London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202529839)

Background

1. During April 2025 the resident asked the landlord to provide a deed of postponement as part of her remortgage application. A solicitor represented the resident during this process. The solicitor and the resident are referred to as ‘the resident,’ except where it has been necessary to distinguish between them, for the purposes of this report.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a deed of postponement.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a deed of postponement.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Reasons

4. The landlord’s customer promise says it will acknowledge written enquiries within 2 working days and issue a full reply within 10 working days.
5. On 14 April 2025 the resident requested the deed of postponement. The landlord failed to respond, causing time and trouble when she emailed to chase on 29 April 2025. On 3 May 2025 it wrote to the resident’s solicitor, setting out its requirements to be able to provide the deed. This was 13 working days after the request was made. Its response was not in line with its customer promise, although we note the delay was brief.
6. The resident did not receive the letter of 3 May 2025 and emailed the landlord to chase on 3 occasions. On 22 May 2025 it resent its earlier letter and said it was waiting for her response. While it was unfortunate that the resident did not receive the letter sooner, the delay was not a failure of service by the landlord.
7. On 26 May 2025 the resident returned documents to the landlord in line with its requirements. On 10 June 2025 it also requested a current valuation of the property. This was an additional request not set out in its original letter of requirements. The omission caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. The information was provided on 19 June 2025. The landlord failed to respond, causing time and trouble to the resident who chased on 4 occasions during July 2025. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the resident’s communication was not in line with its customer promise.
8. The deed of postponement was provided to the resident on 30 July 2025. This was 41 days (just under 6 weeks) after it received the valuation on 19 June 2025. Its stage 1 complaint response said this was in line with its target response time of 4 to 6 weeks. However, it failed to consider the delay of 14 working days between 26 May and 10 June 2025. Its response also said that its resale team had a target response time of 10 to 15 days for general enquiries. The landlord provided us with evidence that its resales team had a target of 15 working days to provide management packs. This does not support its assertion that their target sits outside the timescales set out in its customer promise in this case.
9. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s correspondence in line with its customer promise. It did not recognise the delay of 2 weeks caused by its additional request for a current valuation, although we recognise this was a relatively short period. Our compensation guidance says that payments of up to £100 should be paid where there was a failure which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. In ordering £50 we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s inaction and omission.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.