The Guinness Partnership Limited (202403165)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak from her bathroom in December 2023 and again in February 2024.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of a leak.
   2. The associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord acted in line with its repairs policy and timescales. While it did not identify the leak, it took reasonable steps to investigate and mitigate future leaks. It acknowledged its failing and provided proportionate compensation, increasing this when further delays occurred after the end of the complaints process.
6. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint within its extended timeframe. The compensation for the initial delay and interim communication were reasonable.

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 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.

7. The resident told us that the living conditions have affected her mental and physical health. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advise to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
8. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe. If it completes a temporary repair, it would attend within a reasonable timeframe to complete this. Its routine repair timeframe is 28 calendar days.
9. The landlord has provided evidence of a detailed snagging report of the property in August 2022, and a defects inspection conducted in September 2023. This demonstrates that it undertook appropriate inspections before the end of the defects period, and there were no reports or evidence of leaks at that time.
10. In December 2023 the resident reported a minor uncontainable leak coming into the downstairs toilet. The landlord attended on the same day, and job notes recorded that there was a leak on the bath waste, with further works raised to address this. It advised the resident not to use the bath in the interim as there were other means of washing. This was a reasonable response and in line with its policy.
11. The landlord attended the follow on works 10 days later. It undertook further investigation, removed the ceiling below the bath, and installed an inspection hatch. While this was an appropriate and proactive step, it is unclear why it did not identify the source of the leak at this point. This suggests shortcomings in diagnosis. However, there was no active leak at the time, which would have made identification more difficult, and steps taken were to enable quicker resolution should the issue recur.
12. In February 2024, on a Sunday, the resident emailed various teams to report a leak. 3 hours later she emailed to say she had used her own plumber to resolve the issue and raised a complaint that the landlord had been unable to identify the source of the leak. The landlord’s repairs policy states residents should report out of hours emergencies to its emergency out of hours team. The plumber’s findings said poor workmanship and a cross threaded waste had caused the leak. While we recognise the frustration for the resident that a third party quickly diagnosed the fault, this does not negate that the landlord attended previous reports appropriately based on the information available at the time.
13. The landlord contacted the resident on the next working day to confirm that her plumber had resolved the leak. This was an appropriate response.
14. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response in March 2024. It explained that it had attended initially, been unable to replace the waste, and had raised follow on jobs. It had installed an inspection hatch to assist with identifying the leak but had been unable to do so. It also noted that the resident had made a home insurance claim and that her insurer’s engineer had identified and resolved the leak.
15. The landlord confirmed that it had booked appointments to assess the bath panel, overflow, and plug at the resident’s request. It said it would reinstate the ceiling by removing the inspection hatch and completing plastering, stain blocking, and painting. This approach was resolution focused, and the replacement of the bath panel, plug, and overflow exceeded the landlord’s obligations, as these were aesthetic requests.
16. The landlord offered compensation of £75 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused by its failure to diagnose the leak and £30 to reimburse the insurance excess. This was in line with its compensation policy and our compensation guidance for service failures with minor inconvenience and low impact. This offer reasonably reflects the impact of its service failure in not resolving the leak, while recognising that attendance and action were otherwise timely.
17. The landlord’s stage 2 response in April 2024 said it had no reports of a leak between its second visit and February 2024 report. The evidence provided supports this. It explained she had not reported the emergency repair correctly and given it chance to resolve this. It confirmed that it was not standard practice to fill the bath above the overflow on its property inspections so would not have identified this before. This was appropriate and in line with industry standards.
18. The landlord again apologised for not identifying the leak during its second visit and confirmed that it had shared learning with management. When there were further delays before it completed remedial works in May 2024, the landlord offered an additional £100. This was a proportionate escalation reflecting the increased distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing delay and a failed appointment.
19. Overall, the landlord responded to the reports of leaks appropriately and in line with its repairs policy. It took reasonable steps to investigate and mitigate the issue. While it failed to identify the source of the leak during its second visit, it took steps to enable quicker resolution should the issue recur. The landlord acknowledged this shortcoming and provided resolution focused responses and proportionate compensation, which it reviewed and increased as further delays arose.

20. Landlords must handle complaints as per their own policies and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The 2022 version of the Code contained guidance we expected landlords to follow at the time of the resident’s complaints. Our 2024 version replaced this. Both versions of the Code say landlords should have a 2-stage complaint process and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The landlord’s policies are in line with these timescales.
21. The landlord sent its stage 1 response 19 days after the resident’s complaint. Though this was outside the required timescale, it had previously emailed to extend the deadline and responded prior to this revised date. It also remained in contact with the resident during this period and arranged a refund of the insurance excess in the interim when she raised the cost as a concern. It apologised, explained the delay and offered £25 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy for failings with a limited impact. This was proportionate given the short delay and that it mitigated this through its extension and interim contact.
22. The landlord sent its stage 2 response within the required timescales.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord demonstrated good knowledge and information management. It was able to provide clear records of repair reports, attendance notes, and complaint responses, which allowed a coherent timeline of events to be established. This supported effective investigation and evidenced that actions were taken within policy timescales. Maintaining accurate records helps ensure transparency, supports fair decision‑making, and enables landlords to respond appropriately to complaints and learn from service failures where they occur.

Communication

24. The landlord demonstrated effective communication with the resident and across teams. It responded promptly to concerns raised, provided timely updates where necessary, and clearly explained actions taken and next steps. This helped manage expectations and ensured it kept the resident informed throughout the repairs and complaints process. Consistent and responsive communication supports trust, reduces uncertainty for resident’s, and contributes to the early and effective resolution of issues.