Notting Hill Genesis (202007231)

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 202007231

Notting Hill Genesis

24 December 2020

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 way the landlord handled the resident’s resale application for a shared ownership property.

 

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

 

2. 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.

 

3. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, will not be investigated as it was referred to the Ombudsman more than 12 months from the date of the final response letter.

 

Summary of events

 

4. The resident was the shared owner of a property.

 

5. It is agreed by the parties that, at some point in 2015, the resident applied to the landlord to sell his share of the property. It is common in shared ownership leases that a resident asks for permission and the landlord can purchase the share or nominate someone to purchase.

 

6. In this case, the landlord states its procedure was to market the property for two months before allowing the resident to find their own buyer. 

 

7. The facts are agreed that from 2015 to 2018 the resident had believed the landlord was marketing the property. That, however, was not the case. In 2018, when the resident made the discovery that the landlord had not marketed the property – he raised concerns with it.

 

8. The landlord had no record of the resale in its databases. The landlord said the data loss had occurred due to a change of system.

 

9. The resident raised a formal complaint – which culminated in the landlord’s final response of 21 August 2019. The landlord partially upheld the complaint. It accepted it had not made the process clear and the process had ‘fallen short’ of what it would ordinarily expect. The landlord offered total compensation of £3,477.00.

 

10. The landlord’s final response clearly explained that, should the resident remain dissatisfied with the decision, they could refer the matter to this Service. The Ombudsman’s postal, email and web address was provided – together with our telephone number.

 

11. The resident referred the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman on 13 October 2020 by email and by post. The posted documentation was received on 20 October 2020.

 

Reasons

12. Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme states that:

 

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure”

 

13. It is clear that the landlord’s complaint procedure was exhausted on 21 August 2019 and the resident referred the case to the Ombudsman on 13 October 2020. As this was more than 12 months after the date of the final response (which evidences the landlord’s complaint procedure was exhausted), the Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint.

 

14. 12 months is a reasonable time to bring a complaint. There is no information or reasons in the documentation provided to demonstrate that the resident was prevent from referring this complaint to this Service sooner.