The Guinness Partnership Limited (202403379)

Decision
Case ID	202403379
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 May 2026

Background

The resident told the landlord she was having significant mental health vulnerabilities. The landlord had claimed she underpaid her rent and sent her Notices of Seeking Possession (NOSPs), which she disputed. She made this complaint via a representative.

What the complaint is about

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s communication with her regarding underpayment of rent and seeking possession of her property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. The landlord had offered reasonable redress with regards to its communication with the resident regarding underpayment of rent and seeking possession of her property.
2. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding underpayment of rent and seeking possession of her property

The landlord provided clear explanations to the resident on how the underpayment of rent had occurred and how it had calculated this. It acknowledged that it sent out NOSPs in error. It apologised, demonstrated learning and offered £75 in recognition of the distress caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord provided complaint responses that were clear and informative, within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy.

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.

However in this case, we have found that the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress on the basis that it would pay the compensation it offered to the resident at stage 2. It should therefore follow this recommendation.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay to the resident £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its sending NOSPs in error, as per its offer at stage 2 of the internal complaints process.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
6 February 2024	The resident complained that: the landlord had said she underpaid her rent which was not true, as she had in fact overpaid her rent the landlord’s customer liaison officer had been aggressive and dismissive to her representative during a meeting to discuss her rent payments.
7 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the complaint.
22 February 2024	The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response. It said: there was an underpayment of £46.49 the resident’s benefit scheme did not start paying until 10 days after she moved in, which partly accounted for the underpayment it had shared her concerns and feedback about staff attitude with its management staff, however it would not be able to share more specific outcomes with her.
23 February 2024	The resident requested escalation of the complaint. She set out further calculations of the rent payments. She also explained that the landlord had sent her two NOSPs on 7 and 12 February 2024, which caused her distress. Those letters stated she had arrears of £713.68 on her account which she said was not accurate.
27 February 2024	The resident repeated her escalation request.
29 February 2024	The landlord acknowledged the escalation request.
28 March 2024	The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response. It said: the underpayment occurred because the rent increased in April 2023, but the benefit scheme did not increase payments accordingly at the same time. it was the resident’s responsibility to cover the underpayment it confirmed the NOSPs should not have been sent out the balance shown on those NOSPs was not reflective of the true account balance it apologised for the distress and inconvenience this caused and said it would re-train the staff responsible it offered £75 in recognition of the impact on her (including £50 for the distress caused and £25 for its record keeping regarding NOSPs)
24 April 2024 (referral to the Ombudsman)	The resident referred the matter to our service. She explained she had not accepted the compensation at the time. She would like the landlord to pay her back for the rent that she believed she overpaid, apologise for the NOSPs which she found threatening, and pay her the £75 compensation.

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 communication with the resident regarding underpayment of rent and seeking possession of her property
Finding	Reasonable redress

The parties disputed on how much rent was due, which was made more complicated as a third party (the government benefit scheme) was also contributing to the resident’s rent payments.
The landlord reviewed her rent account and provided an explanation for its calculations in its stage 2 response. It explained the resident was responsible for covering this shortfall. It met with her representative and further sent written letters to set this out. We consider the landlord’s explanation and its efforts at communication were reasonable.
The resident complained that the landlord’s staff had been ‘condescending and dismissive’ in their tone during the in-person meeting. The landlord investigated the matter internally and provided feedback to the staff member concerned through their line manager. We consider the landlord took reasonable and proportionate steps to address this aspect of the complaint.
Records showed when the representative raised an enquiry regarding the 2 NOSPs on 21 February 2024, the landlord almost immediately recognised this as an error. It then clarified with the representative that these notices were wrongly issued. It repeated this later in its stage 2 complaint response in March 2024.
We understand the resident was a vulnerable adult and these notices caused her significant distress. The parties agreed that these notices should not have been issued as there were no valid grounds for seeking possession. The landlord apologised and explained it had provided re-training to the staff involved. It offered £75 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as for its failure to keep good records.
Our compensation guidance says that for minor failures leading to distress and inconvenience of relatively short duration, the landlord should apologise, demonstrate learning, and consider financial compensation up to £100. In this case, the impact lasted about 2 weeks (from 7 to 21 February 2024) which was a relatively short period. The landlord’s offer of redress aligned with our guidance.
On the basis the landlord now pay the compensation it offered to the resident (which she had not accepted before), we consider it made an offer of reasonable redress with regards to its communication on underpayment of rent and seeking possession of her property which successfully resolved the complaint.

Complaint	The landlord’s complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a 2-stage complaints process. It would acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days. Once a resident requested escalation, it would acknowledge this within 5 working days and issue a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. If it needs more time to issue responses , it would provide reasons to the resident and the extension would usually be no more than 10 working days. This process mirrors the timeframes set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
In this case, the landlord’s acknowledgment and responses to the complaint were sent in good time, within the timeframes set out above. They provided clear and informative explanations on what had happened and what steps it had taken to address its failings.
Overall, we find there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord acknowledged it failed to keep good records regarding NOSPs. Each NOSP should state clearly the grounds on which it was sent, otherwise it would be invalid.
The landlord acknowledged that it failed to keep and refer to its records properly, leading to wrongful issue of NOSPs on this occasion. It demonstrated learning by re-training the staff concerned. We consider the landlord could also look into adding prompts on its system when issuing NOSPs to remind staff about putting in explanations.