The Guinness Partnership Limited (202345578)

Decision
Case ID	202345578
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Guinness Partnership Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Applicant
Date	4 March 2026

Background

1. The applicant applied for a property the landlord advertised to let online. She was not a tenant of the landlord. The landlord accepted her application and invited her to view the property. The landlord did not say the property was only for people aged over 55 when it advertised it, processed her application, or arranged the viewing. The landlord’s handling of the applicant’s housing application was the subject of her complaints.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of the applicant’s housing application.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the applicant’s housing application.
   2. No maladministration the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the applicant’s housing application

4. The landlord upheld the applicant’s complaint. It apologised for its failings, explained what it had learned, and offered compensation to put things right. However, its offer was not proportionate to the time, trouble, inconvenience, and costs the applicant incurred.

The landlord’s complaint handling

5. The landlord responded to the applicant’s complaint in line with its complaint 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.

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	Compensation order The landlord must pay the applicant £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience its handling of her housing application caused her. It must pay this directly to her by the due date. It may deduct any payments it has already made. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 31 March 2026

Recommendations

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

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord considers how it records and shares information about eligibility requirements or property characteristics with staff and when advertising properties.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 February 2024	The applicant raised a stage 1 complaint about the landlord’s handling of her application for an empty property. She said its advert did not say the property was for over 55-year-olds and it only told her this when she viewed the property. She also said it confirmed the property would be hers before she drove an hour to the viewing.
1 March 2024	The landlord sent the applicant its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had overlooked the age restriction which it acknowledged was an error and apologised for the distress and inconvenience this caused. It upheld her complaint, gave feedback to its lettings team, and offered her £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience she experienced.
1 March 2024	The applicant escalated the complaint. She said the landlord’s response did not resolve her living situation, its mistake caused her to lose out on other homes, she had planned to move her belongings, and its offer of compensation was insufficient.
1 March 2024	The landlord acknowledged the applicant’s stage 2 complaint.
7 March 2024	The landlord sent the applicant its final complaint response. It said its stage 1 response addressed her concerns and upheld her complaint. It summarised the events that lead to the complaint. It said it would provide training to prevent the issue happening again. It upheld her complaint, apologised, and said its earlier offer of £50 for time, trouble, and inconvenience was fair.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The applicant asked us to investigate the complaint. She said she thought the landlord should offer her a property and increase its compensation offer.

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 handling of the applicant’s housing application
Finding	Service failure

What we have not investigated

6. The applicant said as resolution to the case, she would like the landlord to offer her a property. We cannot tell a landlord to house the applicant or comment on how it should allocate vacant properties. Instead, our investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the applicant’s concerns.

What we have investigated

7. The landlord advertised a property to let sometime before 8 January 2024 in line with its housing application procedure. However, the advert did not say the property was only for people aged over 55. This was not in line with its letting policy which says adverts must include any lettings restrictions or eligibility criteria.
8. The applicant contacted the landlord about the advert on 8 January 2024 and it emailed her to confirm she was the primary applicant for the property. It told her to complete an online application and affordability assessment, a direct debit form, and to send her identification documents. These requests were in line with its lettings policy. The applicant applied for the property and provided the documents on the same day.
9. The landlord emailed the applicant on 9 January 2024 to say it had approved her housing application and it would arrange a viewing when the property was ready. However, as it had not considered the property’s age restrictions, it did not recognise the applicant was not eligible, even though she sent information confirming her date of birth.
10. The applicant waited until 16 February 2024 for the landlord to invite her to view the property. She says she did not look for other suitable properties after the landlord accepted her application. The landlord was not responsible for her decision not to search for other properties. However, by confirming she was the main applicant it raised her expectations.
11. The applicant drove for an hour to attend the viewing on 20 February 2024. After confirming her date of birth, the landlord told her she was not eligible for the property because of her age. Its lettings policy says it can withdraw a property if it has made a mistake such as offering accommodation to someone who is not eligible. However, this caused the applicant inconvenience, time, and trouble and she complained about its handling of her housing application on the same day.
12. The landlord offered the applicant another 2-bedroom property before 29 February 2024 due to its error. However, she said the property was not suitable as it was not affordable.
13. The landlord checked for available property in the other areas the applicant said she would consider. It then explained it did not have any properties available in those areas.
14. The landlord investigated the applicant’s concerns following her complaint in March 2024. It did not dispute her complaint and it offered her £50 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience its failings caused. It also tried to put things right by offering another available property, confirming it had shared its learning from the complaint internally, and giving her rehousing advice. The landlord’s actions were in line with our dispute resolution principles – be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
15. However, considering the time, trouble, inconvenience and travel costs the applicant incurred its compensation offer was not proportionate. Overall, we found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the applicant’s housing application.
16. We have ordered the landlord to pay the applicant an additional £50 compensation. This award is in line with our remedies guidance where we found failings that caused time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience the landlord has not put right. We have also recommended the landlord considers how it records and shares information about the eligibility requirements and property characteristics with staff and when advertising properties.

Complaint	The complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

17. The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also says it will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days. This is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
18. The landlord did not acknowledge the applicant’s stage 1 complaint in writing but it spoke to her about her complaint within 2 working days. It responded to her complaint within 8 working days in line with its complaint policy. It acknowledged her stage 2 complaint within 1 working day and sent its reply within 4 working days in line with its policy. Overall, we found no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

19. The landlord should learn from this complaint by reviewing whether its compensation offers are proportionate to level of negative impact its failings have caused.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord should learn from this complaint by ensuring its lettings staff record correct information about property characteristics when advertising properties to let.

Communication

21. The landlord’s communication was reasonable. Its investigation into its handling of the housing application was accurate. Its complaint responses were sufficiently detailed.