The Guinness Partnership Limited (202445258)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202445258

The Guinness Partnership Limited

29 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding service charge costs.
2. Handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR).
3. Handling of the resident’s reports its staff recorded a visit in her home.
4. Response to the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs.
5. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom basement flat in a converted Victorian house. She has lived at the property since February 2017. The landlord is aware of the resident’s household health vulnerabilities.
The landlord completed a merger in March 2025.
On 10 September 2024 the resident complained about multiple repairs she said remained outstanding. Her complaint included a query regarding the reasonableness of a service charge. The resident also submitted a SAR for information the landlord held about the property’s repair history. She considers the landlord’s “refusal” to complete repairs as harassment.
After discussing matters with the resident, the landlord acknowledged her complaint on 17 September 2024. And sent its stage 1 response on 7 October 2024. It summarised its findings, apologised for identified failings, and offered the resident a total of £575 compensation. This was £25 for an identified complaint handling failure. £300 for identified repair delays. £100 for time, trouble, and inconvenience. And a further £150 made as a gesture of goodwill.
On 6 January 2025 the resident escalated her complaint. She raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her SAR request. She also disputed the landlord’s position regarding alleged video recording in her home, a service charge, and multiple remedial repairs.
The landlord communicated with the resident prior to her escalation request. It sought to understand her complaint and dissatisfaction. The landlord acknowledged her stage 2 request on 9 January 2025. And sent its stage 2 response on 7 February 2025. The landlord remained satisfied with its stage 1 investigation and the accuracy of its response. However, it increased its compensation offer by £150 due to delays to complete repairs. This took its total compensation offer to £725.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and brought the complaint to us. The resident disputed the landlord’s position on the outcome of repairs. The resident did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation. And she says it had lied about repairs, and discriminated against her based on her vulnerabilities, race, and ethnicity.
In contact with us in August 2025, the landlord did not dispute some repairs remain outstanding. It has told us that it has experienced difficulties maintaining engagement with the resident. However, it also identified poor communication from a contractor which did not help to progress matters. The landlord states it remains in regular contact with the resident to resolve matters it is responsible for.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme governs what we can and cannot consider and what is within our jurisdiction. When a resident brings a complaint to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why we cannot investigate a complaint.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d. and 42.j. of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Response to the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding service charge costs.
2. Handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR).
Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
This part of the resident’s complaint is about the reasonableness of the landlord charging a service charge cost. Any dissatisfaction regarding the reasonableness, liability, or the methodology used to calculate service charge costs requires a decision by a court or tribunal service. Therefore, this matter falls outside of our jurisdiction and may be within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). However, we will consider how the landlord acknowledged the resident’s question within its complaint handling.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
The Ombudsman is unable to investigate complaints concerning the landlord’s handling of SAR requests. Or how it presents the requested information. Therefore, the resident may wish to contact the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) if she remains unhappy with the outcome of this matter.

Scope of investigation

In contact with the landlord, the resident said she suffered an injury due to a fall at the property. The resident also says her mental health deteriorated due to the landlord’s handling of her repairs and complaints.
We are unable to say what caused an illness or injury. Such matters require a decision by a court or through an insurance claim. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages.
Between February 2025 to July 2025 the resident raised new and repeat complaints regarding repairs. She expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s fire risk assessment company. She also said she had windows that did not open, reported the presence of mould in her property, and said the landlord’s handling of a benefit claim led her to be in rent arrears. Within the resident’s correspondence she repeated her opinion the landlord’s actions amounted to discrimination. And she questioned the standard of void repair work to the property prior to February 2017.
Allegations of discrimination are serious legal complaints which require a decision by a court of law. This matter therefore falls outside of our expertise. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns further using equalities legislation. Or she can speak to The Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) for guidance.
We can only consider matters that have completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. As matters raised after February 2025 did not form part of the landlord’s stage 2 final response, we will not include them in our investigation.
In the interest of fairness, the landlord must have opportunity to investigate and respond to a resident’s concerns. The resident may wish to progress the new complaints through the landlord’s complaint process. If she remains dissatisfied with the outcome, she may then be able to refer the complaints to us.
This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint on 10 September 2024. And the outcomes as a result of its final response on 7 February 2025. It is reasonable that our investigation considers events 12 months prior to this complaint. But we will not consider events from 2017. Any reference to earlier dates will be to provide context only. This is because the resident did not bring the matters to us within a reasonable time, normally within 12 months.

Handling of the resident’s reports its staff recorded a visit in her home

The resident claims the landlord’s staff recorded a visit to her property on 25 July 2024. The landlord disputes this and explained its members of staff were wearing lone working devices.
The evidence shows the landlord investigated the resident’s allegations. In doing so, it spoke with attending staff members, collated statements, and assessed its lone working device records. In which, the landlord identified a GPS location service for staff personal safety, and no recordings.
The landlord has demonstrated acting on the resident’s concerns. And it has provided a thorough explanation of the device worn during the visit. Therefore, there is no evidence the landlord breached the resident’s privacy. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation or the evidence provided via her SAR, she may wish to raise the matter with the ICO.
Based on our findings, there was no maladministration.

Response to the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs

Relevant policies and procedures

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible to keep the structure and exterior of the property in good order. This includes the windows.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states residents must obtain permission from the landlord to make changes to the property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states it will complete a temporary repair or make safe an emergency repair within 24 hours. And it will aim to complete a routine repair within 28 calendar days.
The landlord’s compensation scheme states residents have a right to expect it to complete repairs within certain set timescales. It will pay £10 compensation for a failure to complete the repair within the published time, and an additional £2 per working day, up to a maximum of £50.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it will involve its insurer in all personal liability claims.

Doorbell

The resident complained the landlord had not installed a door intercom or doorbell to her property. She asked why 2 other flats in the building had an intercom. And questioned whether the landlord had discriminated against her.
The landlord responsive repairs policy and the resident’s tenancy set out the landlord’s repair responsibilities. Neither shows an obligation for the landlord to install or maintain a doorbell or intercom system at the resident’s home. While we note the resident says she is unable to hear visitors due to the presence of a security gate, it does not change the landlord’s obligations.
The landlord explained the 2 other flats in the converted building shared a communal entrance. As the resident has her own private entrance, the landlord remained satisfied it had no obligation to install a separate system for her. The landlord reassured the resident that any decision to maintain an intercom for a shared entrance was not based on discrimination. We have seen no evidence of discrimination in the landlord’s records. This was a reasonable explanation for the use of a door entry system.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reported vulnerabilities and difficulties installing her own doorbell. It offered a goodwill gesture totalling £150. It suggested the resident could use some of this to contribute to arranging the installation of her own wireless doorbell.
The landlord had no obligation to pay for the resident’s doorbell installation. Its gesture was therefore generous. And it demonstrated the landlord gave due regard to the resident’s comments about her health and vulnerabilities and used its discretion to offer support.

Front door and security gate

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires the landlord to conduct fire risk assessments. Assessments should ensure that there are adequate emergency routes and exits. The landlord has provided evidence which demonstrates the completion of timely fire risk assessments for the building.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction or expertise to decide whether a building meets fire safety regulations. However, we will assess how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
The resident’s property has a private entrance which she accesses via a security gate. Evidence shows the landlord agreed to the resident’s request to remove the security gate. It said it would also replace her front door with a new fire safety door. And it considered her request a beneficial decision to improve her ability to exit the property in an emergency.
Before the landlord could complete this work, the evidence shows the resident later requested the installation of an additional fire door to replace the gate. Therefore, having 2 front entrance doors. Having consulted with its fire safety report, the landlord did not consider this option compliant with fire safety guidance. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its specialist staff, contractors, and inspection reports. However, the resident disputes the accuracy of the landlord’s fire safety report and the information it relied on.
We note the resident said the local fire brigade had considered her suggestion for 2 front entrance doors “a good idea.” It was reasonable for the landlord to request a copy of any report by the fire brigade, which it said it would consider. We have identified no evidence the resident provided any report.
Due to the difference of opinion between the resident and landlord, work encountered a delay. However, we have identified no failing by the landlord at the time. It attempted to explain its position and the options available to the resident based on the safety advice it received.
That said, in August 2025 the resident said there was disrepair to the security gate. And the landlord acknowledged it was still working with the resident to renew the front door. We have therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to inspect this health and safety issue. And inform the resident of its position to maintain, replace, or remove the gate.

Letterbox repair

In September 2024, the resident complained her external letterbox was not waterproof. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and arranged an appointment in October 2024 to replace it. This was consistent with the landlord’s routine repair response time.
The resident disputes the landlord resolved this matter. She says the landlord is treating her differently and she is the only resident with an external letterbox.
When a resident raises a service request, the landlord has a responsibility to respond within its published responsive repair times. Evidence in October 2024 shows the landlord informed the resident of an appointment to address her concerns.
While we note the resident requested the installation of 2 new front doors, and believed this may provide an integral letterbox, the landlord explained its position this request. By arranging the appointment to replace the external letter box, the landlord demonstrated its efforts to remedy the resident’s service request in line with its repair policy.

Hallway flooring

The resident states she complained about the condition of the hallway floor in December 2023. The resident also says she fell in the property on 11 March 2024 due to the condition of the floor.
The evidence does not show any service request for this matter before May 2024. The landlord acknowledged a supervisor attended the resident’s property in January 2024. However, it remained satisfied it had not identified any work required for the hallway floor at that time. The resident disputes this.
The landlord inspected the hallway floor on 23 May 2024. The evidence shows this was within the landlord’s routine repair time. The landlord identified cracks and holes which it filled. This showed the landlord’s efforts to remedy the resident’s concerns. That said, evidence shows the need for follow on work in July 2024.
The landlord’s complaint process acknowledged there had been 2 delays to raise and complete further work following inspections on 10 and 25 July 2024. The landlord apologised and offered £100 compensation, £50 for each of the identified delays. This was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord’s complaint response also provided the resident with its liability insurance contact details. This demonstrated the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of an injury. And ensured she had the necessary information if she wanted to make a claim for damages. This was consistent with its compensation policy.
The resident tells us the landlord did not respond to her claim. We have not identified evidence of how or when the resident attempted to make an insurance claim. We have therefore recommended the landlord resends its insurance details to her.
We note the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to repair rather than level the hallway floor. We also recognise the resident questioned why the landlord had not installed floor coverings itself.
The evidence shows the landlord’s supervisor and complex works team inspected the resident’s floor between May to July 2024. Both inspections remained satisfied with the decision to repair and screed the floor. It is reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the expert opinion of its staff at the time.
The resident’s tenancy makes no provision for floor covering. It does however state a requirement for resident’s to seek permission to alter a property. This includes the installation of hardwood or laminate flooring. While the resident may have hoped for the landlord to install a floor covering for her, it had no obligation to do so. Therefore, its explanation on this matter was consistent with the terms of her tenancy.
Correspondence received after the landlord’s final response shows the resident reported further concerns. This included an uneven floor, worsening cracks, her inability to lay floor covering due to these issues, and her deteriorating health vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s records indicate it responded to the resident’s service requests at the time. However, given the resident’s reported health conditions and reported deterioration of the hallway floor, we recommend it arranges a suitably qualified person to complete an inspection. The landlord should inform the resident of its position on this matter. The landlord should also ensure its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the resident’s current circumstances.

Bathroom tiles

The landlord identified it had agreed to install the resident’s own bathroom wall tiles in or around April 2022. We note this took place after it removed the resident’s bath following a leak. The landlord considered the non-standard tiles an alteration and gave its permission and agreed to help her. However, this did not include tiles already installed in the windowsill. Therefore, these remained.
In September 2024 the resident said her bathroom windowsill tiles had cracked and expressed dissatisfaction they did not match with the bathroom wall.
The landlord informed the resident of its repair obligations. This meant to repair or replace standard items. It was therefore satisfied it would repair the resident’s windowsill tiles, but it had no obligation to match the resident’s decorative preference. However, the landlord agreed to install the resident’s preferred tiles if she supplied them and acknowledged her responsibility to maintain them.
The landlord has a responsibility to complete repairs as well as appropriately manage its budgets and resources. The landlord had no obligation to install the resident’s preferred, more expensive tiles. Its actions showed it considered this a property alteration, for which it gave the resident its permission. Its willingness to install her chosen tiles for her was reasonable and demonstrated its commitment to provide a solution desired by the resident.

Shower curtain pole

The landlord does not dispute it damaged the resident’s shower curtain pole during bathroom work, prior to her September 2024 complaint. It apologised and replaced it before her complaint. However, the resident expressed dissatisfaction as it was not like-for-like.
The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction and apologised. The landlord suggested the resident could use some of the £150 offered as a gesture of goodwill, towards her curtain pole of choice.
The landlord acknowledged fault and replaced the pole. As the resident remained unhappy, the landlord made a financial offer to remedy the situation. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord acknowledged the upset it had caused.
When possessions are damaged, it is reasonable for a resident to make a claim on their own contents insurance. Or by claiming through the party who caused the damage. The landlord demonstrated its attempts to resolve the situation. If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome, this will require a decision by an insurer.

Japanese knotweed and leaning garden wall

In June 2024 the resident reported knotweed regrowth. She said she had been unable to use her garden for more than 7 years. The resident has also confirmed that she had, on occasions, attempted to clear the issue herself. Something the landlord informed her she should not do.
Following a property inspection in July 2024 the landlord arranged a specialist contractor who recorded attendance on 19 September, 4 October, and 1 November 2024. Evidence provided by the landlord shows images of the garden and garden wall clear of all vegetation. This was appropriate.
The resident’s complaint in September 2024 said the contractor had left waste bags in the garden. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged the inconvenience of this, and explained it needed to label, tag, and dispose of bags appropriately. As such, its specialist contractor would remove them at the end of the treatment programme. Given the strict regulations regarding the disposal of Japanese knotweed, this response was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord’s records also state it filled cracks in the concrete paving caused by the knotweed. The resident disputes this. She considers the paving unsafe and in a poor state of repair.
The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for the inconvenience of the treatment work. And it offered the resident £100 compensation for the time and trouble caused by the restricted garden use.
The presence of this invasive plant would understandably be frustrating for the resident. However, we acknowledge it is persistent and often requires multiple treatments over years to prevent regrowth. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and appropriately appointed a specialist contractor.
We also note the landlord cleared ivy from the resident’s shared garden wall and inspected the brickwork. While the landlord did not dispute it was leaning, it considered it stable and safe. Having inspected the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its specialist staff.
However, in contact with us, the resident states both the knotweed and ivy returned. The landlord does not dispute this. While the resident’s tenancy states she is responsible for maintaining her garden, it is clearly not possible for her given the need for a specialist contractor. Therefore, we recommend the landlord arranges to inspect her garden and take the appropriate remedial action.
Given the recurring issues, we recommend the landlord revisits its offer of compensation for further restricted use. And agree a regular inspection process to avoid further inconvenience to the resident in the future.

Toilet repair

The landlord’s repair records show it replaced the resident’s downstairs toilet in March 2023 due to a crack. Evidence indicates this was the second replacement for the same issue in under 2 years. The records show the landlord attended and completed the work in line with its responsive repair times.
The landlord also recorded the resident’s dissatisfaction with these replacement units. The resident considered the installed toilets smaller than the original and asked the landlord to replace it based on her health vulnerabilities.
The landlord remained satisfied it had installed standard units, which matched the measurements of the property’s second toilet. The resident disputes this. We have seen no evidence from either party to assess the alleged size differences.
Furthermore, the landlord states it replaced the toilet again in April and May 2023, due to cracks. While it is unclear why the resident experienced frequent damages to brand new toilets, the landlord demonstrated responding to her reports in line with its responsive repairs policy.
Evidence shows the landlord informed the resident it had installed standard units each time. And it asked the resident to provide an occupational therapist (OT) assessment to assist with her request. Given the resident’s reports of multiple health conditions, it was reasonable for the landlord to request this information. This would support its understanding of the resident’s needs and ensure it installed a toilet recommended by the appropriate healthcare professional.
While the resident supplied details of a hospital letter to the landlord, we have not identified any OT assessment. Therefore, the landlord met its repair obligations by installing a standard toilet. There is no evidence the landlord failed to give due regard to an OT assessment or its duties under the Equality Act 2010.

Radiator

The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported a leak to the bedroom radiator on 5 March 2024. It was appropriate the landlord attended in line with its responsive repair time. However, it did not identify a leak.
The resident reported the matter again on 23 May 2024 and the landlord attempted a visit on 6 and 13 June 2024. While these appointments were within the landlord’s routine repair response time, the appointments were unsuccessful. The landlord’s states this was due to no access and due to the resident having a medical appointment.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response states the resident wanted to discuss the matter with a manager before agreeing to arrange another repair appointment. While the landlord did not meet its responsive repair time, it is reasonable that its delay was extended while it sought to arrange a meeting with the resident.
On 25 July 2024 the landlord’s complex works surveyor visited the resident. In doing so, they identified a radiator leak. However, evidence shows the landlord did not raise the necessary follow on work until the resident chased on 10 September 2024. This was not appropriate and not consistent with the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
Given the landlord’s awareness of the leak from at least 25 July 2025, it was not appropriate that it took until 16 September 2024 to fix it. This was 25 calendar days later than the landlord’s routine repair time.
The landlord’s stage 1 response apologised for the identified service failure and offered £50 compensation. This was consistent with the landlord’s compensation policy.
In contact with us in August 2025, the resident said the radiator continued to leak. She also disputes the landlord repaired it in September 2024 and claims the landlord “lied” and its records are “false.” The landlord’s position is it has tried unsuccessfully to arrange further repair appointments with the resident. And states it has also experienced no access issues.
Its reasonable for the landlord to rely on its repairs history. Landlords use internal systems to raise repairs and note their completion, including any missed appointments. Or where they have failed to gain entry. We are only able to investigate the evidence provided to us by both parties. We have seen no evidence to support the resident’s allegations the landlord falsified its records.
We have made a recommendation for the landlord to inspect the resident’s reports of a radiator leak.

Living room window

The landlord evidenced its attendance to the property for various window repairs. In December 2023, it attended as an emergency out of hours. This response was consistent with its responsive repairs policy.
The evidence shows the landlord initially restricted the window and arranged follow on work due to the availability of parts. The landlord does not dispute rearranged appointments delayed completion of this work until March 2024. The resident disputes the landlord’s position that it did complete the work.
The landlord’s complaint investigation summarised its attendance between January 2024 to July 2024. While it recorded an instance of no access to the property, it also identified and apologised for its delay to complete follow on work.
The landlord also identified staff miscommunicated its decision to repair rather than replace the window immediately. This may have caused upset to the resident. The landlord arranged for staff training to ensure operatives did not comment or over promise on a repair, prior to an inspection report. It offered £100 for the identified delays and communication failures. These steps showed the landlord took learning from the resident’s complaint and took steps to put things right.
In February 2025 the landlord confirmed the resident’s property was part of its planned window replacement programme. It explained the need for planning permission and the delays due to this and the required manufacturing process. The landlord was clear it was unable to provide the resident with a date for replacement and reassured her it would complete any remedial repairs if required.
While this did not provide the resident with the outcome she wanted, it demonstrated the landlord had responded to her reported repairs and communicated its intentions to renew her windows in the future.
That said, the resident considers the landlord has “lied.” She states the landlord did not complete the living room window repair in 2024. And she also says other windows have been stuck closed since she moved in.
There is no evidence available to suggest the landlord failed to complete the original living room window repair. We have also seen no evidence the resident reported her other window concerns prior to her complaint. As these matters have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, we will not include them as a separate assessment within our investigation.
However, the resident has maintained her position regarding the condition of all windows since the landlord’s stage 2 response, approximately 6 months. It is therefore unclear why in August 2025 the landlord confirmed to us it had arranged necessary remedial repairs on all windows. Its records said the resident was unable to open them.
This indicates the landlord accepted the resident’s position. And shows a failure to adequately inspect and remedy the resident’s reports sooner. It is also reasonable for us to conclude this failure includes the resident’s living room window.
Based on our findings, we find failure with the landlord’s handling of this. We have considered the time passed since the resident’s reports. And the landlord’s failure to demonstrate effective monitoring and communication with the resident about this.
Furthermore, in contact with us, the resident states the landlord has not maintained the external areas of the property, including the window frames. She says the landlord is treating her different to other residents. There is no evidence available to suggest this is the case. We order the landlord includes details of its planned and cyclical maintenance programmes. And provides the resident with anticipated dates that work is due to her property.

Bathroom floor

The landlord understood the resident’s complaint to be about her desire to tile the bathroom floor. The resident says there had been miscommunication regarding this request and she considered it the landlord’s responsibility to do.
While the landlord may have agreed to install the resident’s preferred bathroom wall tiles as part of an agreed alteration, it had no obligation to install floor tiles. There is no obligation for the landlord to do this within the resident’s tenancy agreement. Any decorative preference is a matter for the resident and considered an alteration. This would also require the landlord’s permission prior to any work taking place. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain its position within its complaint responses.
That said, the resident explained the existing flooring failed to prevent leaks to the rooms below. The landlord should therefore have acted on the resident’s reports and taken steps to remedy this. While the records show the landlord appropriately responded to a leak in or around August 2024, follow on work to the floor remained outstanding as of August 2025. This was not appropriate and outside of the landlord’s routine repair response time.
The landlord’s complaint responses apologised for the delays. It arranged to inspect the resident’s bathroom for any leaks. And it agreed to confirm the required flooring work. The landlord also confirmed once it had completed this, it would complete remedial decorative repairs. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged failings and increased its offer of compensation by an additional £150. However, this offer was in recognition of the work remaining incomplete as of February 2025.
In August 2025, the resident says matters remain ongoing. The landlord does not dispute this. While the landlord described difficulties maintaining engagement with the resident, it also acknowledged poor communication by a contractor. The landlord had a responsibility to monitor this repair. Its failure to do so demonstrates poor knowledge and information management. This has likely caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience over a further 6 months.
Based on our findings, we find failure with the landlord’s handling of this matter.
Furthermore, the resident also says the condition of the property’s flooring has deteriorated affecting other rooms. We have therefore made an order for the landlord to arrange a suitably qualified person to inspect the resident’s reports.

Summary

The landlord identified and apologised for repair delays. It used its complaint process to investigate the resident’s concerns and arranged training for lessons learnt.
The landlord explained its position regarding the resident’s front door, security gate, hallway floor, and toilet. And it asked for the resident to provide evidence from the fire brigade and an OT to consider her position. These were reasonable actions to progress matters. Furthermore, they demonstrate the landlord seeking evidence to inform its decisions, rather than its ‘refusal’ to complete work.
When there has been an admission of failure, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. We take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our remedies guidance.
In this case the landlord has acknowledged that some repairs remain outstanding, 6 months beyond its stage 2 response. While it has offered mitigation regarding the resident’s engagement, the landlord also recognised poor communication by its contractors which it has not effectively managed.
Based on our findings we find maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs. We have made an order for additional compensation. This being an additional £150 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s original window repair. And £300 for the delays to remedy the resident’s bathroom floor.
The additional compensation ordered is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but its offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) 1 April 2024 requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. We are satisfied the landlord’s complaint policy complies with the Code.
The landlord’s handling of its stage 1 complaints process demonstrated it had:
1. Determined the resident’s complaint during a telephone call with her.
2. Sent its stage 1 acknowledgement within the time expected by the Code.
3. Completed a thorough investigation of the resident’s complaint.
4. Sent the resident its liability insurance details in response to her reports of a fall.
5. Summarised its actions and position separately for each of the points raised.
6. Learnt from the complaint and acknowledged it needed to avoid miscommunication and manage resident repair expectations.
7. Implemented a training session with its operatives to repeat the importance of not over promising repairs, which a surveyors’ report may not agree with.
8. Recognised its response was 4 working days late, apologised, and offered £25 compensation.
These actions were consistent with the Code and our guidance on remedies.
That said, the resident’s original complaint expressed dissatisfaction about a service charge. While the reasonableness of this charge is outside of our jurisdiction, the landlord did not respond to this point. And there is evidence within the landlord’s internal communications which shows its awareness of this.
Landlords must address all complaint points raised and provide reasons for any decisions in its response. By not doing so, the landlord caused the resident avoidable time and trouble as she needed to raise the matter again.
The landlord sent both its stage 2 acknowledgement and response on time. It used its complaints process to apologise for further repair delays. And summarised its satisfaction and position on her reported repairs.
However, we note the resident’s escalation included her service charge query again. It is unclear why the landlord’s stage 2 response did not respond to this point. There is evidence which indicates the landlord addressed the service charge issue separately at a later stage. However, we have seen no evidence of how the landlord’s complaints process explained its reasons or intention to do this.
The landlord had 2 opportunities to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s service charge query. By not doing so, the landlord has shown gaps in its communication and its application of the Code.
By not acknowledging or explaining how it would respond to the resident’s service charge complaint, caused her avoidable time and trouble on 2 occasions.
While we acknowledge the landlord’s position it has met difficulties with the resident’s engagement, it has not demonstrated how its complaints process monitored outstanding matters. Therefore, these have remained ongoing 6 months beyond its final response.
Based on our findings we find service failure. We order the landlord to pay a total sum of £50 compensation. This is consistent with our remedies guide when a landlord’s offer is not quite proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding service charge costs, is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR), is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports its staff recorded a visit in her home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of multiple outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

We order the landlord to take the following action within 4 working weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident, and not into her rent account or to offset any arrears, a total sum of £1,200 compensation. This is made up of:
  1. £700 offered at stage 2 for the repair related delays.
  2. An additional £150 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenienced caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective living room window.
  3. An additional £300 for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenienced caused by the landlord’s handling of the handling of the resident’s reports of a defective bathroom floor.
  4. £50 for the time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord may deduct £25 offered during its complaints process, if already paid.
3. Within 8 weeks the landlord should arrange or demonstrate to us that a suitably qualified person has contacted the resident to arrange inspection of the resident’s:
  1. Windows since the landlord’s stage 2 response and given the resident an update regarding the renewal and cyclical maintenance programme.
  2. Bathroom floor since the landlord’s stage 2 response. The landlord must provide the resident with a work schedule if remedial action remains outstanding.
  3. Hallway floor. And provides the resident with a schedule for any work it is responsible for.
  4. Radiator and arranges to complete any required remedial repairs.
  5. Reports of Japanese knotweed and ivy regrowth affecting her use of the garden.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Contacts the resident to ensure its health and vulnerability records accurately reflect the current circumstances of the resident’s household.
2. Contacts the resident to discuss its position on maintaining or replacing the resident’s security gate and front door.
3. Resends the resident its liability insurance details, should she wish to make a claim.
4. Revisits its offer of compensation for further restricted garden use. And agrees a regular inspection process to avoid further inconvenience.