The Guinness Partnership Limited (202408642)

Decision
Case ID	202408642
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 April 2026

Background

The property is a 1-bedroom house. The landlord has it recorded that the resident has mental health issues and autism. From at least 2023 the resident has reported problems with neighbours, including noise nuisance, verbal abuse, aggressive behaviour and harassment. In response, the landlord has spoken with neighbours, issued warnings, liaised with partner agencies and approved a management move for the resident. In July 2024 the resident reported his next door neighbour verbally abused him and removed decorative stones and underlay from his side of the front garden without his permission.
In August 2024 the resident asked the landlord if some nearby parking spaces were allocated to specific properties as a neighbour had told him they were. The landlord replied that the spaces were not allocated to any specific properties and were for communal use.

What the complaint is about

The landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s enquiries about parking spaces.
2. Handling of the resident’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) reports.
3. Handling of the associated formal complaints.

Our decision (determination)

The landlord offered reasonable redress for its response to the resident’s enquiries about parking spaces.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. ASB reports.
2. Associated formal complaints.
We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

In its response to the resident’s enquiries about parking spaces, the landlord acknowledged that misinformation had been given and the impact this had on him. It apologised and offered proportionate compensation, in line with its policy.
The landlord took some reasonable actions in response to the resident’s ASB reports. However, it did not fully comply with its ASB policy and there were communication failures. It acknowledged failure and offered redress, but this was not quite proportionate given the failures and impact on the resident.
There were delays in the landlord’s handling of 3 of the resident’s 4 complaints. It failed to respond to a specific concern raised in his third complaint. It identified failure and offered redress, but this was not quite enough considering the failures, and not all of this was offered prior to our intervention.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 May 2026
2	Management move The landlord must confirm in writing details of the management move, including when this was agreed, what areas the resident is registered for, how it identifies properties and any estimated timescale it can give.	No later than 26 May 2026
3	Garden works The landlord must clear and tidy the area in the resident’s garden where the stones were removed by the neighbour. The landlord is only required to complete clearance works in this area and is not required to install anything new in this area.	No later than 09 June 2026
4	Staff member The landlord must consider the resident’s request for his case to be dealt with by a new member of staff, not previously involved, and tell him in writing if it can accommodate this.	No later than 26 May 2026
5	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures, as follows: £400 for its handling of his ASB reports (inclusive of the £300 already offered). £250 for its handling of his complaints (inclusive of the £200 already offered). The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 26 May 2026
6	ASB case The landlord must contact the resident, via his representative, to agree an action plan to address his concerns and complete a risk assessment. It must confirm this in writing, with timescales and a future contact arrangement.	No later than 26 May 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendation
The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation offered for its response to his enquiries about parking spaces, if not done so.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
First complaint
6 March 2024	The resident complained that the landlord was not supporting him regarding ASB by neighbours. He felt staff were biased. He said he had asked not to be contacted by a specific member of staff but had been ignored. He asked the landlord to take action so the neighbours would leave him alone.
25 March 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response said it had taken appropriate action in response to the resident’s ASB reports. It upheld the complaint as it had not completed a risk assessment or set up a contact arrangement with him. It apologised and offered £50 compensation.
15 April 2024	The resident said the landlord was not helping him regarding the ASB and he had no support. The landlord treated this as a request to escalate the complaint.
17 May 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response partially upheld the complaint because of the failures identified at stage 1 and additional communication failures. It apologised and offered increased compensation of £100. It said there was no evidence of unacceptable behaviour by staff. It advised it was not always possible to reassign cases to other staff members, and it was not reasonable to do so when there was no evidence of inappropriate behaviour.
28 November 2024	The landlord apologised to the resident and offered an additional £50 compensation for complaint–handling failures.
Second complaint
9 July 2024	The resident complained again about the landlord’s handling of his ASB reports. He felt it had not properly investigated and believed it had given a neighbour permission to record his property.
18 July 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response did not uphold the complaint. It said there had been no failures in its handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
19 July 2024	The resident escalated the complaint as he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response.
21 August 2024	The landlord’s stage 2 response did not uphold the complaint. It said there had been no failures in its handling of the ASB reports. It identified a delay in its handling of the complaint, apologised and offered £50 compensation.
Third complaint
20 September 2024	The resident complained about the landlord’s decision to give permission to a neighbour to remove stones from his garden in July 2024. He said staff were unprofessional and he felt unsupported.
18 November 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response said the complaint was not upheld as there was no evidence of any failures in its handling of his ASB reports. It identified complaint handling failures, apologised and offered £100 compensation.
8 April 2025	The resident escalated the complaint as he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response.
19 May 2025	The landlord’s stage 2 response partially upheld the complaint as there had been communication failures and it had not taken sufficient action in response to the resident’s reports between August and November 2024. It confirmed the ASB case had been reassigned on 13 November 2024, and since then it had handled the case appropriately. It apologised and offered increased compensation of £250 (£150 for its handling of the ASB reports and £100 for complaint handling).
Fourth complaint
16 June 2025	The resident said he had previously been told some parking spaces were for communal use, but had now been told they were allocated to specific properties. He felt the landlord was lying.
7 July 2025	The landlord’s stage 1 response partially upheld the complaint as it had given inconsistent information. It had checked with its legal team in August 2024, and concluded the spaces were communal and not allocated to any specific property. It had recently reviewed this, including the title plan, and identified the parking spaces were allocated to specific neighbouring properties. This meant they were not communal. It apologised and offered £50 compensation. The resident escalated the complaint as he was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response.
16 August 2025	The landlord’s stage 2 response reiterated the stage 1 outcome.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident is reporting ongoing concerns with neighbours, including that their CCTV cameras are overlooking his property. He says this is affecting his health. He has asked for an apology, compensation and an action plan to resolve the ASB and move him.

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	Response to the resident’s enquiries about parking spaces
Finding	Reasonable redress

When the resident enquired about the allocation of the parking spaces in August 2024, the landlord consulted with its legal team and gave feedback to the resident. This was appropriate. On review of the matter in June 2025, the landlord identified that the spaces were not communal as they were allocated to specific properties. It informed the resident and said this meant he could no longer store his bins in the spaces.
Land ownership enquiries can be complex. They require review of title plans and tenancy agreements. These documents are not always explicitly clear. Considering this, it is understandable that mistakes can be made. That happened in this case and resulted in the resident being given incorrect information in August 2024. When the landlord gave the correct information in June 2025, this caused confusion for the resident and left him believing that the landlord was lying.
The landlord acknowledged its mistake and the impact of this on the resident as part of its response to his fourth complaint. It explained why this had happened and provided a copy of the title plan as evidence. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay up to £250 for failures that result in minor inconvenience. Considering the impact on the resident, the compensation amount was appropriate. Therefore, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We recommend it pays the resident the £50 already offered, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Complaint	Handling of the resident’s ASB reports
Finding	Service failure

The resident complained to the landlord about its handling of his ASB reports in May 2023. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 13 June 2023, but the complaint was not escalated or responded to at stage 2. We can only investigate matters that have been assessed as part of the landlord’s 2-stage process. As this complaint did not complete that process, the period covered is outside the scope of our investigation. We have assessed the landlord’s handling of the ASB reports from 14 June 2023 onwards.
The landlord’s ASB policy defines ASB as conduct that has caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. Considering the behaviour reported by the resident, it is reasonable that the landlord treated his reports as ASB and managed them in line with its ASB policy. The resident has reported various behaviours by multiple neighbours, some of which may not meet the threshold to be defined as ASB. However, for consistency, it is reasonable that the landlord has dealt with all his reports in the same way.
The landlord’s ASB policy says there are a variety of actions it may take to resolve ASB. Sometimes a single action may be taken, and sometimes a number of actions and/or other measures may be taken. In this case, the landlord spoke with and visited neighbours to discuss the resident’s concerns, issued informal and formal warnings and gave practical advice to resolve some of the issues. These were appropriate actions.
The landlord’s ASB policy says, where appropriate to do so, it will use mediation to try to resolve ASB cases before they escalate. In 2023 the resident and next door neighbour were both reporting concerns about the other party, including about bin placement, boundary concerns and CCTV usage. Considering this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to suggest mediation.
We have seen no evidence the landlord suggested mediation to the resident. This was not in line with its ASB policy and was a potential missed opportunity to resolve things at an earlier stage. As the ASB has escalated since then and now includes allegations of violent and threatening behaviour, it would no longer be appropriate to suggest this.
The landlord could also have considered implementing an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) or a good neighbour agreement. In October 2024 the landlord noted it had agreed to do an ABC, but there is no evidence it did. This was another missed opportunity for it to resolve things sooner. It subsequently acknowledged in its response to the third complaint that there was a period where it should have done more in response to the resident’s ASB reports. Had it done so, it may have prevented the situation from escalating as it has.
The landlord progressed 2 management move applications for the resident. This was appropriate considering the circumstances of the case and the impact on him. The first was approved in July 2023 but closed in March 2024 at the resident’s request. As the resident had asked for this to be closed, it was reasonable that the landlord did so. The second application was approved in November 2025 and a move remains outstanding.
The resident has raised concerns about the length of time taken to move him. We acknowledge this is frustrating. However, the demand for social housing far outweighs the supply, and any delay is outside the landlord’s control. The landlord is reliant on a suitable property being available and also has to consider other applicants that may have the same or greater priority than the resident.
The resident has asked for a timescale in which he will be moved. It is reasonable that the landlord may not be able to provide this as it does not know when a suitable property will become available. It would be unfair for the landlord to give a timescale and then subsequently not meet it, as this would leave the resident disappointed.
While the landlord may not be able to give a timescale, it should confirm details of the management move in writing and provide as much information about this as possible. We have not seen evidence that it has done so. Therefore, we order it to confirm in writing details of the management move, including when this was agreed, what areas the resident is registered for, how it identifies properties and any estimated timescale it can give.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it may work in partnership with other agencies, including the police, to tackle ASB. In this case, the landlord worked with the police by sharing information, holding meetings and completing joint visits. This was appropriate considering the nature of the ASB reported. It also liaised with support services, which was appropriate given the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord’s ASB policy says when it receives a report of ASB, it will carry out a risk assessment to assess the impact on the individual and whether they are vulnerable and have any support needs. The landlord acknowledged in its response to the first complaint that it had not complied with this as no risk assessment had been done. This is particularly concerning as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and should have completed an assessment to identify any additional support needed. Its failure to do so left the resident feeling unsupported.
In an internal email in March 2024 the landlord said it would complete a risk assessment. We have seen evidence of completed assessments but these are undated and it is not clear if they are for the resident or the neighbour. Landlords should review risk assessments and update them when ASB cases progress or escalate. This is to ensure the required support is in place. Due to the incomplete records we cannot assess whether the landlord completed adequate risk assessments.
The landlord has considered and implemented support for the resident. In September 2023, March 2024 and February 2025 it liaised with support agencies. It referred him for support in August 2024 and signposted him to another agency the following month. It also made a safeguarding referral in September 2025. These actions were in line with its ASB policy which says the landlord may make referrals to appropriate support agencies. The landlord has also engaged with a representative on behalf of the resident. These actions show it is trying to support the resident and considering his individual needs.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will keep residents informed about the progress of their case at regular intervals. Since June 2023 there has been regular contact between the landlord and the resident, both reactive and proactive, which is positive. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will agree the frequency of updates with the resident. In its response to the first complaint the landlord acknowledged it had not done this. Despite this, there is no evidence it subsequently agreed a contact arrangement with him. This was not in line with its ASB policy and left the resident uncertain on when he would be contacted. This resulted in some instances of him chasing for contact, which was frustrating for him.
In early July 2024 the resident reported that a neighbour damaged his front garden, verbally abused and threatened him, making him feel unsafe. The landlord’s ASB policy says it will acknowledge new ASB reports within 2 working days, but may respond more quickly where it considers the person is at high risk of harm. On this occasion, the landlord replied by email the following day advising him to report the incident to the Police. While appropriate, it did not attempt personal contact to discuss the report until 4 working days later. This was over the committed timescale set out in its ASB policy and too long considering the nature of the report and that the resident said he felt unsafe.
In early July 2024 the resident reported that his next door neighbour removed decorative stones and underlay from an area in his front garden which shared a boundary with the neighbour. The landlord subsequently said it gave the neighbour permission to do this as they had bought and laid the stones before the resident moved in, meaning they belonged to the neighbour.
As the stones belonged to the neighbour, it was reasonable that they could remove them. However, as these were in the resident’s front garden, the landlord should have told him in advance what was going to happen and when. Particularly as there was an ongoing dispute between the parties, as a way to avoid escalation of this. The landlord did not tell the resident in advance about this and when the neighbour removed the stones with no warning, this caused him distress and upset.
The resident has said the front garden was left in a mess and has asked the landlord if it would clear the area, but it declined. The landlord is not obligated to do this. However, we have identified failings in this report, and it is necessary for the landlord to take steps to put things right for the resident. As a remedy to this complaint, we therefore order it to clear and tidy the area where the stones were removed by the neighbour. The landlord is only required to complete clearance works in this area of the garden and is not required to install anything new in this area.
The resident has raised concerns about neighbours’ CCTV cameras overlooking his property and monitoring his movements. He feels this is a form of harassment. The landlord has investigated his concerns by speaking to the neighbour, giving advice and checking the position of the cameras. These were reasonable actions to take and show it has taken the resident’s concerns seriously. The landlord has told him it has no concerns about the position of the cameras and advised him to report any ongoing concerns to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
The landlord is not the governing body on CCTV or data protection. Therefore, it is not its position to sanction the neighbour regarding the position or use of CCTV. The landlord has taken appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and fed back to him. We acknowledge the position of the neighbour’s cameras is upsetting for the resident. However, the landlord’s response to this was reasonable.
The resident has raised concerns about staff conduct. We will not investigate the actual reports, as this is for the landlord to do. Instead, we have considered whether the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns. In May 2024 the landlord confirmed it had investigated his reports and said there was no evidence of inappropriate behaviour.
The landlord said it was not always possible to reassign cases due to resourcing, and that this was not reasonable when there was no evidence of inappropriate behaviour. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable. Shortly after this, the landlord did assign a new member of staff to deal with the resident’s reports. This showed it had taken his concerns seriously and was being flexible in its approach.
The resident raised concerns about the conduct of a staff member during a call in July 2025. He said they were rude and shouted at him. In response, the landlord tried calling the resident to discuss his concerns, which was appropriate. It told him it could not investigate this because there was no recording of the call. Reviewing the call recording would be the best way to investigate this. However, it could also have spoken to the staff member involved for their comments and given feedback on this. There is no evidence it did and this left the resident feeling it had not taken his concerns seriously.
The resident has said he wants a new member of staff, not previously involved, to deal with his case. As there has been no evidence of inappropriate behaviour by staff, it is reasonable that the landlord may not be able to accommodate this request. We will not order the landlord to assign this matter to a new member of staff as the landlord is best placed to decide how cases are dealt with considering its resources. Therefore, we order the landlord to consider the resident’s request for his case to be dealt with by a new member of staff, not previously involved, and tell him in writing if it can accommodate this.
The landlord has acknowledged failure in its handling of this matter, apologised, offered a total of £300 compensation and identified learning. This is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay between £250 and £700 where failures caused moderate inconvenience and had a noticeable impact on the resident.
The resident has said his health has been negatively affected by this matter. We will not consider any impact on health as part of our investigations as this must be assessed via a personal injury insurance claim. The resident can make a claim via the landlord’s insurer if he wishes to pursue this.
We recognise the resident has said this matter has had a significant impact on him. The landlord is not at fault simply because the ASB occurred and so is not responsible for the impact of the neighbour’s behaviour on the resident. However, the landlord is responsible, and must offer redress, for the impact of its failures in handling his reports of the behaviour. While there have been failures, these are not significant, so it was appropriate that the landlord offered compensation for moderate inconvenience.
Considering the failures identified and the impact on the resident, the compensation offered is not quite sufficient. Therefore, a finding of service failure is appropriate. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £400 compensation, inclusive of the £300 already offered. This financial remedy should be considered alongside the other remedies ordered in relation to this complaint point.
The resident is reporting ongoing problems with neighbours and that he feels unsafe in the property. We therefore order the landlord to contact him, via his representative, to agree an action plan to address his concerns and complete a risk assessment. It must confirm this in writing, with timescales and a future contact arrangement.

Complaint	The handling of the complaints
Finding	Service failure

At the time of the first complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said it would acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days and respond within 10 working days. It would respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the escalation request.
The landlord acknowledged the first complaint on 8 March 2024, 2 working days after it was made. This was in line with the policy committed timescale. It responded 11 working days later. As this was only 1 working day over the committed timescale, this minor delay was not a failure.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response to the second complaint in 23 working days, slightly over the committed timescale. It did not extend the response deadline during the period of delay, as committed in its policy. This was a failure, but as the delay was short, it was minor.
The landlord did not acknowledge this or offer redress as part of the stage 2 response, but did later, in November 2024. It apologised and offered £50 compensation, which was in line with its compensation policy for failures that resulted in minor inconvenience. While positive, this was only after notification of our investigation.
The landlord’s complaints policy was updated in April 2024. This says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and within 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the second stage 1 complaint on 17 July 2024, 6 working days after it was made. This was 1 working day over the committed timescale, which was a minor delay and not a failure. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 1 working day, in line with the policy committed timescale.
The landlord acknowledged the second stage 2 complaint on 29 July 2024, 9 working days after it was escalated. This was over the 5 working day committed timescale. As the delay was short, this was a minor failure. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 17 working days, in line with the policy timescale. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the complaint, apologised and offered £50 compensation at stage 2. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy for failures that resulted in minor inconvenience.
The landlord acknowledged the third stage 1 complaint on 4 November 2024, 31 working days after the complaint was raised. This was significantly over the 5 working day committed timescale. It sent the stage 1 response in 10 working days, in line with the policy committed timescale. The landlord acknowledged the third stage 2 complaint on 23 April 2025, 9 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was over the 5 working day committed timescale. It sent the response in 17 working days, in line with the 20 working day committed timescale. The landlord offered £100 compensation for the failures in its handling of this complaint. Considering the extent of the delays, this was reasonable.
The landlord acknowledged the fourth stage 1 complaint on 23 June 2025, 5 working days after the complaint was made. It sent the response 10 working days later. Both were in line with the policy committed timescales. The landlord acknowledged the fourth stage 2 complaint on 15 July 2025, 6 working days after the complaint was escalated. As this was only 1 working day over the committed timescale, this minor delay was not a failure. The landlord sent the fourth stage 2 response in 23 working days, slightly over the 20 working day committed timescale.
The landlord’s complaints policy says it may extend the timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints but this will not exceed a further 20 working days without good reason. It will explain to the resident and tell them the expected timescale for the response to be sent. The landlord told the resident on 11 August 2025 that it needed to extend the stage 2 response deadline by 20 working days. It subsequently met the extended deadline. The landlord acted in line with its complaints policy. Therefore, this was not a failure.
The landlord’s responses to the first, second and fourth complaints were detailed and addressed the resident’s concerns. However, the stage 1 response to the third complaint did not. It said it had asked the resident on 2 occasions for details of his concerns and why he felt unsupported. This was unnecessary as the resident had set out his concerns in his original complaint.
The landlord said in the third stage 1 response that it would investigate matters from 21 August 2024, as this was the date it had last responded to a complaint. It said it would not reinvestigate matters already investigated. We acknowledge the resident raised concerns about an incident that had happened in July 2024. However, the landlord had not investigated or responded to the specific concerns about this incident in previous complaints. Therefore, it should have considered these and responded to them.
In the stage 2 response to the third complaint the landlord assessed its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. However, it still did not address his specific concerns about the incident in July 2024. The landlord’s failure to address and respond to this point was disappointing for the resident as he had told the landlord the incident caused him upset and distress.
The landlord identified failure in its handling of the complaints, apologised and offered a total of £200. Considering the failures identified, this was not quite sufficient and some of this was only offered after our intervention. This means the landlord did not, on its own initiative, put things right for the resident. Considering this, a finding of service failure is appropriate.
We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £250 compensation, made up of the £100 already offered for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the first and second complaints and £150 for its handling of the third complaint (inclusive of the £100 already offered).

Learning

Where the landlord makes a mistake, it should correct this, apologise and offer appropriate redress, as it did in this case.
Where appropriate, the landlord should offer mediation at the earliest opportunity in ASB cases. It should also consider other non-legal options to resolve issues, including ABCs and good neighbour agreements.
The landlord should complete a risk assessment when it receives a report of ASB as per the commitment in its ASB policy. It should review these throughout the case, particularly if there are new incidents or the matter escalates. The landlord should implement appropriate support, including referrals and signposting, as it did in this case.
The landlord should work with partner agencies, as it did in this case.
The landlord should assess its complaint handling as part of its internal process. Where there have been failures, it should acknowledge these and offer appropriate redress in line with its compensation policy. The landlord should address and respond to individual concerns raised by the resident as part of the complaint.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s records of ASB risk assessments do not contain the date or details of the resident. This impacted our ability to fully investigate this issue. We encourage the landlord to review how it records these assessments so it is clear when they have been completed and who they are for, so it can confirm compliance with its policy in respect of completing these. No other record keeping concerns were identified in this investigation.

Communication

The landlord should be in regular contact with residents about their ASB case. This should be both reactive and proactive, as it was in this case. The landlord should respond to new reports in line with the committed timescale set out in its ASB policy, particularly where there is a high risk of harm.
The landlord should agree a contact arrangement with the resident when an ASB case is opened. It should adhere to this so residents are reassured and know when they will be contacted to avoid them chasing for updates.