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

Peabody Developments Limited (202011698)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011698

Peabody Developments Limited

4 February 2022


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns the accuracy of information provided during the sales process about the specification of the winter garden area of the resident’s property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared owner, purchasing a share of their property in January 2021. Their property is a flat in a purpose built block, their complaint concerns the configuration of the property’s winter garden.
  2. In their complaint to the landlord, the resident explained that they were unable to view the actual property they purchased but were able to view a show flat. After the purchase of their property completed, the resident moved in to discover that the winter garden was configured in a way that was significantly different to the show flat, marketing literature, and plans provided during conveyancing.
  3. The resident brought a complaint to the landlord and, in its final response of 24 September 2021, it set out the following:
    1. The resident’s “winter garden” is different to the show flat they viewed and that the conveyancing plans may not have been accurate.
    2. The landlord explained that marketing documents included disclaimers that explained that the information they contained “does not constitue part or any offer, contract or warranty” and “is a preliminary guide only”.
    3. The landlord’s position was that it was the resident’s responsibility to inspect the property prior to purchase to ensure they were satisfied with it, referring to “the principle of caveat lessee (let the leaseholder beware)”.
    4. The landlord accepted that there had been some failings. It offered the resident compensation and agreed to waive certain fees for reselling the property for the next five years.
  4. The resident referred their complaint to this Service. They explained that the landlord’s decision was unreasonable, believing that it supported their complaint that they were mis–sold the property and had incurred significant financial loss.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme states that:
    1. The Housing Ombudsman will not consider 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.
  2. While this Service may be able to consider a complaint about the accuracy of information provided during the sales process, we have to consider whether we can add value by investigating the complaint, and whether we are able to provide the outcome the resident is seeking.
  3. In this case, there seems to be little dispute that at least some of the marketing and subsequent sales information did not accurately reflect the property which the resident purchased. The dispute turns on who is responsible for this and therefore liable for any loss. The landlord has clearly set out that it believes the resident was solely responsible for ensuring the property met their needs. The resident’s position is that they took reasonable steps to do so and that the landlord is at fault, and therefore liable for their loss.
  4. Resolving such a complaint requires a binding decision about which party is liable and to what extent for the resident’s housing issues, and an assessment of any loss. The Ombudsman does not have the power to issue binding decisions about liability, nor do we have the necessary expertise to quantify loss. I am satisfied that this complaint is best suited to consideration by Court, therefore it is not one that the Ombudsman can consider.