The Guinness Partnership Limited (202403175)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403175

The Guinness Partnership Limited

26 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Her reports of parking issues in the estate.
   2. Her concerns relating to her neighbour’s closed-circuit television (CCTV).
   3. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy, which began in April 2009. The property is a 2-bedroom house on an estate. The resident disclosed in her housing application that she is undergoing treatment for health conditions, and she lives with her son, who has arthritis.
3. The landlord owns several houses on the estate, but there are some private residents. It therefore does not own all of the parking spaces on the estate. The resident has raised parking issues for many years, including discussions with the landlord about permit parking since 2022.
4. On 29 January 2024, the resident raised her formal complaint. She said that at the time of signing her tenancy agreement, the landlord advised that parking was at the side of the house. Since then, the landlord has informed her that she is no longer allocated these spaces, but one outside her gate and the second is opposite her neighbour’s property. She complained that her neighbour does not own a car and would not qualify for a parking permit. She felt the landlord was not adhering to its parking policy, as it was not addressing the use of heavy goods vehicles and residents running car repair businesses on the estate. She raised that she has had several issues with parking in her designated space, due to visitors and other residents using the space. This has meant she has had to use the space at the side of her house, as it is vacant most of the time.
5. She also complained that her neighbour had CCTV cameras installed at the side of the house, which overlooks the road and the resident’s car, as well as a drop post installed, which blocks access to spaces at the side of the resident’s house. She complained that she feels she is being watched and listened to, due to the neighbour’s CCTV.
6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2024, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, as it said there had not been any failures in the way it handled the resident’s concerns about the parking or CCTV issues.
7. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. She said the landlord had failed to explain why the parking policy was disregarded, as her neighbour was given a designated space when she does not have a car. She felt the landlord had not addressed any of her complaint, it had not considered her or her family’s long-term health problems and felt her neighbour had been given preferential treatment.
8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 March 2024 and apologised for the inconvenience of having to raise the complaint. It reiterated the information it gave in the stage 1 response and did not uphold either complaint issue.
9. The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman on 23 April 2024, she said there had been ongoing parking issues on her estate for years and the landlord had said the parking situation was under review due to changes in legislation. She complained that the landlord had not adhered to its parking policy. She is seeking an apology for the stress and anxiety caused to her, for the landlord to address the parking problems in line with its policy and consider the resident’s needs.
10. Following the Housing Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord contacted the resident on 11 November 2024. It had identified failures in how it handled her complaint, apologised and acknowledged that it had failed to consider the personal impact of the complaint issues on the resident and her family. It offered £750 compensation and confirmed its learning from the experience, this included £500 for the time, trouble and inconvenience caused, £150 for complaint handling failures and £100 for poor communication. The resident remains unhappy that the estate has no enforcement, is poorly managed and she continues to experience parking issues regularly.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The evidence indicates that the resident and landlord were discussing the parking issues from January 2022. The Ombudsman cannot see, however, that the resident raised a complaint about this matter until 29 January 2024. We may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. This investigation will therefore consider the landlord’s handling of the matter from January 2023 onwards. However, the Ombudsman will not completely discount the date that the issues were initially reported to the landlord. Although we will not comment on how this was managed, the length of time the matter has been ongoing for has been noted for context.

Parking issues in the estate

12. The resident has complained that her allocated parking spaces changed, and the estate is poorly managed, with no enforcement. She has said she experiences issues with people parking in her space regularly and the landlord has not followed its parking policy.
13. The evidence indicates that the landlord consulted residents about parking controls in the estate since January 2022. The Ombudsman has received limited information about the discussions that took place in 2023. However, the landlord discussed its options and sought advice from its parking management company – Parking Control Management (‘PCM’) – on permit parking in February 2024. PCM advised it to introduce a £20 per year charge to the residents for parking controls. The landlord felt this was unreasonable for its residents and decided against this.
14. The landlord’s parking policy states that it aims to be sensitive and responsive where there are local parking issues, it will consult residents about introducing parking enforcement by a private parking management company, which may include charging for a parking permit. As it had received reports of parking issues, the landlord acted reasonably by consulting with its residents and the parking control management company, to find out its options.
15. The landlord further discussed the possibility of introducing permits internally on 11 March 2024, it recognised that a permit would ensure residents park in their allocated spaces and could be a deterrent. The Service notes that the landlord had raised internally that it was having issues with vehicles parking on pavements, prohibited vehicles such as commercial low loaders and abandoned vehicles being dumped in the visitor spaces. The resident raised these issues in her complaint, and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to be attempting to rectify the situation.
16. Nevertheless, PCM confirmed to the landlord that as the new private parking code of practice was coming into effect in 2024, it had decided not to issue visitor permits on any new sites. While PCM referenced new legislation, it has not included details of what this would entail. Given the advice it received from the PCM about the new legislation, it was not unreasonable that the landlord decided not to immediately enforce visitor permits on new sites. It was, however, reasonable that the landlord sought advice about this from the PCM.
17. Ultimately, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the abandoned vehicles. If it could identify that vehicles were abandoned, it would have been reasonable for it to have removed them from any spaces that it owned. As the resident complained that she was having issues with other cars parking in her designated space, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to consider other options to improve the situation. This could have included implementing double yellow lines or charging residents for the enforcement. The Service recognises that the landlord did not want to have to charge its residents for enforcement, but it is entitled to do this under the policy. As there were regular issues reported, this could have been a practical solution.
18. As part of her complaint, the resident raised that there were heavy goods vehicles parked on the estate and residents were running car repair businesses. The tenancy agreement states that residents should get the landlord’s written permission before putting any commercial vehicle on the land it owns, should not carry out repairs to any vehicles and not run businesses from their homes without its written consent. The Service notes that the landlord was aware of a private resident running a car business from the estate, but this would be outside of its jurisdiction. Nevertheless, it would have been fair for the landlord to have investigated further, to check what the resident had raised.
19. It was unreasonable that it did not address any of these issues in its complaint responses, or to have investigated the issue, beyond the private resident it already knew about. We have also not seen any evidence to suggest that it managed the resident’s expectations regarding actions it could take with private residents causing issues in the estate. It would have been fair for it to have addressed the issues with the resident directly, as this would have helped the resident to feel listened to.
20. The resident also raised that her neighbour had installed a parking post on their driveway, and this was blocking her access to her parking space. The tenancy agreement states that residents should seek permission from the landlord when making alterations to their homes. The landlord’s notes indicate that it discussed this internally in March 2024 and found that the neighbour was allowed to do this. It is unclear if the landlord fully investigated the resident’s concerns and it would have been fair for the landlord to check she had sufficient access to her parking space, or whether she needed to be allocated a different space or for the post to be removed.
21. As part of her complaint, the resident was also unhappy that her neighbour has been given a designated parking space when they do not have a car. She has said the neighbour would not qualify for a parking permit and does not think the landlord has adhered to its parking policy. The landlord’s parking policy says where there are vacant bays, each resident will have their own permanent parking space. To make it fair for everyone, the landlord has tried to give each household 2 parking spaces, unless they have a driveway. The Service would deem this reasonable, and we recognise that it has tried to balance the needs of every household. As permits are not in place in the estate, it is irrelevant whether the neighbour owns a vehicle and under the parking policy, they have designated parking spaces due to being a resident on the estate.
22. The resident complained that the neighbour claims to need 24-hour access for carers but that they do not need regular carers. The landlord’s parking policy says that where there is a medical need and there are sufficient spaces available, a visitor bay will be redesignated for carers. The landlord is therefore entitled to allow the resident’s neighbour to have a space designated for their carers and its actions were not contrary to its policy. It would, however, have been reasonable for the landlord to have told the resident that it was satisfied the neighbour required a carers space. We recognise that the landlord has also addressed the resident having her own medical professionals visiting. It informed the resident that it could arrange for a carers permit, if the permit scheme went ahead.
23. As the resident mentioned that she was having difficulty with community nurses being able to park when visiting her son, the landlord could have given this greater consideration. There is no evidence that the landlord considered how it could resolve this issue.
24. To further address the parking issues, the landlord decided to number the allocated parking bays. The evidence indicates that it told the residents that it would be painting the allocated parking spaces in August 2023. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed the carpark bays were numbered to correspond with the relevant properties and that it would write to all residents to remind them of their parking responsibilities by 29 March 2024. The resident responded to the stage 2 response on 13 March 2024 and said this was inaccurate. She chased the landlord for a response about the inaccurate information on 25 March 2024 and 26 June 2024.
25. It took the landlord until 11 November 2024 to recognise that it had provided inaccurate information, including that it had not numbered the parking bays or written to its residents. This was unreasonable, as this was 9 months after it sent its stage 2 response. It is important for landlords to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to ensure complaint responses include correct information. It is recognised that providing inaccurate information would likely cause frustration to the resident. By taking several months to address this, the Ombudsman considers that this would negatively affect the situation and the landlord-tenant relationship.
26. The landlord contacted PCM again in July 2024. It said it was looking to issue permits for the visitor car parks only and queried if the parking spaces could be painted. It met with the estate services officer to see if line painting could be done in-house to reduce the cost. It has since confirmed to the Ombudsman that in June 2025, all spaces were allocated, marked and numbered, except where vehicles were parked on the spaces. While the Service recognises that this has now been done, the landlord first discussed this with the residents in August 2023. It therefore took over 2 years to number the parking bays, which the Ombudsman considers to be unreasonable, as it should have acted more promptly.
27. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has been trying to resolve the parking issues on the resident’s estate for the last few years. However, the situation has been ongoing for longer than we would consider to be reasonable, as the landlord consulted with residents about enforcement options since 2022 and had written to the residents about numbering the parking bays in 2023. We have not seen any evidence to show it was taking other meaningful steps to resolve the parking issues.
28. The landlord has acknowledged that it failed to ensure the allocated spaces were painted, did not update the resident on its progress and it did not write the letter to all residents as it said it would in its stage 2 response. It also has recognised that it should have considered the impact of the situation on the resident and her family. This was an important finding, as it did not consider that her son has weekly visits from community nurses, who often have difficulties with parking on the estate.
29. In the landlord’s letter sent on 11 November 2024, it offered £600 for the time, trouble and inconvenience. As it did not differentiate how much compensation was allocated for each of the complaint issues, we have acted on the assumption that £300 has been provided for the parking issue and £300 for the CCTV issue.
30. Where there are admitted failings by the landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord puts things right and has resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. While it would have been more reasonable if the landlord recognised its failings during its complaints process, the Service is pleased to see that the landlord has taken steps to try and resolve the situation and provided compensation.
31. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides awards of compensation between £100 and £600 where there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord, which adversely affected the resident. In this case, the resident has been impacted as the landlord failed in actioning what it said it would and taking steps to resolve the parking issues. The landlord’s offer of £300 is therefore in line with what the Ombudsman would typically award for the failings identified. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves the complaint.
32. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that parking enforcement has not been established, and it is reviewing if this is still required. While the Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has not received any further complaints about the car parks since they were marked, the issues have been going on for several years, despite being allocated. The resident has said that she continues to have parking issues, and the Ombudsman recognises the likelihood of the issue getting worse in future, if someone new moves into the estate, for example. Therefore, the Ombudsman recommends that the landlord invites all of its residents on the estate to consult on enforcement options and the other issues on the estate, relating to abandoned and commercial vehicles.

CCTV installed by the resident’s neighbour

33. The resident raised the issue relating to the CCTV on 17 January 2024 and then in her formal complaint on 29 January 2024, she stated that her neighbour had installed CCTV cameras at the side of the house, overlooking the road and the resident’s car and at the front the house, overlooking the parking spaces.
34. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not explicitly mention CCTV, however, it states that if residents want to improve, change or add to their homes, they must first get the landlord’s permission. The landlord’s guidance on CCTV states that it has no objection to the use of cameras, as long as it does not breach the tenancy agreement. The guidance says that people have the right to make a complaint about the use of CCTV to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) which could result in enforcement action being taken.
35. In its response to the resident, it referred her to the ICO. The ICO’s guidance states that, where possible, owners should position their cameras to only capture their own property. Where this is not possible, and CCTV captures another property or communal spaces, then data protection laws apply.
36. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord confirmed that it would look into the resident’s concerns and investigate whether her neighbour sought any approval for the installation of the CCTV. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have informed the resident whether or not the neighbour had been given permission to install the camera. It also could have reminded the neighbour and advised the resident of the neighbour’s data protection responsibilities. This would have helped the resident feel listened to and provided assurance that the neighbour was aware of the applicable data protection laws.
37. Although CCTV cameras are allowed under current legislation, we note that the resident is unhappy that the neighbour’s CCTV overlooks the road, the resident’s car and at the front overlooking other parking spaces. Therefore, it is understandable the resident would be concerned about the presence of the cameras, as they record her and her family. She also complained that she felt watched and that she was being listened to. The ICO guidance says that if someone feels harassed, they should consider reporting the problems to the local housing officer, if installed on social housing. It was therefore reasonable that the resident contacted the landlord about the issue, as this is what the guidance says to do.
38. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord inspected the CCTV and found that it was facing towards the neighbour’s drive. The evidence suggests the landlord carried out the inspection prior to its stage 2 complaint response, which was almost 2 months after the resident first raised the issue on 17 January 2024. It is acknowledged that landlords lack the financial and practical resources needed to regularly monitor the positioning of its resident’s CCTV. However, a landlord must take reasonable steps to inspect residents’ use of CCTV in the event of a complaint and that the use of CCTV complies with its policy and procedure when a concern has been raised.
39. The Service considers that once it received the report on 17 January 2024, it should have carried out the inspection and provided assurances to the resident, to show it was taking her concerns seriously. The landlord could have also considered whether the neighbour needed to adjust the angle of the CCTV, to prevent it from capturing the resident and her family. This may have prevented the CCTV issue being raised as a complaint and helped to improve the landlord and tenant relationship.
40. From the information the Ombudsman has received, it is clear the landlord could have done more to address the resident’s concerns. As such, we would determine the landlord to have caused a service failure regarding the CCTV issue. The Service recognises that the landlord has provided an offer of £300 to put things right, which is reasonable compensation. Nevertheless, it needs to take further action to fully resolve the situation. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to confirm for the resident if the camera is permitted and contact the neighbour to establish whether the angle of the camera can be adjusted. If it is not possible to capture just the neighbour’s property, the landlord should advise the neighbour that data protection rules will apply.

Complaint handling

41. The Service’s Complaint Handling Code sets out the requirements for landlords to operate effective complaint handling. The resident raised her formal complaint on 29 January 2024, which the landlord acknowledged on the same day, in line with the Code’s timeframe. In its acknowledgement, it asked the resident to allow it up to 10 working days for the investigation to be completed and the outcome provided. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 9 February 2024, within the 10-working day timeframe. It therefore acted reasonably by adhering to the timescale the resident was told and that is set out in the Code.
42. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 14 February 2024. It subsequently provided its stage 2 response on 11 March 2024, which was 20 working days after it acknowledged the complaint. This was reasonable and in line with the timeframes set out in the Code.
43. The landlord could have offered the resident a better complaint handling experience if it had addressed the resident’s reports about her family’s health issues at an earlier time. In her formal complaint on 29 January 2024, the resident stated that she has long-term health problems, and her son is diagnosed with arthritis and has weekly visits from the community nursing team. As such, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this in its complaint responses, particularly in relation to the parking issues that the resident has been facing. The Ombudsman considers that there was a service failure in not addressing the resident’s needs within the complaint, as it did not consider the larger impact of the situation on the resident.
44. Nevertheless, since the landlord’s complaint responses, the landlord has recognised its failures in the way it handled the resident’s complaint and provided £150 for the complaint handling. It apologised that it failed to acknowledge her family’s health conditions and that it had not considered the personal impact caused by the complaint issues. The Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable, and we are pleased to see it has taken responsibility and apologised. The level of redress offered exceeds the examples given in our remedies guidance.
45. In consideration of the failures by the landlord, its apology and offer of compensation to put things right, we have determined that the landlord made an offer of redress which was satisfactory in resolving the complaint.

Determination

46. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the parking issues.
47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the CCTV issue.
48. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

49. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to demonstrate that it has confirmed to the resident if the neighbour’s CCTV camera is permitted and contact the neighbour to establish whether the angle of the camera can be adjusted. If it is not possible to capture just the neighbour’s property, the landlord should advise the neighbour that data protection rules will apply. This should be provided in a letter to the neighbour and a copy of this should be provided to the Ombudsman.

Recommendation

50. It is recommended that the landlord schedules a meeting with all of the residents in the estate to discuss enforcement options and other issues on the estate, including abandoned and commercial vehicles.
51. The Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the parking issues and its complaint handling. As this is based on the landlord’s previous offer of compensation, we would expect the landlord to honour the £750 previously offered (this includes £300 for the parking issue, £300 for CCTV and £150 for complaint handling). The resident has said she has received this. If this is not the case, the landlord should ensure this is paid.
52. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its process when dealing with complaints, it should ensure it addresses and investigates all complaint issues raised by its residents. It should also ensure that it keeps accurate and clear records of the steps it has taken when dealing with complaints.