The Guinness Partnership Limited (202515390)

Decision
Case ID	202515390
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	28 January 2026

Background

1. The resident lives in a 2 bed flat with her 4 children. The resident told the landlord that she had fibromyalgia, and polio, which affected her mobility. The resident was previously a tenant of another landlord and her property was transferred to the Guiness Partnership as part of a stock transfer in 2021. Prior to being transferred, the resident had been approved for a management move on health grounds as she had pending surgery which would have affected her mobility. In her complaint to us the resident raised repairs, and damp and mould.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
   2. Reports of outstanding repairs in the property.
   3. Request for a management move.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould is not within jurisdiction to consider.
   2. The complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs is not within jurisdiction to consider.
   3. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move.
   4. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

 

Summary of reasons

Damp and mould

4. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the damp and mould in her property as part of this complaint. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these.

Outstanding repairs

5. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the outstanding repairs as part of this complaint. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these.

Request for a management move

6. The landlords record management was not sufficient that it could identify if properties were suitable to be offered to the resident. This led to considerable delays. The landlord could not demonstrate that it proactively sought to find suitable property.  It acknowledged that its communication had been poor at times, although it apologised for this, offered compensation and identified learning. However, the compensation was not sufficient to put things right for the failures we have identified.

Complaint handling

7. There was a delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 complaint response, but it acknowledged this, apologised, offered £50 compensation and identified relevant learning to prevent a reoccurrence, which was reasonable given the circumstances.

Putting things right

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

Orders

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

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident a total of £550 (including what is offered during the complaint process if not paid already) comprised of:   The £50 it previously offered in its complaint response for poor communication. £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures to consider its housing stock effectively as part of her managed move request.   This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. It may deduct the £50 (or any part of it) offered in its complaint responses if it has already paid this, provided evidence of this is supplied.	No later than 25 February 2026
2	Specific action order The landlord must re-assess the resident’s vulnerabilities, housing needs, housing state and evidence that she has submitted. It must then confirm if she meets the requirements for a management transfer. If so, how it will action this and when. If the resident does not meet the requirements for a management transfer, the landlord must outline (in writing), what options are available to the resident and what support it will put in place to assist her with this.	No later than 25 February 2026
3	Learning order The landlord must undertake a review of this case and provide the outcome of the review to us. The review should aim to identify the root cause of the failures identified in this report, including: The lack of information about its housing stock, such as the property type. Its repeated poor communication with the resident. Its delays in responding to the resident’s complaint and the reasons why it requested an extension after the deadline had already expired. It should also outline what actions it will take to prevent a recurrence of these issues in future. This may include staff training, process changes, system changes, alterations to its policies or other actions.	No later than 11 March 2026

 

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
The landlord should re-offer the £50 compensation it offered in its complaint responses for poor complaint handling.

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 November 2024	The resident complained that her property was overcrowded and that she needed to be moved to a more suitable property for her medical needs.
29 November 2024	The landlord apologised for the delay in progressing the resident’s complaint and said a response would be issued in the next 10 working days.
2 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said: It had previously explained its management move policy was different to the resident’s previous landlord. It had closed her management move case in June 2024, as these were usually only held open for 12 weeks. It said she had been placed in the next highest band (Band B) and encouraged her to bid via its ‘Your Choice’ system or to consider mutual exchange or the local authority housing list. It had received new medical evidence with the resident’s complaint which it was now reviewing. The resident’s children were allowed to share bedrooms under the English bedroom standard, because of their age. It acknowledged there had been “at least 4 occasions” when it had failed to contact the resident within its 2 working day timeframe. It apologised for this and offered £50 compensation. It acknowledged it had “failed to acknowledge, extend, or respond” to the resident’s stage 1 complaint in the timeframes in its complaint policy. It apologised and offered £50 compensation in respect of this.
6 December 2024	The resident escalated her complaint because the landlord’s response did not provide her with a 4 bed property that she said she needed for her family. She declined the £100 compensation offered.
14 January 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and said: Its position on the transfer request was unchanged from its stage 1 response. It had considered the medical evidence provided and this did not alter the resident’s banding. It acknowledged “several occasions” since the previous response when it had not updated the resident in a timely way. It apologised and re-offered the £100 compensation from its stage 1 response. It had shared the findings from this complaint process with the relevant managers to inform training and staff discussions.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman and asked us to consider the landlord’s response to her rehousing request, damp and mould in the property, outstanding repairs, poor communication and complaint handling. The resident said that she was seeking to be rehoused into a suitable property.

 

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 response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

8. The resident told us that there was damp and mould in her property that was worsening her son’s medical conditions.
9. When the resident referred her complaint to us, she asked us to consider this, however this element of her complaint has not been raised through or exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. This gives the landlord opportunity to resolve the issues and, where necessary, provide appropriate redress, before the matter is referred to us.
10. We only have the power to investigate complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process. As this element of the complaint has not exhausted this procedure it is outside of our jurisdiction and has not been investigated as part of this determination. If the resident wants to pursue this aspect further she may wish to raise it initially with the landlord.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs
Finding	Outside jurisdiction

11. The resident told us that there were outstanding repairs in the property. She said that she had started a legal disrepair claim with the landlord but had agreed a settlement outside of court. She said that the landlord had committed to actioning the repairs by December 2025.
12. When the resident referred her complaint to us, she asked us to consider this, however this element of her complaint has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.
13. We only have the power to investigate complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process. As this element of the complaint has not exhausted this procedure it is outside of our jurisdiction and has not been investigated as part of this determination.

Complaint	The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer
Finding	Maladministration

14. The resident was previously a tenant of another landlord until 2021 when her property was transferred to The Guiness Partnership as part of a stock exchange. At the time of the transfer, we have seen evidence that the resident had an open and approved request for a management move. This was on the grounds of health needs, as the resident was due to have an operation which would have affected her mobility and possibly required her to use a wheelchair afterwards. The landlord considered this period during its complaint responses and therefore we have investigated this same period.
15. The landlord explained very shortly after the transfer that it had different policies around management transfer and provided information about this, which was reasonable. The landlord further committed to update the resident and keep the case open for 12 weeks, but we have seen considerable gaps in its correspondence, at times for 1 year (in 2022). While it acknowledged this in its internal correspondence, it did not address it in its complaint responses. This was unreasonable.
16.  In June 2023, the landlord said that it had identified 14 properties with 4 bedrooms in the areas sought by the resident, however its system did not identify if these were ground floor properties. There is no evidence that the landlord undertook additional investigations, or sought advice from its housing officers, to check the property types. This was a significant failing as suitable properties may have been overlooked on this basis. This is also a failing in the landlord’s record keeping, as we would expect its systems to accurately record key details about its housing stock, such as the number of storeys.
17. The landlord kept the resident’s management move application open following the stock exchange in 2021 until June 2024. In June 2024, the landlord advised that there were no properties of this type available and then closed her case. As set out above, it could not be assured that this was the case and therefore we are not satisfied that the information it provided was accurate
18. The landlord’s allocations policy says that it will keep a management move case open for 12 weeks to allow for an “intensive search” to take place. Following this, it may either be extended with manager approval or closed. In the event the case is closed, tenants are then given a band and placed on the landlord’s ‘Your Choice’ bidding system to look for other properties.
19. The evidence shows that the landlord told the resident it had closed her case, provided her with a band and advised of other routes available to seek properties. This included mutual exchange and applying to the local authority housing list. While these were reasonable suggestions the landlord could not demonstrate that it appropriately followed its process or had a knowledge of its property stock to satisfy itself that the 14 properties identified as 4 bedroom were not ground floor properties.
20. When the resident raised her complaint, she enclosed additional medical evidence for consideration, to increase her banding priority. The landlord did consider this, however it did not inform the resident of the outcome for almost 10 weeks, when it issued its stage 2 complaint response. This was an unreasonable delay, particularly given the resident had also made attempts to chase this in the interim.
21. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response reiterated its earlier position from its stage 1 response, to bid for properties via ‘Your Choice’, consider mutual exchange or apply to the housing list. Given that it had not assessed whether the 14 properties were suitable, this may not have been an accurate position and the stage 2 complaint response did not identify this or re-open the examination of those or further properties, which was a failing. Additionally, the landlord could not identify during its investigation that its system may have incomplete information on properties type.
22. Both the landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged that its communication around the transfer process, particularly with callbacks had been poor. The landlord’s service standard is to call residents back within 2 working days, but it acknowledged that it had failed to do this on several occasions. While it was positive that the landlord apologised for this, identified further staff training and offered £50 compensation to the resident, there is little evidence of understanding or redressing the root causes of this. As such, the compensation alone is not sufficient redress in this case.
23. As part of the resident’s escalation to us, she requested that we make orders that the landlord rehouse her. This is not a remedy available to us under our Remedies Guidance, as we do not have sight of the landlord’s available and suitable stock, nor can we instruct it in this way. However, we have made an order above for the landlord to reassess her management move application and also review its handling of this.
24. Overall, the evidence indicates that the landlord held the resident’s case open long after it might otherwise have closed it under its policy. It was positive that it offered her wider advice and support with seeking properties through other means. However there were significant oversights in its housing stock knowledge. While we cannot determine whether this had prevented a suitable property being offered to the resident, prior to her case being closed, the landlord failed to demonstrate that it effectively sought for one. This caused her significant additional distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing this matter to completion for several years.

 

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

25. The Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process in lien with the Code and its complaints policy. It says it should acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The resident should then receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement.
26. The records show that the landlord provided its formal responses in the following timescales:
    1. 17 working days at stage 1.
    2. 19 working days at stage 2.
27. This means that the landlord’s was delayed by 7 working day at stage 1. The Code expects landlords to issue timely complaint responses, to avoid the resident being delayed in escalating their complaints. The Code also requires landlords to agree extensions (of up to 10 working days) with residents. Whilst the landlord informed the resident that it would require an extension, this was outside the timeframes set out in its policy. However, the detriment to the resident in this case would have been minimal given the very short delay.
28. In response to this, the landlord acknowledged this delay at stage 1 in both complaint responses, apologised and offered £50 compensation for its poor complaint handling, which was reasonable given the relatively short delay in issuing its response.
29. It was positive to note that the landlord had identified learning from this complaint and said that it would share this with relevant managers to inform staff discussions and training.
30. Taking these factors together, the landlord acknowledged that it did not handle the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its complaints policy, timescales or the requirements of the Code. It apologised, offered compensation and highlighted learning to prevent a reoccurrence. On this basis, the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident, prior to investigation, which resolves this aspect of the complaint satisfactorily.

 

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s records in this case were inconsistent. While it had some complete and accurate records, even including transfer records dating back to the stock transfer in 2021, its property management system did not record key information such as property type which frustrated its ability to be able to assess and offer properties which might have been suitable for the resident.

Communication

32. The landlord has previously acknowledged, apologised and offered compensation for its poor communication throughout this complaint. It has already identified staff training, which is positive to note.