The Guinness Partnership Limited (202342944)

Background

1. The landlord caused a leak in the resident’s property while replacing her toilet. The resident was dissatisfied with how the landlord managed the subsequent remedial works. At the time, she was undergoing cancer treatment and was concerned about the risks of remaining in the property due to her weakened immune system.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. A leak in the property and the remedial repairs.
   2. The resident’s associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure for the landlord’s handling of a leak in the property and the remedial repairs.
   2. Reasonable redress for the resident’s associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord delayed the completion of the remedial works and communicated poorly with the resident following the leak. While it offered compensation for these issues, it did not acknowledge or provide redress for its failure to properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities until around a year after its complaints process had concluded.
5. There were delays in the landlord acknowledging and escalating the resident’s complaint. However, the landlord offered suitable redress for its failings.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. The resident reported that the flush on her toilet was broken. It is unclear when she first reported this issue or what repairs were initially carried out, as the landlord has not provided its repair records. On 17 August 2023, the landlord replaced the toilet. During this work, the operative accidentally damaged a water pipe, causing a leak. The leak flooded the bathroom and resulted in damage to the living room ceiling.
7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that if a repair causes damage to existing décor, it will make good and redecorate the affected area. The policy also classifies non‑emergency works, including plastering and damp and mould treatments, as routine repairs, which it aims to complete within 28 days. Following the leak, the landlord did not complete all the required remedial works to a satisfactory standard until November 2023, which was significantly outside its stated repair timescales.
8. The landlord’s decant policy allows for tenants to be temporarily moved out of their home while significant repairs are outstanding. There is no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment or considered a decant at the time of the leak, or later when the resident reported that she was struggling while staying with her son. The landlord was aware that the resident had been diagnosed with cancer and was undergoing treatment. However, it did not demonstrate that it fully took her health needs into account when deciding how to manage the repairs or when determining that it was safe for her to return to the property.
9. On 6 September 2023, the landlord told the resident it was safe to return to the property following an asbestos survey and air quality test, both of which identified no issues. However, at that point the landlord had not completed an electrical safety check, not finished all the required remedial works, nor arranged the cleaning of the resident’s sofa and carpets, which it had previously said it would do. The landlord’s records show that it requested a quote for cleaning on 24 November 2024, more than 3 months after the leak, but there is no evidence that this work was ever booked. The resident told us that her family ultimately cleaned the property themselves.
10. The resident told us that she stayed with her son for 5 months because she was concerned about the impact of the repairs and the presence of damp in the property on her health and recovery. We are unable to determine whether the property was habitable during this period, or to assess any impact on her health. We are therefore unable to consider these matters further as part of this investigation. It would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to pursue any health‑related concerns through a personal injury claim, as the courts are best placed to consider this type of dispute. They can rely on independent medical evidence to assess the cause and duration of any health effects. Our role is limited to determining whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience, which we have considered separately.
11. The landlord has acknowledged the delays and poor communication. The resident agrees the landlord has remedied the substantive issue. Therefore, the question before us is whether the landlord has provided sufficient remedy to recognise the impact of its failings and put things right in line with our dispute resolution principles.
12. To do this, we consider both the events which initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
13. During the complaints process, the landlord apologised and offered the resident a total of £338 in compensation. This comprised £110 for delays, poor communication, and a missed appointment; £28 to cover the cost of running a dehumidifier; and a £200 disbursement payment. In a follow‑up letter dated 19 September 2024, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £550, acknowledging the impact that the repairs had on the resident.
14. The Ombudsman’s Compensation Guidance states that where maladministration has been identified and the landlord has acknowledged its failings, compensation awards between £100 and £600 are generally appropriate. The landlord’s revised offer falls within this range, and we are satisfied that the total amount offered provides fair and reasonable redress for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble experienced by the resident, However, it is unclear whether the landlord would have acknowledged its failure to properly consider the resident’s vulnerabilities or increased its compensation offer had the complaint not been referred to the Ombudsman.
15. We have therefore made a finding of service failure. We have made an order for the landlord to apologise for the failings identified in this investigation, however, we have not asked it to increase its offer of compensation.

16. The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 2 working days. A formal response should then be issued within 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and within 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s complaints handling Code (the Code).
17. The resident raised a complaint on 8 September 2023. Although the landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on the same day, it did not provide the resident with a response timescale. The complaint was formally acknowledged on 14 September 2023, which was outside the landlord’s stated timescale of 2 working days.
18. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 October 2023, slightly outside its 10‑working‑day timescale. However, it contacted the resident on 29 September 2023 to explain the delay, extend the response deadline, and discuss the reasons for this.
19. The resident and her representative requested escalation of the complaint on 2 and 4 October 2023. The landlord advised that it might be preferable to escalate the complaint after an inspection of the property scheduled for 9 October 2023. The landlord’s records do not clearly show when the complaint was formally escalated, although it later told us this occurred on 11 October 2023. The Code states that a complaint should be escalated when a resident expresses dissatisfaction and requests further review. There was no evidence that the landlord confirmed the escalation in writing to the resident.
20. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 October 2023, which was within its 20 working day timescale.
21. In a follow‑up letter dated 19 September 2024, the landlord acknowledged failures in its complaint handling. It apologised to the resident and offered £25 compensation. As discussed above the landlord should have offered redress within its complaints procedure. However, the Ombudsman’s Compensation Guidance indicates that, where service failure has been identified and acknowledged, compensation awards of up to £50 are typically recommended. We consider the level of compensation offered to be proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

22. The landlord’s records lacked detail and were often incomplete. They did not capture the full repair process or provide reasons for delays. Communication with the resident and third parties was not consistently recorded. This poor record keeping undermines transparency and contributed significantly to the failings identified in this investigation.
23. The landlord should also ensure that its staff properly record and consider residents’ vulnerabilities when making decisions about repairs. This includes completing appropriate risk assessments and considering what temporary measures or additional support may be required. Such support could include offering temporary accommodation, providing a named and consistent point of contact, and signposting the resident to relevant support organisations.

Communication

24. The landlord’s communication with the resident and her representative was poor throughout the complaint process, requiring the resident to repeatedly chase for updates. The landlord should ensure residents receive timely, proactive updates until issues are resolved.