Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

One Housing Group Limited (202013149)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013149

One Housing Group Limited

5 August 2021


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 resident complains that the landlord misadvised him on the time limits to appeal the District Valuer’s determination on his property.

Background

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may make payments for inconvenience and gestures of goodwill. It says ‘In circumstances where a tenant, complainant or claimant has evidently experienced inconvenience, OH will use discretion to offer a gesture of goodwill payment. This payment can be between £25.00 and £250.00. An example of where these payments might be made is in the case of ‘Lost opportunity’ due to an administrative oversight.
  2. The District Valuation Service falls under the specialist property arm of the Valuation Office Agency (VOA). It provides independent valuation and professional property advice to bodies across the entire public sector, and where public money or public functions are involved.

Summary of events

  1. The resident made a Right to Acquire (RtA) application in 2018. A surveyor carried out a valuation in December 2018 and submitted their valuation report to the landlord in January 2019, citing the value of the property as £300,000. The landlord sent the resident offer documentation in April 2019, and the resident then appealed the valuation in July 2019, referring the matter to the District Valuer for a determination.
  2. The District Valuer wrote to the resident on 30 January 2020 with a revised valuation of £280,000. In this letter the District Valuer stated that the determination was usually final and could only be reviewed if it was believed that a ‘significant error’ had been made in the determined value, or the valuer failed to comply with statutory requirements. The letter said ‘your landlord should provide details [about review] when they contact you following receipt of the determination report.’
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 February 2020, noting that the District Valuer had said that there was a right to request a review and that the landlord would contact him with instructions on how to do so. He asked the landlord for these instructions. The landlord replied the following day but did not directly address the resident’s query, and instead attached its revised offer notice dated 13 February 2020, with the property value at £280,000. The letter stated ‘If you disagree with the valuation of the property you may appeal in writing within 3 months of the service of the Offer notice. The Housing Association will then refer a valid appeal to the District Valuer for a determination.’
  4. On 2 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking again about how he could challenge the valuation. The landlord replied on 5 March 2020 explaining that the District Valuer’s valuation was normally final, but a review could be requested if he felt a significant error was made. The landlord said if the resident could send this information to it, it would forward on to the DVS.
  5. The resident set out his reasons for requesting a review on 5 May 2020, explaining that he believed that a significant error was made in the value. He said ‘There is a clear shortage in sales of similar flats in the immediate locality and the District Valuer appears to have considered the sales of older flats which have other benefits such as parking, better layout and sound proofing…I have provided sales evidence of similar aged flats located slightly further away but still within close proximity to my flat. In my opinion they do not appear to have been considered. These sales suggest that a similar sized one bed flat should be in the region of £250,000 – £270,000 depending on the internal condition of the flat.’ He also provided information on more recent sales of flats nearby, including one in his own building that had not been considered.
  6. On 21 May 2020 the District Valuer wrote to the resident declining his request for review as it was out of time. They said ‘I note that you have already had the full opportunity to make a case in your appeal against your landlord’s valuation of £300,000 and following the District Valuer’s full consideration of your case he determined the valuation to be £280,000 based upon the evidence of sales in the locality in conjunction with the representations made by both yourself and your landlord. As you may be aware the decision of the District Valuer is intended to be final unless there has been a significant error that has been made which requires correction via a formal review of the determination.’
  7. They went on to state that it was the duty of the landlord to advise the resident of the time limits and grounds for requesting a review of determination, and that there was no mechanism in statute for any extension of the 28-day time limit irrespective of the information that the landlord had provided.
  8. On 20 October 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about the matter, noting that at no time had the landlord advised him of the 28-day time limit, despite him specifically asking in February and March 2020 for details on how to appeal the District Valuer’s decision. He pointed out that the revised offer letter stated that he had three months to appeal.
  9. When he contacted the landlord after being told by the District Valuer that he was out of time to appeal in May 2020, the landlord stated that the offer notice dated 13 February 2020 set out that he only had four weeks to appeal. The resident said ‘At no time did [the landlord] draw my attention to this, despite two requests for her to provide with information about appealing. In fact, her revised offer letter did the exact opposite and led me to believe that I had 3 months to appeal…It is very unfair on her to later rely on a obscure passage in the offer notice, a document which I believed to be only relevant if accepting the offer.’ The resident noted that there was no apology, offer of compensation, or attempt to minimise the damage done.
  10. In the landlord’s response dated 12 November 2020, it noted the District Valuer’s comments from 21 May 2020. It apologised that its offer letter gave conflicting information on the time available to appeal and offered £50 as a good will gesture for this, but noted that the offer notices issued at the same time did set out that this was 28-days. It said that RtA was a statutory scheme and so the resident could not proceed with the previous application as the deadlines had now passed, so would need to start a new application.
  11. The resident approached the Ombudsman following this. This Service asked the landlord to provide a final response to the complaint and detailed that the outcomes that the resident sought were for the landlord to instruct the District Valuer to revalue the property as of December 2018, and provide compensation for the service he had received.
  12. The landlord sent a final response on 9 April 2021, increasing the compensation offer to £250 and stating that it was able to proceed with the valuation from 2018.

Assessment and findings

  1. In his complaint to this Service, the resident explains that the landlord’s error meant that he missed the opportunity to obtain a lower valuation of the property. To resolve the matter, the resident would like the landlord to instruct the District Valuer to revalue the property as of December 2018. He states, ‘As my landlord is the client of the VOA, this is simple for them to do and does not raise complicated issues of time limits and whether or not statute permits an extension of aforementioned limits.’ He says that this would return him to the position that he would have been in had the landlord not given him incorrect information. He also feels that he is entitled to ‘genuine compensation’.
  2. It is clear that the landlord’s offer letter gave the incorrect information to the resident regarding time frames, and the Ombudsman finds that this was a failing on its part. It is also the case that the accompanying notices gave the correct time frames, and so it could be argued that it was open to the resident to read these and query the conflicting information, although this Service accepts that the information in the letter was likely more accessible than the information in the offer notices.
  3. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine what the outcome would have been had the resident been given the correct information and his appeal accepted by the District Valuer. The District Valuer’s email of 21 May 2020 makes clear that appeals would only be accepted if a significant error had been made which required correction via a formal review of the determination: The resident’s appeal detailed other properties he felt should have been taken into consideration, but it is not possible for the Ombudsman to say whether this would have been accepted as a ‘significant error’ by the District Valuer had the appeal been made in time. Further, it is also not possible to say if the appeal had been accepted, whether this would have resulted in the valuation being lowered.
  4. Having said this, the Ombudsman does find that there was a loss of opportunity, as the resident was unable to have his appeal considered. This has clearly been frustrating for him and he has subsequently taken time and trouble in pursuing the matter and formal complaint with the landlord and this Service. The Ombudsman must therefore consider whether the landlord’s response to his concerns has provided a suitable remedy for the adverse effect its error caused the resident.
  5. The landlord’s 9 April 2021 response increased the offer of compensation to £250.00 as a gesture of goodwill for the miscommunication about time frames and the inconvenience this caused. The Ombudsman considers this to have been a reasonable offer, at the maximum that the landlord’s complaint policy allows. The Ombudsman’s own compensation guidance sets out that for matters of short duration where there was no significant impact on overall outcome, amounts of £50 to £250 are recommended. As stated above, it is not possible to conclude that the landlord’s error had a significant impact on the outcome, and so £250 was a reasonable remedy to the adverse effect caused.
  6. It also explained that as no notices had been served and the application was not withdrawn, it was able to proceed with the valuation from 2018. The Ombudsman notes that this is contrary to the information provided in its 12 November 2020 response, where the resident was told that he would need to start a new application. It is concerning that the resident seems to have been given the wrong information initially, although the fact that the resident was able to proceed with the 2018 valuation, should he choose to, was positive.
  7. The resident has stated that the landlord could easily instruct the District Valuer to revalue the property as of December 2018, and that this would put him in the position that he would have been in had the error not occurred. He has said that the District Valuer is a client of the landlord, however this is not the case, it is a separate body.
  8. This Service is not aware if the District Valuer would accept such an instruction. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this request in its 9 April 2021 final response, and the Ombudsman therefore makes a recommendation on this point below.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Section 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord gave the incorrect information on time frames for appeal to the District Valuer in its offer letter. This is somewhat tempered by the fact that it gave the correct timeframes in the offer notices, which was not picked up on by the resident. However, overall the Ombudsman finds that in the main it was the landlord’s error that meant that the resident missed the deadline for appeal.
  2. This resulted in a loss of opportunity and frustration for the resident, but the compensation offered by the landlord was a reasonable resolution, as was its confirmation that the process could go ahead based on the December 2018 valuation.
  3. This Service cannot determine whether the District Valuer would accept a request from the landlord to carry out a second valuation as of December 2018, but as the landlord did not address this request, a recommendation is made that it does so.

 

 

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £250 offered.
  2. In light of the error in the timeframe provided for appeal, and the resident being told that he would need to start a new application but in fact did not need to do this, the landlord should consider carrying out a training exercise to ensure that all relevant staff members are aware of the correct RtA and associated procedures.
  3. The landlord should address the resident’s request that it instruct the District Valuer to carry out another valuation as of December 2018, either confirming that it will do so, or explain why it will not.