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

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202111977)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111977

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

15 November 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s shared ownership property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. In September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to arrange the sale of their shared ownership property.
  2. A valuation was arranged and the sale of the property progressed. The resident was required to pay 50% of the amount the property was valued at to the landlord upon completion – based on the percentage owned by the resident. A buyer agreed to purchase the property. This Service has not seen the sales documents, but understands that the buyer agreed to purchase the property at a price greater than the first valuation.
  3. As the sale progressed, the buyer requested that a lease extension be arranged. The landlord explained that, as the original valuation was over three months old at this point, it was necessary to arrange for a new valuation to be carried out.
  4. The second valuation was substantially higher. As a result, the landlord explained that it expected the resident to reimburse it the equivalent of 50% of the higher valuation.
  5. The sale went ahead, with the process completing in March 2021.
  6. The resident raised a complaint about the sales process in April 2021, raising concerns about:

–          Why a second valuation was obtained.

–          Why the value of the property had increased so substantially.

–          The conduct of landlord staff during the sales process, specifically raising data protection concerns about whether the landlord had worked with the valuer to artificially increase the second valuation.

  1. In its stage 2 response dated 25 June 2021, the landlord explained that the second valuation was a requirement of the application to extend the lease. It also advised that there were several factors that could have ledd to the increase in value. Lastly, it advised that it was satisfied that the correct procedures had been followed by its staff.
  2. Unhappy with this response, the resident referred their complaint to this Service.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”

  1. The resident believes that the landlord was wrong to carry out a further valuation. They are also concerned about the difference between the two valuations. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the accuracy of the valuation of a property.
  2. I appreciate that the resident found it distressing to be told that it would cost them more to cover the landlord’s share of the property, especially so close to completion. It is also clear that the resident was concerned that they may lose out on the property they were hoping to buy should they challenge the valuation at that point in the sales process.
  3. However, the sale did go ahead, completing in March 2021. As a result, the resident’s dispute has now become about the contractual terms of a completed sale. This is a matter that the resident would need to seek legal advice on.
  4. As set out in paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, this Service cannot consider the resident’s complaint as it concerns matters that would be better pursued through the courts.