The Guinness Partnership Limited (202526288)

Background

1. In February 2024 the resident reported leaks, damp and mould in his studio flat and the landlord carried out remedial works. In December 2024 he asked the landlord to rehouse him. In January 2025 he informed the landlord that his mental health was in jeopardy. The landlord said that it had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. On 22 January 2025 the resident submitted a disrepair claim regarding the leaks, damp and mould. The resident received assistance from a representative in his communications with the landlord. For clarity, both individuals will be referred to as “the resident” throughout this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of leaks, damp and mould.
   2. Rehousing request.
   3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have not investigated the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his reports of leaks, damp and mould because it is outside our jurisdiction.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s rehousing request.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould

6. We cannot investigate issues which are subject to legal proceedings. In this case, we can see legal proceedings were issued at court on 29 July 2025. The matters at court relate directly to the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his reports of leaks, damp and mould in his property. Therefore, we cannot investigate the complaint.

Rehousing request

7. The landlord appropriately advised the resident that he could pursue a transfer by accessing its website and bidding for available properties. However, it failed to consider whether the resident’s housing circumstances met the criteria for a management move under its allocation policy. This omission meant the landlord did not fully assess all available rehousing options open to the resident.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Although the resident did not make a complaint about its handling of his rehousing request, the landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response.

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.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

9. The resident reported leaks, damp and mould from February 2024 onwards. On 21 January 2025 he submitted a disrepair claim about the landlord’s handling of these issues. Legal proceedings began and were issued on 29 July 2025. As the disrepair claim directly concerns the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp and mould in the property, we cannot investigate these matters because they are the subject of ongoing court proceedings.

What we did not investigate

10. The resident requested a management transfer because of the conditions in his property. He explained that the property was not suitable for his 6 year old daughter or his expected baby due to leaks, damp and mould. However, as legal proceedings have begun relating to the property condition, we are unable to investigate his transfer request where it relates to these issues.
11. We only have the power to investigate complaints that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process. This ensures the landlord has the opportunity to resolve the issues and, where necessary, provide appropriate redress, before the matter is referred to us.
12. In December 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that, in February 2024, it had incorrectly informed him that the property was suitable for his daughter when it offered it to him. He later said on 17 March 2025 that the landlord had advised him in December 2024 that it could log a complain but wanted a chance to resolve the issues first.
13. We did not see evidence that the resident informed the landlord that he wished to pursue this as a complaint. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that, with the resident’s agreement, the landlord treated the matter as a service request. As the complaint about the landlord’s February 2024 suitability assessment has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process, we cannot investigate this.

What we did investigate

14. Between December 2024 and July 2025, the residentrepeatedlyinformed the landlord that his property was not suitable for his daughter to stay. He explained that his property was a studio flat, and as such his living area was also his bedroom. He said that because of this, his daughter would have to share a bed with him. He felt this was inappropriate due to her age and he had to stay at his mother’s house every weekend so that he could spend time with his daughter. He also informed the landlord in June 2025 that he was expecting another child.
15. The landlord’s allocation policy sets out that residents can register for a transfer on its website and use a bidding system to apply for their chosen property. Once residents have submitted a bid for one of its properties, it would then ask them to complete an application form. The evidence shows that, in December 2024, the landlord advised the resident to register for a transfer on its website, which he did. While we recognise that he said he was unable to bid on a property matching his needs, this was out the landlord’s control due to the limited number of properties available.
16. The landlord’s allocation policy says that it would consider a management move when residents need to move because of a significant and insurmountable problem associated with their property. However, in June 2025, the landlord said that it had not considered a management move for the resident in relation to the size of his property. This was unreasonable. It should have assessed whether the resident’s circumstances met the criteria set out in its allocation policy for a management move. Furthermore, in its stage 2 response, the landlord failed to recognise or address this oversight. This was a missed opportunity to put things right and to properly evaluate the resident’s rehousing request as a potential management move.
17. The evidence shows that the resident informed the landlord in January 2025 that he had mental health conditions, including “severe” depression. His representative also raised concerns about his welfare and the risk of self‑harm. Although the landlord acknowledged these reports, it failed to update the resident’s vulnerabilities on its housing management system. We did not find evidence that this omission affected the overall outcome of the resident’s rehousing request. Nonetheless, maintaining accurate and complete records is essential for landlords to provide appropriate services and to adjust their service delivery where necessary.
18. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident has sought for the landlord to rehouse him. However, it is not within our remit to order landlords to rehouse residents. Nevertheless, we have ordered the landlord to consider whether the resident’s circumstances meet its allocation policy criteria for a management move. We cannot say that the resident will meet this criteria or the landlord would have rehoused him if it had assessed his request sooner. The delays in the landlord considering this option caused inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident who had to raise the issue with us.

What we did not investigate

19. The resident made complaints about the landlord’s handling of leaks, damp and mould. As mentioned above, this element of his complaint is outside our jurisdiction because legal proceedings have started. Therefore, we cannot investigate the landlord’s complaint handling relating to this element of the complaint.

What we did investigate

20. The landlord’s complaint policy explains the difference between a service request and a complaint. It says it will try to resolve service requests first and if the resident remains dissatisfied, it will then raise a complaint.
21. In December 2024 the landlord informed the resident that while he could make a complaint about his property not being suitable for his daughter, it wanted a chance to resolve the issue first. The evidence suggests that, in agreement with the resident, the landlord treated the matter as a service request. This was reasonable and in line with its complaint policy. The landlord also showed that it correctly informed the resident of his option of making a complaint.
22. Although the resident had not raised a complaint about his request for rehousing, in its stage 2 response, the landlord explained the actions it took in relation to this. This was reasonable and shows that the landlord pro-actively considered this during its complaint investigation of the resident’s complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The resident informed the landlord that he had mental health concerns, but the landlord failed to update its records to reflect this.

Communication

24. While the landlord remained in contact with the resident, it failed to adequately discuss his housing needs with him and explore all rehousing options available to him.