The Guinness Partnership Limited (202402014)

Decision
Case ID	202402014
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	15 January 2026

Background

The resident’s property is a 2-bedroom, semi-detached house. The landlord is the freeholder. The resident is a variable service charge payer. The resident complained to the landlord about a 300% increase in her service charge and queried why it had increased by so much.

What the complaint is about

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about why her service charges had increased by 300%.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries about why her service charges had increased by 300%.
2. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about why her service charges had increased by 300%.

The landlord confirmed the resident was not paying for communal upkeep and that the increase was due to higher building insurance costs. It explained a Section 20 consultation was carried out for a long-term insurance agreement, which was appropriate. However, its complaint response lacked clarity, failing to explain that previous premiums were subsidised and why this changed. This omission reduced transparency and left the resident without a full understanding of why her charges had increased.
The landlord’s explanation of cost apportionment was insufficient, as it did not provide sufficient detail to help the resident understand how it apportioned the insurance premium costs to her. It also failed to address the resident’s request for audited accounts for the increased costs. It did not explain why it would not be able to provide audited accounts for these costs at that time, as these were an estimate, or how and when, she could request these.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord acknowledged delays in it responding to the initial concerns raised by the resident’s husband and in its acknowledgement of the complaint. The landlord’s apology and offer of £50 compensation is sufficient to provide the resident with reasonable redress for these. This is because, despite these acknowledged delays the landlord still provided its complaint responses within the required timeframe.

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 to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: 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 12 February 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord is to pay the resident £100 compensation for the unnecessary inconvenience and frustration caused by its failure to explain in its complaint responses that previous premiums were subsidised and why this changed, and its insufficient explanation of how the building insurance costs had been apportioned to her. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date	12 February 2026
	Provision of information order The landlord is to provide the resident with an explanation of: The reason for it no longer subsidising her building insurance premiums. How the building insurance costs had been apportioned to her. This explanation is to include how the landlord calculated how much of the overall premium was allocated to the resident’s ‘scheme’ and how it then calculated how much of the ‘scheme’ estimate was payable by the resident. The landlord must provide us with evidence that this has been done by the due date.	12 February 2026
	Learning order The landlord must carry out a review of our findings in this case. The landlord is to confirm what the result of its review was, what learning it has taken from this case and what action it intends to take to improve its service and to prevent similar failures going forward. The landlord must provide us with evidence that this has been done by the due date.	26 February 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
If it has not done so already, the landlord should now pay the resident the £50 compensation it offered her for its complaint handling failures. The finding of reasonable redress only stands as long as the landlord honours this offer.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
26 February 2024	The resident complained to the landlord about the 300% increase in her service charge. The resident expressed concerns that she was being charged for services in communal areas when she lived in a house with no communal areas. The resident emailed the landlord again on 29 February 2024 to say that she also wanted the landlord to: Confirm whether the appointed insurer had been changed and, if so, why she was never advised of this. Explain why the building insurance premium for her ‘scheme’ was £15,293 in 2023 to 2024 but had risen to £54,760 in 2024 to 2025. Provide audited accounts to provide clarity for the increase in her building insurance premium for 2024 to 2025.
11 March 2024	The landlord provided its stage 1 response, in which it confirmed the resident did not pay a service charge for the communal area. The landlord said the increase in her service charge was entirely due to the increase in the building insurance premium. The landlord went on to explain: It issued a section 20 consultation letter to all its leasehold and shared ownership customers. It gathered several quotes to ensure that it obtained the cheapest option for its customers. It contacted the resident on 15 May 2023 with the Notice of Estimate, advising that it intended to enter into the agreement with (the named insurer).
14 March 2024	The resident escalated her complaint saying she was not disputing whether or not she had received the landlord’s Notice of Estimate, as she had. The resident said what she wanted was for clarification and a breakdown from the insurer as to how they could justify the level of increase. The resident also expressed concerns that she was contributing towards everyone else’s building insurance, whether their property was larger or not, or was in a higher risk area.
8 April 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response, in which it: Confirmed the resident was not charged for any services she did not receive. Said the building insurance increase was due to the increased cost of living. Said the whole premium was split by the total number of properties that it insured so everyone was paying the same cost irrespective of the property size or any other factors. The landlord also acknowledged and apologised to the resident for its poor communication, noting delays in its response to contact from the resident’s partner on 23 February 2024 and the resident’s escalation request of 14 March 2024. The landlord offered the resident a total of £50 for this, made up of £25 for poor communication and £25 for delays in escalating the resident’s complaint. The landlord said it had provided feedback to both its service charge and complaints teams to ensure that they respond to residents within the required timescales.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate her complaint. The resident said she was not satisfied the landlord had properly explained why the building insurance premium was so high. It had also not explained how it had calculated how much she needed to pay.

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 queries about why her service charges had increased by 300%
Finding	Maladministration

What we have not considered.

We will not investigate complaints about the level or increase of service charges. We will also not investigate whether the costs of services are reasonable or provide value for money for the resident.
If the resident wants to pursue her concerns about these matters, she may wish to challenge the charges by applying to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or the court.

What we have considered

In accordance with the lease, the resident must pay the landlord for the building insurance of their property. The building insurance must be arranged through the landlord’s chosen insurer.
On 15 May 2023, the landlord sent the resident a Section 20 Notice of estimate to enter a qualifying long- term agreement (QLTA) letter. This provided the ‘estimated total premium’ values the landlord had received for annual insurance for the homeowner proportion of its housing stock. The landlord confirmed its proposal to enter into an agreement for insurance services with the company that provided the lowest quote.
On 19 February 2024, the landlord sent the resident her new rent and service charge letter. This said the estimate for her building insurance service charge for 2024 to 2025 would be £370. The letter said this was based on an estimated cost for the building insurance for the resident’s ‘scheme’. The letter also confirmed the only other charge the resident paid was a management fee.
In its complaint responses the landlord:
1. Confirmed, in line with her new rent and service charge letter of 19 February 2024, that the resident was not paying for the upkeep of the communal area. It also confirmed the increase in her charge was solely due to the increase in the building insurance premium.
2. Confirmed the name of the insurer.
The landlord does not have full control of the building insurance costs as the premium is set by the insurer. However, it would be expected to give the resident a clear and transparent explanation as to why the charge had increased.
The landlord referred to the Section 20 consultation it had carried out with regards to its procurement of the building insurance cover. That the landlord carried out the Section 20 consultation was not disputed by the resident.
The landlord went on to explain that the ‘significant’ increase in the resident’s building insurance charge was due to ‘the current increased cost of living’. This went some way to explain the increase. However, it is noted that in a separate email to the resident on 11 March 2024, the landlord’s rent and service charge team had told her previous years’ premiums had been of a similar value but during those years it had subsidised the cost. The landlord said it no longer did this but provided no explanation as to why. As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, it was a failure for it not to refer to this when it explained the increase in the charge in its complaint responses. It was also a failure by the landlord to not explain why it had made that decision in either correspondence.
The lease states the resident’s proportion of the service charge is calculated on a ‘reasonable proportion’ of the costs incurred by the landlord. As set out previously, the ‘reasonableness’ of charges is not a matter we will consider.
However, we can consider whether the landlord’s response was clear and transparent and provided the resident with sufficient detail to help her understand how it apportioned the insurance premium costs to her.
We are not satisfied the landlord’s explanation, that the whole premium was split by the total number of properties it insured, provided the resident with sufficient detail. This response was vague and failed to provide the resident with any details about:
1. What the ‘total number of properties’ it had split the whole premium by was.
2. How it calculated the estimated cost of the building insurance for the resident’s ‘scheme’ (as stated in her new rent and service charge letter of 19 February 2024) from the ‘estimated total premium’ for the ‘homeowner proportion of its housing stock’ (stated in its QLTA letter of 15 May 2023).
3. How it calculated the resident’s individual charge from the estimated cost of the building insurance for the resident’s ‘scheme’ (as stated in her new rent and service charge letter of 19 February 2024).
With regards to the resident’s request that the landlord provide audited accounts to provide clarity for the increase in her building insurance premium for 2024 to 2025. The landlord would not have been able to provide audited accounts for the increase as the amounts charged were estimates. It would not have audited accounts to share with the resident until it had completed the actual service charge accounts, which it would be expected to complete within 6 months of the end of the relevant service charge year. In this case, no later than September 2025.
Once the landlord completed the actual service charge accounts for 2024 to 2025, the resident would have the right to both request a written summary and to inspect accounts, receipts, and other documents supporting the summary.
That the landlord did not respond to this element of the resident’s complaint and did not explain the above to her represents a further failure on its part.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Reasonable redress

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 is the 2022 Edition (March 2022). The landlord has since updated its complaints policy in line with our 2024 Code (April 2024).
The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints about service charges are dealt with in accordance with its complaints policy.
The first evidence we have seen of a complaint being raised with the landlord is on 26 February 2024. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 February 2024 and issued its stage 1 response on 11 March 2024. The landlord’s acknowledgement and stage 1 response were both issued in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
The resident escalated her complaint on 14 March 2024. We have seen no evidence of the landlord acknowledging the resident’s escalation request. However, in accordance with its complaints policy, the landlord went on to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request being received, doing so on 8 April 2024.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised to the resident for its failure to respond within 2 working days of the resident’s escalation request. It also apologised for failing to respond to similar concerns raised by the resident’s husband, about the increase of the building insurance, in his email of 23 February 2024. We have not had sight of this email. To put this right its acknowledged failures the landlord offered the resident a total of £50 compensation.
We are satisfied that the apology and compensation offered by the landlord provided the resident with reasonable redress given the relatively short delays as a result of its acknowledged failures and that neither of these resulted in an overall delay in it issuing its complaint responses.

Learning

The landlord recognised the need to learn from the failures it identified with regards to the timeliness of its responses to the resident. We are satisfied the steps the landlord set out in its stage 2 response to address these failures was reasonable and proportionate.
However, as the landlord identified no failures with regards to how it responded to the resident’s queries about why her service charges had increased by 300% it took no learning with regards to this element of her complaint. An order has been made to put this right.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

There was no record keeping issues identified in this investigation.

Communication

With the exception of those identified by the landlord, we have found no other communication issues by the landlord in this investigation.