Great Places Housing Association (202319538)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319538

Great Places Housing Association

24 October 2024

 

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 the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports that it gave incorrect information during the sales process.
    2. Handling of the related formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a shared ownership of the property, the landlord has a headlease with the freeholder. She purchased her share of the property in June 2021.
  2. The resident complained to the landlord on 16 March 2023. She said the landlord had confirmed in an email on 17 May 2021 that there was no ground rent, however she then discovered that ground rent was in fact due. The resident asked the landlord to waive the ground rent for each year that she expects to live at the property.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 May 2023. It apologised for the mistake but said the ground rent was still payable under the lease. It offered £50 in compensation. The resident asked to escalate her complaint that same day. She reiterated that her solicitor had relied on the previous information, and she was not satisfied with the compensation offered.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident’s escalation request on 23 June 2023. It reiterated its position at stage 1. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
  5. The landlord contacted the Ombudsman on 15 August 2024 following our request for information about this complaint. It said its policies have changed since its final response, and it has further reviewed the redress offered and the handling of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the Investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.”
  2. The resident complained that she should not be responsible for paying the ground rent, as the landlord gave incorrect information during the sales process. The sale of a property follows a legal process which, along with matters relating to the lease, is subject to specific rules and regulations. Disputes and challenges about the sales process or the lease are, therefore, more appropriately resolved by the courts which can reach legal findings and make binding orders or determinations. Therefore, we will not be investigating the sales process or determining liability for payment of the ground rent.
  3. This investigation will look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and associated complaint. We will consider whether the landlord applied its processes fairly, including whether the steps it took to put things right were reasonable, fair, and proportionate in the circumstances.
  4. This investigation will focus on the events that took place from 16 March 2023 (when the resident made her complaint) to 23 June 2023 (when the landlord issued its final response). Since the resident approached the Ombudsman, the landlord has used its discretion to review its earlier responses. This is not unreasonable given that it has changed its policies. However, this did not form part of the internal complaints process, therefore it is not being considered in this investigation.

The landlord’s policies

  1. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider a payment where there is evidence of the complainant’s unreasonable time and trouble when pursuing an outcome to a complaint. This will be up to a maximum of £20. It will consider the following:
    1. The impact caused as a result of the issue.
    2. The length of time it took to resolve the problem.
    3. The individual needs or requirements of the complainant.
    4. Any difficulties that the complainant experiences in making their complaint.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states “if a customer believes that [the landlord] has failed to fully address their complaint, they may request escalation to Stage Two of the complaints process. This request must clearly outline the reasons why the complaint [has not] been fully considered and include any supporting evidence.”
  3. The complaints policy states that the landlord will acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond at stage 1 within 10 days from the date of acknowledgement, and stage 2 within 20 days of acknowledgement. If the landlord needs to extend its response deadline it will explain its reasons to the resident and give a revised response date (not to exceed 10 working days without good reason).

Information during the sales process

  1. The resident said that both she and her solicitor relied on an email from the landlord (sent prior to completion of the sale) which stated: “there is also no ground rent on the property”. The landlord said all the information required for the sale had been shared with the resident’s solicitor, however it acknowledged the mistake in the email and apologised for the confusion caused. It was reasonable for the landlord to recognise the inaccurate information but explain why it did not consider that the error was sufficient to waive the ground rent as this was a contractual payment.
  2. The landlord offered £50 in compensation. This was not the level that the resident was seeking, however it was reasonable for the landlord to offer this in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble when making her complaint. This amount exceeds what the landlord’s policy says it should offer and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in these circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 38 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. This is outside of the timescale under both the landlord’s complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code). The resident contacted the landlord twice during this time to chase for a response and reiterate that she was making a complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord confirmed an extension to the deadline, and it did not address the delay in its response.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s escalation request 28 working days after the request was made, during which time the resident chased for a response. The landlord declined to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as it said it had addressed all aspects of the complaint. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy at the time. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded within 20 working days, in line with the ordinary timescales when a resident has asked to escalate their complaint.
  3. The delays at both stages caused inconvenience to the resident, as evidenced by her contacting the landlord multiple times to ask for a response. There was therefore a failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, which it did not put right in either of its complaint responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the complainant which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports that it gave incorrect information during the sales process.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the sum of £50 for its complaint handling, to reflect that the delays in its responses caused additional inconvenience and frustration for her.
  2. The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this investigation.

Recommendations

  1. The finding of reasonable redress is on the basis that the landlord also pays the £50 it previously offered. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that the landlord pays this if it has not done so already.