First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202230298)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230298

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

10 May 2024

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request to buy the property’s freehold.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder. She took over the lease when she bought the property in 2011. The original lease began in 1981. The property is a 3 bedroom house with a garden. The landlord is a housing association. The resident wanted to sell the property during the timeline. A third-party buyer wanted to acquire the freehold (from the landlord) as part of the sale.
On 10 November 2022 the landlord confirmed it wanted £4,125 to sell the property’s freehold. The information seen indicates the resident agreed with its valuation and asked to proceed on the same day. Subsequent events show the buyer needed a site plan to progress the sale.
The resident complained on 20 January 2023. She said the buyer’s solicitor had chased the landlord. However, they were still awaiting the paperwork needed to complete the sale. She also said, from 13 January 2023 onwards, the landlord failed to return 2 calls and had not replied to emails. She wanted the landlord to respond to her communications and supply the paperwork.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 30 January 2023. It said delays occurred because its appointed case handler was away from work. The landlord apologised and said it would seek to progress matters urgently in their absence. It also said its legal team would update the resident in due course. The response did not confirm if the complaint had been upheld. Subsequently, the following events occurred:
1. Within hours, the resident replied the response was vague and inadequate. She wanted the landlord to provide a timescale for the paperwork and details of its escalation process.
2. Her correspondence prompted the landlord to escalate the complaint on the same day.
3. Within days, the landlord’s legal services manager contacted the resident. During the call, the manager agreed to progress the case personally.
On 10 February 2023 the resident complained again. She said the landlord issued the requested paperwork on 3 February 2023. However, its document was incorrect. She was frustrated with the amount of time and effort needed to progress matters. She also said the landlord had stopped responding to her communication. She wanted it to explain the situation and confirm how long it would take to resolve matters. Around a week later, the landlord told the resident it would postpone its stage 2 response while the manager investigated.
In March 2023, the manager reassigned the resident’s case to a conveyancer. Within days, after some chasing from the resident’s solicitor, the conveyancer advised the landlord needed to inspect the property. This was due to a boundary discrepancy between the original lease documents and a more recent “title plan”. Subsequently, the resident contacted the landlord several times about the inspection. Broadly, she wanted to expedite the landlord’s visit.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 19 April 2023. This was around 56 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It said the landlord had reached a decision about the property’s boundaries. The response included an email to the resident’s solicitor. It said the resident should contact her solicitor for more information. Again, the landlord did not include a clear complaint outcome. The enclosed email detailed the outcome of the landlord’s inspection. The key points from the landlord’s email were:
1. The resident had extended her garden into a communal area that belonged to a nearby block of flats.
2. The correct boundaries were reflected in the property’s original lease documents.
3. The landlord would not ask the Land Registry to extend the boundaries.
The parties’ records and correspondence show the following events occurred between 20 April and 7 September 2023:
1. The resident’s solicitor told her that the buyer wanted the sale to include the disputed land.
2. The Land Registry completed its own survey of the property.
3. Subsequently, the Land Registry told the landlord it could not explain the discrepancy. It apologised for failing to meet its standards. It also said it could only amend the title plan in limited circumstances.
4. The landlord chased an external valuer with a view to resolving some internal queries.
5. The resident reiterated her previous concerns to one of the landlord’s executives. Her correspondence also said its conveyancer was dismissive and uncaring. She wanted the executive to intervene so she could complete the sale. She felt the landlord should show her “more respect.”
6. The landlord’s internal correspondence said the resident’s complaint involved ongoing legal matters. As a result, the landlord’s response could not include any sensitive information.
The landlord issued a further response on 11 September 2023. It said the matter was complex and a significant amount of land was in dispute. Though it apologised again for the initial problems, the landlord said there were no delays from April 2023 onwards. The landlord also said it could not provide more information because the matter was with the parties’ solicitors. However, its legal representative had been updating the resident’s solicitor accordingly.
Two days later, the landlord received an update from its solicitor. The wording of the update shows the resident had decided to agree with the landlord’s defined boundaries. The evidence suggests the landlord subsequently changed its opinion about the value of the freehold. This was based on the landlord’s internal correspondence around 10 days later. The correspondence suggests the landlord’s increased valuation reflected advice it received from its valuer and solicitor.
On 18 January 2024 the landlord issued a final response to the resident’s complaint. It said the parties’ solicitors had reached an agreement. In addition, the settlement had prompted the landlord to review the resident’s concerns again. To recognise its initial delays, the landlord offered the resident £100 as a goodwill gesture. This was based on her time and trouble. The landlord also said it would close its file on the matter. Other key points were:
1. The landlord would erect fencing to define the garden’s boundaries.
2. It would amend the title plan through the Land Registry (the evidence suggests this involved an application fee for the landlord).
3. The matter would stay with the landlord’s solicitor until completion.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 1 May 2024. She said the freehold sale process was still ongoing around 2 years after it began. On that basis, she felt the landlord had unfairly closed her complaint. She also said the buyer eventually ended their interest in the property. She attributed the buyer’s withdrawal to delays and communication issues on the landlord’s part. She said she had incurred additional costs as a result. The resident’s other key points were:
1. She still wanted to buy the property’s freehold.
2. The landlord’s goodwill offer was inadequate. It did not cover her time and effort, or the loss of the buyer.
3. The landlord recently increased the price of the freehold. Overall, the resident had been quoted 3 different amounts.
4. The landlord had not responded to her recent query about the price.
Subsequently the resident emailed us a document. She said it was her reply to the landlord’s final response letter. The document’s wording suggests she complained about the letter. It also suggests she asked the landlord to provide a completion deadline for the fence works, and explain why its freehold price had increased. It shows she wanted the landlord to “take responsibility for the significant delays…”. Since the document was not an email, its context was unclear.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is frustrating for the resident. The timeline shows the freehold sale has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for the buyer’s decision to withdraw their interest in the property.

Policies, procedures and other relevant information

The above summary of events is largely based on the parties’ correspondence. At various points, the resident’s correspondence to both the landlord and her solicitor contained detailed timelines. These timelines often quoted previous correspondence between the parties. From the evidence provided, we were able to review several interactions involving the landlord’s conveyancer.
The landlord supplied a copy of its complaints policy but the document it provided was effective from June 2023. However, its complaint responses included information that was more relevant to period in question. The responses show the landlord aimed to respond to complaints within 7 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to respond within 15 working days. These timescales applied after the landlord had contacted the resident to discuss the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to buy the property’s freehold

The Ombudsman does not specialise in disputes involving boundaries or the sale of housing. Since we are not well placed to consider these matters, our assessment broadly focussed on the landlord’s administration of the resident’s request to buy the freehold. Nevertheless, no information was seen to indicate that the landlord was responsible for the boundary dispute. Regardless, the evidence suggests it also incurred various costs as a result of the dispute.
Similarly, in relation to its administration, there was no evidence to indicate the landlord was responsible for the paperwork discrepancy in February 2023. In contrast, the evidence suggests the matter was ultimately resolved because the resident agreed the landlord’s preferred boundaries. In addition, it took around 11 months for the parties to reach a settlement. This was a significant portion of the overall timeline. Various external parties were involved during this period.
Though her requests were understandable, it was not evident that the landlord could have reasonably given the resident a completion timescale during the period referenced above. This was due to the overall complexity of the situation. It is also reasonable to conclude some timescales were beyond the landlord’s direct control. For example, the Land Registry is an independent body which likely operates in accordance with its own timescales.
In January 2024, the landlord said it was not responsible for any delays or failures following its stage 2 response in April 2023. Overall, no evidence was seen to undermine this assertion. For example, despite its lack of direct control on occasions, there was no information to show any unreasonable delays occurred because the landlord failed to chase one of its agents, or some other external party.
In contrast, the landlord accepted responsibility for delays that occurred during the initial part of the timeline. It eventually offered the resident £100 to recognise what went wrong. Its corresponding rationale (time and trouble) shows it was also aware the resident spent time chasing the landlord. In addition, it recognised this was both avoidable and inconvenient for her.
Overall, the evidence points to unreasonable delays between 10 November 2022 and 3 February 2023. This was a period of around 3 months. It also points to some communication issues over a broadly equivalent period. This was on the basis the landlord did not respond to a number of the resident’s calls and emails. Given what went wrong, the landlord’s offer of £100 was broadly reasonable.
It is accepted the resident spent additional time chasing the landlord after February 2023. For example, in the following month, she contacted the conveyancer a number of times about the landlord’s inspection. However, no information was seen to show her subsequent interactions were prompted by failures on the landlord’s part.
The resident’s general concerns about the landlord’s conveyancer were noted. As a result, we considered the conveyancer’s correspondence carefully. From the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to point to any unreasonable or inappropriate conduct. For example, there was no evidence to show the conveyancer adopted an inappropriate tone in their communications with the resident.
The resident’s email to the Ombudsman in May 2024 was noted. However, based on the wording of the document, we have not seen sufficient evidence to point to any more recent failures on the landlord’s part. This was largely because the full context of the document was unclear. Nevertheless, we will make a related recommendation with a view to helping both parties resolve the recent matters.
Given the above, the evidence supports a reasonable redress finding in respect of this complaint point. In summary, the landlord’s offer of £100 was sufficient to put things right for the resident given its administration related delays and failures. It is understood the resident is seeking a significant amount of compensation on liability grounds. She should seek legal advice if she wants to pursue this matter through the courts.

The landlord’s complaint handling

There were problems with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, none of its responses included a clear complaint outcome (upheld/not upheld). This was contrary to the applicable version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Sections 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code, effective from April 2022, show landlords must confirm their decision at the end of each complaint stage. Given the above, the landlord’s responses were inappropriate.
The wording of its responses shows the above omission was not just a format issue. Instead, the evidence suggests the landlord was reluctant to confirm that aspects of the resident’s complaint were upheld. For example, in January 2024, it referred to its £100 offer as a goodwill gesture. Given the circumstances, this description was incorrect. The evidence confirms its award was issued as compensation for the landlord’s acknowledged delays and failures.
The evidence suggests the landlord’s approach was flawed. For example, it should have upheld the resident’s complaint in January 2023 and awarded compensation at this point. Instead, its responses often resembled updates. Though the landlord issued further responses in the interim period, the timeline confirms it did not offer the resident proportionate redress until around 12 months later. This was an inappropriate delay and the situation was unfair on the resident.
For clarity, the Ombudsman considers an apology sufficient to address small one-off failures. For example, a short delay of 2 or 3 days in total. An apology was not sufficient to address the extended delay in this case, or the related communication problems which compounded matters. In addition, the landlord should have recognised these issues occurred at a time that was likely stressful for the resident (who was trying to sell the property).
On that basis, the landlord could have reasonably compensated the resident for the delay at stage 2. The timeline suggests this delay was around 41 working days. However, it was noted the landlord notified the resident about the delay within a reasonable timeframe. In addition, the manager was in contact with the resident during the interim period. Given the circumstances, the Ombudsman was unable to point to a related failure in respect of the above delay.
The timeline shows the resident noticed similar problems with the landlord’s general approach. For example, she described its stage 1 response as “vague and non-committal”. Given her comments, it is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s overall approach undermined her confidence in its complaints process. Ultimately, this approach will likely reduce the landlord’s chances of resolving complaints effectively through its own internal procedure.
Finally, there was no indication the landlord attempted to learn from the resident’s experience. It could have reasonably attempted to review its process for managing its workload in periods of staff absence. Similarly, though the executive’s involvement prompted a high-level review of the resident’s complaint, there was no evidence the landlord recognised any issues with its complaint handling. This was concerning given its approach was not consistent with an open and transparent complaint handling culture.
In summary, the landlord’s approach to the resident’s complaint was unfair, inappropriate, and contrary to the Code. While it acknowledged delays and failures, the landlord was reluctant to confirm it was responsible for them. The evidence suggests this approach prevented the landlord from offering the resident proportionate redress within an appropriate timescale. There was also no evidence the landlord attempted to learn from the complaint outcome.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman will award proportionate compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. We will also issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the complaint handling failures set out above, which may give rise to further complaints about the landlord’s approach.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to buy the property’s freehold.

Reasons

The landlord’s approach to the resident’s complaint was unfair, inappropriate, and contrary to the Code. Though it acknowledged delays and failures, the landlord was reluctant to confirm it was responsible for them. The evidence suggests this approach prevented the landlord from offering the resident proportionate redress within an appropriate timescale. There was also no evidence the landlord attempted to learn from the complaint outcome.
In relation to the resident’s request to buy the freehold, the evidence points to unreasonable delays and poor communication from the landlord between November 2022 and February 2023. Given the extent of its administration related failures, the landlord’s offer of £100 was sufficient to put things right for the resident. The Ombudsman was unable to point to any similar failures later in the timeline.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident for the above identified complaint handling failures. Its apology should recognise the landlord’s reluctance to confirm it was responsible for the acknowledged delays and failures was inappropriate, contrary to the Code, and resulted in an unfair delay. In addition, it was not consistent with an open and transparent complaint handling culture. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant correspondence/call summary with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £300 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. £100 which the landlord previously offered the resident in January 2024. The landlord is free to deduct this amount if it has already paid the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should review the format and approach adopted in its complaint responses. This is to ensure its responses comply with the Code, and are consistent with an open and transparent complaint handling culture. The review must be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The landlord should share the review’s findings with the Ombudsman within 8 weeks. It must also report the findings to the landlord’s governing board or body. The review should include (but is not limited to):
1. The landlord’s approach to addressing any failures it has acknowledged. This includes its use of apologies, compensation, and goodwill gestures.
2. In conjunction with its responses to the resident, the landlord should consider a small random sample of its other complaint responses over the previous 6 months. The overall sample should involve cases with varying levels of complexity.
3. Based on the sample cases and the Code, the landlord should consider its ability to use its complaints process as an effective tool for resolving disputes.
4. It should also consider its ability to learn from outcomes using measures including internal feedback, process reviews, and its executive complaints process.
5. The landlord should also cascade any improvement identified during the review to its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes.

Recommendations

The landlord to respond accordingly to the resident’s recent enquiries around the fencing works and the freehold valuation. It may need to contact the resident to obtain an original copy of her document (which shows the date/time her enquiries were sent). If, having checked its records, the landlord previously overlooked her related concerns unfairly, it will likely need to address the matter through its internal complaints procedure.
The landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the above orders within the relevant timescales. It should also confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within 4 weeks.