Not upheld: claim administration and communication procedures complaint against Global Property Ventures Limited (GPV)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr T and Ms N complained about how GPV administered a claim on their rent deposit guarantee policy after their tenancy ended. GPV sent Mr T two emails requesting he review the landlord's evidence and respond by 8 July, but Mr T replied to the second email (which was from a no-reply address) stating he could not access the evidence. GPV did not receive this response and proceeded to award the claim in the landlord's favour. The ombudsman found GPV had provided clear instructions not to reply to the no-reply email and had given Mr T alternative contact methods, so GPV acted reasonably in proceeding without receiving a response after the deadline passed.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that GPV provided clear instructions in its emails not to reply directly and to use alternative contact methods available on its website. Mr T had also received direct email contact details from previous correspondence. The failure to receive Mr T's response was caused by him replying to a no-reply email address despite explicit instructions not to do so. GPV was not unreasonable in proceeding with the claim after the deadline passed without receiving a response, having already sent one reminder. No further reminders were required as GPV had given adequate notice and opportunity to respond.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website