The Guinness Partnership Limited (202447598)

Background

1. The property is a 1-bedroom flat that the resident has occupied since April 2015. He has advised that his property is within a sheltered housing scheme. The complaint relates to the landlord’s handling management of rent arrears on the resident’s account, as well as service charges linked to the warden alarm system. The property was previously managed by another social housing provider which merged with the landlord in April 2018.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns regarding rent arrears and service charges.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found that there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Concerns regarding rent arrears and service charges.
   2. Complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Concerns about rent arrears and service charges

4. The landlord’s communication was at times unclear and did not fully address the resident’s concerns. However, it apologised, upheld the complaint, and provided sufficient compensation.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord delayed in providing its stage 1 response and missed 3 opportunities to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2. However, it subsequently offered proportionate compensation to put matters right.

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. When we receive a complaint, we consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are situations where an investigation may not be appropriate. We do not investigate complaints that relate to the level of rent or service charges. The resident’s concerns focus on an increase in service charges and a difference in rent compared with neighbouring properties, which ultimately relates to rent levels. For this reason, we will not investigate that aspect of the complaint. The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is best placed to consider such matters due to its powers and expertise.
7. This investigation will instead consider whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s queries regarding his rent arrears and service charges, and whether the landlord’s communication about the matter was timely, clear, and accurate.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s service charge policy explains that a service charge is an amount paid by tenants, either as part of or in addition to rent, to cover the cost of services, facilities, and their management. Depending on the property, tenancy agreement, and services provided, residents may pay for items such as communal electricity.
9. The policy also states that residents will receive a service charge estimate at the start of each financial year. The annual review letter will outline the total cost of chargeable items for the estate, scheme, or block, explain how the estimate was calculated, and include a statement showing how money has been spent. Any surpluses or deficits will be carried forward to adjust future charges.
10. The landlord provided us with a copy of the tenancy handbook from the previous landlord. In the absence of any indication that this has been superseded, we have therefore applied this in our assessment. The tenancy handbook says that:
    1. Residents must pay their rent and any additional service or other charges the landlord may charge in respect of the property.
    2. The landlord will provide services listed on the front page of the agreement for which residents must pay the charge stated.
    3. The landlord may change the services or the charges by giving residents at least 28 days’ notice.
11. The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord about his service charges, specifically seeking confirmation regarding window‑cleaning services. On 12 October 2022, the landlord explained the components of the service charge, including the charge for the warden alarm service, which is an emergency alarm/pull‑cord system.
12. On 9 January 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents advising that the alarm service was due to be upgraded. On 8 March 2023, it attempted to contact the resident about a closed direct debit linked to the private charge. When the resident did not answer, a text message was sent confirming that there were no arrears at that time. Based on the evidence, the landlord had informed the resident about the warden call system charge on 2 separate occasions (12 October 2022 and 9 January 2023). However, it is unclear whether the resident was given a clear explanation of what the “private charge” referred to, as this information appears to have been communicated only via text message.
13. According to the tenancy handbook, the landlord may change services or service charges by giving residents at least 28 days’ notice. The evidence does not clearly show that such notice was provided, nor that the resident was properly informed of the nature of the private charge, particularly as previous references described this as a warden call system charge.
14. On 3 June 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that his rent account was in arrears. The resident submitted a formal complaint on 17 July 2024, stating that he was confused about the rent arrears and service charges. He also said he was disappointed that he no longer received annual rent account statements, which caused him stress and anxiety. He requested compensation.
15. The landlord contacted the resident on 6 September 2024 to clarify the details of his complaint. The resident explained that the warden alarm had not worked properly since he moved into the property in 2015. The landlord issued its stage 1 response the same day. It confirmed that the arrears shown on the letters were inaccurate because they reflected the highest balance at the time, while housing benefit payments were pending. It further explained that the resident’s account had previously been in credit, but once this credit was used up, arrears began to accrue due to no payments being made toward the private charges.
16. The landlord also stated that it could not investigate alarm‑system issues dating back to 2015 due to the time that had passed. The landlord upheld the complaint, accepting that the letters were incorrect and that service failures had occurred. It apologised and offered the resident £100 in compensation for his time and inconvenience.
17. The landlord’s response was reasonable, as it investigated the resident’s concerns about the arrears letters and provided a clear explanation that the stated arrears were inaccurate. It also clarified the position of the resident’s rent account. However, it did not address his concern about no longer receiving annual rent account statements. It was fair for the landlord to decline investigating issues dating back to 2015, as the resident would reasonably have been expected to report the faulty alarm within an appropriate timeframe. The evidence provided shows no repair reports from the resident regarding the alarm system. The landlord acknowledged its failings, upheld the complaint, and offered proportionate compensation.
18. Between September and December 2024, the resident made 3 separate requests for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2. On 15 January 2025, he set out his ongoing concerns, saying that his rent arrears appeared to relate to arrears in service charges. He repeated his frustration about the lack of annual rent account statements and again stated that the warden alarm system had never worked since he moved in. He also raised an additional concern that his tenancy agreement did not specify any information about a private charge. He requested compensation for the resulting distress and inconvenience.
19. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 February 2025. It provided further explanation about the resident’s rent and service charge arrears, stating that the private charge related to a name change in 2020 for the warden alarm system and that the resident had always been responsible for paying this charge. It confirmed that his housing benefit covered rent but did not cover service charges. The landlord also confirmed that its repair records showed no reports from the resident about the alarm system, which is consistent with the available evidence. It noted that it did not investigate issues from 2015 because a significant amount of time had passed and it was not the responsible landlord at that time. For these reasons, it said it would not refund any service charges from that period.
20. Although the landlord provided an explanation of what the private charge represented, its response did not fully address the resident’s concern that this charge was not detailed in his tenancy agreement. Our review of the tenancy agreement shows that it does not include a breakdown of the services covered by the service charge. It is considered good practice for landlords to contact residents when taking over a tenancy from a previous landlord. This initial communication should confirm the change in management and clearly outline any amendments to the existing tenancy terms. Providing this clarity at the outset helps prevent misunderstandings and supports a smooth transition.
21. In summary, the landlord did not clearly explain the nature of the private charge, initially providing limited information via text message but then offering a full explanation at stage 2 of the complaint process. There was no evidence that the resident was notified of a reclassification or name change relating to the private charge.
22. In addition, the landlord did not address the resident’s repeated concerns about no longer receiving annual rent account statements, which contributed to confusion and anxiety about his rent and service charge position. The landlord acknowledged that it issued inaccurate arrears letters, which misrepresented the resident’s account and directly led to the complaint. Furthermore, when the resident queried why his tenancy agreement contained no information about a private charge, the landlord did not provide a complete or satisfactory explanation.
23. Overall, the landlord’s communication was, at times, fragmented and unclear, which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, it is acknowledged that the landlord apologised and took steps to resolve the situation by upholding the complaint and offering compensation. We consider these steps sufficient to put things right.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt. A stage 1 response will be provided within 10 working days, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
25. The resident submitted a complaint on 17 July 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 24 July 2024, which was within the required 5 working days. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 2 September 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 September 2024. This response was provided 32 working days after the acknowledgement and significantly outside the policy timescale. The landlord accepted this delay and offered the resident £100 in compensation. This was appropriate and resolution‑focused.
26. Between September and December 2024, the resident contacted the landlord 3 times requesting escalation to stage 2. On 18 December 2024, the landlord offered an additional £50 for its failure to escalate the complaint. However, it did not escalate the complaint until 15 January 2025.
27. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 19 February 2025, 25 working days after confirming it would escalate the complaint. This was 5 working days outside its policy timeframe. In its response, the landlord apologised and appropriately offered a further £100 in compensation.
28. On 4 November 2025, the landlord contacted the resident to say it had reviewed its handling of the complaint. It acknowledged that although it had recognised its failings at stage 2, the compensation offered did not reflect the overall time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. It therefore offered an additional £200. While this was a positive step, it cannot be considered reasonable redress as it was made only after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and following involvement from us.
29. Nevertheless, the compensation awarded during the formal complaints process was reasonable, and the landlord acknowledged its failings at both stages and apologised. Overall, its actions were reasonable and in line with our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

Learning

30. Our investigation found the following points of learning for the landlord:

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

31. Although overall the record keeping was sufficient, we found some areas that could be improved. We identified some record‑keeping issues, including uncertainty about whether the resident was initially given an explanation for the private charge, and whether the landlord provided proper notice about the change of name relating to that charge. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

32. The landlord should review how it applies its complaints policy to ensure it issues responses within the required timescales. In doing so, it may find it helpful to refer to our Complaint Handling Code. The landlord may also wish to utilise the Housing Ombudsman’s Centre for Learning and give consideration to arranging staff attendance to its workshop on complaint handling.
33. Although the landlord’s responses did not always address every issue the resident raised, they were generally apologetic and showed empathy. Its communication style reflected good customer service, though the overall handling fell short.