Moat Homes Limited (202528179)

Background

1. In 2025 the resident told the landlord that she was concerned that her rent had increased 4 times in 2024. She also raised concerns that although her neighbour had the same tenancy type and property as her, their rent was lower than hers. She noted that her neighbour’s tenancy started at the end of February 2024 while hers started in January 2024. She felt that the landlord was not charging consistent rents.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her rent charges.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress which satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her rent charges.

Reasons

4. Social landlords have a legal obligation to ensure that they set their rent charges in line with legislation guidelines.
5. We do not investigate complaints about the level of rent or the amount of a rent increase. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is best placed to deal with such matters. Instead, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.
6. The landlord’s rent policy says:
   1. Affordable rents can be set at up to 80% of the prevailing market rents, taking into account the size and location of the property.
   2. Where properties are let before the April rent inflation uplift (eg immediately leading up to or during March), they should be let at the current rent if it there is insufficient time to provide the legally required 30 days’ written notice of a change in rent before 1 April.
7. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord explained:
   1. The calculation of rent in line with the tenancy agreement. It confirmed the charge amount was correct.
   2. The reasons for the rent increases in 2024.
   3. Why the rent figure on the tenancy agreement differed to the one the resident was provided during the pre-tenancy process. It acknowledged that this was a failing and offered the resident £50 compensation.
8. The landlord’s responses and explanations were reasonable. It provided an appropriate level of detail to ensure that it meaningfully answered the resident’s concerns. Its £50 compensation offer was also reasonable for its failure to provide the resident with the accurate rent figure during the pre-tenancy process.
9. The landlord said that it could not discuss the resident’s neighbour’s rent charges with her due to its data protection obligations. This was appropriate. It explained that rent charges between affordable rent tenancies can differ even if the properties are the same. It added that this could occur when rents were assessed at different periods of time. The evidence provided aligns with the landlord’s explanation.
10. It is acknowledged that the landlord may have been able to provide further detail in its explanation without breaching its data protection obligations. In particular, how it set its rent charges leading up to its April increase. This may have more fully answered the resident’s concerns.
11. However, overall, the landlord’s response aligned with the evidence provided and with its rent policy. Therefore we are satisfied that its response was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances.

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

Recommendations

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