One Housing Group Limited (202117903)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117903

One Housing Group Limited

12 July 2023

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s shared ownership property;
2. The resident’s claim that the landlord is liable for his loss of £11,000 through delays in the sales process;
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

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 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The resident’s claim that the landlord is liable for his loss of £11,000 through delays in the sales process;

This is because paragraph 42 (g) states that the Ombudsman may 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, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident has expressed that delays in the landlord’s handling of the sale of their property has caused him financial losses of £11,000.
The Ombudsman does not determine liability like a court and therefore will not consider liability for these financial losses. This Service considers that the resident can seek a remedy to this aspect of the complaint through the courts and would advise him to seek legal advice if he is considering such action. This report will however consider whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and references to the above issue are made for context.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner who purchased 25% of his property from the landlord in March 2013. The property is a two-bed, purpose-built flat on the 14th floor of a block of similar flats.
The resident was not living in the property between 2017 and 2019. During this time he let the property out with the landlord’s permission.
The landlord’s shared ownership lease contains a ‘nomination period’ which gives the landlord “the right to try to sell your home first for a period of either eight or 12 weeks”.

Sales and resales policy and procedure

The landlord provides shared owners selling their property with a resale leaflet. This outlines the sales process but does not contain timeframes for each stage.
The landlord also has a resale procedure and sales and marketing manual, these outline the resale process and timeframes and state that the landlord should:
1. Respond to all resale enquiries from residents within 48 hours and send an enquiry pack out.
2. Raise a valuation within 48 hours of the completed intention to sell form being returned by the resident. The valuer should provide the valuation report within seven working days. Valuations are valid for three months.
3. Write to the resident within 48 hours of receipt of the valuation attaching the valuation letter and intention to proceed form. When the resident has returned their signed intention to proceed form the landlord should advertise the property on relevant websites within 48 hours.
4. Send a prospective buyer a buyer’s pack within 24 hours of them expressing an interest in the property.
5. Send completed buyer applications to the financial advisor within 24 hours of receipt to assess eligibility. The buyer then has five days to arrange a meeting with the financial advisor.
6. Within 24 hours of buyer eligibility being confirmed, the landlord should request that they pay their reservation fee. The buyer offer letter should be sent within two working days of the reservation fee being paid.
7. Issue the memorandum of sale within two working days of receiving an offer letter signed by the buyer.
The resale’s procedure states the home purchasing team will maintain regular contact with all parties “to ensure the sale progresses to completion”.

Complaints policy

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. Stage one complaints should be acknowledged within two working days and responded to within ten working days. Stage two complaints should be acknowledged within two working days and responded to within 20 working days.
Within the landlord’s sales and marketing manual it states that stage one complaints will be responded to within 20 working days. This differs from the timeframe within the dedicated complaints policy.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that “a gesture can be paid towards time, trouble, distress etc.”. The policy states that payments for inconvenience and gestures of goodwill “can be between £25.00 and £250.00”.

Events prior to the complaint period

In June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord as he was considering selling the property. The landlord provided him with details of the process for selling his property, this included the resales guide and resale instruction form. He advised the landlord he had been renting the property out for three years and that his new tenants had given notice. He asked if the sales process was likely to take less than six months as his tenants were due to move out within two months and he was considering re-letting the property in the short term. The landlord responded and advised that the sales process took “on average from very beginning until completion day is 4-6 months”.
On 15 June 2020 the resident advised the landlord that he was going to continue letting the property and had decided not to sell at that time.

Events during the complaint period

The resident contacted an individual staff member for the landlord on 30 December 2020 to advise he had decided to sell the property. The staff member responded on 4 January 2021 advising that they no longer worked for the home purchase team but had forwarded his email to the correct team.
On 8 January 2021 the home purchase team responded to the resident and advised that it had contacted the external surveyors to request an extension of the valuation.
On 12 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to advise that he had been told by the surveyors that it had not yet received instructions from the landlord to carry out a new valuation. He stated that his tenants had given their notice and the tenancy would end at the end of February 2021. He stated that every day the process was delayed would likely cost him around £60.
The landlord responded to the resident on 13 January 2021 stating that it required payment of £120 for the desktop valuation if the resident wished to proceed. The resident responded the same day advising that he did wish to proceed and would make payment.
The landlord emailed the surveyors on 15 January 2021 and asked that they contact the resident regarding the desktop valuation.
On 26 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and said that he had spoken with the surveyors and had been told that the report was completed a week previously but that they could not “release” the report until the landlord provided a purchase order number. He stated that he was “extremely frustrated at the continued delays in triggering this sales process”. On 28 January 2021 the resident contacted the surveyors and requested an update. He stated he had not received any response from the landlord.
Records show that on 29 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to make a formal complaint regarding delays in the process to sell his property. He stated that it had taken a month for the landlord to arrange a valuation survey.
The landlord raised a purchase order on 1 February 2021 and provided this to the surveyor on 3 February 2021. On 3 February 2021 the surveyor provided the landlord with the desktop valuation.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 February 2021 attaching the valuation instruction form, a copy of the valuation, and marketing templates. The landlord advised the resident that the valuation was valid for three months and would expire on 19 April 2021.
On 4 February 2021 the resident advised the landlord that he had already provided a signed instruction form. He also stated that the landlord already had the majority of the marketing information it had requested as it had been provided to the landlord’s lettings team who had let the property for the resident. The resident stated that he wanted assurances that there would be no delays in selling the property and that he was considering letting the property out.
The landlord provided confirmation to the resident on 5 February 2021 that it had marketed his property on two websites.
On 11 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised that he had felt the need to raise a formal complaint regarding delays from the home purchase team. The landlord stated that, as discussed in a telephone call to the resident, it had now appointed a “dedicated sales consultant” to liaise with the resident and asked if the resident was happy to withdraw his formal complaint. The resident responded on 12 February 2021 that he was happy for his complaint to be withdrawn.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 February 2021 requesting an update on whether any applications to buy the property had been received. He advised that two viewings had taken place and that the viewers seemed interested. He stated that his current tenants would vacate the property on 26 February 2021 and he had concerns regarding the financial cost to him if the property remained empty.
On 1 March 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to advise it had a nominated buyer and that the buyer had been asked to pay their reservation fee by 4 March 2021. On 4 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that the purchaser had contacted him to advise they were withdrawing from the purchase. The landlord responded to the resident on 5 March 2021 to advise that they had not received any further enquiries from prospective buyers but that the property was still being advertised online and it would update the resident in a week.
On 15 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to request an update. The landlord replied on 16 March 2021 and stated that it had emailed 15 prospective buyers who had expressed an interest in viewing the property.
On 16 March 2021 the landlord was contacted by a prospective buyer who stated they wished to reserve the property. The prospective buyer was advised to contact the landlord’s financial advisor on the same day to complete an affordability assessment. The prospective buyer did not go on to buy the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 March 2021 and confirmed that three viewings had taken place on the property the day before. The landlord advised the resident on this date that there were two members of staff off work sick until 29 March 2021 and that this may cause a delay in its service. The resident was advised to contact the landlord if there were any prospective buyers that were interested and that it would make contact to confirm eligibility.
On 23 March 2021 the resident advised the landlord that one of the individuals who had viewed the property on 18 March 2021 had expressed to him that they wished to buy the property and were in the process of completing the application. The landlord states that it was never contacted by this applicant.
On 14 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it had nominated a new buyer. The resident requested clarification about who the buyer was as he had been contacted by a prospective buyer several weeks previously but they had advised they had not been contacted by the landlord and so had started looking elsewhere.
The landlord was contacted by a potential buyer on 25 April 2021 who submitted her eligibility form and stated she wished to purchase 50% of the property – this applicant will be referred to as ‘the buyer’ throughout the remainder of this report.
On 30 April 2021 the landlord contacted the buyer and asked her to contact the financial advisor to confirm she was able to afford the property. On 4 May 2021 the buyer contacted the landlord and confirmed that she would be in touch with the financial advisor. The landlord’s financial advisor confirmed on 6 May 2021 that the buyer had passed the affordability assessment.
The buyer contacted the landlord on 11 May 2021 and requested that the offer letter be issued to proceed.
On 13 May 2021 the resident requested that the offer letter be issued and again stressed that he was concerned that there be no delays in the sale.
On 19 May 2021 the resident again asked the landlord to issue the offer letter and expressed concern at the delays.
Also on 19 May 2021 the resident emailed the landlord stated he was “incredibly dissatisfied by the level of service [he had] received from the Home Purchase team” and that the landlord’s delays had cost him “at least £2000” so far. He said he was “not able to obtain any response at all from the Home Purchase team despite trying email, phone calls to direct line numbers, phone calls to mobile numbers and phone calls to the switchboard”.The landlord logged and acknowledged the stage one complaint on 20 May 2021.
The buyer contacted the landlord on 21 May 2021 and stated she had been unable to get through to the landlord by telephone. She stated she was keen to proceed and requested the offer letter as soon as possible.
The landlord issued the offer letter to the buyer on 24 May 2021. The buyer returned the signed form on 3 June 2021 and provided details of her solicitors. She asked if the landlord required any further information before the memorandum of sale could be issued.
On 4 June 2021 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response, this stated:
1. The landlord apologised for the delayed response of the home purchase team.
2. The home purchase team were “experiencing a high volume of enquiries which has resulted in a backlog”.
3. “To mitigate delayed responses going forward, we are reviewing our processes and procedures and other staff members are assisting with the demand”.
4. The landlord would issue the memorandum of sale within two working days.
5. It offered £25 compensation due to the delayed response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 June 2021 to advise that neither her nor the buyer had received the memorandum of sale yet. He stated that he felt that his complaint remained unresolved and said he looked forward to the landlord’s response as “part of the second stage of the complaints process”.
On 21 June 2021 the resident again asked the landlord to escalate his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with the service he had received from the home purchase team. He stated he urgently needed to complete the sale in order to reduce his ongoing costs. The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 24 June 2021.
On 22 June 2021 the buyer contacted the landlord to ask when the memorandum of sale would be issued. The memorandum of sale was issued on 2 July 2021.
The landlord contacted the buyer’s solicitor and resident’s solicitors on 5 July 2021 to confirm the instruction to proceed and that the valuation was valid until 19 October 2021. The landlord provided the resident’s solicitor with bank details for the resident to request and pay for a LPE1 management pack and advised that the pack would be provided within 15 working days of payment. The resident’s solicitor replied on the same day that payment for the pack had been made.
The resident advised the landlord on 12 July 2021 that her mortgage provider had requested an EWS1 form and letter confirming that a survey had been carried out by a suitably qualified professional. The landlord provided the EWS1 form to the buyer on 13 July 2021.
On 15 July 2021 the buyer contacted the landlord to advise that her mortgage provider had requested a cover letter alongside the EWS1 form. The buyer requested further detail regarding the B1 rating and combustible materials identified in the fire safety report.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 19 July 2021 stating:
1. In order to complete the LPE1 management pack, the home purchase team was “reliant on receiving information from our internal colleagues, such as Service Charges, Fire Risk and Legal Teams”.
2. The landlord had instructed its teams to provide the information to the buyer’s solicitor no later than 23 July 2021.
3. Due to staff shortages the offer letter was sent to the buyer on 24 May 2021, it should have been sent by 13 May 2021.
4. The memorandum of sale should have been issued by 11 June 2021 but was not sent until 2 July 2021.
5. The landlord apologised for the lack of communication which was due to “internal changes” in the team. Recruitment was ongoing to improve customer experience.
6. The landlord was reviewing its processes and guidance for customers to improve the “customer journey”.
7. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld and the landlord offered £250 compensation.
On 22 July 2021 the resident again requested the cover letter.
The buyer contacted the landlord on 29 July to request the landlord issue the letter to accompany the EWS1 form and stated that the mortgage lender would not proceed without this. The landlord’s home purchase team requested this document from the landlord’s building safety team.
Of 4 August 2021 the buyer emailed the landlord advising she had been trying to contact it “several times over the past few days”. She stated that she had requested a copy of the EWS1 cover letter three weeks previously and chased this multiple times since. The buyer stated that she was now considering withdrawing her offer due to delays from the landlord. The landlord replied on the same day to advise that it had again chased the matter.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord’s home purchase team again chased its building safety team for the letter. The building safety team stated that it had not previously asked the managing agent for the building for a covering letter and this had now been requested urgently.
The buyer contacted the landlord on 13 August 2021 to request an update on progress. She stated that when the resident had contacted the surveyor who completed the EWS1 form directly, it had been inferred that the landlord had not asked it to provide a cover letter.
On 16 August 2021 the buyer contacted the landlord again to chase up the ESW1 cover letter. The landlord responded and said it had chased the matter and was awaiting information from the managing agent and would update her when it received this.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 August 2021 to confirm the LPE1 management pack had been “mostly completed” and they were awaiting information from the service charge and rent teams to complete the final sections. The resident requested an update on the EWS1 letter.
The buyer contacted the landlord on 19 August 2021 requesting an update on the EWS1 letter. The buyer’s solicitor also contacted the landlord on this date to ask that the LPE1 management pack be provided. The landlord responded on 20 August 2021 and advised it was chasing up both the EWS1 letter and LPE1 management pack.
On 25 August 2021 the buyer contacted the landlord to chase the EWS1 letter which she stated she had requested a month ago. She stated that the delays would likely cost her an extra £3,000 in stamp duty if the sale did not complete by 30 September 2021. The landlord responded that it had still not received the letter and would chase this.
On 25 August 2021 the landlord provided the resident and the buyer with the EWS1 cover letter. The LPE1 management pack was provided to the buyer’s solicitor on 26 August 2021.
The buyer contacted the landlord on 31 August 2021 to advise that her mortgage lender did not accept the EWS1 cover letter as it did not specify the property address or buyer’s details. An amended letter was requested from the landlord’s building safety team on 1 September 2021.
On 6 September 2021 the buyer requested an update regarding the ESW1 cover letter. The landlord responded the next day stating it had chased up the amended letter. The buyer stressed that a delay in the sale would mean she would have to pay more stamp duty as the ‘stamp duty holiday’ ended 30 September 2021.
The buyer contacted the landlord again on 9 September 2021 and made a formal complaint that the EWS1 cover letter had still not been provided and this was delaying the sale of the property.
On 10 September 2021 the landlord provided the buyer with documentation from the fire engineer who had completed the EWS1 form and stated this should satisfy the buyer’s mortgage provider. The mortgage lender responded that it still required the EWS1 cover letter.
The buyer contacted the landlord on 14 September 2021 and stated that until the landlord resolved the issue with the EWS1 cover letter, she was unable to get a mortgage. On the same date the landlord contacted the fire engineer who had completed the EWS1 form directly. The landlord requested that the fire engineer amend the cover letter. The fire engineer advised a fee of £500 would be payable for this – the landlord confirmed it would absorb this cost.
The landlord requested the EWS1 cover letter from the fire engineer on 15 September 2021 and escalated its request on 16 September 2021 explaining that the sale needed to complete by 30 September 2021.
The buyer requested an update on the EWS1 cover letter on 17 September 2021. The landlord advised the buyer that it was awaiting “clarification as the external company are imposing fees to change/amends on the letter”.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord contacted the buyer to advise it had escalated the matter and was chasing the letter urgently.
The amended EWS1 letter was sent to the buyer on 12 October 2021.
The landlord’s legal team confirmed that on 24 November 2021 the buyer’s mortgage offer was received and approved and the buyer’s solicitor advised they wished to complete on 3 December 2021.
On 26 November 2021 the landlord’s legal team requested an updated property valuation from the home purchase team who advised that the latest valuation had expired on 19 November 2021. The landlord stated that it was the buyer’s responsibility to liaise with the surveyor to request an updated valuation.
The legal completion of the property sale completed on 3 December 2021.
On 18 January 2022 the resident advised this Service that he was unhappy with the landlord’s final complaint response. He said:
1. He had lost £11,500 during an “extended void period” whilst awaiting the sale of his property. His family were of a “comparatively low income” and had no savings.
2. He received no support from the landlord in making “crucial decisions during the sales process”. He stated that, despite repeated requests for communication by telephone call, the landlord only provided him with information by email “which – where answered at all – repeatedly misinterpreted our situation and the action required”.
3. The landlord did not respond to him when he was deciding whether to re-let the property or proceed with the sales process and as a result he made “the wrong decision and have paid heavily for it”.
4. “dysfunctionality in the housing association’s operation in the last 12 months has caused delay after delay”.
5. The sales process took 30 weeks during which time he was paying the landlord £946.11 in rent and service charges. The delays experienced cost him “at least £6,000”. Had he let out the property he would have saved “almost £10,000”.
In June 2022 the landlord carried out a review of its handling of the sale of the resident’s property. The review concluded:
1. The resident stated that the delay in selling his property had caused he and his family stress. It had also impacted his financial situation as he had been paying rent and service charges on the property as well as the property he was living in.
2. The landlord was “not able to take responsibility for the decision to move out of his property” however it should have “provided better communication and updates on the sales process” in order to help the resident “make a better-informed decision”.
3. The Covid-19 pandemic had impacted on service delivery in the home purchase team due to a significant increase in enquiries and demand for services. The landlord should however have “been clear on associated timescales and potential delays that can occur when trying to sell a home”.
4. The landlord acknowledged delays in issuing the offer letter and memorandum of sale and took full responsibility for this,
5. The landlord could not take responsibility for the delays in issuing a EWS1 cover letter as there were outside the landlord’s control. The landlord stated that “The Home Purchasing Team consistently chased the matter up with our Building Safety Team and escalated where required”.
6. The resident had not received a satisfactory service from its home purchase team, this was “due to resourcing issues following staffing restructure”.
7. The landlord had “further reflected on the compensation offered to date and would like to offer a contribution towards the £6000 losses incurred” by the resident. In order to calculate an appropriate sum, the landlord requested “formal evidence in the form of original bank statements/receipts between Feb 2021 and Dec 2021”.
Within its review, the landlord identified a number of lessons learnt:
1. Additional sales consultants had been recruited and each customer now had a dedicated sales consultant as their point of contact.
2. Properties were now also marketed on the landlord’s website.
3. The landlord had appointed a home ownership coordinator who was “solely responsible for collating and issuing LPE1 management packs, responding to solicitor enquiries and updating our housing management system”.
4. The landlord had employed an external company to produce a thorough home purchasing process and procedures document.
5. The landlord had organised a workshop for home sales to address lessons learned from this case.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

This Service appreciates that the resident has some concerns regarding the landlord’s communication with prospective buyers and that delays in this communication led to at least one prospective buyer finding another property to buy. This Service understands the resident’s concerns and explores issues in the landlord’s communications below. However, we are unable to speculate whether the landlord’s communication delays did cause genuine prospective buyers to withdraw their interest and therefore ‘cost’ the resident an earlier sale. To do so would not be based on evidence as required by the Scheme and therefore would not be fair.

The landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s shared ownership property

The resident contacted the landlord on 30 December 2020 to enquire about selling his home. The home purchase team responded on 8 January 2021, six working days later. Some of this delay was due to the resident contacting an individual who did not work in the home purchase team but accounting for this, the landlord’s response was still two working days outside the timeframe indicated in its resale procedure.
The landlord advised the resident on 8 January 2021 that it had raised a valuation survey, it did not however raise a purchase order for the survey until 1 February 2021 despite the resident having paid for the survey on 13 January 2021. The landlord therefore delayed for 13 working days from the date the payment was made by the resident to the date the landlord paid the surveyor. This is far in excess of the two working days outlined in the landlord’s procedure.
The landlord’s resale procedure states that a buyers pack will be sent to prospective buyers within one working day of them expressing an interest in the property. The landlord sent the pack within two working days, this is not a substantial delay.
The landlord also delayed in issuing an offer letter to the buyer. This was requested by the buyer on 11 May 2021 and not issued until 24 May 2021 – a delay of 7 working days more than specified in the resale procedure. This despite the resident and buyer chasing the matter up on three occasions.
The landlord then caused further delays when issuing the memorandum of sale. This took 21 working days, 19 working days longer than outlined in the landlord’s procedure. The resident and buyer chased the landlord twice during this period to request the document.
The buyer’s solicitor paid the fee for the LPE1 management pack on 5 July 2021 and was advised that this would be provided within 15 working days. The management pack was not provided to the buyer until 26 August 2021 – 38 working days later. Again, the resident and buyer had to chase the landlord on two occasions for the document.
On 19 July 2021, in its stage two complaint response, the landlord advised that the home purchase team was “reliant on receiving information from our internal colleagues, such as Service Charges, Fire Risk and Legal Teams”. This Service acknowledges that this is the case, however there were clearly failings in the interactions between these teams and the resident (and the buyer) fell foul of these failings. The resident therefore experienced unreasonable delays as a result of the landlord’s poor communication.
By far the longest delay within the process was caused by problems in obtaining a cover letter for the EWS1 form required by the buyer’s mortgage provider. The buyer advised the landlord on 12 July 2021 that her mortgage provider had requested an EWS1 form and letter confirming that a survey had been carried out by a suitably qualified professional. Whilst the landlord provided the EWS1 form, it did not provide the cover letter as requested despite the resident explicitly requesting this.
On 15 July 2021 the resident advised the landlord that her mortgage provider was unwilling to provide her a mortgage without the cover letter, yet this was not provided until 12 October 2021. During this delay of almost three months, the resident and the buyer chased the landlord on 15 occasions.
This Service understands from internal landlord emails, that the EWS1 cover letter was not requested from its managing agent until 11 August 2021 – a month after the buyer initially requested it. This is unacceptable and constitutes a failure in the landlord’s service and communications.
On 26 November 2021 the stated that the property valuation had expired and that it was the buyer’s responsibility to liaise with the surveyor to request an updated valuation. This Service considers that it would reasonable expect that the sale would have completed before the valuation expired on 19 November 2021 was is not for the delays caused by the landlord’s failings. It therefore follows that the landlord should have paid the £120 for an updated valuation survey. An order has been made to repay the resident this amount.
In total, the resident experienced delays totalling 131 working days over the timeframes specified in the landlord’s resale procedure. Much of these delays were caused by ineffective communication by the landlord both internally and with external partners. The landlord failed in its statement that it would maintain regular contact with all parties “to ensure the sale progresses to completion”.
The landlord’s failures caused the resident undue time and trouble in chasing up the landlord to ensure that it was taking action. This clearly caused the resident a great deal of frustration combined with distress and worry that the sale may fall through causing him financial hardship.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident first began expressing his dissatisfaction with delays in the resale process and general communication from the landlord in January 2021. He went on to make a formal complaint in January 2021 but agreed to withdraw this following telephone discussions with the landlord.
This Service does not consider that it was appropriate for the complaint to be ‘withdrawn’. If the resident was happy with the outcome of his discussions with the landlord the complaint should have been closed, not withdrawn altogether. In withdrawing the complaint the landlord failed to provide a formal response to the resident in line with its own policy and with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). By failing to provide a complaint response the landlord acted as a ‘gatekeeper’ to the complaint process and denied the resident his right to complaint. This is especially problematic when the assurances made to the resident in his discussions with the landlord never came to fruition. This Service is concerned that if this practice is more widespread within the landlord, it could be interpreted as an attempt to obfuscate failures to adhere to complaint handling timeframes.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage one complaint response (to the resident’s second stage one complaint), delays in responses from the home purchase team. The landlord stated in this response that the memorandum of sale would be issued within two working days. The landlord failed to deliver on this undertaking and it took a further 20 working days for the memorandum of sale to be issued. This is unreasonable. The landlord mismanaged the expectations of the resident which damaged the resident’s trust and caused unnecessary time, trouble, and distress.
On 14 June 2021 the resident again stated his dissatisfaction with the service the landlord was providing in the sale of his property and made specific mention of expecting a response as part of the second stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure. This Service has not seen that the landlord responded to this contact and the complaint was not escalated to stage two of the complaints process and acknowledged until 24 June 2021. This unduly delayed the resident’s right to review by ten days.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 19 July 2021, five working days later than the timeframe outlined in the landlord’s complaint policy and specified by the Code.
In its stage two complaint response the landlord offered the resident £250 compensation. This Service acknowledges that this figure is the highest amount permitted under the landlord’s compensation policy. However, we consider that the amounts within the policy are arbitrary and are not sufficiently broad to allow the compensation to be calculated to provide a proportionate level of redress in view of the details of the complaint.
The landlord again acknowledged delays in its stage two complaint response and put these down to staff shortages and delays in receiving information from other teams. As explored above, this Service acknowledges that in order to carry out its responsibilities, the landlord’s departments will be required to work together. The inability of the landlord’s departments to do so in a timely fashion is a failure of the landlord which caused the resident detriment in the form of the delayed sale of his property (and associated financial losses), frustration, time and trouble, and distress.
The landlord assured the resident in its stage two complaint response, that the LPE1 management pack would be issued by 23 July 2021. The pack was not issued until 26 August 2021, over a month later. The landlord again mismanaged the resident’s expectations and failed to deliver on promises made, further damaging the resident’s trust and causing further frustration and distress.
The landlord has however, in its review of the case carried out after the complaint was accepted by this Service, demonstrated that it has implemented a number of improvements to its home purchase team following the resident’s complaint. This is resolution focussed and in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle ‘learn from outcomes’.
This Service commends the landlord carrying out a review of the case following the end of its internal complaints process. It must be stated however that any offers of compensation made after the landlord’s complaints process and after the involvement of this Service cannot be purported to be ‘reasonable redress’. This is because for redress to be reasonable it should take place prior to the Ombudsman’s formal investigation and on the landlord’s own initiative. Actions made following the landlord being made aware of an investigation cannot be described to be on the landlord’s initiative as it was the initiative of the resident to escalate the complaint.
Within the landlord’s review of the case. It stated that it could not take responsibility for the delays in the building’s managing agent providing the EWS1 cover letter as this was “completely outside of our control”. This Service does not agree that this is the case. The landlord failed to chase up the cover letter from the managing agent until 11 August 2021, a month later than it should have done. The landlord is also responsible for effectively managing its relationships with external companies and the resident should not suffer as a result of the landlord’s poor stakeholder management.
This Service does not consider that £250 provides sufficient redress for the delays experienced by the resident and the time and trouble and distress that the delays caused.
This Service considers that the landlord should pay the resident 33% of the rent and service charge paid on the property during the 6 months the landlord unduly delayed in the resales process. This amounts to £1,870 (rounded).
This Service also considers that the landlord should pay the resident £250 for complaint handling delays, £250 for time and trouble in chasing responses from the landlord, and £250 for distress and inconvenience.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s shared ownership property;
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to adhere to the timeframes in its own procedures when managing the sale of the resident’s property. The unreasonable delays experienced by the resident caused him a significant amount of distress and frustration and to have to invest an unnecessary amount of time and trouble in chasing a resolution.
The landlord did not act reasonably when it withdrew the resident’s first complaint and should instead have provided a formal response. The landlord also further delayed in providing formal responses at stage one and stage two which delayed the resident’s access to this Service. Whilst the landlord has acknowledged failures in this case, much of its learning was not acquired until its review which took place outside its internal complaints process.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £2,740 comprising:
1. £1,870 for delays in the resale process;
2. £120 for the cost of an updated valuation survey;
3. £250 for complaint handling failures;
4. £250 for time and trouble
5. £250 for distress and inconvenience
The landlord to rectify the discrepancy between the complaint timescales outlines in its sales and marketing manual and complaints policy.
The landlord to issue guidance to all relevant staff regarding the unacceptable practice of encouraging residents to ‘withdraw’ complaints. Complaints should be responded to and then closed in line with the Code.
The landlord to review its compensation policy to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to allow awards to be calculated to provide the right level of redress in view of the details of the complaint. Whilst it may be helpful to provide examples of figures within the guidance, these should not be arbitrary figures.
The landlord provide evidence that it has implemented the following improvements identified by its internal review of the case:
1. Additional sales consultants have been recruited and each customer now has a dedicated sales consultant.
2. Properties are now also marketed on the landlord’s website.
3. The landlord has appointed a home ownership coordinator.
4. The landlord has employed an external company to produce a thorough home purchasing process and procedures document.
5. The landlord has carried out a workshop for home sales to address lessons learned from this case.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be provided by the landlord within four weeks of the date of this report.