Southern Housing Group Limited (202013755)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013755

Southern Housing Group Limited

25 April 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. Delays to the sale of a shared ownership property and;
2. The landlord’s complaint handling
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident had applied to purchase a 2-bedroom shared ownership flat from the landlord.
On 24 January 2021 the resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord. He said he had agreed to purchase the property and had gone through all the landlord’s checks. The landlord had issued a formal offer to him which he had accepted. He said that it should have been an easy and quick transaction and that the landlord had told him that it would aim to complete the purchase by 4 December 2020. On 22 January 2021 he had decided to cancel the purchase of the property because of undue delays from the landlord. He said that the situation had caused financial cost, stress, inconvenience and upset, and that the landlord had ignored his request for compensation. The resident asked the landlord to compensate him for all his wasted costs, plus the mental stress and inconvenience that the landlord had caused him over several months.
On 29 January 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. The landlord asked him if he had withdrawn from the sale or if he would still like to proceed. The resident responded the same day. He said he was forced to withdraw the offer because the conveyancing of the property had taken far too long, and that the landlord and its solicitors had failed to act to progress the matter. The resident repeated his request for compensation.
On 2 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident with a response to his complaint. It supplied him with a timeline of events throughout the period of the purchase. The landlord acknowledged that the enquiries raised in December 2020 had taken time to respond to. It said that it did not feel that it had caused any significant delays that had held up the sale. It said that the property was still available, and that the resident could continue with the purchase.
In response, the resident said that the conveyancing should take 10 to 12 weeks and that the sale was relatively straight forward. He said that the landlord had mishandled the transaction and that it had allowed the sales process to remain stagnant between September 2020 and December 2020. He said that the landlord should have completed the purchase by 4 December 2020 as stipulated. He said that he’d lost legal fees of £6,000 and had suffered stress, inconvenience and worry because of the delays and uncertainty. He asked the landlord for the recovery of losses and any costs associated with reopening the transaction. He asked for a total of £20,000 from the landlord and its solicitors.
The landlord said that the deadline for completing the sale is estimated. It said that factors outside of its control had impacted the transaction and that the resident’s solicitor had contributed towards the delays. It said that the 4 December 2020 date was not possible due to the complex nature of some of the enquiries raised. It said that the property was still available and that it was able to set up a completion date should the resident want to proceed with the purchase. The landlord said it appreciated some of the issues the resident had experienced during the sale but that the service he had received did not warrant compensation.
On the 18 of May 2021 following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to formally respond to the resident’s complaint within 10 working days.
On the 3rd of June 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. In summary, the response said:
1. It had reviewed the correspondence sent to the resident,and it was satisfied it had responded to his concerns and his complaint regarding delays.It reiterated the contents of the email it had sent to the resident on 2 February 2021.
2. It said it was not in its interests to unnecessarily delay a property purchase and that the landlord had fully explained the delay in providing the requested information in December 2020.
3. It said that it had already refunded the resident his reservation fee and there were no other service failures that had not been addressed.
On 5 June 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two. In summary, he said that the negligence and incompetence from the landlord had delayed the completion of the sale.He said that it was a simple conveyancing matter and that the landlord, and its solicitors should compensate him fully for the months of trauma.
On the 29 October 2021 following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord asking it to acknowledge the residents complaint at stage two by 5 November 2021 and for it to formally respond within 20 working days.
On 6 December 2021 the landlord issued its final response to the resident. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. In summary its response said:
1. It had followed its processes.
2. There were minor delays in collecting information for the transaction which occurred during the height of COVID-19 pandemic, and this had caused absences across the teams both internally and externally.
3. It had provided a clear timeline of correspondence with the resident during the sale, and it did not consider the delays to have affected the transaction.
4. The resident had declined the opportunity to continue with the sale.
5. It had not identified any service failure, and therefore it would not pay compensation to the resident.
In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that the landlord had admitted to undue delays in dealing with the application. He said that the purchase was simple but there had been no progress with the transaction from September 2020 to December 2020. He said that there had been no formal response to his complaint on the 24th of January 2021. He said that he had decided to cancel the purchase as the landlord had made no progress on the transaction or his complaints. As an outcome to his complaint the resident said that he wanted the landlord to subsidise him the cost of purchasing a similar property, or to provide him with a suitable similar property for the cost he had agreed to pay in August 2020.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.

b. put things right, and;

c. learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse affect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Delays to the sale of a shared ownership property

The Landlord’s shared ownership selection and allocation policy states ‘An offer does not guarantee that an applicant can purchase a home. Once an offer is made, the home is marketed as Under Offer and no-one else will be offered it’.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord supplied a timeline of events to the resident. The timelineoutlinedthe landlord actions during the sales process. The resident said that there was an omission in the timeline in relation to the ‘setting off’ of the completion date of 4 December 2020, however the timeline of events was not contested by the resident.
In general, it is not uncommon for there to be delays during a sales process. There are often external factors at play that are outside of the landlord’s control, therefore it would be reasonable to conclude that the proposed completion date would have been subject to change. There is no evidence that the purchase remained stagnant between September 2020 and December 2020. The timeline showed that the landlord took reasonable actions to progress the sale of the property and that it had chased its solicitors for updates throughout the process. The timeline also showed that some of the delays had been due to administrative issues between both the landlord’s and resident’s solicitors.
The resident decided to cancel the purchase of the property due to the delays and he requested to be compensated for this. Whilst the Ombudsman does not underestimate the frustration the delays would have caused to the resident, the landlord was not responsible for his decision to cancel the purchase of the property. The landlord informed the resident on more than one occasion that he could continue with the purchase if he wanted to. The landlord acted in line with its policy and provided reasonable opportunities for the resident to continue with the purchase of the property.
The landlord’s responses admitted that there had been delays on its part during December 2020.It said that this was down to the complex nature of the enquiries raised. The Ombudsman has not seen these enquires and is therefore unable to fully assess whether the delays were unreasonable. However, the landlordtook action to address any financial loss caused to the resident by refunding his reservation fee and cancelling his legal fees. Overall, this was a fair and customer focused approach and would have paid back any financial loss to the resident caused by the delays.
This Service requested information from the landlord in order to obtain evidence relating to the sales process, such as:
1. any copies of any correspondence, advice or other information the landlord received from third parties such as solicitors and surveyors.
2. copies of any notices, correspondence, offers or other information provided to the resident related to the valuation of the property, proposed purchase price or other costs associated with the sale,
3. any correspondence, including emails and call logs relating to the sales process, from August 2020 (the date the formal purchase was confirmed) to 24 January 2021.
The Ombudsman has not received this information, which indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping. This Service would expect all contact to be recorded on the landlord’s system, to ensure there is an audit trail for any future issues that are raised. The landlord supplied a ‘timeline’ of events to the resident prior to his formal complaint response; however, the landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with any evidence to reconcile this. The landlord has also said that some of the emails sent to the resident from the landlord during the sales process are not available. Without this information, this Service is unable to fully ascertain what happened throughout the sales process and specifically what happened during December 2020.
The landlord admitted to delays in December 2020, however, due to the absence of evidence from the landlord, the Ombudsman has not been able to fully assess what affect the delays had on the sales process.However, the Ombudsman is satisfied, from the evidence available that any delays caused by the landlordwould not have significantlyaffected the overall outcome for the resident.
Having said that, the landlord should have acknowledged and apologised for the stress and inconvenience these delays would have caused the resident. The landlord offered an explanation to the resident for the delays; however, it offered no apology or redress in its formal responses. This is a failing from the landlord that has not been ‘put right’ for the resident. The landlord should provide redress to the resident for these delays and an order of compensation is made below in view of this.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states ‘The Group define a complaint as being: ‘An expression of dissatisfaction with our services. The complaint could be about an action, lack of action or about the standard of service received from us or an organisation working on our behalf’. ‘When a customer tells us they’re dissatisfied with our service, we’ll try to resolve the issue there and then. If that’s not possible, or if the issue has previously been brought to our attention, we will deal with this in line with our complaints procedure’.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaints handling. The Code states:
1. ‘A complaint must be defined as: ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’.
2. At stage one ‘Landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason’
The resident indicated in his complaint letter to the landlord on 24 January 2021, that he had previously complained to the landlord about delays to the sales process. He had also requested compensation.The landlord responded to the complaintin detail and within a reasonable timescale, however, this was not a formal complaint response. The letter to the landlord was a clear expression of dissatisfaction from the resident that had previously been brought to the attention of the landlord. Following the complaint letter and the subsequent email exchange,the landlord should have responded to the resident through its internal complaints process. The landlord failed to do this.
The resident had to wait over four months for a formal stage one response. The delay was avoidable, and it prevented the resident from pursuing his complaint with the landlord within a reasonable timescale. This would have caused stress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its own complaints policy and the Code.
The resident provided the Ombudsman with a copy of his stage two request letter to the landlord in June 2021. The letter did not contain the landlord’s address, and the Ombudsman has not seen any proof of postage; therefore, the Ombudsman cannot definitively say whether the landlord received the resident’s letter. However, the landlord did respond broadly within the timescales set, when the Ombudsman wrote to it in October 2021 asking it to respond to the complaint at stage two of its internal process.
Overall, the landlord failed to act in line with its complaints policy. The Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests compensation of between £50 to £100 should be considered where the resident has been caused stress and inconvenience due to errors by the landlord. The landlord did not apologise or offer redress to the resident for its complaint handling failures. This amounts to service failure from the landlord that has not been ‘put right’ for the resident. The landlord should provide compensation to the resident as detailed in the order below, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of delays to the sale of a shared ownership property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within the next four weeks, take the following action:

pay the resident £150.00 compensation, comprised of:

a. £75.00 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays to the sale of a shared ownership property.

b. £75.00 for distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

c. Review its record keeping practices, to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedures to ensure they are in line with the complaint handling code and identify any training needs.