The Guinness Partnership Limited (202338247)

Background

1. Throughout their tenancy, the resident paid their rent by monthly direct debit and believed they were always approximately 1 month in credit. They received a letter from the landlord in December 2023 which said their rent account had arrears of 78p. The arrears occurred because the direct debit on the account had not been increased to reflect a rise in rent in April 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s management of the resident’s rent account.
   2. How the landlord responded to the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found:
   1. The landlord provided reasonable redress for the complaint about the management of the resident’s rent account.
   2. There was no maladministration in how the landlord responded to the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord accepted it had failed to correctly change the resident’s direct debit and this had led to the rent account falling into arrears. It recognised this had caused frustration and worry. It offered £75 compensation to recognise the impact of its failures. We have found the landlord’s offer was a satisfactory resolution to the complaint.
5. There was a minor delay in the landlord issuing its stage 1 response. There is no evidence this caused any adverse impact. Its handling of the resident’s complaint was otherwise in line with its policies.

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.

Recommendations

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

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.

What we did not investigate

6. The resident disputes the landlord informed them about the rent increase in 2023. The landlord has provided us with a copy of correspondence which sets out the details of the rent rise. Due to the passage of time and the availability of evidence, we are unable to determine whether the resident received the landlord’s communication.

What we did investigate

7. The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges them to pay the full amount of owed rent. The landlord’s failure to correctly update the direct debit did not remove this obligation. The tenancy agreement allows the landlord to annually review the level of rent it charges.
8. The evidence shows when the resident contacted the landlord about the arrears on their account, it immediately adjusted the direct debit to the amount which covered the increased rent amount. The landlord accepted it had made an error by not increasing the direct debit amount to reflect the rent increase and apologised for the impact of its failing on the resident. The evidence shows it provided a clear explanation about how the resident’s rent account had gone into arrears and why it had not contacted the resident about the shortfall in payments sooner. These were reasonable and appropriate actions for the landlord to have taken and explained what had gone wrong with the process.
9. There is no evidence the resident incurred a financial loss. The landlord did not charge the resident any additional fees or penalties when the rent account went into arrears. The landlord was entitled to use money in the rent account as payment for rent. The credit on the account was not ‘lost’ or inappropriately used by the landlord. The evidence shows it was used to cover the shortfall between the rent owed each month and the existing monthly payment until the account went into arrears. This was because the amount being paid into the account each month was less than the amount that was being taken out to cover the increased rent.
10. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
11. The landlord made an offer of compensation which, when assessed using our remedies guidance, would be awarded where a minor failure has occurred which had a limited impact on the resident. As such, we assess the landlord’s offer of compensation to be proportionate to its failings and it satisfactorily resolves the complaint.
12. For these reasons, this leads to a determination of reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s rent account.

13. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. At the time of the resident’s complaint, it aimed to acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. It would provide a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. It would provide a final response within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
14. The landlord identified it had issued its stage 1 response outside its target timescale. The delay was minor and occurred over the festive period. It is likely the landlord would have had a reduced level of resource and operating levels during this period. There is no evidence the delay had any adverse impact on the resident. We are satisfied this minor failing does not reach a level to be considered maladministration.
15. The landlord issued its final response within the timescale set out in its policy.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. During its investigation the landlord instructed its Customer Account Team to work with its Data Assurance Team. This was to put in place measures to ensure any future direct debit updates were tested and correct. This was appropriate learning to address the issues identified in this complaint.

Communication

17. The landlord’s communication with the resident, from the point the resident raised their concerns, was satisfactory. The landlord responded to the resident within reasonable timescales and provided clear explanations.