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 (202347800)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347800

The Guinness Partnership Limited

15 August 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 response to the resident’s concerns about her garden path.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom bungalow which she occupies with her teenage son. The resident told us and the landlord that she is living with fibromyalgia and has issues with her knee. The resident also told us her son has ADHD.
  2. On 22 May 2023 following a request from an Occupational Therapist, the landlord recorded that the concrete path in the resident’s garden needed repair. It noted the path was splitting and had sunk in 5 places. The landlord confirmed it inspected the path that same month and sent an order to one of its sub-contractors. The resident called the landlord to chase progress of the repair request on 15 and 20 November 2023.
  3. On 29 November 2023 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. She was unhappy the landlord had not got back to her regarding the repair request.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 13 December 2023. It apologised for the delays and lack of communication since May 2023 and offered a total of £175 compensation to the resident. The landlord also said one of its operatives attended the property on 10 December 2023 to carry out a repair, but it noted the resident refused the works as she requested for the whole path to be renewed. The landlord confirmed the path was repairable.
  5. On 14 December 2023 the resident requested for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process. She accepted the compensation for the delays and poor communication but said the landlord needed to renew the whole path as she felt repairs would not resolve the issue.
  6. On 11 January 2024 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. It upheld its stage 1 decision but offered an additional £50 compensation for the overall delays the resident encountered. In response to the resident’s request for the path to be renewed, it confirmed it will only repair the affected areas as per the assessment carried out by its contractors. The landlord also said it was ready to schedule the works once the resident agrees.
  7. Unhappy with the landlord’s response, the resident brought her complaint to us. She said that despite agreeing to the repair at the end of January 2024, it remained outstanding. The complaint became one this Service could investigate on 28 August 2024.

Events after the landlord’s internal complaints procedure

  1. The landlord issued a further response to the resident on 20 September 2024 in which it considered the delays in actioning the repair post January 2024. It apologised for its failings and offered the resident an additional £400 compensation made up of £300 for trouble and inconvenience and £100 for personal impact. It also promised to complete the repair no later than 18 October 2024. The landlord recently provided evidence to this Service confirming the repairs were completed on 26 September 2024 and 21 October 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us both her and her son have tripped over on the path many times. She also said her sister-in-law sustained an injury. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to provide unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury.
  2. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  3. This Service also acknowledges the resident said her medical condition makes her more susceptible to serious injury if she was to fall. Unlike a court the Ombudsman is unable to make findings under the Equality Act 2010. Any allegation of discrimination by the landlord is therefore a legal matter that likely needs considering by a court. However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s allegation and whether it considered its legal equality duties.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her garden path

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside and structure of the resident’s home including pathways, steps or other means of access.
  2. The landlord’s records show the repair was initially raised as an aid and adaptation and the landlord’s policy on such repairs does not set out any timescales for completion. However, in its letter dated 20 September 2024 the landlord confirmed it should have completed the repair within 20 working days from the date the order was raised. This is in line with the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy for routine repairs which refers to 28 calendar days.
  3. The landlord acted unreasonably by not following up on the repair between May 2023 and November 2023. This meant the repair fell outside of its timescales for routine repairs.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord twice in November 2023 before raising a complaint. The landlord’s records show it promised to call the resident back but there is no evidence it did, which was unreasonable. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged it should have responded to the resident more promptly.
  5. On 11 December 2023 the landlord’s operative attended to carry out repairs. The operative’s notes confirm the resident did not want for the works to take place and she requested for the whole path to be renewed instead. This was passed onto the landlord’s Service Manager to review further.
  6. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that the decision about what to replace, when to replace it and what it will replace items with, will be made at the landlord’s discretion. The evidence supplied by the landlord shows the initial repair order was raised for the path to be repaired and levelled off. After the resident challenged the decision, the landlord’s Service Manager reviewed its position and reiterated it was satisfied the repair was sufficient to resolve the issue. So, while we appreciate the resident’s comments about the age and durability of the path, the landlord acted within its discretion as per its responsive repairs policy.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 January 2024 to request the repair, but it raised the job incorrectly on its system. This led to confusion when the operatives attended on 5 February 2024 as they were not prepared to carry out the works required. The resident also said the operatives commented that her the path would need to be renewed.
  8. There were further visits scheduled on 3 and 4 April 2024 which the resident said were cancelled due to bad weather and lack of a skip on site. While it is reasonable some works cannot be completed until weather conditions improve, it is unclear from the landlord’s records what happened between February and April 2024.
  9. According to the landlord’s notes, one of its Service Managers called the resident in April 2024 to discuss her concerns about the extent of the work needed following the comments made by its operatives in February 2024. The Service Manager also visited the resident’s home on 16 April 2024 and confirmed the path did not need to be renewed entirely. It also explained its operatives should not be disclosing their suspicions during visits. While the operative’s comments may have resulted in the resident’s expectations being unreasonably managed, the landlord responded reasonably by carrying out a further site visit and setting out its position clearly.
  10. The order was raised again on 2 May 2024 but by September 2024, the landlord was yet to complete any repairs. This was unreasonable as the landlord was now outside of the repair timescales set out by its policy and there is no evidence it updated the resident on the reasons for the delay.
  11. In its letter dated 20 September 2024 the landlord acknowledged there was poor internal communication and administrative issues with raising the repair requests. It offered compensation for the impact this had caused the resident.
  12. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, repairs and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  13. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and apologising for the delays in completing the repairs and its poor communication throughout.
  14. The landlord put things right by completing the agreed repairs closely to the timescales it had promised the resident.
  15. The landlord also offered total compensation of £625. The first offer of £225 for delays and poor communication between May 2023 and November 2023 was in line with the landlord’s policy for situations where there was minor inconvenience which had some impact on the household. We recognise the resident explained she was worried about the safety of the path and that this affected her and her son’s enjoyment of the garden.
  16. The £400 additional award made by the landlord on 20 September 2024 reflected that the repairs were delayed past January 2024. This additional award is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for issues which resulted in moderate inconvenience having a demonstratable impact on the household. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer a higher amount the second time due the delays in putting things right after its internal complaints procedure was concluded and mismanaged expectations regarding the extent of the work.
  17. The total compensation of £625 offered by the landlord was proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident which included inconvenience caused by the delay. In addition to this, the resident experienced worry about the safety of the path due to her and her son’s medical conditions. It was also in line with our remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  18. In its response dated 20 September 2024, the landlord also confirmed it is implementing changes to the structure of its teams and processes to ensure a more consistent service delivery when it comes to responsive repairs. This reflects the landlord’s commitment to learn from the failures it identified as part of its internal complaint investigation.
  19. In conclusion, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging and recognising its failures. It put things right by offering compensation for the impact it caused and completing the agreed repairs. Additionally, it demonstrated it had learnt from the outcomes of the complaint and put in place measures to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future. Therefore, we have found that the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failings identified in its response to the resident’s concerns about her garden path. Our finding of reasonable redress is made on the understanding that the £625 compensation is reoffered to the resident if this has not already been paid.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for the failings identified its handling of the resident’s concerns about her garden path.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended the landlord reoffers the £625 compensation to the resident if this has not already been paid.
  2. Since the repairs were completed, the resident contacted this Service to express she was dissatisfied with the quality of the work, and she felt it had not resolved the issues. The landlord is therefore recommended to arrange a site inspection to discuss the resident’s concerns and arrange any further work it deems necessary to resolve these.