The Guinness Partnership Limited (202436798)

Background

1. The resident lived at the property, a 2-bedroom ground floor flat, between November 2022 and May 2025. She has young children, including a newborn at the time she made the complaint. She moved out to rent privately in May 2025 because she had concerns about damp and mould in her flat.

What the complaint is about

2. The resident’s complaint is about how the landlord dealt with reports of leaks at the property and the damage caused.
3. We have also considered how the landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found there was maladministration by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s reports of leaks at the property and the damage caused.
5. We have found there was reasonable redress by the landlord in how it dealt with the resident’s complaint.
6. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

7. The £200 compensation and apology offered by the landlord at stage 1 was reasonable. However, when there was a second leak, the resident was without hot water for 20 days. The compensation offered at stage 2 was not sufficient given the inconvenience caused to the resident, who had a newborn child.
8. There were short delays at both stages of the complaints process. However, the apologies and compensation offered were reasonable redress in the circumstances.

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.

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.

What we have not investigated

9. The resident told us she believed the damp in her flat made her children ill. Although we can consider whether the landlord acted reasonably, in this case we cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions caused ill health. This is because we do not have the expertise to assess this and these are legal aspects better suited to an insurance claim or court. While we are an alternative to the courts, we are unable to prove legal liability or whether the landlord was responsible. However, we will consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
10. The resident also told us she wanted to move. We have seen the resident had told the landlord she wanted to move. However, this was not part of the complaint the landlord responded to in October 2024. Because of this, we will not investigate how the landlord dealt with this request, as it did not go through the landlord’s complaints process. The resident has the option of making a further complaint about the landlord’s response to her request for a move, which she may then refer to us for separate investigation if she is unhappy with its final response.

What we have investigated

11. The landlord has a responsibility under the occupancy agreement to repair and keep in good working order the equipment to provide hot water.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will deal with emergency repairs that pose an immediate health and safety risk within 24 hours. It says it will either complete the repair or make a temporary repair. When it makes a temporary repair, it will return within a “reasonable time” to finish the work. The policy says routine repairs are those that are not emergencies. It will fix these within 28 calendar days.
13. The resident said she reported a leak at midnight on 20 July 2024. She was concerned about water getting into a fuse box. The landlord dealt with the report as an emergency and, in line with its policy, an electrician attended at 4am on 21 July 2024.
14. In her complaint on 22 July 2024, the resident said the electrician told her a plumber would attend within 24 hours. She said she waited all day, then called the landlord at 5:18pm on 21 July 2024 and told it the leak was getting worse. She said at 6:15pm on 21 July 2024, the landlord told her a contractor needed to do the repair, and it would be another 24 hours before the contractor could attend. She said she had no further contact, so she contacted the contractor at 11:04am on 22 July 2024. She said it told her it had not received a referral. She said her flat smelt of damp and her carpet was damaged.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response on 16 August 2024, the landlord said it found the leak was coming from a flat above on 24 July 2024. It said as it was a privately owned flat, it could not get access. It said the owner’s plumber found the leak was coming from a third flat, which was also privately owned. It confirmed the relevant neighbour’s plumber fixed the leak on 29 July 2024.
16. The landlord also said it provided a dehumidifier to the resident on 30 July 2024 and inspected the damage caused on 2 August 2024. It found it needed to replace skirting boards and clean the carpet. It said it replaced some skirting on 9 August 2024 and completed the work on 15 August 2024. It accepted there had been poor communication and apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused. It offered £50 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £50 for its poor communication. It said it would inspect the carpet for mould within 10 working days.
17. On 22 August 2024 the resident contacted the landlord about its complaint response. She said the landlord’s version of events was wrong on times and what she was told by the landlord and contractor. She said she had to chase the landlord and had to find out when her neighbour was available. She said she had to arrange a second appointment because the contractor did not complete the repairs at the first appointment. She said she was not satisfied with how it had cleaned the carpet and was concerned that mould would grow. She said the compensation was not enough for the stress, poor communication, her time, and the cost of electricity for the dehumidifier. On 9 September 2024 the landlord increased its offer of compensation by £100 to £200.
18. Although we cannot confirm the conversations the resident set out in her complaint, we have seen the landlord did not dispute what the resident said. The landlord was also aware that the resident was heavily pregnant. Because of this, we have found failings in its communications with the resident and contractor when dealing with the leak and the follow–up repairs. This caused the resident inconvenience and frustration.
19. However, we have seen that the landlord apologised and offered £200 compensation for the delay in repairing the leak between 20 and 29 July 2024. In mitigation, the landlord responded quickly to the first report of a leak and the leak was in a privately owned flat. This meant the landlord could not repair the leak itself. Because of this, it is our view that the apology and compensation were reasonable at this time.
20. On 19 September 2024 the resident reported a new leak. The landlord attended the same day and asked its contractor to do a repair. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 September 2024. She said the compensation was not enough and she was concerned about the effect the damp might have on her children, including a newborn.
21. The resident told the landlord on 19 October 2024 she was unhappy with how it had dealt with the second leak. She said after her report on 19 September 2024, the landlord visited the same day and told her that she needed to contact the contractor. She said the contractor told her it would attend by 6pm on 20 September 2024. She said when it arrived at 7:30pm, it turned off the hot water and told her it needed a part, which it would have by 23 or 24 September 2024.
22. The resident said she called the contractor on 23 September 2024, and it told her it would not have the part until 30 September 2024. It booked an appointment for the morning of that day, but it did not arrive until 3:30pm, when she was at a medical appointment with her baby. The resident arranged an appointment for 1 October 2024, but when the contractor arrived, it found it had ordered the wrong part. She said when the contractor fitted the part on 4 October 2024, it found another leak and had to order a further part. She said because of this she had no hot water for 20 days and could not wash her children.
23. In its final response, the landlord accepted it ordered the wrong part. It said it did the repair on 9 October 2024 and “although this was within [its] specified 28-day timescale”, it accepted the situation caused distress. It apologised and increased the compensation to £150 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, £50 for electricity costs, and £50 for poor communication. It said it would inspect the carpet within 20 working days. After further contact from the resident, it increased the compensation by £75, making it £325. The landlord asked the resident to provide evidence of higher electricity bills.
24. Overall, we have found that the £200 compensation and apology offered at stage 1 was reasonable. In the absence of evidence of increased bills, it was also reasonable to offer £50 compensation for electricity use at stage 2. However, the resident, who had a baby and young child, had no hot water for 20 days. She told us in November 2025 that she only had a kettle to boil water and had to drive to a relative’s home to wash her children. It is our view that the landlord’s failures on the second leak caused the resident significant inconvenience.
25. In its final response, the landlord said it did the repair within its 28-day target timeframe. In its repairs policy, the landlord says when it makes a temporary repair, it will return within a “reasonable time” to complete it. In this case, we do not accept that 20 days (almost 3 weeks) was a reasonable response time in the circumstances of a parent with a newborn child. In addition, although the landlord was aware of the resident’s circumstances, we have seen no evidence that it considered an alternative source of hot water. It is our view that these failings amounted to maladministration.
26. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will pay up to £600 compensation when there is a failure that adversely affects the resident. Although the issue did not take a long time to resolve, the lack of hot water had a significant adverse impact on the resident and her family. Because of this the landlord must pay the resident £750 compensation as follows:
    1. £600 for time, trouble, and inconvenience, inclusive of the £225 already offered
    2. £100 for poor communication while dealing with both leaks, inclusive of the £50 already offered.
    3. £50 for electricity costs that it already offered.

27. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days, and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
28. The resident complained on 22 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint after 7 working days on 31 July 2024 and said it would respond by 14 August 2024. It responded on 16 August 2024 and apologised for the delay. It offered £50 compensation, which in our view was reasonable for the short (2-day) delays in acknowledging and responding to the complaint.
29. After the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 20 September 2024, it told her it would escalate the complaint on 23 September 2024. However, it did not send an acknowledgement until 14 October 2024. It sent its final response on 29 October 2024, which was 27 working days after it said it would escalate the complaint.
30. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the delay and increased the offer of compensation for complaint handling failures to £75. It is our view that there were similar delays at both stages of the complaints process, and the apologies and compensation offered were reasonable redress.

Learning

Communication

31. We have found there were failures in communication between the landlord and its contractor that led to delays.