From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202340208)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202340208

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Leaks, damp and mould.
    2. Water ingress into the electric fuse box.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom, first-floor flat in a low-rise building. At the time of the complaint, the resident resided at the property with his partner and newborn baby.
  2. On 8 January 2024, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of his reports of damp and mould. Within a subsequent conversation with the landlord on 10 January 2024, the resident also expressed his dissatisfaction about its handling of a roof leak and an emergency repair to make safe the electric fuse box.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 19 January 2024. It said:
    1. It upheld the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of his reports of damp and mould in the property. This was because it had delayed in arranging a follow-up inspection appointment with its service manager. It offered the resident £50 compensation in recognition of this.
    2. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of the roof leak. This was because it had attended to the repair within its target timescales.
    3. In relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the electric fuse box, it provided a summary of his version of events and concluded that it upheld his complaint.
    4. Regarding the outstanding repairs:
      1. It had arranged for its service manager to inspect the damp and mould in the property on 26 January 2024.
      2. Its sub-contractors would arrange the outstanding roof repair within 20 working days.
      3. Its complaint handler would contact the resident on 2 February 2024 to ensure all repair issues were resolved.
  4. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 24 January 2024. He said this was because the landlord had not explained why the repairs were still outstanding and because he felt its compensation offer was “insulting”.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 February 2024. It said:
    1. It had combined its assessment of its handling of the roof leak, damp and mould, and apologised to the resident for the further failures that had occurred since it had issued the stage 1 response. In recognition of this, it offered the resident £125 compensation (replacing its previous offer of £50). This was calculated as £100 for time, trouble and inconvenience, and £25 in recognition of the poor communication.
    2. It reiterated its stance that it upheld the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of the water ingress into the electric fuse box.
    3. Regarding the outstanding repairs, the roofing contractor was due to attend by 23 February 2024, and it would monitor the work through to completion.

Events after the end of the complaints process

  1. The landlord completed the roof repair on 14 May 2024.
  2. At the request of the resident, the landlord reviewed its compensation offer for its handling of the leaks, damp and mould repairs. On 17 May 2024, it offered him an additional £525 (total £650).
  3. The resident moved out of the property and ended his lease with the landlord on 11 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Based on the available evidence, it is not clear to this Service if the damp and mould in the resident’s property was caused by or linked to the roof leak. However, it is reasonable to assume that it was. This is because within the landlord’s stage 2 response it combined its assessment of the 2 issues. As such, we have taken the same approach within this report.
  2. The resident has described how he feels the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues has negatively impacted on his family’s physical health. While we do not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, it is outside our remit to determine the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is in accordance with the Scheme. This matter is best suited for investigation through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Leaks, damp and mould

  1. The lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair. The landlord’s repair policy states that this includes repairs to the roof, external and internal walls.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that repairs are divided into 2 categories. Emergency repairs are classified as those that present an immediate health and safety risk. They will be attended within 24 hours to make safe, with further works potentially required to complete the repair. Routine repairs will be attended to within 28 calendar days.
  3. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that:
    1. When it receives a report of damp and mould from its residents, it will attend the property to determine the cause and seek to resolve the immediate issue.
    2. It may need to further diagnose the problem to determine whether the damp and mould is due to a repair issue for which it is responsible.
    3. It will keep its residents informed of any property inspections, diagnosis of issues, and the timetabling of works. This includes explaining to them why work is needed and what work will be done.
  4. Although not directly related to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs, it is important to highlight that it provided us with conflicting information in relation to the description of the resident’s property. Within its initial evidence submission to us in October 2024, it told us that the property was a flat located within a medium-rise (4-6 floor) building. We contacted it in August 2025 to confirm the bedroom size of the property, and it told us that it was a 1-bedroom, first-floor flat. However, the resident confirmed that it is a 2-bedroom flat in a low-rise building. This has also been corroborated by an external online property portal. This is concerning, as landlords should have robust and accurate records of their leasehold housing stock. Therefore, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to address the matter.
  5. The landlord’s internal records show that the resident contacted the landlord on 2 occasions (1 December 2023 and 4 December 2023) about damp in the property. The landlord’s internal records do not show what date it inspected the property, which is record keeping failure. However, it is reasonable to conclude (based on communication between the landlord and resident) that it attended between 6 December 2023 and 9 December 2023. This was a reasonable response time from the landlord and in accordance with its repair timescales. Nevertheless, the landlord has not provided any documentary evidence to show what it identified during the inspection appointment, or that it updated the resident on the action it proposed to take to resolve the issues he was experiencing. This is further evidence of poor record keeping and at odds with the landlord’s damp and mould policy.
  6. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response (on 6 February 2024), it stated that during the damp and mould inspection in early December 2023, it identified that the loft insulation had been fitted incorrectly. It is not clear to this Service if this was a contributory factor to the damp and mould in the resident’s property (as we have not had sight of any inspection reports). Despite this, the repair records show that it did not raise the associated follow-on repair until 24 January 2024. As the landlord has not provided an explanation as to what caused the delays, we find that it acted unreasonably. The insulation repair was completed on 6 February 2024.
  7. On 4 January 2024, the resident reported that water was leaking through the roof and was running down the living room ceiling and walls. The landlord appropriately attended the property the following day (on 5 January 2024) and identified that “next doors roof tile [had] slipped, and a roof repair was required as soon as possible”.
  8. The evidence suggests that the landlord’s service manager spoke to the resident on 8 January 2024 to discuss the outstanding repair issues. However, we have seen no documentary evidence of this phone call (such as contemporaneous call notes), which is a further record keeping failure.
  9. Within the landlord’s stage 1 response (on 19 January 2024), it said that it did not uphold the resident’s complaint in relation to the roof leak, as it had attended to the repair within its target timescales. We find this was a fair response from the landlord, as only 15 calendar days had passed since the resident had first raised the issue and it was therefore still within its target timescales to complete the work. As mentioned, as we have not seen the inspection documents from December 2023, it is unclear if a roof leak had been identified as a contributory factor of the damp and mould in the property.
  10. We find it inappropriate that the landlord stated within its stage 1 response that the roofing contractor would arrange the outstanding repairs within 20 working days. This is because the roof repair (that the resident raised on 4 January 2024) had a target date for completion of 1 February 2024. An additional 20 working days (from 19 January 2024) would mean a potential completion date of 16 February 2024. This would have exceeded the timescales outlined in the landlord’s repairs policy.
  11. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response (on 6 February 2024), it said that its service manager visited the property on 26 January 2024 (as committed to by the landlord within its stage 1 response). However, we have seen no documentary evidence of this appointment, or any supplementary information which shows what was identified or discussed during the visit. This is further evidence of poor repair record keeping.
  12. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised a repair on 1 February 2024 to “clean the mould” in the property. However, the records show that the repair was cancelled on the same date at the resident’s request.
  13. Taking into account all the facts of this case, we find the landlord’s total offer of £125 compensation at stage 2 low. It was also at odds with its compensation policy which states it can offer between £250 and £700, where an issue has taken a long time to resolve which resulted in moderate inconvenience and had a demonstratable impact on the household.
  14. The landlord informed the resident (within its stage 2 response) that the roofer was due to attend by 23 February 2024. In fact, the evidence shows that the work was not completed until 14 May 2024. We note that some of the delays were caused by adverse weather conditions that were outside of the landlord’s control. However, we find the landlord’s oversight of the repairs and its communication with the resident during this period was poor, and there is evidence that he requested an update on numerous occasions. The importance of effective communication is highlighted.
  15. As mentioned earlier in the report, the landlord offered the resident an additional £525 compensation (total £650) in May 2024 for its handling of the leaks, damp and mould. It is appropriate for landlords to review their actions in light of new information or to reflect the growing impact of a continued issue over time. However, as the landlord’s offer was made over 3 months after it had issued its stage 2 response, it cannot be fairly considered part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) and therefore cannot be used to reach a finding of reasonable redress, even if the increased award is proportionate. This is because we expect landlords to aim to put things right for their residents during their formal complaint process. Where repairs are ongoing at the time of the stage 2 response, it may be appropriate for a landlord to commit to reviewing the compensation offer at the time of completion and/or to set out how any further compensation will be calculated.
  16. To conclude, we have made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. This is because:
    1. It took the landlord approximately 6 months to resolve the issues.
    2. Its record keeping was poor.
    3. Its communication with the resident was lacking.
    4. There is disparity between the amount of compensation awarded within the landlord’s ICP and the level of redress that we consider is needed to put things right.
  17. As such, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident the revised amount of compensation it offered him in May 2024. Taking the personal circumstances of the resident into account, this is considered a reasonable amount and within the appropriate range of the maladministration scale outlined in our remedies guidance.

Water ingress into the electric fuse box

  1. Landlords must assess property conditions using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). While HHSRS does not set minimum standards, it focuses on identifying and minimising potential health hazards. Electrical hazards fall within its scope as potential health risks. This includes ensuring electrical installations avoid proximity to water, including areas of damp.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that an emergency repair can include a “flood or leak that cannot be contained or causes a risk of electric shock”.
  3. As mentioned earlier, it is not clear to this Service what was discussed between both parties during the telephone call on 8 January 2024. However, based on the available evidence, it is reasonable to assume that the resident informed the landlord that the ongoing roof leak was affecting the electric fuse box located inside his property. As such, the landlord appropriately raised a repair to “make safe the fuse box” on the same day.
  4. Within the resident’s email on 10 January 2024, he said that the landlord attended the property on 9 January 2024. This was in accordance with the landlord’s emergency repair target timescale (of 24 hours). However, the resident further stated that the operative who attended was “unable and unqualified to attempt the repair”. The landlord’s internal records in relation to this repair are confusing. This is because one record stated that the resident did not provide access for the appointment, but a different repair record stated that the repair was cancelled internally for an “unknown reason”. This is evidence of poor record keeping. Despite this, within the landlord’s stage 2 response it stated that the operative “did not attend the repair [because] they were misinformed that the make safe was for a light switch”. However, we also find this a confusing explanation from the landlord. This is because the notes on the repair record (that would likely have been forwarded to the operative attending to the repair) stated that “water was going into the fuse box”. Nevertheless, in this instance, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise a further emergency repair the same day and arrange for a qualified operative to reattend.
  5. We have seen no evidence that the landlord raised a further emergency repair following the resident’s email on 10 January 2024. This was unreasonable and highlights the resident’s feelings of being ignored.
  6. Following further contact from the resident on 15 January 2024, the landlord raised an emergency repair and attended within its target timescales on 16 January 2024. However, this was a total of 8 calendar days to resolve a potentially hazardous electrical repair. This was inappropriate and at odds with the requirements outlined in the HHSRS.
  7. Within the landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses, it told the resident that it upheld his complaint in relation to its handling of the repair. Given the failures identified, this was appropriate. However, it did not apologise to the resident, nor did it offer him any compensation. We find this unreasonable and not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes). The landlord’s approach was also at odds with its compensation policy, which states that it may offer compensation to residents when something goes wrong within its service delivery and there has been distress and inconvenience caused.
  8. We have therefore made a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the electric fuse box. To put things right for the resident, we have ordered the landlord to pay him compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress into the electric fuse box.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman by the same date:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £800 compensation. This must be paid directly to him and is made up as follows:
      1. £650 for its handling of his reports of leaks, damp and mould, that it previously offered him in May 2024.
      2. £150 for its handling of his reports of water ingress into the electric fuse box.
      3. For the avoidance of any doubt, if any of the compensation that the landlord previously offered the resident has already been paid, it can be deducted from the total above.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with our May 2023 Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM), if it has not already done so. It should use the recommendations in the report to inform its future record keeping practices to aid service delivery and ensure it holds accurate records of its housing stock.