Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202449975)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202449975

The Guinness Partnership Limited

26 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange and repairs to the property.
  2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s tenancy began on 29 April 2024. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives with their husband and their 5 children. 2 of their children have been diagnosed with autism.
  2. On 11 December 2024 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. They said the landlord had not carried out adequate checks of the property during the mutual exchange process. This had led to the resident and their family living in an unsafe property.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 January 2025. It said its inspection of the property had been in line with its mutual exchange policy. It accepted there had been a delay in it carrying out an electrical safety check. There had also been delays in it completing repairs to issues the resident had reported since moving in. It said it would assist the resident to make an application for a managed move. It offered £350 compensation.
  4. On, or around, 15 January 2025 the resident escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. They disputed that the landlord had acted in line with its mutual exchange process. They remained of the view that the landlord should have carried out additional checks during the process.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 March 2025. It reiterated its position that it had acted in line with its mutual exchange policy. It said the property was safe but accepted further repairs were needed. It confirmed it had approved the resident for a management move. It offered an additional £50 compensation, bringing the total offered compensation to £400.
  6. On 14 May 2025 the resident confirmed they wanted us to investigate their complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange and repairs to the property

  1. A “mutual exchange” is an arrangement where social housing tenants who want to move can swap properties. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 March 2024 to provide a video of its property inspection and a copy of the inspection record. This email confirmed that the resident was taking part in a mutual exchange and this meant the property would be taken as seen. The email explained that, if the resident accepted the property, the landlord would assume the resident had done a thorough inspection and was happy with the property’s current condition.
  2. Landlord inspections during a mutual exchange are usually a visual check of the property. This is to ensure there are no clearly obvious issues that either the landlord or outgoing tenant would need to fix. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy does not indicate it would carry out any detailed or technical inspections during the process. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord’s inspection deviated from what its policies required it to do.
  3. On 15 April 2024 the landlord raised a works order to carry out an electrical safety check of the property. The landlord attempted to complete this check on 23 April 2024 but had to reschedule it due to not being able to access the fuse board.
  4. Following the mutual exchange, the resident reported issues with their windows on 17 May 2024. The landlord’s records show a contractor attended on 28 May 2025 to identify the needed repairs. The contractor returned on 2 July 2024 to quote for the works.
  5. On 3 July 2024 the landlord carried out the electrical safety check. During the check the landlord identified several issues. It completed works the same day to make the electrical installation safe. It attended again on 18 July 2024 and 31 July 2024 to complete additional remedial works and carry out testing. The landlord has provided a copy of the Electrical Installation Condition Report dated 31 July 2024 which assessed the condition of the installation as satisfactory.
  6. The delay in attending to carry out the electrical safety check meant the landlord had not acted in line with its mutual exchange policy. This policy says the check should have been carried out before the exchange was completed.
  7. The landlord’s actions once it was aware repairs to the electrical installation were required were in line with its repairs policy. This says it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours. Once it had made the installation safe it was reasonable for it to carry out the remaining works as a routine repair. Its policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
  8. The landlord’s records indicate it completed the window repairs on 2 August 2024. This was more than 28 calendar days after the resident had reported the issue and was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
  9. On 9 August 2024 the landlord raised a job to replace the lounge window. The description for this job indicated it had been missed during the works that had been carried out on 2 August 2024.
  10. On, or around, 12 August 2024 the resident reported their husband had received an electrical shock when changing a plug socket. Their husband had not suffered any lasting injury. The landlord’s records indicate it sought advice from its repairs teams. The advice explained that a shock could have been caused if the resident had turned off the wrong circuit breaker and that a tester should have been used to check the socket was safe. This explanation was provided to the resident on 12 August 2024.
  11. There is no evidence that the shock had been the result of any failure by the landlord. It had taken place after the landlord had completed the required electrical safety checks and confirmed the electrical installation was safe. It appears the shock had occurred when the resident’s husband was using a socket outside the normal expected day to day usage. In these circumstances it was reasonable for the landlord, in the first instance, to have provided advice and an explanation about the likely cause of the shock.
  12. On 15 September 2024 the resident reported a plug socket was sparking. The landlord attended the same day to make the socket safe. It attended again on 19 September 2024 to replace the socket. These actions were in line with its repairs policy.
  13. On 23 September 2024 the resident reported there were leaks from the roof into their property. The landlord attended the same day and identified the leaks were coming from alterations and extensions carried out by the previous tenant. It raised works order for a further inspection and to check the gutters.
  14. On 22 October 2024 a structural engineer attended and carried out an intrusive survey of the alterations and extensions made to the property. The landlord’s records show it received the engineer’s initial report on 13 November 2024. The engineer recommended that the inspected areas would need to be demolished and rebuilt to comply with all relevant building regulations.
  15. The landlord attended on 3 December 2024 and completed works to renew the gutters at the front of the property. This was more than 28 days after the issue was reported and was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy.
  16. On 7 December 2024 the resident told the landlord they were concerned the roof in their rear conservatory would fall in. They said the ceiling had spotlights and they were worried the electrics may be exposed if it collapsed. On 9 December 2024 the landlord raised a works order to make the ceiling safe. It attended the following day (10 December 2024) and removed the electrics in the rear conservatory.
  17. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 11 December 2024. They said:
    1. They had found the property on the Home Swapper website and contacted the previous tenant. They had been told it was a 4-bedroom property with a rear conservatory and a balcony that had been converted into a front conservatory. When viewing the property they had no reason to question the work that had been done. They also thought that the tenant would have needed to get prior permission and the work would have been inspected afterwards. They now knew that was not the case.
    2. During the landlord’s mutual exchange inspection the alterations and extensions had been clearly visible. The previous tenant could be heard saying they had got permission from the landlord. They presumed the landlord would have verified this information.
    3. The landlord had delayed in carrying out safety checks. When it completed the electrical safety check in July 2024 it found serious issues that it needed to immediately make safe.
    4. The landlord had only told them in September 2024 (after they had reported leaks into the property) that the previous tenant had not received permission for any of the works they had carried out. The landlord had also told them no checks had been carried out after the works had been completed.
    5. The landlord’s failure to carry out adequate checks had led to them and their family living in an unsafe house.
    6. They moved to the property for the extra space it had compared to their previous home. In particular, there was a 4th bedroom which their eldest son needed and would help support them with their autism. Removing the extra space would not be an acceptable option as it would have a huge impact on their son.
  18. The resident said in their complaint that they were aware the landlord was considering moving them to a new property. They indicated this would be an appropriate resolution to their complaint. They asked that the landlord reimburse them for costs they had incurred in moving to and renovating the current property. They also asked that the landlord to compensate them for distress and inconvenience that had been caused by the ongoing issues.
  19. The landlord’s records show that on 24 December 2024 it asked the resident’s local council if it could assist with a move for the resident and their family. The council said this would not be possible as it needed to give priority to its own transfer lists.
  20. The landlord’s request to the council indicates it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously by actively considering alternative options to resolve the issues and minimise the impact on the resident.
  21. On 2 January 2025 the landlord replaced the resident’s lounge window. This was more than 28 days after the resident had reported the issue and was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy timescales.
  22. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 13 January 2025. It said:
    1. It was not required to carry out a technical inspection of the property during the mutual exchange process.
    2. Mutually exchanged properties were accepted in the condition they were viewed in. It explained applicants should ensure they were satisfied with the condition of a property before agreeing an exchange.
    3. It had only become aware of the extent of the alterations and extensions by the previous tenant after the resident had raised concerns. It confirmed that it had not given permission for the works.
    4. It accepted that there had been delays in it carrying out safety checks and completing repairs after the resident moved in.
  23. The landlord explained it could not reimburse the resident for the costs of improvements they had made to the property. It said this was because it had acted in line with its policy and taken action when the resident had notified it about the alterations to the property. It acknowledged it had been a stressful time for the resident and their family. It said it felt it could have done more to support the resident with the vulnerabilities of their children. It accepted the delays and failures it had identified were unreasonable.
  24. The landlord confirmed it would assist the resident in making an application for a managed move. A managed move is a process whereby a landlord will allocate a resident a different property from within its own existing housing stock. It offered £300 compensation for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience. It said it had provided feedback to its Service Manager to ensure its communication improved. It would also provide further training where required.
  25. The landlord’s stage 1 response was clear about the actions it had taken. It explained where and why it considered it had acted in line with its policies. It also acknowledged where it felt it had failed to provide an adequate level of service.
  26. The landlord also confirmed it had implemented a new process to ensure that electrical safety testing for mutual exchanges was completed before the new tenant moved in.
  27. On, or around, 15 January 2025 the resident requested the landlord escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. They disagreed with the landlord’s position on its responsibilities during the mutual exchange process. They said it was unfair to expect tenants to identify poorly built alterations or extensions. The resident complained the landlord should have checked the alterations had been authorised and inspected after they had been completed. They believed the landlord should give them band A priority for a move as the property was still unsafe.
  28. The resident asked that the landlord reconsider their request to be reimbursed for costs they had spent at the property. They also asked the landlord to review its offer of compensation as they did not feel it reflected the hardship and distress that had been caused.
  29. On 28 January 2025 the landlord told the resident it had approved them for a management move. It explained this was the highest priority for a transfer application.
  30. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 March 2025. Its position remained broadly the same as its stage 1 response. It added it found the resident’s property was safe and habitable but appreciated there were required works to be completed. It confirmed it had no records of discussing or approving the alterations with the previous tenant. It disagreed with the resident’s view that it should have identified sooner that the alterations were unauthorised.
  31. The landlord repeated it would not reimburse the resident for costs they had incurred. It said that the resident was currently getting use of the items they had paid for. It did not consider there was any “quantifiable loss” at the point of its response. It advised once it had offered the resident a suitable property, it would review the resident’s request to see how it could help support their move. It increased its compensation offer to £350 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  32. There is no clear evidence that a purely visual inspection of the alterations and extensions should have identified them as poor quality and needing remedial works. There is also no evidence to suggest the landlord should have reasonably suspected the previous tenant had carried out unauthorised works in the property. As such, there is no basis on which we could reasonably conclude the landlord ought to have carried out further checks of the property before approving the mutual exchange.
  33. The landlord’s decision to not reimburse the resident for their costs was in line with its compensation policy. Without any quantifiable loss it was not obliged to provide any reimbursement. The offer to reconsider its position when the resident moved was fair and reasonable. It demonstrated that the landlord was looking to resolve the issues and taking into account the resident’s personal circumstances.
  34. After the stage 2 response the resident remained in contact with the landlord. On 9 April 2025 the landlord increased its compensation offer to £1,050. It also confirmed, when the resident moved to a new property, it would pay for moving costs and for any flooring or decoration needed. The resident accepted this resolution the following day (10 April 2025).
  35. In summary, the evidence shows that the landlord did take steps to address and resolve the resident’s concerns. It is not disputed that it did not carry out all required actions or complete all identified repairs within the relevant policy timescales. It acknowledged and apologised for the identified failures.
  36. When a failure is identified, as in this case, 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. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
  37. The landlord did carry out repairs following the resident’s reports and accepted there were delays in completing some of these. Its offer to move the resident to a new property was in line with what the resident was seeking as an outcome. The landlord’s offer of compensation, when assessed using our remedies guidance, would be awarded where failures have occurred over a significant period and have resulted in a significant impact upon the resident.
  38. As such, we assess the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate to its failings and that it satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
  39. For these reasons, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange and repairs to the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states it will log and acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. It will provide stage 1 responses within 10 working days and stage 2 responses within 20 working days of the relevant acknowledgement.
  2. The resident made their complaint on 11 December 2024. There is no evidence the landlord sent an acknowledgement to the resident. The stage 1 response was issued on 13 January 2025. This was 20 working days after the landlord received the complaint and was not in line with its policy.
  3. The landlord’s stage 1 response did acknowledge the failings in its stage 1 handling. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation.
  4. The landlord’s records indicate the resident had emailed it on 15 January 2025 to say they were unhappy with the stage 1 response. However, it did not escalate the complaint or log it at stage 2 until 28 January 2025. It has not provided any explanation for this delay.
  5. The evidence shows the landlord’s handling of the stage 2 investigation was in line with its policy from the date it formally logged the escalation. However, its initial failure meant that there was a delay of 9 working days in logging the escalation. Overall, it took 34 working days for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. This was outside its complaint handling timescales.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 response did not identify or acknowledge the above failure. It did not offer any additional redress to the resident.
  7. The landlord’s complaint policy confirms it operates a 2-stage complaint process. Its stage 2 response is the final step in the process. Any remedies should reflect the impact on the resident because of any identified failings. This is in line with the requirements of our Complaint Handling Code 2024.
  8. The landlord made a significant increase to its compensation offer on 9 April 2025. This was over a month after its stage 2 response. The landlord has not provided any explanation for this decision. There is no evidence there was any material change in the resident’s situation or that the landlord had received new information.
  9. The increased offer indicates that, during the complaint process, the landlord had not adequately assessed the remedy needed to reflect the impact of its failings on the resident. It had therefore not acted in line with its complaint policy. This was a serious failure which undermined the stage 2 investigation of the resident’s complaint. This failure also delayed resolution for the resident.
  10. When combined, the failings in the landlord’s complaint process lead to a determination of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay a total of £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its handling of the resident’s mutual exchange and repairs to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology for its complaint handling failures.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct from this amount any previous offer, specifically in relation to its complaint handling failures, which it has already paid.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord pays the resident the £1,100 compensation offered on 9 April 2025 if it has not done so already.