Town and Country Housing (202345213)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202345213

Town and Country Housing

30 September 2024

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’s handling of the resident’s shared ownership property sale during a period that she reported domestic abuse.

Background

2. The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The lease was jointly held with her ex partner.
3. In early 2023, after the resident and her ex partner decided to sell the property, a buyer was found and the sale started to progress. In May 2023, it was noted that a July completion date was being worked toward. The same month, the resident told the landlord that she had split from her ex partner, and provided a new address that she asked not to be disclosed to them.
4. The resident later raised concern about losing the buyer due to delays on her ex partner’s side. She referred to incidents involving her, her ex partner and the police, and queried if action could potentially be taken against her ex partner for these on the basis of a breach of the lease in respect to unlawful and immoral use of the property. She reported cancelling a property purchase due to her solicitor disclosing the address to her ex partner.
5. The landlord acknowledged sensitivities in the resident’s domestic situation. It said that the lease terms were to protect neighbours rather than the lease parties. It recommended that the resident contact her solicitor for advice if this was interpreted differently, and it suggested contacting Citizens Advice, a domestic abuse service and the local authority for further advice. It said it would try to progress the sale as soon as possible, and it offered support in ensuring completion timescales were agreed. The property sale subsequently completed in July 2023.
6. In December 2023, the resident complained. She said that she had experienced domestic abuse from her ex partner, they had disrupted the property purchase, and she had experienced PTSD and issues finding housing during the property sale and after. She raised dissatisfaction that the landlord had allowed the situation to drag on and refused to entertain the idea of evicting her ex partner under the lease while she was paying full rent.
7. The landlord responded in December 2023 and February 2024. It expressed sympathy with the resident’s experiences, reviewed events, and concluded that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. It said that it was not aware of any domestic issues until mid May 2023 when she said she had left the property. It noted that it was made aware of a potential domestic abuse situation and signposted her to the police, Citizens Advice, a domestic abuse service, and the local authority. It noted she had asked what it would do in a scenario, and it had suggested seeking legal advice. It noted she complained it had not supported the eviction of her ex partner and noted that correspondence at all stages had encouraged the sale of the property as soon as possible, which happened in July 2023. It said that if it had been requested to consider evicting a leaseholder, it would have sought legal advice and recommended for her to seek her own.
8. The resident says that she fled the property, was homeless while her ex partner lived there and delayed the property sale, and experienced difficulty accessing a refuge service. She raises dissatisfaction with the landlord’s lack of support and is unhappy that it refused to waive fees while she paid rent, refused to discuss evicting her partner, said the issue was a police matter, and told her to seek independent advice which she could not afford. She says that the landlord’s handling caused psychological harm that made her suicidal and feels that it should pay compensation for this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

9. The Ombudsman has previously noted that the resident has requested compensation for the impact on her health and wellbeing and said that we cannot make a definitive decision about liability and compensation for the impact on health, but we can consider whether a landlord has acted reasonably.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s shared ownership property sale during a period that she reported domestic abuse

10. The Ombudsman understands that the resident’s experiences during and after the property sale have been very distressing, and we understand that she has significant dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling. The Ombudsman notes, however, that we have to consider if the landlord responded reasonably, based on both its obligations and what was raised to it during the property sale.
11. The evidence shows that after the resident and her ex partner said they wanted to sell the property, the landlord started to market the property in February 2023. By May 2023, a buyer was found and the sale was progressing, and July 2023 was being worked toward as a completion date. The same month, the resident told the landlord that she had split from her ex partner and provided a new address that she asked not to be disclosed to them. In further correspondence, she raised concerns that her ex partner was delaying the sale and queried whether, if there were further delays, action could potentially be taken against her ex partner on the basis of a breach of the lease related to events involving domestic abuse. Around this time, her solicitor enquired if the landlord’s buyer finder fee was payable and if this could be waved.
12. The evidence shows that the landlord took action to help sell the property, sought to provide reassurance that it understood the sensitivities of the resident’s situation and would not disclose her address (which it is understood it kept to), and sought to consider and address issues she raised in correspondence.
13. The landlord acknowledged reference to domestic abuse in some correspondence, and after internal discussion it signposted the resident to the police, Citizens Advice, a domestic abuse service, and the local authority. The resident has provided additional detail about her experiences during and after the property sale. She informs the Ombudsman that she made a police report and that she experienced homelessness, had issues accessing a refuge service due to her financial situation, had her case discussed in a Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference, was deemed a high risk of homicide, and was suicidal.
14. The Ombudsman, as noted above, has to consider the landlord’s response based on what it was given the opportunity to consider during the property sale. Its responses seem reasonably in line with its safeguarding and domestic abuse policies and proportionate to the level of correspondence it was sent, which said the resident was no longer living with her ex partner and seem focused on progressing the sale as soon as possible. The information available about the landlord’s liaison with various parties in the course of the property sale, and the completion of the property sale in July 2023 as was aimed from May 2023, show it reasonably fulfilled this. The resident’s contemporary correspondence, which thanked the landlord for its advice and sensitivity, gives the impression that she did not need or expect anything further in respect to issues involving domestic abuse. It is not evident that the landlord was given opportunity to consider any further issues, nor is it clear that it could have provided more appropriate support than parties it signposted to, or the resident says were involved.
15. The resident queried if a lease term about unlawful and immoral use of the property could form the basis for action against her ex partner for breach of the lease. This relates to charges that she says were made against her ex partner and then dropped. The landlord shows that it discussed this internally with relevant staff, said the terms were to protect the leaseholders’ neighbours rather than the parties in the lease, and recommended for the resident to ask her solicitor for advice. This shows it investigated the query, set out an initial position, and signposted the resident to seek independent advice, which is appropriate.
16. The Ombudsman does not make definitive and binding decisions about contracts such as leases, however the landlord seems reasonable to advise that the lease terms applied to leaseholders’ behaviour to neighbours rather than to each other, as this would be our understanding on review of the lease. The Ombudsman notes that leases can be complex, and the landlord was therefore reasonable to advise the resident to discuss the issue with her solicitor if she wished to explore it further.
17. The resident raised dissatisfaction that the landlord did not support the eviction of her ex partner. The issues reported by the resident are troubling and the Ombudsman understands the significant concern that they have caused her. However, we cannot see a failure by the landlord for this, because we cannot see a request to evict the resident’s partner. The Ombudsman also cannot see clear basis for a breach of the lease, or that this aspect significantly affected matters. We understand the urgency of the property sale for the resident and the impact of each passing day, however the July 2023 completion indicates there was no significant delay. The taking of legal action is also normally considered a last resort, and the process involved will have been unlikely to be straightforward, quick or helpful for the aim to complete the property sale as soon as possible.
18. The resident feels that the landlord was unsupportive and unsympathetic in not waiving fees. It is evident that the resident’s solicitor enquired if the landlord’s buyer finder fee was payable and if this could be waived, and it was confirmed the fee was payable from the completion funds. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns, however we cannot see a failure by the landlord for this, as her lease obligated payment of a nomination fee for finding a purchaser, and this was a contractual obligation agreed to when the lease was signed. The resident expresses specific dissatisfaction that she continued to pay toward rent after she split from her ex partner and left the property, which the Ombudsman understands will have been very distressing and financially pressuring. However, we also cannot see a failure by the landlord for this, as we cannot see a request to waive rent, and this was also a contractual obligation agreed to when the lease was signed.
19. The landlord overall shows that during the property sale it sought to be sensitive to the resident’s situation, and provided proportionate support and advice, given its role and issues it was given the opportunity to respond to. When the resident complained, the landlord acknowledged her experiences, reviewed events, and addressed the concerns she had raised in an evidence-based way. While the Ombudsman understands that the resident’s experiences were very distressing, and we sympathise with what she has been through, in our opinion the landlord demonstrates that it took her situation and concerns seriously and responded in an appropriate way.

Determination

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s shared ownership property sale during a period that she reported domestic abuse.