the resident’s contact in October 2023, the landlord failed to provide an update on its position. This was a failure to maintain clear communication with the resident and would likely have further undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord. It was only in November 2023, after the resident expressed further dissatisfaction, that the landlord sought to include the gate repair as part of the repair order it raised with its subcontractor.
We understand the subcontractor determined repairs to the gate were suitable and identified that a smaller garden gate required a full replacement. Despite its commitment that repairs would be completed in early February 2024, the landlord did not complete them until around June 2024. The reason for this delay remains unclear from the landlord’s records. This was unreasonable and caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord failed to deliver on its commitments made in its stage 2 response and significantly exceeded repair obligations outlined in its policy.
The landlord’s communication with the resident between October 2023 and June 2024 about the gate repairs was unacceptable. We identified several occasions when the resident had to chase the landlord for updates, adding to her distress, inconvenience, and time lost. The landlord should have communicated proactively throughout, providing regular updates on repair progress without the resident needing to seek clarification. The landlord acknowledged some failings and offered £90 compensation in its final response. While it was positive that the landlord tried to put things right, this offer did not go far enough. Given the above failings, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of broken gates.
In November 2024, the landlord expressed it was “truly sorry” for the impact of the repair delays on the resident and offered a further £300 compensation, in addition to the £90 offered at stage 2 for the associated gate repair failures. It also told the resident it was introducing new software to reduce outstanding repairs and support a more responsive service, with improved oversight and visibility of works. We welcome this development, and as a result, we have not made further orders or recommendations on the landlord’s oversight and monitoring of repairs.
It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess landlords’ handling of complaints through their formal complaint processes. We will still make a finding of maladministration if the landlord only made a reasonable offer after the end of the complaints process, although we may not increase the compensation award. In line with our remedies guidance (referenced above), the landlord’s total compensation offer of £390 is proportionate with the amount that we would have awarded had it not made an offer. Therefore, we have not made any additional orders of compensation, but we have ordered it to pay the £390 total compensation it offered for this matter if it has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. A water leak in the kitchen.
2. Broken gates.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £890 compensation. The landlord may deduct any amounts already paid for these amounts:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report in its handling of the resident’s reports of a water leak in the kitchen.
2. £390 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s gates, as offered in its stage 2 complaint response and November 2024 apology letter.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord:
1. Review its record-keeping procedures to ensure that it maintains accurate, accessible, and comprehensive records which allow for adequate oversight of service delivery and enable effective investigations should complaints be escalated internally or to this Service.
2. Remind its contractors and subcontractors of the importance of managing residents’ expectations appropriately regarding work schedules and timescales, and not to suggest earlier completion dates unless approved prior.
3. Inspect the electrics in the kitchen as the resident has reported that they are still not working properly. The landlord should write to the resident following the inspection to confirm whether it will carry out any repairs to the electrics and if so, the estimated timescale for this.