The Guinness Partnership Limited (202415282)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202415282

The Guinness Partnership Limited

25 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. Concerns raised over staff conduct.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 8 July 1996. Her property is a 2-bedroom house where she is the sole occupant.
3. The resident requested repairs to her fascias and gutters in December 2023. After inspecting, the landlord’s contractor referred the repair request back to the landlord. The resident raised a complaint on 14 February 2024. She said the following:
   1. She had requested a call back from a repairs manager on multiple occasions about the repair, but he had not called back.
   2. The repairs manager then attended on 8 February 2024 without notice and knocking on door.
4. On 28 February 2024, the landlord sent the stage 1 response to the complaint. It said the following:
   1. It did not respond to a request from the resident for an update on 7 February 2024; however, it attended on 8 February 2024 and took photos from ground level.
   2. It apologised that it did not inform the resident of the visit of 8 February 2024.
   3. If offered £25 for poor communication.
   4. It would contact the resident before 27 March 2024 to arrange an inspection of the gutter.
   5. It reviewed and learned from repair complaints. Its repairs team now had dashboards in place to monitor actions and trends to ensure appropriate visibility and responsibility.
5. The resident escalated the complaint on 5 March 2024, and raised several queries:
   1. She asked why the repairs manager had not returned her calls.
   2. She believed there were holes in the fascias. She stated gutters were not checked as operatives did not have ladders.
   3. She reiterated the repairs manager did not have an appointment and did not have permission to enter her property.
   4. She said she understood the landlord had closed her case despite agreeing works.
   5. She asked why the landlord had raised repairs for the front but not the back. She noted the repairs manager would not have had access to the back garden.
   6. She asked why the repairs manager did not sign the calling card or knock on the door.
6. The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 4 April 2024. It found the following:
   1. It noted that it had called the resident twice on 18 March 2024 and left a voicemail. It accepted the resident advised it on 19 March 2024 that she did not want it to leave voicemails, but that it left another one.
   2. It explained that some calls may be from a private number as repairs managers were often onsite and calling from a mobile number.
   3. It apologised again that the repairs manager did not arrange in advance the visit of 8 February 2024.
   4. The repair records did not show that it had cancelled repairs to the gutters and fascias. The contact history did not show that it had informed her of cancelled repairs. It asked the resident if she had further information.
   5. It noted operatives completed repairs on 19 March 2024.
   6. It said it sent the stage 1 response within the 10-working day timeframe and addressed every point. However, it would offer a further £25 for the poor communication of repairs team.
7. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 16 August 2024. She advised she wanted the landlord’s failings independently reviewed and an assurance it would follow procedures.

Assessment and findings

Staff Conduct

8. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms the landlord’s statutory obligations. It states “We must maintain the outside and the structure of your home. This includes:
   1. the roof.
   2. drains, gutters and external pipes.
9. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident requested an inspection of the gutters and fascias as she thought they may need repairs. It inspected on 9 January 2024 and according to its records assessed the soffits were in good condition, therefore no works were required. However, the operatives took pictures and sent them to a repairs manager for instructions.
10. The landlord has not provided any pictures sent from the inspection of 9 January 2024. The resident has also stated that she made several calls to the repairs manager which were unanswered; however, the landlord has not provided details of any phone calls made at this time. This indicates there was a shortcoming in its record keeping, in particular collating all information related to this repair.
11. The repairs manager attended the resident’s property on 8 February 2024 without having made an appointment, as he was in the area. His report confirms he took photos of the soffit grills from ground level at the front of the property. The Repairs Policy states “We will seek to offer the customer reasonable choice in making a repairs appointment…” The landlord did not follow the policy as it did not seek to make an appointment before the visit. This was particularly unreasonable as the resident, as accepted in the stage 1 response, had phoned for an update on 7 February 2024. Therefore, the landlord was required, in any event, to phone her within 2 days, in line with its Service Standards. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered notifying the resident of the visit by phone and text.
12. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them. In the stage 1 response, the landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused, accepted it should have arranged an appointment, and offered £25 for poor communication. It thereby provided redress for the failings in its handling of the visit of 8 February 2024.
13. The repairs manager’s report contains a photograph of him leaving a calling card. This was appropriate as a calling card notifies the resident a landlord has visited, and that it may be necessary to arrange a further visit. The resident has advised the Ombudsman she did not receive a calling card. In the absence of decisive evidence, the Ombudsman cannot definitely conclude that the landlord did not leave the calling card; in fact, we note that the resident complained at stage 2 that the calling card was not signed. The resident when escalating her complaint stated the repairs manager did not knock when he was at her property. Again, the Ombudsman cannot definitely conclude that the landlord did not knock.
14. In the stage 1 response, the landlord advised it would phone the resident before 27 March 2024 to arrange an inspection of the gutter. The landlord’s records show that the repairs manager phoned on 18 March 2024, in line with the promised action and left a message. The resident called the following day to say she did not want voicemails left, and staff should phone again. The repairs manager called twice that day, which was in line with the resident’s request. However, he left a message on the first call. The resident called again on the same day to complain that the repairs manager had called from a private number and had left a voicemail. She noted she had rearranged the repair through operatives and customer service staff.
15. The times of the landlord’s case notes indicates that the repairs manager may have left a voicemail on 19 March 2024 before his colleague had the opportunity to advise him not to. Nonetheless, in the stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the “further frustration” caused by this voicemail. It also explained that some calls from repairs managers may come from a private number as they were often on site as part of their role. Therefore, they would call from their mobile but did not show the number to avoid communication errors. The landlord offered further compensation of £25. The landlord also confirmed it had added an alert to the resident’s file that staff were not to leave voicemails. This was in line with the resident’s wishes with the intention to prevent further inconvenience to her. Through apologising, explaining its practice when calling, taking action to prevent further inconvenience, and offering compensation, the landlord offered reasonable redress that was proportionate to the shortcomings in its service, in this instance.
16. Learning from outcomes is a dispute resolution principle of the Ombudsman. The landlord in its complaint responses noted “Learning and Changes” made. It stated it had provided feedback the repairs manager to return customer’s calls as requested its Service Level Agreement and agree scheduled appointments in advance. It stated it had set up a repairs and complaints team core working group to review complaints about repairs and identify improvements. The landlord advised its repairs team now had a dashboard to monitor actions and trends. It further said it had shared the findings of complaints with relevant managers. As a result, we have not recommended a case review or a policy or practice review.
17. In summary, the resident raised concerns about the action of a staff member in relation to an unannounced appointment and handling of subsequent phone calls. While there were shortcomings in the landlord’s service, it expressed regret and offered redress that satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint Handling.

18. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At stage 1, it will acknowledge the complaint within 5 days. It should send a written response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. At stage 2, it should acknowledge the complaint escalation within 5 days and provide the written response within 20 working days of acknowledging the complaint.
19. The landlord sent the stage 1 response within 10 working days, meeting the time scale in the complaints procedure. The landlord also met its timeframe for responding to stage 2 complaints, taking into account the Easter break.
20. However, the landlord’s complaint procedure recognises that complaint issues include, “Failure to answer reasonable questions or giving misleading or unsuitable advice”. In this case, the resident enquired why the repairs manager did not return many calls that she said she had made. The landlord noted that the repairs manager did not return a call made on 7 February 2024 but did not address whether the resident had made other calls.
21. When escalating her complaint, the resident raised queries about the repairs, in particular whether the landlord had identified all necessary repairs to the fascia and gutters. She asked whether the landlord had inspected the rear of her property and identified works there. The landlord’s records show it repaired a soffit grille at the front of the property on 14 March 2024. It returned on 9 April 2024 to install soffit grilles at the rear. It also unblocked a gutter on 19 March 2024 as it was leaking. While the landlord noted it had completed works, it was still required to respond to the resident’s complaint about the handling of the works. It did not explicitly do so, which was not in line with complaints procedure. It also did not address the resident’s concern that the calling card was not signed.
22. In summary, there were aspects of the resident’s complaint that the landlord did not answer. In particular, she raised concerns about several phone calls not being answered and the identification of works. For this reason, we find that there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. We order that the landlord pay the resident £50 compensation. In making this award, we have considered the financial redress table within our Remedies Guidance. In particular, we have considered the level of redress for cases of service failure where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves her complaint about staff conduct satisfactorily.
24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Order

25. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £50 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its complaint handling.

Recommendation

26. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £50 it offered within the complaints procedure for the poor communication of its repairs team if it has not already done so.