Home Group Limited (201714878)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201714878

Home Group Limited

18 December 2020

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 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

The resident complains about:
1. How the landlord handled the sale of a shared ownership lease, including the time taken and communication in relation to the sale of the property and information given to prospective buyers about the valuation.
2. The relevance of improvements that had been made to the property in terms of the valuation and/or the allocation of the proceeds of the sale.
3. How the landlord handled the complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the resident’s complaint about the relevance of improvements that had been made to the property in terms of the valuation and/or the allocation of the proceeds of the sale.
Under paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme, “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
During the Ombudsman’s Early Resolution process, the resident complained that £4,000 should have been deducted from the landlord’s share of the sale as this was the value of improvements made to the property by the previous owner from whom the resident had inherited the property. This was not part of the original complaint but the landlord provided a response in relation to this concern at this stage in the Ombudsman’s process.
In raising this complaint, the resident is disputing the valuation relevant to the sale of the property and/or the allocation of the proceeds of the sale. The landlord’s Staircasing policy states that challenges to a valuation should be referred to the District Valuer, which is a specialist property arm of the Valuation Office Agency (a government body). The purchase price agreed and the monies due to each party following the transaction would also have been part of the contract for the sale of the property and any dispute around this would be more appropriately considered by the courts as they have the expertise and process to consider contractual disputes. For these reasons, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it would more appropriately be considered by the District Valuer and/or the courts.

Background and summary of events

In or around December 2017, the resident inherited a shared ownership lease of an end of terrace house (the property), of which 50% was owned by the landlord.
On 10 March 2018, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about lack of correspondence and action in relation to the sale of the property. She asked why there was a delay in selling the property.
On 17 April 2018, the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord said that in early March 2018 the resident provided a valuation she had obtained and asked whether it would agree to market the property on the basis of a 100% share rather than 50%. The landlord said that this request was uncommon and contrary to its standard Resales policy and it had no obligation to agree to this, however, it had agreed to consider this. The landlord said that there were concerns about the condition of the property and that repairing obligations had not been met, which was likely to reduce the sale price and it would need to agree an appropriate financial settlement to compensate it for this before proceeding with the sale.
The landlord said that an independent surveyor would inspect the property to set out a schedule of works and determination as to which items of disrepair were breaches of the lease, to assist the parties in coming to an agreement. The landlord said that it understood the resident was frustrated by the time taken to progress the sale but every effort was being made to move it forward.
The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that an agreement was made as to how to proceed with the sale in May 2018; and communications about the repairs took place in May and June 2018.
On 24 September 2018, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it was satisfied with repairs carried out to the property. The landlord asked the resident if she had put the house on the market for 100%. The resident confirmed that she had. The landlord confirmed that both parties would receive 50% of the sale proceeds and no further deduction would be applied to the estate’s share on the basis that all repairs were complete.
On 9 October 2018, an offer was made to purchase the property.
On 5 November 2018, the resident contacted the landlord about the sale asking for an update and she said that her solicitor had been trying to get in touch. The resident said that the property was not being sold as “staircase” therefore the buyer should not have to wait three months to purchase the freehold. She asked if the landlord would check with the legal team about this. She said she was concerned she might lose the sale because of delays.
The landlord responded that it was awaiting information from its finance team to instruct the legal team and that the lease states that once the property had been staircased to 100% the leaseholder must wait three months to transfer the freehold to ensure there are no other charges payable. It said the resident was simultaneously staircasing and selling. Later the same day, the landlord said its legal team had confirmed that the three-month period applied and the property would be leasehold when it was sold. The landlord asked if the resident was purchasing the additional shares and then selling at 100% or whether she was selling 50% and the buyer purchasing the remaining 50% share.
The resident responded that she was selling 50% and the landlord was selling 50% and the buyer was purchasing 100%, which had been the intention since June 2018. She said that the buyer was purchasing the freehold at the same time and was not staircasing. She was concerned by the delays and requested the information be sent to the legal team.
On 6 November 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that the sale was approved and it would instruct the legal team. The landlord also agreed that the freehold could be transferred on completion rather than waiting for three months.
On 7 November 2018, the resident’s solicitor requested the contact details of the landlord’s legal team. On 19 November 2018, the resident’s solicitor requested the landlord’s legal team get in touch as soon as possible. On 19 November 2018, the landlord confirmed its lawyer’s email address was in its email of 7 November 2018 and that it would ask them to contact the buyer’s solicitor.
On 21 November 2018, the landlord emailed various parties relating to the sale stating that its legal team had raised a number of issues which must be resolved before it was able to progress. The landlord said that for various reasons it was agreed that the property could be marketed for 100% but in order to proceed on that basis either the seller or buyer must purchase the remaining 50%. The landlord set out two alternatives:
1. The seller purchased the remaining shares, the staircasing transaction would complete immediately prior to the resale and the seller would meet the premium for staircasing.
2. The buyer purchased the remaining shares, they would purchase the 50% the seller owned and then immediately acquire the remaining 50% from the landlord. Their mortgage offer must reflect the purchase of the 50% share from the seller.
The landlord also said that in relation to the valuation, the seller had accepted an offer, however the latest valuation report did not reflect this figure. The latest report of 31 October 2018 (stating a 100% value of £27,000 less than the offer accepted) did not take into account the repairs which had been completed since the property was inspected in February 2018. Therefore, the landlord said the resident must provide a new valuation report taking into account the repairs and dictating the value of the 50% to be purchased in the staircasing transaction.
Finally, the landlord said that if the seller staircased to 100% and then sold immediately, 50% of the difference between the value in the valuation report and the sale price would be payable to the landlord (in accordance with the lease if the resale occurred within the first three months of staircasing). However, if the buyer purchased 50% and then staircased to 50%, the purchase price would be fixed at 50% of the value in the valuation report and the staircasing figure would also be fixed. The landlord said that no progress could be made until both issues were resolved.
On 23 November 2018, the resident emailed the landlord’s Chief Executive stating that she had lost the sale because the landlord had sent the resident’s surveyor’s valuation to the buyer’s solicitor which it should not have done.
On 23 November 2018, the resident requested a meeting with the sales and legal departments to discuss the issues so that any further offers would not have the same problems.
On 27 November 2018, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the landlord’s legal team not responding to contact for over five weeks and that they did not look at the sale as 100% rather than staircasing. She said she was seeking compensation for the delays over 11 months, including 11 months’ rent, seven months’ rates, 11 months’ utility bills and solicitors’ fees.
On 29 November 2018, the resident requested the meeting in the next few days as there was a chance she could get the sale back. On 4 December 2018, the resident obtained new valuation report.
On 6 December 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it was liaising with colleagues and its legal team in relation to the complaint and it would keep her informed of the progress.
On 11 December 2018, the landlord acknowledged the valuation report and explained that its legal team could not meet with her as they acted for the landlord and there would be a conflict of interest. The landlord offered for a member of its sales team to contact her via telephone to discuss how to proceed with the sale. On or around the 19 December 2018, the landlord spoke to the resident over the telephone.
On 24 December 2018, the resident emailed the landlord requesting:
1. The information referred to by its legal team in relation to how to sell the property.
2. Confirmation that the property was being sold at 100% (that the purchaser would buy her 50% share then the landlord’s 50% share acquiring 100% immediately rather than staircasing).
3. Confirmation that the freehold would be transferred on completion.
4. How the purchaser’s mortgage could reflect this to the landlord’s satisfaction.
On 2 January 2019, the resident chased a response to her complaint and request for information. The resident requested that if the landlord could not respond within the next two days, it should escalate the complaint to stage two.
On 4 January 2019, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. The landlord said that the value differed to the sales terms agreed, but as part of the transaction would be the acquisition of the landlord’s share/staircasing, the sales terms agreed would need to reflect the same. The terms of sale were needed and always shared with all involved parties therefore it was not at fault. However, the landlord acknowledged that it could have been more explicit and assisted further with the sale. The landlord said it did not have all the information requested in her email of 24 December 2019 therefore it was escalating the complaint and it apologised that it could not provide a full response.
On 10 January 2019, the resident chased up a response to the complaint. On 15 January 2019, the landlord acknowledged a stage two complaint.
On 16 January 2019, the resident spoke to the landlord and raised that she was unhappy with the level of communication and that she had to frequently chase the landlord; the issue with the valuation; that she had been paying rent of £250 per month and the landlord had caused significant delays; and that the landlord had reverted back to staircasing. The resident considered that the figures included in the Notification of sale should have been that agreed with the buyer.
On 11 February 2019, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint. The landlord said that it recognised that the information supplied may not have included all that was needed to inform the resident of all the steps involved when selling and, as her solicitor had not provided her with any explanation on the resales provision in the lease, it had offered to provide her with the necessary steps and requirements.
In response to her complaint about the valuation provided to the prospective buyer, the landlord said it had previously explained that the report’s value appeared to differ to the sales terms agreed and, as part of the transaction would be the acquisition of its share/staircasing, the sale terms agreed needed to reflect the same. The email of 21 November 2018 was an attempt to resolve the difference and advise on the conveyance requirements.
The landlord said that the resident had said that her solicitor had made enquiries and not received a response for eight weeks. The landlord responded that it had checked with its legal team and it had no records of enquiries from her solicitor.
In response to the resident’s request for information as to what was required to sell 100% of the property, the landlord said she had received a sales pack setting out the steps and requirements on a shared ownership resale and referred to its email of 21 November 2018. However, the landlord acknowledged that the financial implication on the resident or the buyer had not been fully explained prior to 21 November 2018.
The landlord set out the options as, in summary:
1. The property was resold as a 50% shared ownership property. The buyer could then staircase in their own time after owning the property for three months.
2. The resident could staircase to 100% now. If this took place and the freehold was sold at 100% within three months of staircasing the lease allowed for the landlord to obtain a further valuation of the property and if there was any difference in the market value at the date of final staircasing and the market value three months later, the landlord could recover that difference from the new owner.
3. A buyer could purchase the 50% share and immediately staircase on the same day. This would require the landlord’s approval of the mortgage offer on the resident’s share and the buyer would need to fund the remaining share to purchase both shares simultaneously.
The landlord acknowledged that the 100% sale option may not have been explicitly set out to the resident or fully understood and it apologised that she was not satisfied with the service received. The landlord said that lessons had been learned around effect communication with different teams and acknowledged that she had received differing responses from different teams for which it apologised.
The parties continued to communicate and during 2019 two further potential purchases fell through. In June 2019, a third buyer was found and in September 2019, the sale completed.
During the Ombudsman’s Early Resolution Process, the resident set out the resolution she was seeking to the complaint, which included:
1. £5,000 (50% of the money lost when the first proposed sale fell through) because the landlord sent her own surveyor’s valuation on the memorandum of sale which was less than the purchase price.
2. £72 compensation for two valuations she obtained which were not needed as there was no offer on the property at the time (she said the landlord repeatedly requested these every three months).
3. £500 solicitors’ fees for two lost sales.
4. £2,077 rental payments and £1518 rates for 22 months due to delayed correspondence and lost sales.
5. An explanation as to why there were so many unnecessary problems with the sale which caused a lot of stress to the resident.
The landlord provided a detailed response to this request. The landlord set out the context of shared ownership leases generally including that they were regulated and that the Regulator of Social Housing provided a prescribed form of lease that it must use and from which it could not deviate.
In relation to the valuation, the landlord said that the lease states that the value for the additional share (the share of the property owned by the landlord) would be calculated on the basis of the surveyor’s valuation. The surveyor was required to value the property in accordance with the terms as set out in the lease and given the resident’s desire to sell the entire property, they would need to value both the estate’s share and that of the landlord as part of the transaction would be the acquisition of the landlord’s share. The sales terms agreed needed to reflect the same. The landlord said that the valuation being reflected in the agreed sale price was in accordance with the correct procedure for selling a shared ownership property and the lease.
In response to the resident’s assertion that the property was continually quoted as a shared ownership but it was agreed to sell at 100%, the landlord explained that until the landlord’s share had been acquired through the staircasing process as required under the lease, the property would remain a shared ownership property therefore there was a requirement to set this out. There was a risk with any conveyance that a buyer does not proceed. It offered no compensation for lost sales or legal fees.
In relation to the valuation fees, the landlord agreed that if it had requested valuations in the circumstances put forward by the resident, these were unnecessary, and it agreed to reimburse the requested £72.
In relation to delays to the process, the landlord said that there were always risks in selling a property especially one that was not in a marketable condition. It said this was exacerbated when someone was trying to sell to the restricted section of the population that fit the shared ownership criteria. The landlord said it was entitled to hold the shared owner and their estate to the terms of the lease and it had sought to give as much assistance to the resident as it could by allowing the staircasing of the property to be undertaken simultaneously with its sale.
The landlord acknowledged that shared ownership did have some complexities that may be confusing for members of the public to understand and it agreed that the sale process had taken a long time and must have been frustrating for the resident. However, the delays revolved around the requirements of selling shared ownership property and not due to its own actions.
The landlord concluded that it had no legal responsibility to the resident in selling the property and she had instructed her own solicitor to guide her through the process. In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged that it was confusing when the resident had agreed the sale of 100% of a property but it was still technically the sale of a shared ownership property. As a gesture of goodwill the landlord offered £250 compensation, in recognition of improvements that could have been made in its communication about the technical process over the sale.

Assessment and findings

Lease terms and landlord policies

The lease terms include a covenant by the leaseholder to “keep from time to time and at all times during the term the whole of the Premises (both interior and exterior) clean and well and substantially repaired and maintained and decorated….”.
The Second Schedule of the lease sets out the lease staircasing provisions.
The Relevant Date is defined as “the date three months after completion of the final staircasing”.
Paragraph 2(1) of the Second Schedule states: “At any time or times during the term after the first anniversary of the date hereof the Leaseholder may serve notice in writing on the Landlord stating the Portioned Percentage he proposes to acquire whereupon the Landlord shall inform the Leaseholder of the fee payable to the Valuer for determining the Market Value which fee the Leaseholder will pay to the Landlord within fourteen days of notification provided that no person may exercise their rights as Leaseholder to serve notice upon the Landlord pursuant to this paragraph 2(1) until they have been the Leaseholder hereunder for three months and provided further that this paragraph 2(1) shall apply to any mortgagee of the Leaseholder of whom the Landlord has received proper notice pursuant to clause 3(15) hereof without the restriction that no purchase may take place during the year commencing with the date hereof”.
Paragraph 3(1) of the Second Schedule states “The provisions of this paragraph 3 shall take effect only if on the Relevant Date the Leaseholder is not the same person or persons or the Personal Representatives of the same person or persons who was or were the Leaseholder immediately prior to the completion of the Final Staircasing provided that this paragraph 3 shall have no effect in the event that a mortgagee of the Leaseholder of whom the Landlord has received proper notice pursuant to clause 3(15) hereof exercised the right to complete the Final Staircasing.”
Paragraph 3 (4) states “Within 28 days of receipt of the notification from the Landlord pursuant to paragraph 3(3) the Leaseholder shall pay the Landlord the amount (if any) by which the Market Value of the Premise as at the Relevant Date exceeds the Market Value of the Premises determined by the Valuer for the purposes of the Final Staircasing together with the amount of the fee paid by the Leaseholder to the Valuer for the provision of the Valuer’s determination”.
The landlord’s Staircasing and Flexible Tenure Procedure states that where a leaseholder wishes to staircase, they should notify the landlord. On receiving written notification, the landlord will instruct an independent qualified valuer to provide a current market value of the property (the customer pays for this). It states that the valuer will confirm the market valuation of the property, as the cost of purchasing any further shares in the property is based on this figure.
The policy states that within ten days of it receiving notification of the valuation, the customer will be informed of the current market value of their home and costs of purchasing further shares. If either the customer or the landlord feel that the valuation given is not a fair valuation, then the District Valuer can be instructed to redetermine the value of the property. The District Valuer’s valuation will be final and binding on both parties.
The landlord’s Homeownership policy states that homeowners are responsible for understanding their legal documents and of seeking their own legal advice in relation to the sale. In relation to communication, the policy states that it makes every effort to communicate with its homeowners in formats and languages they can understand. It does not provide legal advice or interpret any legal documents for homeowners.

Assessment: The time taken and communication in relation to the sale of the property and information given to prospective buyers about the valuation

From March 2018 onwards, the resident complained about the time taken to sell the property and the time taken for the landlord to respond to communications. When responding to the resident’s first complaint, the landlord explained that it had to consider the resident’s request to market the property at 100% and investigate the repairs issue. This was a reasonable explanation given that the lease confirms that the resident was responsible for completing repairs to the property (paragraph 48 above), therefore the landlord was not responsible for delays caused by the need to complete repairs. It is acknowledged that agreeing and completing repairs would have taken some time.
It is acknowledged that it took until May 2018 for the landlord to agree how the property would be sold, which was several months after the resident’s request, therefore there was some delay in relation to this. However, given that the repairs were not signed off until September 2018, there is no evidence that this caused a further delay to the sale itself.
An offer to purchase the property was made on 9 October 2018 and on 5 November 2018, the resident said that her solicitor had been trying to get in contact with the landlord. Initially, the landlord advised that the freehold could not be transferred until three months after final staircasing had occurred. The landlord explained that the leaseholder was simultaneously staircasing and selling. However, the following day, the landlord confirmed that the sale was approved, the freehold could be transferred on completion rather than waiting for three months.
There were some shortcomings in the landlord’s communication about the sale at this stage. The landlord had agreed in September 2018 that both parties would receive 50% of the sale proceeds and it had been aware of the resident’s request to sell the property as 100% from March 2018, therefore it is unclear why the landlord asked if the resident was purchasing the additional shares again in early November 2018. There is also no evidence of the landlord advising the resident that there would need to be a three-month wait between staircasing and purchasing the freehold until 5 November 2018. This was several months after the issue was first raised and was confusing for the resident to be told at this stage.
Nevertheless, the landlord looked into this further and changed its position the next day, agreeing that completion could take place the same day. While this was confusing for the resident, the issue was resolved quickly. The landlord was also using its discretion to assist the resident by agreeing to allow the staircasing and sale to complete simultaneously, which it was not obliged to do.
On 7 and 19 November 2019, the resident’s solicitor requested the contact details of the landlord’s legal team. On 19 November 2019, the landlord confirmed its lawyer’s email address was in its email of 7 November 2019 and that it would ask them to contact the buyer’s solicitor. There is therefore evidence that the resident’s solicitor was chasing the landlord for a response at this stage, causing a delay of approximately two weeks.
On 21 November 2018, the landlord emailed various parties relating to the sale stating that its legal team had raised a number of issues which must be resolved before it was able to progress and set out the options to move the sale forward. The contents of this email was the focus of the resident’s complaints. In summary, that email explained that in order for the 100% sale to proceed, either the resident would need to staircase to 100% before the sale or the buyer would need to staircase immediately after purchasing the resident’s 50%. The email also included the details of the valuation report the resident had obtained stating that she needed to obtain a new one taking into account the repairs that had been completed. The email also referred to the implications of both of these options in relation to the valuation figures (paragraph 21 above).
The resident complained that the landlord continued to correspond referring to staircasing when it had instead agreed to sell the property at 100%. When responding to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that its communication could have been clearer in relation to this issue. The request to sell the property at 100% was made in March 2018, therefore the landlord could have explained the details of how this would work and any relevant implications to the resident at an earlier stage, particularly from May 2018 once the agreement to sell at 100% was made.
It is evident from the correspondence that the resident did not understand the legal complexity of the transaction and there is no evidence of the landlord explaining this to her prior to the email of 21 November 2018. However, it is also acknowledged that a substantial part of the delay between March and October 2019 was due to the issue of outstanding repairs at the property and therefore the parties were not discussing the details of the transaction during this period.
While the landlord agreed to market the property at 100%, since neither party owned a 100% share at the time, the staircasing provisions in the lease were still relevant and needed to be followed in order to increase the share to 100% and transfer this to the new owner or for the new owner to staircase to 100%. The resident wanted the transaction to progress as quickly as possible therefore it was disappointing for her that the landlord only raised these queries at this stage. However, the explanations provided by the landlord referred to the lease provisions which set out how any staircasing transaction should take place and the requirements the landlord referred to are set out in the lease and the landlord’s Staircasing policy (extracts included at paragraphs 50 to 55 above).
When responding to the complaint on 11 February 2019, the landlord acknowledged that the information supplied may not have included all that was needed to inform the resident of the steps involved. It also acknowledged that it would be confusing when someone had agreed the sale of 100% of a property but it was still technically the sale of a shared ownership property. The landlord offered £250 compensation recognition of improvements that could have been made in its communication.
It is acknowledged that there were shortcomings in the landlord’s communication about the sale and that this was confusing for the resident, particularly in the circumstances where she had inherited the property and may not have experienced shared ownership before. The landlord could have provided more information about the transaction at an earlier stage and this may have led to its legal team being instructed earlier.
It is also acknowledged that there were some delays in the sale progressing and that this was frustrating for the resident. However, there is no evidence of an extensive delay during which the landlord was not responding to communications and it is acknowledged that the complications of the sale and the repairs needed were also relevant factors to the time taken for the sale to progress.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered. In response to this aspect of the complaint, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for the shortcomings in its communication and offered appropriate compensation. In doing so, the landlord has offered appropriate redress to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
Given that the resident also had her own legal representation and that the landlord’s Homeownership policy states that home owners are responsible for understanding their legal documents and seeking their own legal advice in relation to the sale, the Ombudsman is satisfied that overall the compensation offered was proportionate to the failings identified and was reasonable.
The resident also complained that the landlord had provided information from her previous valuation to the proposed purchaser and that this led to the sale falling through. In response to this, the landlord explained that the sale terms agreed needed to reflect the valuation figure and as these figured, this issue needed to be resolved.
During the Ombudsman’ Early Resolution process, the landlord explained further that the lease stated that the value for the additional share (the share of the property owned by the landlord) was calculated on the basis of the calculation of the surveyor. The landlord said that the instruction of the valuer by the resident and this valuation being reflected in the agree sale price was in accordance with the correct procedure for selling a shared ownership property and the lease. There was a risk with any conveyancing that a buyer does not proceed.
While it was disappointing for the resident that she lost the sale after the landlord provided this information, the landlord provided an explanation as to why it included the valuation information in its email of 21 November 2018. This explanation (that the cost of the additional share that was due to be purchased from the landlord would be in accordance with the valuation report obtained) was in accordance with the landlord’s staircasing policy and the terms of the lease (paragraphs 50 to 55 above).
While it was understandable that the resident was concerned that the landlord had shared the valuation figure with the proposed buyer, particularly when this was lower than the sale figure agreed, the landlord has explained why it did so. In the situation where the purchaser was to buy the landlord’s 50% share, the lease required the price of this to be in accordance with the valuation report, therefore the landlord’s explanation was reasonable. It is also noted that the landlord’s email of 21 November 2018 explained that the valuation report did not take into account the repairs that had been completed, therefore this was also made clear to the buyer at the same time.
The resident felt that the landlord should not have shared these details and it is acknowledged that the landlord could have communicated with the resident directly about the valuation before sending it on to the other parties. Given that it had accepted the offer made by the purchaser, this issue could have been identified an earlier stage. However, there is no evidence of the landlord acting contrary to the terms of the lease, its policies or otherwise unreasonably in relation to this issue. It was disappointing for the resident to lose the buyers, but the landlord explained the relevance of the valuation and its position that there was always a risk of buyers pulling out of a sale was also reasonable.
Any claim for damages for the losses incurred for, for example, breach of contract or negligence would be matters for the courts to consider and are outside of the scope of this service.
In conclusion, there were shortcomings in the landlord’s communication, and it could have identified the issues set out in the email of 21 November 2018 and the issue with the valuation the previous month when the offer was made. However, there is no evidence of any extensive delays by the landlord and its explanation in relation to the information provided to the resident and other parties was in accordance with the lease terms and its policies. The landlord recognised that its communication could have been improved and offered proportionate compensation to address this. However, the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation in relation to how the landlord can learn from the complaint and improve its communications in the future.

Assessment: Complaints handling

The resident also complained about the landlord’s communication in relation to her complaint.
The landlord’s Complaints policy states that its complaints process has two stages:
1. Stage 1: the landlord will investigate the matter and will aim to have reached a resolution to the complaint within 20 working days. If its investigation will exceed this timescale, it will always write to the resident and explain why. If the resident is not happy with the outcome of the stage 1 complaint, they may have the opportunity for the complaint to be reviewed at Stage 2.
2. Stage 2: A senior person will review the actions taken at Stage 1 and aim to respond within 20 working days. If the investigation exceeds this, it will write to the resident to explain why.
On 10 March 2018, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord about lack of correspondence and action in relation to the sale of the property. On 17 April 2018, the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord responded to this complaint 5 working days outside the timescale set out in its policy and did not acknowledge this delay. Neither did the landlord advise the resident how she could escalate her complaint if she was not satisfied with the response.
On 27 November 2018, the resident sent a further complaint to the landlord. On 27 November 2018, the landlord acknowledged a stage one complaint.
On or around the 19 December 2018, the landlord spoke to the resident over the telephone about her concerns. On 24 December 2018, the resident emailed the landlord requesting specific information from the landlord. On 2 January 2019, the resident chased a response to her complaint and request for information. The resident requested that, if the landlord had not heard from certain staff members in relation to the complaint within the next two days, it escalate it to stage two.
On 4 January 2019, the landlord provided a partial response to the complaint but said it would escalate the complaint to stage two as it could not provide a full response. The resident continued to chase a response. On 11 February 2019, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint. When responding to the complaint on 11 February 2019, the landlord apologised for the delay.
There were some delays to the landlord responding to the resident’s second complaint as it provided a partial response 5 working days outside the timescale in its policy and a full response 5 working days outside the timescale in its policy. However, it is also acknowledged that the first response was provided just after the Christmas period and the landlord had also made some effort to address the resident’s complaint previously by discussing the issues over the phone in December 2018. The subject of the complaint was complex and the landlord also apologised for the delays, which was appropriate.
Overall, there were some delays to the landlord responding to the complaints but these were not extensive. The landlord could have communicated more about the time it would take to respond and the reason for any delays, particularly given that the resident was regularly chasing up a response. The landlord should also have included information as to how to escalate the complaint in its first response. For this reason, the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation in relation into the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has made an offer of redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about how the landlord handled the sale of a shared ownership lease satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to how the landlord handled the formal complaint.

Reasons

There were some shortcomings and delays in the landlord’s communication about the sale. However, the landlord appropriately recognised this and offered proportionate compensation to address this. The explanations provided by the landlord were in accordance with the lease terms and its staircasing policy.
There were some delays to the landlord responding to the complaints but these were not extensive.

Recommendations

The landlord to re-offer its previous offers of £250 goodwill compensation and £72 surveyors’ fees.
The landlord to take steps to ensure that its staff dealing with shared ownership sales and staircasing have received appropriate training and resources in relation to the processes and steps involved, to ensure that any future sales are handled appropriately and residents are given clear and timely information as to how the sale will proceed.
The landlord to remind its complaints staff of the importance of keeping residents informed as to the progress of their complaint; responding within the timescales set out in its Complaints policy; and including information as to how to escalate a complaint in Stage one complaint responses.