The Guinness Partnership Limited (202513912)

Decision
Case ID	202513912
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	12 December 2025

Background

1. The resident lived in a 2-bedroom flat with her partner and her 3 children, all aged under 10 years old. The property is located on an upper floor with properties above and below. The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs and leaks in her property.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Wastewater pipe repairs and the associated leak.
   2. Report of a leak into the property from above.
   3. Front door repairs.
   4. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
   1. Wastewater pipe repairs and the associated leak.
   2. Report of a leak into the property from above.
   3. Front door repairs.
   4. Associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. In summary, the Ombudsman found that the landlord:

Wastewater pipe repairs and the associated leak.

1. Unreasonably delayed in completing repairs to the resident’s wastewater pipes to stop water backing up and blockages. It also failed to urgently repair corroded wastewater copper pipes, which lead to a major leak in March 2025. This resulted in the resident’s flat flooding with wastewater. The leak damaged the resident’s hallway flooring.

The leak from above.

2. Completed works to an external balcony in 2023. It completed make good works to the resident’s property in 2023. It could not evidence it had completed actions it had agreed as an outcome to the resident’s complaint. The leak is ongoing.

Front door repairs

3. Failed to refer the resident’s front door repairs to its specialist contractor in November 2024. It delayed in referring the issue in March 2025. This resulted in the resident having to live in a draughty property. It also meant the fire door was likely ineffective during the period of the delay.

Complaint handling

4. Failed to recognise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction in 2023 and 2025. Delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint and responding at stage 1. It failed to recognise the resident’s request for compensation for the damaged flooring related to the wastewater pipe leak and not the leak from above.

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 provided by a manager. 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 16 January 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £2,900 made up as follows: £1,800 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the wastewater pipe repairs and associated leak. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the leak from above. £400 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the door repairs. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 16 January 2026
3	Inspection order   The landlord must contact the resident to arrange an inspection. It must take all reasonable steps to ensure the inspection is completed by the due date. The inspection must be completed by an externally appointed independent surveyor with expertise to complete the type of inspection required.  If the landlord cannot gain access to complete the inspection, it must provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to inspect the property no later than the due date.   What the inspection must achieve The landlord must ensure that the surveyor: Inspects the property and surrounding properties to identify the source of the leak. The surveyor must produce a written report with photographs. The survey report must set out: Whether the property is fit for human habitation and whether there are any hazards. The most likely cause of the leak from above. Whether the landlord is responsible to repair or resolve the issue together with reasons where it is not responsible. A full scope of works to achieve a lasting and effective repair to the issue (if the landlord is responsible). The likely timescales to commence and complete the work. Whether temporary alternative accommodation is necessary either because of the condition of the property or during the works.	No later than 16 January 2026
4	Starting the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the works identified in the inspection report are started no later than the due date. If the landlord cannot start the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot start the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will start and finish the works; or The steps it has taken to start the works and provide us with documentary evidence of its attempts to ensure the works were started by the due date. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident.	No later than 30 January 2026
5	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed.	No later than 27 February 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
14 March 2025	The resident complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs since she moved into the property. This included repairs to the wastewater pipes in the kitchen and bathroom. A leak from the wastewater pipes which had flooded the bathroom and hallway. A leak from above into the property. A repair to the front door which was draughty.
23 April 2025	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
7 May 2025	The landlord told the resident it needed another 10 working days to complete its investigation.
22 May 2025	The landlord sent its stage 1 response. It accepted there had been failures in its handling of the resident’s repairs which had led to delays. It accepted there had been failures in its complaint handling and poor communication. It apologised and offered £600 compensation. It would not compensate for the damage to the resident’s hallway floorboards. It would replace the kitchen wastepipes within 20 working days. It would inspect the external balcony on 4 June 2025 to check for the leak. It expected to complete any repairs within 20 working days of the inspection. It would replace the resident’s front door within 10 weeks.
23 May 2025	The resident told the landlord the amount of compensation offered was not enough. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2.
30 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
26 June 2025	The landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said the compensation offered at stage 1 was proportionate. It accepted there had been further failures since the stage 1 complaint response. It increased the compensation to £710 to reflect this.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained dissatisfied and asked us to investigate. As an outcome she wanted the landlord to resolve the leak into the property. To replace the laminate flooring in her hallway, which the leak from the wastewater pipe damaged. To redecorate the stairs wall which the leak from above caused. To increase the compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience she had been caused.
11 November 2025	The landlord completed another review of the resident’s complaint. It accepted the leaks into the resident’s property had affected her since the start of her tenancy. It increased the compensation to £1,460 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused over this period.

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	The landlord’s handling of the wastewater pipe repairs and the associated leak.
Finding	Maladministration

5. The Ombudsman usually doesn’t investigate complaints unless they were formally made to the landlord within a year of the problem happening. Although the resident didn’t make a formal complaint until March 2025, she repeatedly reported issues with her wastewater pipes each year since August 2022. There was not a continuous period where this issue did not affect her. She also expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the issue in May 2023, which the landlord did not progress as a complaint. So, we’ve decided it’s fair to look at how the landlord responded from August 2022 onwards.
6. The resident first reported her kitchen sink was blocked and water was backing up to her washing machine on 25 August 2022. The landlord attended on the same date and cleared the blockage. This was in line with its repair responsibilities which says it will deal with emergency repairs within 24 hours.
7. The resident raised the same issue on 19 October 2022. The landlord attended on the same date. It noted the landlord had not installed the wastewater pipes correctly when it had installed a new kitchen before the resident moved in. The notes state the contractor sent an email to the landlord regarding the ongoing issues with the pipes. It also said the landlord’s drainage contractor should clear the blockage.
8. We have not seen this email and so we cannot say what works the contractor recommended at that time. However, the contractor noted the poor installation of the pipework was the cause of the wastewater draining slowly and caused sediment to build up in the pipes. The landlord ought to have raised further works to put this right. There is no evidence that it took any further steps to rectify this at this time.
9. In 2023 the resident reported the same issue in January, May, and November. In January 2023 she also reported a leak from the wastewater pipe under the bath. The landlord attended the May 2023 report within 24hour and referred the job to its drainage contractor to clear the blockage. Due to lack of adequate records we cannot be satisfied the landlord responded to the January 2023 and November 2023 reports within its repair timescales, if at all.
10. In 2024 the resident reported issues with wastewater drainage in January and June. The landlord dealt with both reports within its repair timescales.
11. On 21 January 2025 the resident raised the issue again. The landlord attended on 22 January 2025. This was within 24hour but there was no access. The landlord raised the repair again. The drainage contractor attended later the same date and cleared the blockage.
12. The landlord raised follow on works to replace the pipework on 27 January 2025 with a target date of 24 February 2025. The drainage contractor attended on 11 February 2025 and found the wastewater pipework in the kitchen and bathroom was corroded in places and needed replacing. It recommended the landlord complete the work urgently as it could result in a major leak, if left.
13. The landlord raised a works order to replace the pipe work with a completion date of 3 March 2025. The contractor attended on 18 February 2025 but did not complete any works. This was due to a communication issue between the landlord and the contractor. Whilst the landlord had raised the job to change the pipework, the instructions on the works order were not clear on what works it needed to complete or how long the work would take. The contractor asked the landlord to confirm again if it needed a quote for the works.
14. On 20 February 2025 the landlord confirmed it wanted the contractor to quote for works to replace all the wastewater pipework. It said the pipework had perished and was causing issues for the flat below.
15. On 5 March 2025 the contractor attended again but was unable to complete the job due to the required parts not being available. This was not acceptable. The contractor had previously attended on 18 February 2025 and should have inspected to provide a quote. This would have identified what parts were needed. The contractor could then have completed the repairs on 5 March 2025. This did not happen.
16. The resident said the leak got worse after the contractor left on 5 March 2025. By 9:30pm the water had flooded her bathroom. Her neighbour knocked on her door to say the water was leaking into the flat below. The resident said she contacted the landlord’s out of hours repair line. It told her to ring back the following morning. We do not dispute what the resident has told us. However, we have not seen the landlord’s out of hours call records. We therefore cannot see what the landlord’s response was and whether this was reasonable or not.
17. The resident contacted the landlord at 8:00am on 6 March 2025 to inform it the leak had got worse. The landlord raised an emergency repair and told the resident someone would attend within 24 hours. The resident contacted the landlord at 4:30pm as she had not heard anything. It told her someone would definitely attend. By the evening the flood had spread to the resident’s hallway. The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours repair service at 7:35pm. The landlord put her on hold but the call disconnected and the landlord did not call back. At 7:45pm the landlord told her it was trying to get hold of the on-call plumber but could not get through. The landlord told the resident to turn off the water supply. She called again at 11:12pm as she had not heard anything. The landlord told her there was only so much it could do. It told her to call the main repair line as soon as the office opened the following morning.
18. When the resident spoke to the landlord the following morning it informed her the on-call plumber had called in sick. Although this was out of the landlord’s control, it should have systems in place to cover for such occurrences. Had it had such a system in place it would have ensured it could deal with emergency situations such as this within its repair timescales.
19. The landlord’s contractor attended shortly after 8:00am on 7 March 2025. The contractor was unable to resolve the leak on that date. It said the landlord would need to decant the resident and her family until it completed the repair. The resident was decanted around 8 March 2025. The landlord completed the repair to the bathroom pipework on 13 March 2025. The resident returned home on 14 March 2025.
20. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had arranged for its contractor to attend within the next 20 working days to replace the waste pipes in the kitchen. This meant it should have completed the works by no later than 20 June 2025. The landlord scheduled the works for 27 June 2025 which was outside its 20-working day timeframe.
21. On 27 May 2025 and 4 June 2025 the resident reported further issues with wastewater backing up. There was a delay in it responding to the May 2025 report. This was due to it not logging the repair as an emergency. This caused further distress to the resident because she was concerned her property would flood again. The landlord responded to the June report within its 24hour emergency timeframe.
22. On 18 June 2025 the landlord held an internal meeting to discuss the resident’s case. During the meeting they discussed bringing the appointment for the kitchen pipework replacement forward. This was not possible due to the contractor availability. Whilst this did not help the resident, it was reasonable that the landlord considered it.
23. There were further delays in the landlord completing the works to replace the wastewater pipes in the kitchen. This was due to miscommunication between the landlord and the contractor about removal of the kitchen units. It was also due to the landlord not sending enough operatives to remove the units, which was a 2-man job. The landlord completed the works around the beginning of July 2025. This was approximately 12 working days outside its 20-working day target.
24. The landlord attempted to put things right by apologising, agreeing to complete repairs, and offering £600 compensation. This was to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of all the repairs. The landlord increased this amount to £1,150 in November 2025. The landlord did not break the compensation down to individual repairs. The landlord was aware the wastewater pipes had not been installed correctly since October 2022. It knew this was the cause of the water backing up and blockages. Whilst it attended repairs and cleared blockages it failed to take appropriate steps to address the underlying cause of the issue.
25. In addition to this, the landlord delayed in taking urgent steps to replace the corroded copper wastewater pipes following the contractor recommendations on 11 February 2025. Whilst the landlord raised the works, it failed to communicate the required repairs and urgency to its contractors which caused a delay. This meant the leak worsened until there was a major leak on 5 March 2025 which affected the resident and her neighbours.
26. The landlord’s handling of the issues caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience. She was on edge wondering when the next issue would occur. She was concerned about the leaks affecting her neighbours and embarrassed when this happened. On occasions she had to move water by bucket from her sink to her bath to get it to drain away. This would lead us to a finding of maladministration.
27. Based on this we’ve ordered the landlord to pay £1,800 for this part of the resident’s complaint. This follows our guidance for situations where serious problems went on for a long time and made it hard for the resident to have quiet enjoyment of their home.
28. In relation to the resident’s request for the landlord to pay to replace the flooring in the hallway. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will only be responsible for paying compensation for damage to personal possessions where it is at fault. In this case, the corroded copper pipes were the cause of the leak. The landlord missed opportunities to replace the copper pipes sooner. This was a failure and it should pay the resident compensation. We have considered this in our award.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of a leak into the property from above.
Finding	Maladministration

29. The resident first reported a leak into her property from above on 6 November 2022. Water was running into the plug socket in her children’s bedroom. The landlord attended within its 24-hour repair timescale to isolate the socket and check for the leak. The contractor checked the flat above but could not find any leaks. It said the leak could have come from a shared balcony and recommended the landlord inspect and complete identified repairs.
30. We have not seen the landlord’s inspection report. It raised the communal repairs to the balcony on 22 February 2023 with a target of 22 March 2023. The landlord completed repairs to the balcony. Due to lack of records, we cannot say when it completed the repairs or whether this was within its repair timescales.
31. On 2 June 2023 the landlord raised make good works to the resident’s bedroom and hallway, following the leak. It initially attended on 7 June 2023. It was unable to complete the works because the resident’s bedroom ceiling was Artex and the landlord needed an asbestos test before it could complete the works.
32. On 23 June 2023 the resident reported the leak had returned. The landlord raised a repair to check for defects with its repair to the balcony. Due to the lack of adequate records we cannot be satisfied that the landlord completed this repair within its repair timescales.
33. If the landlord completed the balcony repairs within target, then the target to complete the make good repairs would have been 18 August 2023. The landlord attended on 17 August 2023. On this occasion the resident asked it to come back later. The landlord attended on 28 September 2023, finally completing the works on 13 October 2023. Whilst this was outside its repair timeframe, the delay was outside the landlord’s control.
34. The resident has told us she continued to be affected by a leak from above. Whilst we do not disbelieve the resident, we have not seen any records to show she reported this issue again until she made her complaint on 14 March 2025. However we can see the landlord was receiving reports of roof leaks from other residents from at least August 2023 onwards.
35. The landlord attempted to put things right by agreeing to investigate the balcony again and complete any required repairs. It said it had also completed roof repairs which had been affecting other residents. It accepted it had delayed in completing the repairs and offered compensation. However, we cannot say there has been reasonable redress because we cannot be satisfied the landlord inspected the balcony and completed any identified repairs, which it agreed as a complaint outcome. This leads to a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.
36. The resident has told us the leak is still occurring. We have made an order that the landlord instruct an independent survey to trace and detect the leak from above. It should then complete any identified repairs within a reasonable timeframe. This should include any make good works to the resident’s property damaged by the leak.

 

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of front door repairs.
Finding	Maladministration

37. The landlord’s records show the resident reported the door was draughty on 29 November 2024. The landlord inspected the door on 24 December 2024. It noted the door needed lifting and needed a specialist contractor due to it being a fire door. The landlord’s policy says it will complete the repair within 20 working days. By the landlord leaving the inspection to as late as it did, it gave itself insufficient time to complete any matters found during the inspection, within the repairing timescale.  The landlord did not pass the repair to its specialist contractor at this time.
38. Following further contact from the resident, the landlord inspected the door on 3 March 2025 and found it was unrepairable. It raised a works order on 21 March 2025 requesting its specialist contractor inspect the door for renewal. However, the landlord cancelled the works order and therefore we do not know what date the landlord passed this work to the contractor.
39. The landlord attended on 25 March 2025 and fitted rubber seals to the door frame to prevent draughts, as a temporary repair. The landlord should have undertake this action sooner to mitigate the effects on the resident whilst it sought a permanent repair.
40. In its complaint responses the landlord confirmed it had approved the replacement of the resident’s door. Due to the manufacturing of the door, it expected to complete the works within 10 weeks. Although we do not know when the landlord completed the works, the resident has confirmed it has replaced the door.
41. Whilst the landlord completed a temporary repair in March 2025, it failed to refer the issue to its specialist contractor in December 2024. There was then a further delay in it referring the issue to its contractor in March 2025. This caused an overall delay in it completing the repair. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to live with draughts coming through the door from at least November 2024 until at least the end of July 2025. It also meant the fire door may not have been effective during this time.
42. This would lead to a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

43. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was the 2024 edition (April 2024). Our findings are:
    1. The landlord’s complaint policy complied with the terms of the Code. This was in respect to the definition of a complaint and timescales.
    2. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction in May 2023, January 2025, and on 2 occasions in March 2025.
    3. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s 14 March 2025 complaint by 21 March 2025 and sent its response by no later than 4 April 2025. It only recognised the complaint when the resident chased it for a response in April 2025. This meant it did not acknowledge the complaint or provide its stage 1 response within the required timescales. This was not inline with its policy or the Code.
    4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation and sent its stage 2 response in line with its policy and the Code.
    5. The landlord failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the resident’s request for it to compensate her for the damaged hallway flooring. Had it done so it would have recognised the leak in the bathroom had caused the damage and not the leak from above, as outlined in its complaint responses. This was not in line with the Code.
    6. In November 2025 the landlord offered the resident an additional £750 compensation. This was to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by delay in completing repairs, poor communication, and poor complaint handling. The landlord sent its follow up response approximately 3 years after it was on notice about the wastewater pipes. It was also 5 months after the resident exhausted its complaint procedure on the issue. While we welcome the fact the landlord sought to revisit the issue to try and put things right, the landlord made the offer after the resident had exhausted its complaints procedure. We recognise that the landlord made a later offer of compensation. But we do not consider the landlord made the offer as part of the complaint.
44. Due to the failures outlined above, there was maladministration. The landlord attempted to put things right by offering £100 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This amount does not reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident who had to chase the landlord to respond. To reflect this we have made an order that the landlord increase its compensation to £200. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance.

Learning

45. The landlord should ensure work orders contain relevant information in relation to the required repair. It should also ensure it allocates the appropriate time needed to complete the repair. This will ensure its contractors can complete the required repairs at first attendance. This will improve customer satisfaction.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

46. The landlord has not provided evidence of all inspection reports or completed works. Some of its repairs records were unclear and did not detail the nature or outcome of the works completed. At times, this affected our ability to assess its actions.

Communication

47. There were several instances where the landlord failed to respond to the resident. The landlord should explore ways to maintain consistent contact with residents while repairs are ongoing.