Great Places Housing Association (202200713)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200713

Great Places Housing Association

2 March 2023

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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of:

1. His request to exercise his right to acquire his flat.
2. The related complaint.

Background and summary of events

2.     The resident is the assured tenant of a two-bedroom flat on the second floor of a block owned by the landlord.

3.     Having obtained a mortgage offer, the resident sought to exercise his right to acquire the property. The application form was received by landlord on 16 March 2021. The resident instructed a solicitor to act for him in the purchase. The solicitor sent a proforma list of questions to the landlord regarding the purchase on 25 March 2021. This included whether a service charge was payable.

4.     The landlord sent its Notice of Offer on 3 June 2021. This included a section detailing the service charges for flats and a list of each item.  No amount was completed for the listed items and the box was blank other than stating that the total amount was ‘TBC if purchases’. On 16 July 2021 the landlord instructed its solicitors and floor plans were requested on 30 July 2021. The plans were not received by the landlord’s solicitors until 5 November 2021. Amendments were required, and the final plans were accepted on 10 December 2021. 

5.     The resident was subsequently made aware on 19 January 2022 that a service charge in excess of £200 would be payable each month. The landlord later advised that the service charge would be increasing for the following year and would be £220 per month. The resident pulled out of the sale as the purchase was no longer affordable.

6.     The landlord apologised for the delays both in providing the floor plans and the correct information regarding the service charge level.  It recognised that this was unacceptable and acknowledged this would have caused the resident stress and frustration. The landlord offered to reimburse the resident’s mortgage and legal fees (stage one response). In addition, it offered to pay him £500 for the distress, inconvenience and disappointment caused (stage two response).  

Assessment and findings

The right to acquire

7.     The right to acquire is available on certain properties owned by registered providers where particular conditions are met.  The Housing Act 1985 sets out the level of discount offered, the process for transactions and expected timeframe, amongst other things.  There is a legal process to deal with delays, however neither party took legal steps.  It was therefore appropriate that the landlord sought to resolve the complaint via its complaints process.

8.     There were significant delays in the process due to the landlord being unable to provide copies of the floor plans and having to undertake steps to procure a new firm to provide these. The resident is unhappy that the landlord had not taken steps to instruct a new firm prior to his application to acquire the property.  There is however no evidence that the landlord was aware that its current supplier had ceased to provide the service. Once aware it took action to locate and procure a new firm as was appropriate. There were some teething issues as the initial floor plan was incorrect and needed to be amended. The landlord has accepted that it was responsible for this delay and that the delay was unacceptable.  

9.     The landlord has also accepted that it should have provided the information regarding the service charges levied at an earlier point in time.  Again, there was some confusion, with contradictory information given to the resident and the solicitor. The landlord has appropriately acknowledged that it should have provided accurate information to the resident from the onset and has recognised that in not doing so it caused the resident unnecessary distress.

10. The resident’s comments that acquiring the property would have been a “life changing opportunity” are acknowledged. It is also noted that not being able to proceed with the purchase would have come as great disappointment. However, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to provide the resident with suitable redress. It acknowledged the delays in its provision of key information in relation to the floor plans and the level of the service charges that would be payable.  It took steps to reimburse the financial losses the resident experienced in its offer to repay his mortgage and legal fees. It also recognised that the situation would have caused distress, upset and disappointment to the resident and took appropriate steps to put this right by offering the resident a further £500. This was in line with the types of remedies that can be ordered by this Service.

11. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer of redress provides proportionate compensation to the resident for its failings and that it therefore took appropriate steps to treat the resident fairly, put things right and learn from the complaint.

Complaint handling

12. The resident also raised concerns about the complaint handling process. He had initially complained to Plumlife (the homeownership arm of the landlord’s group structure). However, he was subsequently informed that it should not have provided a response to him and he needed to start again by making a formal complaint via customer services. 

13. The landlord appropriately apologised for its error and has taken steps to prevent this happening again by requiring all sales team staff to undergo refresher training in complaint handling. While this was not a significant failing, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise the inconvenience that had been caused to the resident as a result when it considered the matter through its complaints procedure. The resident had been caused further inconvenience, as a result of a failing, and so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider offering the resident some redress.

14. The resident also expressed concern that he had been informed the landlord would be in contact with him following the stage one response to discuss the outstanding issues, but this did not happen. He was also dissatisfied that the stage two complaint was dealt with by the managing director of Plumlife as the complaints policy stated this would be undertaken by an area manager. He was also unhappy that no explanation was given as to why the landlord had not found a surveyor to do the floor plan at an earlier point and that this question was not responded to within the complaint.

15. While there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no intent to restrict or impede the residents access to the complaints process. Furthermore, there is nothing within the landlord’s complaints policy which states that such a call should be made. As such, while it is acknowledged that the resident will have been disappointed that he did not receive a phone call, this was not a failing by the landlord.

16. Similarly, there are no concerns regarding the managing director of Plumlife being appointed to undertake the stage two review. This manager would have direct knowledge of both the processes and the teams involved and was best placed to identify any failings and capture any learning and improvements. The landlord has recognised that its handling of the complaint could have been better and has taken steps to improve the teams understanding of the complaints process.

17. The landlord has also detailed improvements that it has undertaken as a result of this complaint. This included creating more posts in the sales team, including an additional manager. It also required its Sales team to undertake refresher training in complaints. This demonstrates that the landlord has learnt from the complaint, and that it has introduced measures to ensure that similar issues do not arise in the future.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the member has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the right to acquire satisfactorily.

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

20. Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:

1. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failure that has been identified by this Service.
2. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failure.

Recommendations

21. That within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:

1. Reimburse the resident the costs associated with the mortgage application and legal fees, if it has not done so already. This is dependent on the resident providing the landlord with the invoices associated with the costs, as detailed in its letter of 15 February 2022.
2. Pay the resident the £500 compensation previously offered (unless already paid) as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.