Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

The Guinness Partnership Limited (202108495)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108495

The Guinness Partnership Limited

27 April 2023


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord:
    1. Failing to advise the resident that he was signing a tenancy agreement.
    2. Failing to inform the resident of anti-social behaviour at the property.

Background

  1. The resident was an applicant for a ground floor flat with the landlord. The resident signed a tenancy agreement for the property. The resident has difficulty with reading and is not computer literate.
  2. The resident felt that the landlord failed to advise him that it was a tenancy agreement he signed. The resident further advised that he never spent a night in the flat due to noise from the flat above.
  3. In its complaint response the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It advised that it properly followed the sign-up process, and that it held no records of anti-social behaviour from the neighbouring property.
  4. When the resident brought his complaint to this Service, he believed he paid a deposit for the keys to the property and that he had only signed for the keys. The resident also advised that the landlord failed to make him aware of noise nuisance from the neighbouring property. As a resolution, the resident requested that the landlord return the money paid for the deposit, stop its demand for four weeks’ rent, and compensation for the stress and anxiety it caused.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a.         Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b.         put things right, and;

c.         learn from outcomes.

  1. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Failing to advise the resident that he was signing a tenancy agreement

  1. As part of its application process, if the landlord makes a provisional offer, it will send the applicant an email confirming the details of the property. It will then arrange a viewing. If the applicant remains interested after the viewing, the landlord will email a copy of the tenancy agreement for the applicant to sign and request two weeks’ rent in advance. Then the landlord will send the resident a key safe code and location to let themselves into the property.
  2. It is unclear to this Service if the landlord was aware of the resident’s difficulties with reading and that he is not computer literate. However, the resident did have a representative assisting him with the application process. This Service requested information from the resident’s representative in relation to the tenancy sign-up, but this wasn’t provided. This Service will assess the landlord’s handling of the tenancy sign-up but cannot assess communications between the resident and his representative.
  3. The resident disputes that he signed a tenancy agreement. He advised this Service that he paid £150 to the landlord as a deposit for the keys to the property. He further stated that when he e-signed a tablet when he collected the keys, he believed this signature was only for the keys. The landlord stated that it followed its processes properly.
  4. On 23 June 2021, the landlord conducted a pre-tenancy interview and affordability assessment. On 24 June 2021, the viewing took place. The resident advised this Service that his representative viewed the flat online and confirmed that it was a nice flat. On 25 June 2021, the landlord emailed the tenancy agreement to the resident’s representative. On the same date, the document was viewed, and the resident transferred £147.30 to the landlord’s account.
  5. The resident advised this Service that he believed this money was a deposit for the keys, however, there is no evidence that this payment was for anything other than two weeks’ rent in advance. The tenancy agreement stated that the weekly rent is £73.65 and that the resident is required to pay two weeks’ rent in advance. There is no reference to a key deposit within the tenancy agreement.
  6. On 28 June 2021, the resident met the landlord at the property. The landlord’s sign-up process is usually completed over the phone, but the landlord accompanied the resident to support him. The landlord completed the sign-up checklist on this date. This sign–up included, “Discuss the main terms of the tenancy agreement and responsibilities of Tenant and Landlord.” The resident e–signed the tenancy agreement on this date. This was a fair and reasonable approach by the landlord in its sign-up process.
  7. On 05 July 2021, the resident’s representative emailed the landlord and advised that the resident would like to terminate his tenancy. The representative apologised for the time and trouble caused to the landlord in arranging the tenancy. On 06 July 2021, the resident’s representative completed an online notice to end the tenancy. This notice confirmed that the resident is giving four weeks’ notice and that the tenancy will end on 08 August 2021. It is clear from this notice that the resident is ending a tenancy.
  8. This Service finds no maladministration with the landlord advising the resident that he was signing a tenancy agreement. The landlord’s actions in the tenancy sign–up were fair and reasonable, and it followed its processes. The landlord liaised appropriately with the resident’s representative prior to the tenancy sign-up. Whilst this Service does not have access to communications between the representative and the resident, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord misled the representative. The resident advised this Service that he was signing for the keys to the property, however, there is no evidence to support that he met the landlord to sign anything other than a tenancy agreement.

Failing to inform the resident of anti-social behaviour at the property

  1. When considering an application for a new tenant it is fair and reasonable to provide the applicant with information on existing anti-social behaviour affecting the property. The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour, Hate Crime and Hate Incidents policy states that it will consider anti-social behaviour when it reviews tenancies or is making decisions about whether to offer tenancies.
  2. The resident advised this Service that on the first night of his tenancy he experienced noise nuisance from the neighbour in the flat above. Because of this, he did not spend a night in the property. When the resident gave notice to end the tenancy, his reason was that the landlord misinformed him of the noise issues from the neighbouring property. The resident advised this Service that he specifically asked the landlord if there were ‘neighbour issues’ and the landlord confirmed there were not. As part of its complaint investigation, the landlord confirmed that they held no open reports of anti-social behaviour at the property.
  3. This Service finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord providing information to the resident of anti-social behaviour. There is no reason to doubt the noise nuisance experienced by the resident during the first night at the property. However, as the landlord held no record of anti-social behaviour for the property, there is no evidence that they misinformed the resident before the tenancy began.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord advising the resident he was signing a tenancy agreement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord informing the resident of anti-social behaviour at the property.