A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202329402)

Background

1. The resident signed a shared ownership leasehold agreement in 2004. Provisions existed in the leasehold agreement which specified the leaseholder as a “key worker”. In July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord through his solicitor to advance the sale of his share of the property. Over the next few months, the landlord sought clarification from the council on restrictions for potential buyers.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the sale of the property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the sale of the property.
5. We have found reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the sale of the property

6. There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the sale of the property. It also failed to communicate with the appropriate teams to progress the resident’s request in a meaningful timeframe. The landlord acknowledged its failings and offered compensation which we consider was proportionate to its failings and has satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord took too long to acknowledge the complaint and provide its stage 1 response. It apologised and offered the resident compensation in line with its policy. We consider the compensation offer was fair and satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

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.

Recommendation

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. A Section 106 Agreement (S106) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is a legally binding planning obligation between a developer/landowner and a local authority. S106 agreements often limit future buyers to those meeting specific criteria such as being local to the area, key workers or first-time buyers. The local authority enforces compliance and ensures delivery or funding for shared ownership as part of its planning obligations.
9. Between November 2022 and May 2023, the landlord responded to the resident’s solicitor’s enquiries swiftly and in line with the procedure in its sale guide. It was appropriate for the landlord to request the required information and liaise with its estate agent to put the property on the market at this stage.
10. On 5 July 2023 the resident’s solicitor asked the landlord to confirm it would not enforce the lease provisions relating to keyworker requirements. The landlord immediately referred the solicitor to the council, noting that a key worker obligation may exist in the S106 agreement and that it could not approve lease assignment or variation without the council’s approval. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider eligibility criteria, however, s106 agreements are between the landlord and the council. Therefore, referring the solicitor to the council was inappropriate, as it was the landlord’s responsibility.
11. The landlord requested further documentation and payment for legal fees in July 2023 from the resident’s solicitor and sent over a copy of its management pack. The landlord’s guide for selling shared ownership homes states that once it had confirmed a buyer was eligible, the landlord would send a management pack and request legal fees. At this stage the landlord had yet to establish whether the buyer was eligible. Therefore, instead of sending the management pack, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have paused the legal process until it was satisfied the buyer met the criteria.
12. The resident’s solicitor provided the requested information in August 2023. In September it asked the landlord for an update on the key worker question and the buyer’s financial assessment. The landlord responded inappropriately by requesting a copy of its own nomination agreement it held with the council. It was misguided for the landlord to request this from the resident, because the agreement was between itself and the council. This led to frustration for the resident, who continued to chase for updates.
13. On 20 August 2023 the landlord’s records show it had reviewed the S106 agreement but remained unclear on whether it would have to apply the keyworker provisions. It was not until 19 September 2023 that the landlord asked the council to clarify the position. The 1-month delay to approach the council from the point it knew clarification of the keyworker provision was required was unreasonable and caused the resident inconvenience.
14. The council passed the query to at least 3 different internal teams over the next 2 months before it responded in November 2023. The evidence shows the landlord chased a response from the council on at least 8 occasions during this period and maintained regular communication with the resident’s solicitor.
15. In November 2023 the council refused to confirm its position on the key worker requirement but said it would likely take a “common sense approach” on receipt of further information from the landlord. This included proof the prospective buyer met affordability criteria. Sometime in early January 2024 the buyer was rejected by the landlord on affordability grounds.
16. It is reasonable to conclude that the delay may have been avoided had the landlord undertaken an affordability assessment and rejected the prospective buyer on affordability ground at the beginning of the process. However, it was fair of the landlord to pursue clarification on the removal of the keyworker provision from the council, particularly on request from the resident’s solicitor. The landlord could not have known the council would take over 8 weeks to respond. There is no evidence within the documentation we have reviewed which states that affordability had to be assessed before any other eligibility criteria.
17. The evidence shows that the landlord reflected on its failures and apologised for its poor handling of the issue. In the stage 2 response it agreed that it could have sought to have understood council’s requirements and a nomination at the outset. The landlord offered the resident £320 for the inconvenience and impact caused by its delays.
18. When a failure is identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies
19. Our guidance on remedies suggests that an award of £320 may remedy a failure where there is no permanent impact on the resident. When considering the length of the delay, the landlord’s apology and the learning it derived from the complaint, we consider the offer of compensation was proportionate to the failing we identified and the impact they had on the resident. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the sale of the property.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond at stage 1 of its complaints process within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The policy is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
21. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 12 days late and issued the stage 1 response 13 working days after the timescales set out in its policy. At stage 2 it responded as per its policy requirements. In the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for its delay at stage 1 and offered the resident £120 compensation.
22. Our guidance on remedies suggests that an apology and compensation of £120 may remedy a failure which did not significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. We consider the landlord’s offer was proportionate to its failings and the apology and offer of compensation satisfactorily resolved the complaint. This leads to a determination of reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

23. The landlord kept appropriate records about its contact with the resident and the decisions it made in this case. We have not identified any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.

Communication

24. Outside of the communication failures identified, the landlord’s communication with the resident was appropriate and responsive.