The Guinness Partnership Limited (202535463)

Decision
Case ID	202535463
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 May 2026

Background

The resident has complained about the landlord’s response to concerns she raised about neighbours on either side of her property, relating to fencing and obstruction of a communal pathway, particularly that the landlord’s handling of the issues had escalated the situation.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. Request for replacement fencing.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement fencing.
3. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Reports of ASB

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s initial report within its policy timescales. When triaging the report, it failed to speak to the resident, complete a risk assessment and inform her of the outcome. It also did not agree an action plan or discuss next steps with the resident before speaking to her neighbour about her reports. When the resident reported further ASB, there were delays in investigating these concerns.

Request for replacement fencing

The landlord’s response was consistent with its published guidance. However, it delayed responding to the resident’s initial report and failed to confirm which fence she was responsible for, despite her request.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s responses did not fully address all the concerns raised and did not identify some service failings which had occurred, despite the available evidence.

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 senior member of staff. 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 17 June 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £550 made up as follows: £400 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her reports of ASB. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the errors in its handling of her request for replacement fencing. £50 for the complaint handling failures identified. 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 made.	No later than 17 June 2026
3	Specific action order – fencing responsibility The landlord must write to the resident by the due date, confirming which side of the fence she is responsible for in the rear garden. Where available, it should also provide a plan to clearly illustrate this. A copy of this correspondence should be provided to us by the due date.	No later than 17 June 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to ask if she needs any support or assistance with making an application for rehousing.
We recommend that the landlord contacts the resident to ask if she would like it to open a new formal complaint about its handling of the issues raised after the previous complaints process concluded. If so, it must respond to this in line with its complaint processes.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
19 March 2025	The resident complained to the landlord. She said she was disappointed and concerned about how her reports of ASB were handled. She stated that the landlord had approached her neighbour before discussing the issue with her, which she considered unacceptable. She said this this approach had exacerbated the situation and left her feeling more vulnerable.
27 March 2025	The resident asked the landlord to confirm when it would inspect the fence following her initial report on 20 February 2025 that it was damaged. She also requested that it arrange for the installation of a secure fence to ensure her safety and privacy.
11 April 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It upheld the complaint, acknowledging that it had failed to contact the resident within its standard timescales following her initial report of ASB. It also recognised that, while its policies do not require visits to be pre-arranged, it would have been good practice to arrange an appointment with the resident before visiting her neighbour. It said the resident would need to discuss and resolve the fencing matter with her neighbours as customers were responsible for repairing or replacing dividing fences. The landlord offered £100 compensation for poor communication, as well as the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
11 April 2025	The resident escalated her complaint. She said although the landlord had acknowledged the issues with communication, its investigation had not fully addressed all the concerns she had raised. She said she was seeking a fair outcome and a resolution that would allow her to live in her home peacefully, without intimidation or harassment.
20 May 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It partially upheld the complaint, stating that although its actions were largely appropriate and reflected a commitment to conducting a “robust and fair” investigation, there were instances where communication had not been timely. However, it explained that the advice provided to the resident following her initial ASB report was appropriate and in line with its policies and procedures, as well as informed by its visit to the area. It stated that it considered the compensation offered at stage 1 to be reasonable and therefore re-offered the £100 to the resident.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She said the landlord had closed the complaint at both stages without providing a proper resolution. She stated that it had failed to handle the matter impartially, professionally, and within the required timescales. She also advised that a breach of trust and confidence had occurred, which she believed had directly contributed to an escalation in the conflict with her neighbours. In addition, she raised concerns about the unauthorised sharing of her personal information and the landlord’s handling of counter allegations.
18 May 2026	During her contact with us, the resident said one of her neighbours had moved and the specific ASB relating to the parking space had stopped. However, she stated that the issue with the broken fence remained unresolved. As an outcome, she said she was seeking replacement fencing, the removal of specific information from the landlord’s records, and support to move to another property closer to her family. She also asked us to award compensation to reflect the emotional distress and impact on her health caused by the situation.

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 resident’s reports of ASB
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not investigated

The resident has raised additional complaint issues which have occurred since the complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence that the resident’s concerns about an overgrown bush, the alleged unauthorised sharing of her personal information with a local councillor, the landlord’s handling of counter-allegations, or further reports of ASB have been considered through the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, we have no power to investigate these issues.
Accordingly, we have limited the scope of this investigation to the issues considered during the landlord’s internal complaints process and any related commitments. We have therefore considered events up to 19 June 2025, when the landlord’s tenancy enforcement team first contacted the resident in line with its final response.

What we have investigated

On 20 February 2025, the resident reported concerns involving 2 neighbours (referred to in this report as Neighbours A and B, who were both tenants of the landlord). She raised issues about the fencing between her and Neighbour A (assessed below) and said that Neighbour B had been obstructing access to a communal pathway with their bin. She said she found their behaviour threatening and that her attempts to resolve the issue had been unsuccessful. She asked the landlord to contact her to discuss how the matter could be resolved “peacefully”.
The landlord’s tenancy enforcement team reviewed the report on 11 March 2025, 13 working days after it was made, and concluded that the issue did not require tenancy enforcement action and should be referred to the customer liaison officer for “local resolution”. While the landlord was entitled to triage the report, it did so without first speaking to the resident or completing a risk assessment to understand the impact of the situation. This approach was not in line with its ASB policy. The delay in completing this initial review also contributed to the landlord’s failure to acknowledge and respond to the resident’s concerns within the 3-working-day timescale set out in its ASB policy.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that, where reported behaviour does not meet its definition of ASB, it will inform the complainant. Having reached this conclusion, the landlord should have contacted the resident to explain its position and discuss how it could support her, particularly as she had asked to be contacted to agree a resolution. Instead, it attempted an unannounced visit on 19 March 2025, which was unsuccessful. By not arranging an appointment or contacting the resident by another means, the landlord did not give her a clear opportunity to discuss her concerns, likely causing her distress and inconvenience.
On the same visit, the landlord also attempted to speak to Neighbours A and B about the concerns raised. It was unable to speak to Neighbour A, but it did speak to Neighbour B regarding the placement of their bins. While the landlord’s actions formed part of its initial enquiries, approaching the neighbour first without prior engagement with the resident did not adequately take account of the concerns she had raised. This approach also likely undermined her confidence in the landlord’s handling of the matter and contributed to her decision to escalate the issue through the complaints process.
The resident made a further report to the landlord on 27 March 2025, stating that she had been verbally harassed and intimidated by Neighbour B. She also chased a response, following the landlord’s visit to her neighbour. On 2 April 2025, the landlord informed the resident that it had agreed with her neighbour that the bins could remain in their current position, as they were within the neighbour’s parking space. It explained that the bins were not on the shared footpath or the resident’s garden and did not prevent her from accessing the footpath or her parking space. While this outcome was likely disappointing for the resident, the landlord was entitled to rely on the professional judgement of its staff, and we have seen no evidence to suggest its conclusions were unreasonable.
On the same day (2 April 2025), the landlord offered to refer the resident’s reports of verbal harassment and intimidation to its tenancy enforcement team for further investigation. This was appropriate, as these concerns fell within the definition of ASB under its policy. It followed this up with the resident on 3 April 2025 and also referred the concerns about the bins and communal footpath to its legal team for advice. These were proportionate steps in the circumstances.
In its stage 1 response on 11 April 2025, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delay in responding to the resident’s initial report and recognised that it would have been good practice to arrange an appointment before visiting her neighbour. While it was positive that the landlord accepted that a different approach may have been more appropriate, it did not address the resident’s specific concerns that this approach had worsened the situation with her neighbours. Nor did it address her subsequent reports of verbal harassment and intimidation, leaving key aspects of the complaint unresolved.
On 11 April 2025, the resident reported harassment and intimidation from Neighbour A, stating that they had been parking in her designated parking space. She also said her neighbours had made false accusations against her and reported her for tenancy fraud, indicating that the situation had escalated. She asked the landlord whether the matter had been passed to a caseworker. The landlord did not respond at that time, which was unreasonable. The landlord referred the matter to its tenancy enforcement team on 17 April 2025 to investigate the reported harassment. While it was appropriate to progress the issue given the nature of the concerns raised, it did not inform the resident that it had done so or provide an update on how her report would be handled. This likely added to the resident’s uncertainty.
In its final response on 20 May 2025, the landlord explained that its ASB policy requires it to gather information, including speaking to alleged perpetrators, and said it was not aware the resident wished to remain anonymous. It therefore considered its actions at the information‑gathering stage to be reasonable. While the policy allows for evidence gathering, it also requires the landlord to agree an action plan with the resident and take a victim‑centred approach, including being clear about next steps. The landlord did not agree an action plan or discuss next steps with the resident before speaking to her neighbours, which was not in line with its policy. It also did not acknowledge this in its final response, which was unreasonable. Taking these steps could have helped manage the situation more effectively and may have reduced the risk of escalation.
In its final response, the landlord also stated that the resident’s concerns about harassment were being managed by its ASB officer, who would contact her directly. However, it did not provide contact details for the officer or set out any clear timescales for contact, leaving the resident uncertain about when the matter would progress.
On 23 May 2025, the resident reported further incidents involving Neighbour A, explaining that the ASB was ongoing and that she was unsure who to contact, as she had not yet been assigned an officer. The landlord responded on 28 May 2025, stating that it had asked its ASB officer to contact her. However, no further action followed until 19 June 2025 – 2 months after the matter had been referred for further investigation – when the ASB officer contacted the resident to ask whether she was still experiencing harassment and intimidation. This delay was unreasonable given the nature of the concerns raised. It also likely caused the resident distress and inconvenience and delayed progress and any potential resolution.
The resident told us that the situation caused her significant stress, anxiety, and trauma, which had a severe impact on her mental wellbeing. If the resident believes the situation caused an injury, it would be fairer and more effective for her to pursue a personal injury claim, as the courts can rely on independent medical evidence to determine the cause and duration of any injury. We have therefore not investigated this aspect further. We can, however, consider whether the landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
During contact with us in May 2026, the resident said that circumstances had changed, as one of her neighbours had moved and the specific ASB relating to the parking space had stopped. However, she explained that, due to the emotional impact the situation had caused, she wished to move to another property closer to her family for safety, wellbeing, and support. While it is not within our remit to require the landlord to rehouse the resident, we have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide appropriate support and assistance with any rehousing application.
The landlord offered £100 in compensation during the complaints process. This does not adequately reflect the impact of the failings identified in this investigation. We consider an additional payment of £300 to be appropriate, which brings the total compensation the landlord is ordered to pay the resident to £400. This has been calculated in accordance with our compensation guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been failures that adversely affected the resident and where the landlord’s original offer was not proportionate to the failings identified during our investigation.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement fencing
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s estate and neighbourhood management policy sets out its responsibilities for boundaries and fencing. It states:
1. The landlord is responsible for maintaining boundary fences, including those surrounding communal gardens and spaces, as well as fences adjoining a public right of way such as a road, field, or car park.
2. Tenants are responsible for repairing or replacing dividing fences between 2 of the landlord’s properties, unless the tenancy agreement states otherwise.
The resident first raised concerns about her garden fencing on 20 February 2025, stating that the fence between her and her neighbour was damaged and posed a “privacy and security risk”. She asked the landlord to replace the fencing. The landlord did not respond, which was unreasonable and led the resident to chase the matter 5 weeks later, on 27 March 2025. At that point, she asked the landlord to confirm when it would inspect the fencing and install a replacement.
The landlord first responded on 2 April 2025, when it asked the resident to confirm whether she was referring to a boundary or dividing fence. It advised that it would repair or replace boundary fencing, but that dividing fences were the tenant’s responsibility. This advice was consistent with its policy. On 3 April 2025, the resident asked the landlord to confirm which side of the fence was her responsibility and queried why it had installed new dividing fencing for her neighbour.
In its stage 1 response on 11 April 2025, the landlord confirmed that tenants are responsible for repairing or replacing dividing fencing and advised the resident to discuss the matter with her neighbours. However, it failed to address the specific queries she had raised on 3 April 2025 (assessed below as part of the complaint handling). As a result, it did not clarify which fence she was responsible for, leaving the matter unresolved. The landlord’s advice for the resident to discuss the matter with her neighbours also did not fully reflect the context of the ongoing situation and overlooked the likely difficulty this would cause her in the circumstances.
In its final response on 20 May 2025, the landlord reiterated its position, confirming that the advice provided to the resident on 2 April 2025 was in line with its policies. While this outcome was understandably disappointing for the resident, the tenancy agreement and estate and neighbourhood management policy do not require the landlord to replace dividing fencing, and its decision was therefore consistent with its published guidance.
After the complaint process ended, the resident wrote to the landlord on 21 June 2025, again asking which fence she was responsible for, as there were 2 fences. She explained that she was unable to approach her neighbour due to the conflict and said the landlord should install the fence, as it had done for other neighbours. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded.
During contact with us between March and May 2026, the resident advised that the fencing remained insecure and required replacement, and that the landlord had still not clarified her boundary responsibilities. While it is not within our remit to require the landlord to replace fencing contrary to its policies, we have ordered it to confirm which fence the resident is responsible for.
The landlord did not identify any failings in its complaint investigation relating to the fencing and therefore did not offer compensation as part of its complaint responses. We consider a payment of £100 to be appropriate. This has been calculated in line with our compensation guidance, which recommends awards of this level where there have been service failures by the landlord.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	Service failure

Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. In this case, the relevant Code was published in April 2024. The timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy were consistent with the requirements of the Code.
At stage 1, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint 3 working days late and issued its stage 1 response within the 10‑working‑day timescale. At stage 2, it acknowledged the escalation request 2 working days later than the policy timelines, and issued its stage 2 response within the 20‑working‑day timescale. The delays in acknowledging the complaint at both stages were minor, and there is no evidence that they caused any detriment to the resident. However, there were other failures.
The landlord did not fully address all the points the resident raised during the complaint investigation. Under the Code, landlords must include any related additional complaints in the stage 1 response where it has not yet been issued. While the landlord appropriately included the fencing issue, it failed to address specific queries raised by the resident, particularly her request for it to confirm which fence she was responsible for. It also did not correct this omission in its final response, despite the resident stating in her escalation that not all her concerns had been addressed. This was unreasonable, as it left the resident without a complete response and likely contributed to her ongoing dissatisfaction.
The stage 2 complaint was the landlord’s final opportunity to fully review its handling of the substantive issues, yet it did not identify some of the service failures that had occurred in its handling of the ASB reports or the request for replacement fencing. This was inconsistent with the available evidence and suggests its investigation could have been more thorough.
We consider a payment of £50 to be appropriate compensation for the complaint handling failures identified. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put right.
After the complaints process ended, the resident contacted the landlord on 27 June 2025 and 15 August 2025, raising further concerns about its handling of the issues with her neighbours. Some of these were new issues that had not previously been considered through the landlord’s internal complaints process. Under the Code, the landlord should have logged these as a new complaint. However, it failed to do so, which was inappropriate, as it denied the resident the opportunity to have these concerns formally investigated and, if necessary, referred to us. A recommendation has been made in relation to this matter.

Learning

The landlord should ensure that, where residents express further dissatisfaction, any new issues raised after the final complaint response that have not already been formally investigated are logged as a new complaint. This will ensure any new concerns are formally acknowledged, investigated in line with its complaints policy, and that a clear outcome is provided, giving residents the opportunity to escalate the matter if they remain dissatisfied.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s record‑keeping was generally good. It provided clear and detailed ASB and complaint records, which supported the investigation of the complaint.

Communication

There was a lack of effective proactive communication from the landlord. It failed to keep the resident informed at key points during its process, which led her to chase for updates. It also did not always follow her stated communication preferences, including her request to be contacted by email to arrange a call back.