Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202111793)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111793

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

19 January 2022


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 refers to the resident’s concern about the length of time it took the landlord to update its records following the sale of her property.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident was formally a leaseholder of the landlord. The resident sold her property on 22 April 2021. The resident appointed a representative to liaise with the landlord on her behalf during this complaint investigation. For ease of reference, both the resident and her representative will be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 April 2021, asking for her views on any improvements that could be made to its services.
  3. The solicitor, acting on behalf of the purchaser of the resident’s property, wrote to the landlord on 22 April 2021 to confirm the purchase of the property had been completed that day; this was the legal date of transfer for the lease. The solicitor included the relevant paperwork for the landlord to update its records concerning the transfer and payment of the fee due to the landlord for amending its records.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 23 April 2021 having received the letter, dated 19 April 2021, regarding improvements to its property services. The resident explained that she had made the landlord aware of the exchange of contracts on 16 April 2021, and that the completion of the sale of the property went ahead on 22 April 2021, yet she was still receiving correspondence from the landlord. The resident attached an email (undated) from the landlord that confirmed that it had received the correspondence from the new owner’s solicitors, so that it could update the account for the property with the change of ownership.
  5. The landlord emailed the resident on 30 April 2021 and requested a further copy of the legal notice of transfer/charge so it could amend its records accordingly.
  6. The resident emailed the landlord the requested documents on 4 May 2021.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 June 2021 to explain that the correspondence sent in regard to property services were sent before the sale of the property was completed and before its mailing list database had been updated. It said that its database is updated upon receipt of the formal notification of change from the solicitor. the landlord apologised for any inconvenience this had caused.
  8. The resident received a formal Section 20 notice, relating to her previous property via post from the landlord on 6 July 2021. This stated the costs and payments that the resident would have to pay for the procurement of new estate service contracts in relation to her former property.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 July 2021 to express her dissatisfaction that despite appropriate notice being given about the sale of the property on 22 April 2021, she had received a Section 20 letter which she contended was “harassment”. The resident also stated her dissatisfaction at the service provided to her when she attempted to call the landlord to resolve this query, as she was passed to the incorrect department and subsequently the phone was not answered. The resident therefore requested that the landlord urgently update its records to show that she was no longer its leaseholder and confirm that it had done so.
  10. The landlord responded via email on 12 July 2021 stating that its system still showed the resident as the current owner of the property and required the buyer’s solicitors to provide their client’s ‘Notice of Transfer and Charge’ and the relevant administration fees to get this updated. It explained that these were the statutory guidelines for property sales, in accordance with the lease agreement. The landlord advised that it would be contacting the buyer’s solicitor directly to try to obtain the documents.
  11. The resident responded via email to the landlord on 13 July 2021 informing it that these documents had been sent to it on the day of completion by the buyer’s solicitors. She explained that she knew that the landlord had received this because the buyer’s solicitors had confirmed the landlord had cashed the cheque for the administration fee on 5 May 2021. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction at the process and requested an apology and compensation for the wasted time of hers and the buyer’s solicitors. She advised that the landlord should compensate for the solicitors’ time spent contacting the landlord.
  12. The landlord responded to the resident on 15 July 2021 apologising for the delay in updating the records. It confirmed that the paperwork was provided soon after the sale; but due to an issue retrieving this, it was unable to locate the documentation. However, the landlord confirmed that its records had been amended to show that the resident no longer owned the property, which would take a couple of days to reflect on its systems. It assured the resident that she should not receive another Section 20 notice.
  13. On 27 July 2021 the resident received another Section 20 notice regarding her former property.
  14. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord via email on 28 July 2021 as she was unhappy that she was still receiving correspondence relating to her former property approximately three months after the property had been sold. She requested that the landlord provide confirmation that its records had been updated, and give assurances that she would not receive further correspondence going forward. Lastly, she requested compensation for the failures relating to the landlord’s communication regarding this matter.
  15. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, dated 9 August 2021, it upheld the complaint and acknowledged that, despite being advised no further correspondence would be received, the resident still received further Section 20 letters. The landlord stated the reason for receiving this correspondence was due to it using old database information. It reaffirmed that no other notices would be sent to the resident. The landlord apologised for any distress caused and confirmed the error had been fixed.
  16. The resident responded via email on 9 August 2020 and expressed dissatisfaction at the lack of compensation for the repeated failures, the time wasted, and for the distress it had caused. She requested that the lack of compensation be reconsidered or for a deadlock letter to be issued so she could complete a referral to the Ombudsman.
  17. The landlord issued a final response to the complaint via email on 17 August 2021. The landlord confirmed maintained its position regarding the complaint. The landlord confirmed that the complaint was reviewed in line with its compensation policy and it was satisfied that the stage one complaint response was addressed in accordance with this.

Assessment and findings

Policy and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy recognises three types of failures – low, medium and high-level failures. A low-level failure is defined as when “there had been a service failure which has an impact on the complainant but was of a short duration”. Examples set out in the compensation policy for a low-level failure can be “incorrectly addressing correspondence. The impact experienced by the resident could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment, loss of confidence and delays in getting matters resolved”. The compensation policy states that for a low-level service failure, the resident would be offered an apology and up to £50 compensation.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is the Ombudsman’s role to look at the resident’s individual complaint and how they have been affected by any errors made by the landlord. We appreciate that the resident has raised wider concerns about the management of the landlord’s organisation, but it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate this as we cannot interfere with the day to day running of landlords’ organisations. The resident may wish to report her concerns to the Regulator of Social Housing as the regulator has different powers to the Ombudsman and it can investigate the landlords’ business practices and management if it considers it necessary to do so. Although we cannot investigate the management of the landlord’s organisation, we can make recommendations if we consider it appropriate, to assist the landlord in improving its processes and procedures for the benefit of all its residents.

The length of time it took the landlord to update its records following the sale of the property.

  1. It was reasonable for the landlord to send the resident the initial letter of 19 April 2021 as the sale had not yet been completed and the resident was still the legal owner of the property on that date. The landlord had been made aware that contracts had been exchanged, however, it required the necessary paperwork to be provided confirming that the sale had completed before it could update its records. The paperwork was not provided until 22 April 2021, several days after the notice was sent to the resident. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord to send further correspondence to the resident after the completion date. The landlord should have updated its records promptly upon receiving the required information on 22 April 2021.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged that there was service failure in the amount of time taken to update its records with the details of the new owner of the resident’s property. The landlord acted reasonably by apologising to the resident for the inconvenience caused and the service failures experienced.
  3. There was a three-month delay in updating the resident’s details once the buyer’s solicitor provided the relevant documentation to the landlord. This timeframe was significant and was likely to have caused the resident inconvenience as she had needed to spend time resolving the matter. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident has received further section 20 notices after 27 July 2021, so it appears that the issue has now been resolved.
  4. The landlord experienced issues locating several emails and legal documents, meaning that the resident and the buyer’s solicitors needed to resend them. This indicates poor record keeping in that the landlord was not able to find information when required. This poor record keeping is likely to have caused further inconvenience to the resident and this has been taken into account when looking at compensation.
  5. In her communication with this Service, the resident advised that she felt the Section 20 notices she had been sent amounted to “harassment” by the landlord. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether harassment has taken place in a legal sense as harassment is a legal term which would be better suited to a court to decide. However, consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of the landlord’s miscommunication.
  6. The resident had requested compensation to be paid to both hers and the buyer’s solicitors for their time and trouble communicating with the landlord and resending documents. The Ombudsman can understand the reasons for this request. However, our investigation solely focuses on the complaint by the resident and under our rules, we can only compensate for any costs incurred by the resident, as well as any inconvenience and distress which she may have experienced as a result of the landlord’s errors. We cannot award compensation for the inconvenience experienced by third parties such as the resident’s solicitor or the buyer’s solicitor. The resident has not provided any evidence suggesting that she incurred any additional fees from her solicitor for communicating with the landlord. Therefore, there is no basis for the Ombudsman to award compensation for this.
  7. However, the landlord should pay £50 compensation in view of the inconvenience experienced by the resident. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for a low-level failure in the service provided. This compensation award is also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests compensation awards of £50-£250 compensation for cases where there has been a service failure which had an impact on the resident but was short of duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.
  8. It is also recommended that the landlord carries out a review of its record keeping practices, to ensure that correspondence received from its resident is recorded and processed accurately.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regards to the length of time it took to update its records following the sale of the resident’s property.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a service failure in that the resident continued to receive Section 20 letters despite being told that no further correspondence would be received. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused but the apology was not proportionate to the level of inconvenience experienced by the resident or the time and trouble she had spent pursuing this matter in this case. Therefore, the landlord should also offer compensation as set out below.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lack of clarity in its communication and delay in updating its records.

This should be paid within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord carries out a review of its record keeping practices following the sale of leasehold properties, to ensure that any correspondence received from residents and their solicitors is recorded and processed accurately.