Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

One Housing Group Limited (202011080)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011080

One Housing Group

24 May 2021


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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s proposed sale of her property.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. On 23 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to ask it to provide information to enable her to complete property information forms for the sale of her property. It replied the same day to provide the information and advise her that, should she require further information, she would need to pay for an LPE1 pack containing further details relating to the property.
  3. On 29 June 2020, the resident requested bank details from the landlord to pay the fee to acquire the LPE1 pack which it provided later that day. On 1 July 2020, she confirmed that she had made the payment and provided contact details of her new conveyancing solicitor. The landlord acknowledged this the same day and confirmed that the LPE1 pack would be sent to the resident’s solicitor within ten working days.
  4. After contact from the resident on 18 July 2020 to enquire about the delivery of the LPE1 pack, the landlord confirmed to her on 21 July 2020 that the LPE1 pack was provided to her solicitors at the close of business the previous day. It apologised for this being three working days late and attributed this to delayed internal responses and staff absence. The landlord noted that the sale was a time-sensitive process and assured her that it would deal with any enquiries from the buyer as a priority. It was evident that the resident’s solicitor was in possession of the LPE1 pack on 21 July 2020.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2020 to seek clarification on the valuation of the property and advise it that she was working towards an exchange date of 17 August 2020.
  6. The resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord on 11 August 2020 to relay ten points of enquiry raised by the prospective buyer of the property.
  7. The solicitor emailed the landlord again on 14 August 2020 to chase a response to these. It replied later that day to refer the solicitor to the LPE1 pack for six of the points it raised on 11 August 2020 and provide clarification on the four remaining points. Two of these points related to the Deed of Covenant and the License to Assign. The landlord advised that payment of £175 was required to issue these documents, as specified on the LPE1 pack, and it provided the relevant payment details. It explained that a “few days” would be required for drafting these documents before sending these to the resident’s solicitor for approval. Once it received this approval, it advised that it required ten working days for it to execute the documents. Therefore, it submitted that the previously mentioned exchange date of 27 August 2020 “may not be achievable”.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord on 17 August 2020 to contend that the exchange deadline for that date had been rendered “undoable” by “an absence of answers” on its part. She requested that it contact both her and the buyer’s solicitors with answers to nine points of the ten points of enquiry her solicitor raised to it on 11 August 2020. The resident said that any delay would jeopardise her purchase of the property she was intending to move to, making her and her family “homeless”. She emailed it again later that day to repeat that the landlord had jeopardised her purchase and therefore she wanted it to provide free accommodation to her if she became homeless.
  9. The landlord responded to the resident on 17 August 2020 to dispute that it had delayed in providing responses to her or her solicitors. It noted that her solicitors had raised enquiries with it on 11 August 2020, to which it had responded, and it had managed her expectations by advising of the ten-working-day turnaround time for executing documents. The landlord also noted that the resident’s solicitors had been in possession of the LPE1 pack since 20 July 2020 and she was now raising further enquiries on the proposed date of exchange. It provided answers to the nine enquiry points she had raised, adding that it was awaiting payment, or an undertaking, for the documents it had specified on 14 August 2020.
  10. The resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord on 18 August 2020 to dispute that it had been informed of a ten-working-day turnaround time and questioned if this correspondence had been sent to the correct party. They also said that they were unable to locate correspondence requesting payment of, or an undertaking for, £175. The solicitor requested that the sum of £175 be added to the completion statement for the buyer.
  11. The landlord responded to the resident’s solicitor on 18 August 2020 to relay that it had provided them with documents relating to the sale on 6 July and the LPE1 pack on 20 July 2020. It asserted that it did not receive any enquiries nor any indication of a potential exchange date until 11 August 2020 when it was informed of the proposed exchange date of 17 August, with completion to follow on 27 August 2020. The landlord said that it had responded in full to the resident’s solicitor’s enquiries on 14 August 2020, when it clarified that a ten-working-day turnaround time was required for the execution of the documents. It added that the LPE1 pack had included information about the License to Assign and the related fees and they would have been aware of this since the receipt of the LPE1 pack on 20 July 2020.
  12. Later, on 18 August 2020, the resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord to dispute that it had been informed, prior to 14 August 2020, of a ten-working-day timeframe for “any part of this transaction other than sending the LPE1” and said that it should have been made aware of this at the time of sending the LPE1 pack. They noted that the LPE1 pack was requested on 1 July, chased by the resident on 18 July, before being delivered on 20 July 2020 with an apology from it for the late delivery. The resident’s solicitor advised that the documents to be paid for were “usually” paid for by the buyer and they would relay this to the buyer for confirmation of this.
  13. The landlord responded to the resident’s solicitor on 18 August 2020 to advise that, in order to expedite the transaction, it had drafted the Licence to Assign and Deed of Covenant for their approval “irrespective of receipt of payment”, requesting that it make payment or provide an undertaking that payment would be made whether the sale completed or not. Once it had received approval from them, it said it would forward the documents to its governance team for signing but cautioned that the timeframe for this would be dependant on the availability of signatories. The landlord assured that it would carry these actions out as a priority.
  14. The landlord added that, while it appreciated that it had not made the resident or her solicitor aware of a ten-working-day timeframe, the solicitor had “ample opportunity” to request documents or raise enquiries prior to 11 August 2020, considering that they had been in possession of the LPE1 pack since 20 July 2020. It asserted that it would have responded to any enquiry within three working days and clarified its timeframes for the execution of documents. The landlord mentioned that “inevitable delay” was to be expected due to the current impact of the corona virus on its working practices.
  15. On 19 August 2020, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in which she said that she and her solicitor had been “ignored” by it in the course of the sale of her property. She contended that emails had not been answered on time and she had requested contact from its CEO the previous day to which she had yet to receive a response. The resident added that her onward purchase had now been impacted and put her family at risk of being made homeless. The landlord acknowledged the complaint later that day.
  16. The landlord informed the resident’s solicitor later that its signatories for the Deed of Covenant and the Licence to Assign were on leave and would not be available until early September 2020. 
  17. The landlord emailed the resident’s solicitor on 1 September 2020 to advise that the signatories would be available from 7 September 2020 to execute the documents, which was the remaining formality to complete the sale. It asked if the resident was able to exchange and complete on this basis. The landlord contacted the resident’s solicitor again on 7 September 2020 to ask if the sale could be completed that week. They informed it that day that the buyer had since pulled out of the sale due to the unavailability of the signatories.
  18. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 15 September 2020 in which it apologised that some of her emails were not responded to within 48 hours. It advised that it was reviewing its processes regarding response times. The landlord recounted that the resident’s solicitor first raised enquiries with it on 11 August 2020, to which it had ten working days to respond, and confirmed it responded on 17 August 2020. It noted that her solicitors were informed that signatories were required before the sale could be completed and completion was proposed for 7 September 2020.
  19. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint on the basis that some of her contact was not responded to within its 48-hour timescale which it apologised for. It did not find, however, that these delays contributed to the buyer pulling out of the purchase as it asserted that its correspondence to her solicitors had been within its timescales.
  20. The landlord apologised that there had been a “slight delay” in issuing its complaint response and advised that it would provide assistance with the marketing of the property for sale. It confirmed that it would contact her on 16 September 2020 about this. The landlord confirmed that its internal complaint process was now exhausted.
  21. The resident informed this Service on 30 December 2020 that she continued to be dissatisfied as she believed that the landlord “did not cooperate”, which caused her anxiety and distress. She was unhappy that it informed her on the proposed day of exchange that signatories were unavailable which she attributed to the buyer of her property pulling out of the transaction. Consequently, because of the landlord’s “mistake” she was unable to proceed with the purchase of another property. The resident said that her property was now un-sellable because she was faced with a “thousands of pounds” bill for re-cladding.
  22. To resolve her complaint, the resident wanted the landlord to provide compensation of £708 for her legal costs and to refund the £200 she had paid for her LPE1 pack.

Assessment and findings

Policies

  1. The landlord’s complaints resolution and compliments policy provides for a single stage formal complaints procedure, whereby it will acknowledge the complaint within two working days and provide its final response to the complaint within 15 working days. In the event that a complaint will take longer than this timeframe to investigate, this policy confirms that it should explain the reason for the delay to the resident and agree a date to provide its response.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s proposed sale of her property

  1. The resident has contended that the landlord’s actions or inaction directly led to the unsuccessful sale of her property. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to determine whether this was in fact the case; instead, it is the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord acted in accordance with the relevant policies and procedures, and whether its actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. There was evidence of the resident’s solicitor being in possession of the LPE1 pack on 21 July 2020. The resident then informed the landlord on 10 August 2020 that she was looking to complete the exchange of contracts five working days later. There was no evidence, however, of her or her solicitor raising enquiries with it until 11 August 2020, four working days before she was planning to carry out the exchange. This was a small window of opportunity for the landlord to respond to the enquiries and carry out the subsequent arrangements for the sale. From this Service’s experience of similar cases, this was not a realistic timeframe.
  3. The landlord asserted in its final complaint response of 15 September 2020 that on receipt of the enquiries from the resident’s solicitor on 11 August 2020, it had ten working days to respond. Regardless of this timeframe, it subsequently responded to her solicitor’s enquiries within a reasonable time, after three working days on 14 August 2020 and there was of evidence of it attempting to manage the resident’s expectations at this point by informing them of the ten working days required to execute the Licence to Assign and the Deed of Covenant, after approval from her.
  4. The resident’s solicitor contended, on 18 August 2020, that the landlord had not informed them of the timeframes involved in producing the necessary documents, prior to 14 August 2020, to enable the sale to proceed. However, there was no evidence of them or the resident requesting this information or giving it prior notice of the proposed exchange date before 10 August 2020. It was therefore reasonable that the 14 August 2020 was the first opportunity for the landlord to provide timeframes to the resident and her solicitors, and there was no evidence of any unreasonable delay on its part.
  5. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with the unavailability of signatories to execute the documents necessary to allow the proposed exchange on 17 August 2020. However, considering the brevity of the notice she provided, it was not unreasonable for it to advise that arrangements could not be made in time for her proposed exchange date. Had the resident provided notice of the impending exchange date to the landlord earlier, it would have had an opportunity to manage her expectations more effectively. That it was not provided this opportunity, was not a failing on its part.
  6. In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s and her solicitor’s enquiries within a reasonable time and there was evidence of it making efforts, on 18 August 2020 where it drafted documents without receipt of payment, to accelerate the sale process in line with her wishes. Therefore, there was no evidence of any failure by the landlord in its responses to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised her formal complaint with the landlord on 19 August 2020, which it acknowledged the same day. It issued its final response to her complaint on 15 September 2020; this was three working days in excess of the timeframe specified in its complaints resolution and compliments policy, above at point 26. There was no evidence of the landlord agreeing an extension with the resident; therefore, it failed to handle the complaint in accordance with its policy.
  2. In the landlord’s final response on 15 September 2020, it acknowledged that there had been a “slight delay” in its issue of the final response and apologised for this. While it did issue its final response late, this delay was not significant and there is no evidence that this caused any detriment to the resident. Therefore, the acknowledgement and apology it offered her for the delay constitutes reasonable redress for this failing.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s proposed sale of her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint concerning its handling of the associated complaint satisfactorily.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded within a reasonable time to the resident’s and her solicitor’s correspondence and demonstrated that it made efforts to facilitate the sale of the property within the brief period of notice she provided.
  2. The landlord acknowledged its delay in providing the complaint response to the resident and apologised for this. Considering the brevity of the delay and that there was no evidence of this causing detriment to the resident, its apology was a reasonable level of redress.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should consider providing information regarding the expected timeframes involved in the resale of properties earlier in the sales process to better manage the expectations of residents.