The Guinness Partnership Limited (202211533)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211533

The Guinness Partnership Limited

22 August 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the delay in the sale of the resident’s property following his death.

Background

  1. The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The resident passed away in May 2019. The resident’s daughter (the representative) made the complaint on behalf of the resident’s estate. The representative has provided Grant of Probate which names her as the executor of the estate.
  2. The representative raised a complaint on 13 April 2022 about the landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s property. The representative raised the following concerns:

a)     The landlord incorrectly informed her that there was a nomination period.

b)     The landlord did not give her any information about a lease extension, and she was told to speak directly to the local authority.

c)     On 13 April 2022 the landlord informed her that the buyer had to communicate with the landlord to confirm their intention to buy 100% shares in the property. The representative stated that this was not explained to her previously, and that this is why nothing had happened to progress the sale since November 2021.

  1. The stage one response was issued on 29 April 2022. The landlord concluded that its policies and procedures have been adhered to. The representative escalated her complaint to stage two on 5 May 2022. She stated that there were three parts to her complaint but only one had been considered.
  2. The stage two response was issued on 24 June 2022. The landlord stated that it could not find any evidence that the representative was given incorrect information about the nomination period. The landlord stated that delays were caused by the local authority and the information provided by the landlord regarding lease extensions was provided in good faith in place of the local authority’s findings on the matter. It stated that the delays were exacerbated as the buyer did not confirm they wanted to purchase 100% shares in the property. The landlord concluded that it could not see any delays outside of the usual that would warrant compensation.
  3. In order to resolve her complaint, the representative told this service that she would like the landlord to change its practices and policies, and for it to acknowledge that it could have handled the situation better. The resident also requested compensation as she stated she had lost thousands of pounds, partly due to the landlord’s incompetence. However, she stated that she had not requested the reimbursement of rent charges between November 2021 and April 2022, as stated by the landlord in its complaint responses.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the delay in the sale of the resident’s property following his death

  1. The landlord’s Shared Ownership Allocations and Resales Policy states that most shared ownership leases contain a redemption clause that states that if the shared owner wants to sell their shares they are required to sell them to the landlord or allow the landlord to nominate a buyer. The policy states that there is a specific timeframe or ‘nomination period’ for this, which usually ranges between 8 and 12 weeks. However, the resident’s lease did not specify a nomination period.
  2. The representative stated that she believed she was given the incorrect information about the nomination period by phone. The landlord has not provided any evidence, such as call logs, to reflect discussions it had with the representative. It is regrettable that no such evidence is available as this would have provided a contemporaneous record of the information that was passed to the representative over the phone. In the absence of any such evidence, the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it initially gave accurate information about the nomination period. The landlord should ensure that it keeps clear records so that it can evidence communication with its customers. This amounts to a record keeping failure.
  3. However, there is evidence on this issue in the form emails. The landlord’s internal emails about the complaint state that it could not find any evidence to reflect that the representative was given incorrect information about there being a nomination period. However, the representative provided this service with an email she sent to the landlord on 3 September 2019 in which she said that she had been advised that there may be a nomination period. She asked the landlord to confirm whether this was specified in the lease. The landlord responded on 6 September 2019 and stated that it had read through the lease and there was no clause relating to a nomination period.
  4. The landlord should endeavour to provide accurate information to residents, in line with their lease agreement. The representative’s email to the landlord supports her account that she was initially told that there may be a nomination period. While it is accepted this is likely to have caused frustration, it is evident from the September 2019 email that the landlord gave information in accordance with the lease. It is unclear what date the representative was provided with the information about the nomination period by phone. It is therefore difficult to determine the extent to which any misinformation contributed to the overall delay.
  5. While there may have been a shortcoming by the landlord in terms of what the representative was initially told over the phone, the evidence does not indicate that this caused any significant adverse effect because accurate information was later given. There is therefore insufficient evidence to indicate maladministration regarding this part of the complaint.
  6. The second part of the complaint relates to the representative’s request for information about extending the lease on the property. She stated that the landlord told her to contact the local authority to find out the cost of extending the lease. The representative stated that she was unable to obtain a response from the local authority, and so she appointed a solicitor who spent several months attempting to obtain the information required. She was eventually told by her solicitor that the local authority would not discuss the cost of extending the lease until she staircased to 100% shares in the property. The representative said that the landlord then told her that it would have assisted her in liaising with the local authority about this matter. She stated that this was in contrast to what the landlord had previously told her.
  7. Delays caused by the local authority cannot be considered by this service. However, consideration can be given to whether the landlord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s lease extension query.
  8. The landlord has not supplied any internal guidance that refers to how leaseholders can obtain information about lease extensions. Furthermore, no guidance has been provided to indicate whether the landlord can or should facilitate such communication between the local authority and a resident.
  9. The landlord has not provided any evidence such as emails or call logs to reflect what information the representative was given about the lease extension. The resident has provided an email from the landlord dated 9 September 2019 in which it stated that it was unable to advise what the cost of the lease extension premium would be. The landlord said that the cost would need to be determined by the surveyor carrying out the RICS valuation report. This is contrary to what the resident states she was later advised regarding seeking this information from the local authority.
  10. In the absence of any guidance about what the correct process is, there is a lack of evidence to indicate that the landlord acted how it should have done in the circumstances. The landlord should ensure it provides a good level of customer service and that consistent advice is given. The landlord has not been able to evidence that this was done, which amounts to a service failure by the landlord. Having said this, from the representative’s own account the main reason for the delay in relation to this was the action (or lack thereof) of the local authority.
  11. The third part of the complaint relates to the landlord waiting for information to be received directly from the buyer. The landlord’s internal emails stated that a delay was caused because it was waiting for the buyer to confirm that he wanted to purchase 100% shares of the property before it committed to instructing solicitors. The landlord stated that it is best practice to engage with the buyer directly. It also said that it did not chase the buyer for this information.
  12. The Shared Ownership Allocations and Resales Policy does not outline what information the landlord requires from a prospective buyer once an offer has been accepted on a property. Nor does it refer to what actions the landlord is expected to take during the sales process. It is unclear as to whether there is any other internal guidance which makes reference to these matters.
  13. The evidence reflects that the landlord emailed the representative on 22 October 2021 and stated the following: “We would ask that your Buyer contacts us to confirm they will be buying 100% shares.” The representative emailed her solicitor alerting them to this request. The landlord sent a further email to the representative on 8 November 2021 in which it stated that it was still waiting for the buyer to confirm that they wanted to proceed based on 100% ownership. The landlord did not send any further correspondence about this matter until 23 March 2022 when it emailed the representative’s solicitor stating that it was still waiting to hear from the buyer about purchasing 100% shares in the property.
  14. The available emails therefore confirm that the representative was informed that the buyer needed to make contact with the landlord about purchasing the property. The evidence supports that the landlord had taken reasonable steps to make the representative aware that this information was required. However, it may have been appropriate for the landlord to make clear that this information needed to be received directly from the buyer, rather than from the buyer’s solicitor. It remains unclear as to why this information needed to be supplied directly from the buyer. The landlord stated that this approach is ‘best practice’, and it therefore did not appear to be based on any internal policy or guidance. The landlord has not informed this service as to whether the buyer’s solicitor provided this information to the landlord during the period from November 2021 to March 2022.
  15. The evidence indicates that there was a delay in excess of 5 months in progressing the sale whilst the landlord waited for confirmation from the buyer. The landlord acknowledged that it did not chase the buyer for the required information. The stage two response concluded that the landlord did not act outside what is expected of it. Whilst the landlord’s lack of action in this regard did not appear to be in breach of any internal policy or guidance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed up on this matter in order to obtain the information it required, and to expedite the overall process. While this was a shortcoming, this does not amount to maladministration on the part of the landlord, given its communications in November 2021.
  16. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the representative continued to pay rent charges, and that she was required to pay for additional RICS valuations during this period. The representative informed this service that the sales process took approximately 12 months to complete. She states that she has lost money due to the actions of the landlord. Given that the landlord had informed the representative that the information was required from the buyer, it is not reasonable to attribute the delays completely to the landlord’s lack of action.  Furthermore, it is acknowledged that various factors can delay the sale of a property.
  17. Overall, a failing has been identified in that the landlord was unable to evidence that it provided correct advice in relation to the representative’s query about the lease extension, and this may have adversely affected her ability to make a decision about selling the property. However, as above, the evidence available does not indicate that this was the main reason for the delay.
  18. The evidence suggests that the representative may have initially been given incorrect information about the nomination period. However, it is evident that this was rectified and the adverse effect was therefore likely to have been limited. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of communication with the representative about this matter, which indicates a record keeping failure.
  19. While the landlord could have done more to request information from the buyer, for the reasons set out above, this has not been identified as a failing. The Ombudsman recognises that this was a difficult period for the representative due to the loss of two relatives. It is acknowledged that the delays in progressing the sale of the property would have negatively impacted on her. However, the role of this service is to consider whether there is evidence of a failing by the landlord which caused a delay in the sale of the property. There is insufficient evidence to support that the landlord caused the lengthy delay in the sale of the property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the delay in the sale of the resident’s property following his death.

Orders

  1. The landlord should ensure it has clear guidance in relation to the actions that the landlord should take when a query is made about a lease extension.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure it keeps clear records of communication with leaseholders, including emails and call logs.
  2. The landlord should ensure it has clear guidance regarding the information that is required by the landlord after an offer has been accepted on a property, and who this information should be received from.