The Guinness Partnership Limited (202508744)

Decision
Case ID	202508744
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	2 December 2025

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat on the top floor of a listed building. The landlord has it recorded that the resident has additional needs.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of repairs.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
5. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.
6. The landlord offered reasonable redress for its complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

7. There were extended delays and communication failures in the landlord’s handling of repairs. The redress offered was insufficient considering the failures and the impact on the resident.
8. There was a delay in the landlord acknowledging the stage 1 complaint, but it has taken reasonable action to put things right.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 09 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must provide evidence that it has paid directly to the resident £1,000 (inclusive of the £775 already offered), to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures in its handling of repairs.	No later than 09 January 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should contact the resident on completion of the legal disrepair claim to confirm a communication plan going forward.
The landlord should pay the resident the £125 already offered for its complaint handling, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
June to September 2024	The resident reported concerns about rotten windows, uneven flooring and a leak coming through the smoke alarm.
26 November 2024	The resident made a complaint, saying none of the repairs had been completed.
31 December 2024	The landlord’s stage 1 response upheld the complaint as there had been unreasonable delays in it completing repairs. It apologised and offered £500 compensation (£425 for its handling of repairs and £75 for complaint handling).
January to February 2025	The resident asked the landlord for increased compensation. The landlord offered him an additional £100.
2 April 2025	The resident escalated his complaint, saying no works had been done to the roof, windows or floor. He asked for repairs to be completed and more compensation.
14 May 2025	The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged there had been service failure in its handling of the repairs and complaint. It apologised and offered an additional £300 compensation (£250 for its handling of repairs and £50 for complaint handling).
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident has told us repairs to the roof, floor and central heating are still outstanding. He said the landlord’s communication has been poor and it has not taken account of his additional needs. He has asked for the repairs to be completed and more compensation.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Landlord’s handling of repairs
Finding	Maladministration

9. The resident has told us repairs to the central heating system are outstanding and that this has not worked properly since he moved in. We can only investigate matters that have been considered by the landlord’s formal complaints process. As this issue was not raised or responded to as part of the resident’s complaint, we have not included this in our investigation.
10. The landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof, windows and floors in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it must maintain the structure and outside of the property, including the roof, windows and internal floors.
11. The resident reported a leak through the smoke alarm (caused by a rook leak) on 23 September 2024. He said this tripped the electrics. The landlord raised an emergency repair. This was in line with its repairs policy, which gives an example of an emergency repair as a leak that causes a risk of electric shock. The landlord attended on 24 September 2025, within the 24 hour timescale set out in its repairs policy.
12. The landlord raised a follow on repair for the roof leak on 24 September 2025. However, it did not attend to investigate further until 4 months later, and only after the resident complained. It said this delay was caused by poor communication with its contractor. The landlord attended on 30 January 2025 and noted it could not inspect the roof as the key for the hatch (accessed via the communal area) was missing. This was not something the landlord could have foreseen, so the delay this caused was not a failure.
13. Following the visit in January 2025, the landlord noted another inspection was needed. There is no evidence it did this, or took any further action to investigate the roof leak until it raised a works order nearly 3 months later, on 23 April 2025. It is not clear what caused this delay. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there had been a long period when no action had been taken. This was frustrating for the resident.
14. In an internal email of 7 May 2025, the landlord said it had tried on a number of occasions to gain access to the property to investigate the roof leak, but had been unable to do so. It also said in its stage 2 response that it had tried to reach the resident to arrange a further appointment but had been unsuccessful. As the roof hatch is accessible via the communal area, the landlord did not need access to the property to investigate this. It was unreasonable for the landlord to use this as an excuse for why it had not investigated and resolved the issue sooner.
15. The landlord inspected the roof on 8 May 2025 and noted a follow on action that roofers needed to attend. As the landlord knew it was attending to investigate a roof leak, it is not clear why it did not arrange for a roofer to attend in the first instance. Its failure to do this has contributed to the overall delay in it diagnosing and resolving this issue.
16. The stage 2 response said the landlord was visiting the following day to review the roof. We have seen no evidence that this happened. It made further contact with the resident in June and July 2025 to arrange another appointment. Again, it did not need to make an appointment with the resident to access the roof and its insistence on doing so has further delayed the matter.
17. The resident has said the roof leak is ongoing, 14 months after he first reported it. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will fix routine repairs within 28 days. Considering the type of building, it is reasonable that identifying and resolving the roof leak may have taken longer than 28 days. However, it should not have taken this long. The landlord’s failure to investigate in a timely manner has meant the resident has been living with an intermittent leak into the property for more than a year.
18. The resident reported the windows were rotten on 21 June 2024 and the landlord raised a routine repair. This was reasonable as there is no evidence the windows were reported as a health and safety concern. The landlord attended 44 days later, on 22 August 2024, over the 28 day response time for routine repairs.
19. The landlord’s contractor concluded the windows needed replacing and provided a quote. The landlord did not do anything further, or tell the resident the outcome of the visit, until 4 months later, and only after he complained. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged there had been poor communication and said, due to the cost of the quote, it needed to get alternative quotes. It also needed to reinspect the windows to see if there were other options. It is important that the landlord is mindful of its budgets and costs incurred and so obtaining multiple quotes to ensure value for money was reasonable. It is also appropriate that the landlord only replaces windows that cannot be repaired and so considering other options was also reasonable.
20. The landlord reinspected the windows one month later, on 30 January 2025. It identified that there was a plastic bag taped over a pane of broken glass and took photos showing extensive damage and rotting to the frames. Considering this, and the already identified delays, the landlord should have treated this matter with urgency. However, it did not attend again until nearly 2 months later, on 27 March 2025. This second contractor condemned the windows and recommended replacing them. This was nearly 3 months after the stage 1 response and more than 7 months after the initial inspection. This was too long, particularly considering the condition of the windows.
21. The landlord approved the windows for replacement in April 2025 and completed this on 17 June 2025. It told the resident in its stage 2 response that the windows were bespoke and needed to be specially made as the property was in a listed building. This was reasonable and outside of the landlord’s control.
22. As there was an unavoidable delay in the landlord being able to replace the windows, it should have considered if there were any temporary repairs it could complete to make them safer, for example boarding then up. There is no evidence the landlord did this. This is particularly concerning as it was aware the windows were a security risk from at least November 2024, when a member of staff reported a pane of glass was missing. A member of staff even suggested boarding up the window in an email of 13 May 2025. There is no evidence the landlord progressed, or even considered, this suggestion.
23. Overall, it took the landlord one year to complete the required works to the windows. This was an unreasonable delay. While some of this delay was outside the landlord’s control, the majority was avoidable if the landlord had better managed the job and completed follow up actions in a timely manner. The delays and poor management meant the resident was living with damaged and unsafe windows for an extended period.
24. The resident reported the floor was damaged and loose on 30 July 2024 and the landlord raised a routine repair. This was reasonable as there is no evidence this was reported as a health and safety concern. The landlord attended on 16 August and 10 September 2024. However, it noted it did not complete the visits due to not having a parking permit for the area. This was unreasonable as the landlord knows where the property is located and should have made the necessary arrangements for its contractor to be able to complete the visit. There is no evidence it told the resident the reason for these missed appointments at the time. This meant he was left not knowing what was happening.
25. The stage 1 response said the landlord would revisit on 9 January 2025 to assess the uneven floor. It subsequently noted no access was given at this appointment. As the resident had been told about this in advance, in accordance with the terms of his tenancy agreement, any delay caused as a result of this no access was not attributable to the landlord.
26. The landlord revisited on 31 January 2025 but noted this did not go ahead as it could not park on the road because of road works. Again, this was an unreasonable explanation for why the visit did not go ahead. The contractor should have found alternative parking in the area to ensure they could attend. On this occasion the landlord did tell the resident about this, which was appropriate. However, it should have done more to make sure the visit went ahead.
27. The landlord noted it visited regarding the flooring on 20 March 2025, but no access was given. We have seen no evidence the landlord told the resident about this appointment in advance. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will give at least 24 hours’ notice of appointments, except in an emergency. As this was not being dealt with as an emergency, the landlord should have given due notice and its failure to do so was unreasonable. It was unfair of the landlord to expect the resident to give access for an appointment he had not been told about.
28. The landlord raised a further job for the flooring on 9 April 2025, but there is no evidence any action was taken in respect of this. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would revisit on 16 May 2025, which it subsequently did. The operative noted major works were needed and they did not know what could be done due to the age of the building. This suggests the operative was not the right person to attend as they could not properly assess what was needed. This was a waste of time and meant the resident had to give access for an appointment that resulted in no progress being made.
29. The landlord contacted the resident in June and July 2025 to arrange a further inspection. This was a year after he had first reported the issue and 6 visits had already been arranged. Despite this, the landlord was no further forward in identifying or resolving the issue. This was an unreasonable delay that was frustrating for the resident. He has told us he has been injured as a result of the floor giving way. We cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of this issue and the resident’s injury. This is a matter for a personal injury claim, which the resident has confirmed he is in contact with a solicitor about.
30. In October 2024 the resident told the landlord he was struggling with his health because of the outstanding works. He said it was not clear who was attending or what for, due to the number of jobs. The landlord raised a case with the relevant team to offer support to the resident. This was appropriate considering it was aware he has additional needs. The landlord visited him, made enquiries with other agencies, and sought updates about his repairs. These were appropriate actions to support him.
31. When the resident made his complaint, the support case was closed. This was unreasonable as raising a complaint did not mean all issues would be resolved. The landlord should have continued supporting the resident throughout the complaints process, or signposted him to an agency that could. This is evidenced as the resident told the landlord again in January 2025 that he was struggling with the communication and knowing when contractors were attending. Despite this, the landlord did not consider or discuss further support options available to him at that time. This was disappointing.
32. Following a contractor’s visit in March 2025, an internal referral was made for support for the resident in managing the repairs. Despite the case being opened on 21 March 2025, the landlord did not contact him until the end of April 2025 to discuss support options. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord subsequently acknowledged this failure in its stage 2 response and explained this was because of a staffing issue. While understandable that staffing issues can occur, the landlord should have processes in place for managing workloads during this time. Its failure to do so in this case left the resident unsupported and feeling let down.
33. The landlord’s communication with the resident has been inconsistent. It has not regularly updated him about the repairs and this has, at times, left him chasing for updates. He has told the landlord a number of times that he needs written confirmation of appointments because of his additional needs. He has also said he struggles with multiple contacts and gets confused by this. The landlord has it recorded that the resident wants email communication only. While positive that it has recorded his communication preference, considering his multiple requests and the number of repairs being dealt with, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to discuss and agree a communication plan with him.
34. The landlord’s reasonable adjustment policy says it will provide information that is clear, accessible, relevant, timely and appropriate to residents with disabilities. It will discuss individual requirements with residents and seek to agree what adjustments may be reasonable in the circumstances. There is no evidence the landlord did that in this case, despite the resident repeatedly telling it about his additional needs and that he was struggling with the communication. This has led to the resident losing trust and faith in the landlord.
35. In July 2025 solicitors on behalf of the resident sent a legal letter of disrepair claim to the landlord. This included the uneven floor and roof leak, along with other issues not assessed as part of this investigation. As a legal claim has not yet been issued in court, we have proceeded with our investigation. However, as the pre-action protocol process is ongoing and the landlord is currently trying to arrange an inspection of the property to assess the issues, we have not made any orders for the landlord to take action in respect of the outstanding repairs.
36. Similarly, as contact between the landlord and the resident is now going via his solicitors, we have not made any orders for the landlord to contact him to agree a communication plan at this time. We recommend the landlord contacts the resident on completion of the legal claim to confirm a communication plan going forward.
37. The landlord has acknowledged failure in its handling of the repairs, apologised and offered a total of £775 compensation. This approach is in line with our Dispute Resolution Principle to put things right. However, considering the number of failures, the extent of the delays, the impact on the resident, and that several issues remain outstanding, the redress offered is insufficient. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We order the landlord to pay the resident £1,000 compensation (inclusive of the £775 already offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which had a significant impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

38. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and within 20 working days at stage 2.
39. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint on 31 December 2024, 23 working days after the complaint was raised. This was over the committed timescale set out in its policy. It sent the stage 1 response the same day, in line with the 10 working day committed response time.
40. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 9 April 2025, 5 working days after the complaint was escalated. This was in line with the committed response time set out in its policy. It sent the stage 2 response 22 working days later. This was slightly over the 20 working day response time.
41. The landlord told the resident on 12 May 2025 that it was extending the stage 2 deadline by 20 working days. This was in line with its policy, which says it may extend the timescale for responding, but this will not exceed a further 20 working days. As the landlord told the resident about the delay and kept to the revised deadline, this was not a failure.
42. The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the complaint, apologised and offered £125 compensation. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, we consider the events which prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. We will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
43. Considering the circumstances of the case and in consultation with our remedies guidance; the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident. We recommend the landlord pays him the £125 compensation already offered, if not done so. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. 

Learning

44. The landlord should attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, in line with the committed response time in its repairs policy, as it did in this case.
45. The landlord should attend in line with its committed timescales to investigate repairs. Where follow on actions or inspections are needed after the first attendance, it should proactively schedule these and ensure they are completed promptly. It should not rely on residents chasing to prompt further action.
46. Where a repair can be investigated or resolved via communal areas, the landlord should not insist on gaining access to a resident’s property.
47. Where there are delays in the landlord replacing damaged windows, it should complete interim repairs to make the windows safe and secure, for example, boarding them up.
48. The landlord should make the necessary arrangements for its contractors to be able to complete visits, including providing parking permits or confirming parking arrangements.
49. The landlord should arrange for the correct operative/ staff member to attend repairs so it can thoroughly assess the issue and identify actions at the earliest opportunity. This ensures residents do not need to give access for multiple appointments that are of little or no benefit.
50. The landlord should follow its reasonable adjustment policy and discuss individual requirements with residents so it can agree what adjustments are reasonable.
51. Where the landlord identifies failure, it should acknowledge this and offer redress, as it did in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

52. No record keeping issues were identified in this case. We were able to complete our investigation with the information provided.

Communication

53. The landlord should keep residents informed of the progress of their repairs. Updates should be sent proactively and not only in response to contact from residents.
54. The landlord should tell residents about repair visits in advance, except for emergencies, in accordance with the terms and conditions of tenancy agreements.
55. Where a resident asks for help, the landlord should discuss support options at the earliest opportunity. It should not withdraw support because a complaint is raised.
56. The landlord should acknowledge complaints in line with the committed timescale set out in its policy.
57. The landlord should extend complaint response deadlines if it cannot meet the target timescales set out in its policy. It should tell the resident about this, as it did in this case.