The Guinness Partnership Limited (202340094)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340094

The Guinness Partnership Limited

12 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:
1. the condition of the resident’s property on let and the handling of the linked repairs
2. the resident’s report of a dog attack

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He lives in a one-bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities which included mental health conditions.
The resident moved into his property in September 2023 and reported several repairs in the first few weeks of living at the property. On 6 October 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint he said:
1. the property was in a state of disrepair, and he should not have been allowed to move in
2. several reported repairs were outstanding
3. two dogs had tried to attack him on separate occasions
On 20 October 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. On 25 October 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord’s explanation that repairs were due to wear and tear was incorrect, he had a witness that could confirm some repairs were identified at the viewing, and that the landlord had not addressed the complaint in full. However, on 25 October 2023 the resident told the landlord he did not want to pursue the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 1 January 2024 and re-raised his complaint issues. The landlord identified that this was a repeat complaint and escalated the issues to stage 2 of its process. It sent its stage 2 complaint response on 7 February 2024. It found that it did not address all the resident’s complaint points in its stage 1 response as the dog attack was not mentioned. It said:
1. the property was inspected and prepared to its re-let charter
2. repairs were completed in line with its repair timescales once reported by the resident
3. there was no record of a dog attack prior to 6 October 2023, and it had not been given an opportunity to address the matter
4. it was sorry to hear of the resident’s medical conditions, but it had offered support since its stage 1 complaint response including referrals to external agencies
5. it did not uphold the resident’s substantive issues, but did uphold a complaint as its stage 1 complaint response did not address all the issues raised
6. to acknowledge the failing it apologised, would feedback to its complaint team member, and offer £25 in compensation
The resident referred his complaint to us on 8 February 2024 as he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response. To resolve the complaint the resident wanted an investigation into the landlord’s actions and compensation for the impact caused.
On 24 October 2024 the landlord told the resident that after we contacted them it reviewed how it handled the complaint. It said that there had been a delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and offered a further £150 on top of the £25 already offered to recognise the inconvenience this caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

We understand that the resident says he has had some issues with antisocial behaviour (ASB) and the way the landlord has handled his reports. This includes his neighbours setting off fireworks, loitering, and noise issues. In the interest of fairness, our investigation has focussed on the issues defined in the list at paragraph 1. This is because the handling of the ASB reports has not been through the landlord’s complaint process. If the resident remains unhappy with this issue, he can raise a new formal complaint with the landlord.
The resident has told us he has worsening health conditions because of the landlord’s handling of the complaint issues. We cannot say if the landlord’s action or inaction has directly caused a detrimental impact on the resident’s health. These matters are better suited for consideration by a court where medical experts can provide independent evidence. We can look at whether the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the distress and inconvenience caused by any failings.

Condition of the resident’s property on let, and the handling of the linked repairs

The landlord has an ‘Empty Home Repair Standard’ which sets out the landlord’s policy for ensuring homes are suitable to let. The policy says that it is not seeking to upgrade facilities, but to ensure what is already present is in good repair and fit for purpose.
The evidence shows that the landlord completed an empty homes inspection on 8 June 2023. The landlord recorded the inspection rating as ‘fair’ and there were no recommendations for repairs made. This was reasonable, the landlord completed an inspection to ensure the home was suitable to let.
The resident viewed the property with the landlord on 30 August 2023. The property was accepted, and no repairs or issues were recorded by the landlord at this time. The landlord’s action here was reasonable, it ensured the resident had an opportunity to view the property prior to moving in.
Within 2 weeks of moving in the resident reported that his living room and kitchen window was insecure, a door was difficult to open, and a meter box door was damaged. The landlord’s ‘Empty Home Repair Standard’ says that as a requirement prior to let it will ensure:
1. windows are among other things watertight and draughtproof, open and close efficiently, and defective glass would be replaced
2. all internal and external meter cupboard doors are in good working order
3. doors are in good working order
In its email to the resident on 22 February 2024 the landlord said:
1. it had a witness statement from the resident which confirmed the issue with the window was reported at the time of the viewing
2. it was aware the window issue was an ‘existing’ issue at the time it let the property, and it was likely the door issue also existed at the time of the viewing
3. the missing gas box cover did not form part of the inspection, but it should have been replaced
Therefore, there is no dispute that the condition of the property when the resident began his tenancy did not fully meet its ‘Empty Home Repair Standard’. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The resident first contacted the landlord on 16 September 2023 to report that his kitchen and living room windows were insecure. The landlord treated this as an emergency repair and made the windows safe the same day. This was reasonable and aligned with its repairs policy which says temporary repairs will be conducted within 24 hours if the repair is an emergency. The landlord returned to complete the repair on 22 September. This was also reasonable and within its routine repair policy timescale of 28 calendar days.
The resident reported a further window repair on 2 October 2023. The landlord attended this repair on 5 October 2023 and recorded a follow-on job as the living room window required a new double-glazed unit. The double-glazed unit was installed on 2 November 2023, once the materials had been ordered and received. This took 31 calendar days to complete. While this is outside of its 28-day repair timescale the landlord kept the resident updated and organised a repair for a time that was convenient for the resident. Therefore, the time taken to complete the repair was reasonable.
The repairs to the resident’s door and meter box were completed within its 28-day repair policy timescale. The landlord also dealt with a report that an extractor fan was faulty within 28 days. The landlord’s actions regarding these repairs were reasonable.
In addition to the above, we have looked at whether the landlord offered support to the resident accounting for his vulnerabilities. The evidence shows the landlord opened a safeguarding case and this case remained open throughout the period of this complaint. The landlord offered to assist the resident with repairs, this included an offer to obtain white goods to install in his property. We consider the landlord acted reasonably in considering the resident’s vulnerabilities when dealing with repairs.
In summary, the landlord did fail to ensure that the property met its own ‘Empty Home Repair Standard’ before the resident moved in. While this was distressing and caused the resident inconvenience, the repairs reported to the landlord were completed within the relevant timescales. All repairs reported by the resident shortly after moving in were completed by 2 November 2023. Therefore, the impact to the resident was over a short duration and did not significantly affect the overall outcome for him.
Based on the above, we consider this amounted to service failure. Where there has been a service failure like this our remedies guidance suggest a payment of between £50 and £100 may be considered as a fair level of redress. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it did not acknowledge the failures identified in this determination. Therefore, the landlord should make a payment of £100 to the resident to recognise the distress and inconvenience the failures caused.

Report of a dog attack

On 16 September 2023 the landlord logged a repair, and a note related to this repair said, “Tenant has been chased by two large dogs, and one tried to jump through window”.
The landlord’s ASB policy says that examples of ASB include “Allowing dogs to bark or roam”. It says that reports of ASB will be acknowledged within 2 working days. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord recorded this report as ASB. This was unreasonable and caused the resident some inconvenience.
The resident raised the issue again in his complaint on 6 October 2023. As part of his complaint he explained that 2 different dogs had tried to attack him on separate occasions. As part of a call the same day, the landlord recorded that the resident was unsure if the dogs were from a neighbour or member of the public. However, there is no evidence to show the landlord logged the report as an ASB incident and investigated in line with its ASB policy. This was unreasonable and continued to cause the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident raised the issue of the dog attacks again on 1 January 2024 and said that he still saw the dogs in communal areas. The landlord did not respond to this report until its stage 2 complaint response on 7 February 2024. In its response it said it had no record of any attacks reported prior to 6 October 2023. It said it had not been given an opportunity to investigate or address the resident’s concerns.
This was an unreasonable response. The evidence shows the resident reported the issue as early as 16 September 2023 and the landlord had multiple opportunities to investigate the issue as per its ASB policy. The failure to record and investigate the report of ASB, coupled with its response at stage 2 increased the residents distress and inconvenience.
Taking all the circumstances into account the landlord’s failure to record and investigate the reports of a dog attack was maladministration.
Our remedies guidance says that where there has been a failure which has adversely affected the resident a payment of between £100 to £600 is proportionate. In this instance, the failure of the landlord to record and investigate the report as ASB delayed it taking action to support and assist the resident. No action was taken regarding the report until 22 February 2024. Following the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord wrote to the resident and told him that it had written to all resident’s regarding permission for pets.
The time taken of 5 months after the resident’s initial report to act caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The resident was also put to unnecessary time and trouble as he had to report the same incident multiple times. Therefore, we consider a payment of £200 is fair to recognise the impact to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the condition of the resident’s property on let and the handling of the linked repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a dog attack.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write an apology to the resident for the failures identified
2. pay compensation of £300 to the resident, broken down as:
  1. £200 for the impact to the resident in its handling of the dog attack report
  2. £100 for the impact to the resident in its handling of the property on let, and linked repairs
3. provide evidence to us that it has complied with the orders above

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns he has, and deal with these as a new formal complaint if required.