The Guinness Partnership Limited (202345006)

Decision
Case ID	202345006
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing association
Occupancy	Assured tenancy
Date	17 April 2026

Background

The resident lives in a block of flats, which had a programme of major works that included kitchens, bathrooms, and fire safety installations. He complained that noise from the works caused disturbance and affected his wellbeing and ability to work from home.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with his reports of noise.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was no maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of noise.
We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord offered the resident reasonable opportunities to engage with it before the work started. Once he reported noise, it appears to have contacted him and made an offer of respite accommodation, which was more than it needed to do. It also apologised for the inconvenience and said it would let him know about future works.
The landlord did not meet its timescales for responding at stage 1 and 2. After contact from us, it offered compensation that is appropriate in a case where we found maladministration. Because of the offer, we have found reasonable redress.

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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord reviews the timing of communication about works affecting the resident to ensure it lets him know in advance, where possible, as promised in its complaint response.
We recommend the landlord reoffers the £175 compensation for complaint handling failures it offered if it has not already paid it to the resident. We have made our finding of reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord makes this payment.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
13 May 2022	The landlord told the resident it was starting a programme of work at his block on 6 June 2022. It said its contractors would work between 8.00am and 5.00pm on weekdays. It apologised for disruption caused. It said before it started the work, it would visit him to do an impact assessment. It said this was an opportunity for him to raise concerns.
27 June 2023	The resident complained about constant noise from the works. He said he was working nights and could not sleep. He wanted compensation.
21 July 2023	In its complaint response, the landlord said it told the resident about the work on 13 May 2022 and tried to contact him to do an impact assessment. It said after he reported noise on 9 May 2023, it offered him use of a property, but he declined this. It said it now gave him notice before it did work around his property. It offered £25 compensation for the delay in responding.
27 July 2023	The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint because he felt its response was contradictory, did not address his points, and the compensation was not enough.
8 September 2023	In its final complaint response, the landlord said its stage 1 response dealt with his points. It said it did not agree that its response was contradictory. It said it would not offer compensation.
Referral to the Ombudsman	In his escalation to us, the resident told us he incurred costs going to his office to escape the noise. He said the landlord had not warned him about the noise, which caused him “mental trauma and psychological damage”. He said he should not have to pay full rent, and it should pay his travel costs.

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.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with reports of noise
Finding	No maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident told us the situation affected his health, and he incurred travel expenses. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and financial loss. This is largely because independent experts give evidence. They have a duty to the court to give unbiased insights on the cause of any illness, injury, or loss. When disputes arise over the cause, courts can examine testimony. Therefore, this element of the resident’s complaint is better dealt with through the courts. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.

What we have investigated

The landlord is responsible for upgrading and maintaining fire safety equipment to ensure its properties are safe. The landlord’s website says to keep its homes in a good condition, it has a planned programme of work on items like kitchens, bathrooms, and fire safety installations. It says it will give residents plenty of notice before starting work.
We have seen the landlord wrote to the resident on 13 May 2022 about a programme of work across the block. It told him the work included bathroom and kitchen replacement, fire safety upgrades, upgrading intercom and CCTV systems, upgrading fuse boards, and servicing windows. It said it would start the work on 6 June 2022, and contractors would work between 8.00am and 5.00pm on weekdays. It apologised for any disruption it would cause and invited him to consultation events in May 2022 to discuss the work. It said it would visit him before the work started to complete an impact assessment and discuss any concerns he had.
This investigation does not look at the quality of the work or the time taken to complete it. However, we accept the landlord was fulfilling its obligations to residents on housing standards and fire safety when doing the work. The letter it sent on 13 May 2022 was reasonable, as it explained the work it was doing in advance. It also acknowledged the work would be disruptive, and because of this offered the resident opportunities to hear more about the work and raise any individual concerns.
In its complaint response, the landlord said it tried to contact the resident about the impact assessment. We have not seen any evidence of a response from the resident to its letter on 13 May 2022, or communication from the landlord until he reported noise on 9 May 2023. Because of this, we cannot comment on what communications may have taken place during this time.
The resident reported noise from the work on 9 May 2023. He said he worked nights and could not sleep as the noise was now coming from the next door flat. The landlord’s complaint response said it contacted him on 12 May 2023 to discuss his noise report and offered him a respite property, which he refused. We have not seen a record of this contact. However, the landlord’s records on 27 May 2023 refer to contact on 12 May 2023, and say the resident refused the respite property as it did not have wi-fi. Because of this, we accept the contact took place and it made an offer of respite property.
The resident told us the respite property was unfurnished and did not have wi-fi, which he said made it unsuitable. We have not seen details of the respite property offered or the terms of the offer. For example, was it offered as a temporary place to live while work took place around his flat or was it just somewhere for him to work from? The landlord acknowledged the lack of wi-fi was a reason for refusal. We have not seen whether it made any suggestions about furnishings or wi-fi. However, as there is no suggestion that his flat was uninhabitable, the evidence available shows the landlord went beyond what it needed to do when it offered the resident a respite property.
The resident complained on 27 June 2023 about work noise from the flat next door to his. The landlord’s records the same day said it had not done an impact assessment, so did not have a record of his communication requirements. However, it noted that he contacted it on 12 May 2023 about the same issue and asked it to give him 1 weeks’ notice of work near his home.
In its complaint response on 21 July 2023, the landlord said it did not uphold his complaint. It said it sent a letter on 13 May 2022 giving notice of the works, did consultation events in May 2022, and tried to do an impact assessment with him. It said after his report on 9 May 2023, it contacted him on 12 May 2023 to discuss his concerns and offered the use of a respite property. It said it had since acted to ensure it gave notice before it did work around his home. It said there could be times when it might not be possible to give him notice. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
This was a reasonable response because the landlord set out what it had done since the resident’s noise report on 12 May 2023. It was reasonable to discuss his concerns within a few days of the report. It then took steps that included the offer of a respite property and a promise to let him know when it would be working near his home. We accept the landlord’s point that there could be times when it might not be able to give advanced notice due to the scale of the works. It also apologised for the inconvenience.
In his request to escalate his complaint on 27 July 2023, the resident said the landlord’s response was contradictory, did not address his points, and did not offer compensation or a rent reduction.
In its final response on 8 September 2023, the landlord said its stage 1 response addressed his points. It said it did not agree that its response was contradictory but had tried to contact him to discuss his complaint but did not receive a response. It said the improvement works affected everyone and while its contractor tried to minimise inconvenience, this was not always possible. It said it was sorry for the inconvenience but felt it had given sufficient notice and did not do work during unsociable hours. It said it would not offer compensation or a rent reduction for the noise disturbance.
In April 2026 the resident told us he expected noise but wanted warnings so he could plan around it. He said it was not good for his mental health when contractors started drilling without a warning. He said the landlord had promised to give him a warning, but it sent letters on the day of the work or after the event. He said the work was still taking place and it continued to cause a disturbance.
It was reasonable for the resident to want warnings and for the landlord to say it would give these. We have not seen evidence of communications from the landlord informing the resident about work taking place around his flat, as it promised in its complaint response. The resident said that when these came, they often arrived too late. However, because of the lack of evidence we cannot assess this. Having made a commitment in its complaint response, it should ensure it tells the resident about work near his home in a timely way. We have made a recommendation on this.
Overall, how the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports of noise was reasonable. It needed to do major work to meet its obligations to residents in the block and it apologised in advance for the inevitable disruption. It also offered the resident reasonable opportunities to engage with it before work started. Once he reported noise, it contacted him and offered respite accommodation. Although we cannot assess its suitability, it went beyond what it needed to do. It also apologised for the inconvenience and said it would let him know about future works. Because of this, we have found the landlord was correct not to offer compensation.

Complaint	How the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
The resident complained on 27 June 2023. We have not seen evidence that the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It sent its complaint response 19 working days later, on 21 July 2023, which was outside its timescales. It apologised for the delay and offered £25 compensation.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint on 27 July 2023. We have not seen evidence of an acknowledgement. It sent its final response 41 working days later, on 8 September 2023, which was outside its timescales. The landlord did not apologise or offer compensation for the delay.
After we contacted the landlord about the resident’s complaint, it reviewed its response and told him it had found failures in how it dealt with his complaint. These included delays in responding at both stage 1 and 2. It apologised for this and increased its offer of compensation by £150.
Overall, we have found there was a failure by the landlord to meet the timescales in its complaints policy, which amounted to maladministration. After contact from us, it offered further compensation, which under our compensation guidance is a suitable amount when there is maladministration. Because of this we have found there was reasonable redress in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Learning

The landlord should ensure it responds to all complaints in line with its policy and our Complaint Handling Code.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

There are some gaps in the landlord’s records of communications with the resident. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management provides guidance that can help with this.

Communication

It was positive that the landlord told the resident about the works in advance and provided opportunities for engagement through events and at an individual level.