London Borough of Lambeth (202534426)

Background

1. The resident’s lease began in April 2004. During August 2024 she contacted the landlord to raise enquiries which were affecting her onward sale of the property. The resident’s solicitor is authorised to act as her representative. For the purposes of this report, the resident and her representative are referred to as ‘the resident’.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to enquiries raised by the resident during the onward sale of the property.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the enquiries raised by the resident during the onward sale of the property.

Reasons

4. During the sale process, the resident contacted the landlord to report that there had been an error with the previous transfer of the title of the freehold. This was because the whole of the title was transferred in error. On 6 August 2024 the landlord confirmed it was aware of the issue and had lodged an application with the land registry. During October 2024 the resident chased for an update. The landlord’s response of 8 November 2024 said its application was unsuccessful and it was progressing a deed of rectification. Also on 8 November 2024, the resident said the plan setting out the passageways and stairs, and associated rights of access, was missing from the leasehold title of the property.
5. On 13 December 2024 the resident sought a further update from the landlord. She said that due to its errors her buyer had withdrawn from the process. While we’re an alternative to the courts, we’re unable to establish legal liability. Therefore, we’re unable to determine the extent to which the landlord’s actions affected the sale of the property. We consider itquicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, tribunal or procedure on such matters. However, the resident had to chase the landlord on at least 2 occasions to seek an update causing time and trouble.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 8 April 2025 provided an update on the title of the freehold. It confirmed the land registry had denied liability for the error so it was working with the current freeholder to proceed with a new transfer. It was positive that it took appropriate action to try to resolve the issue.
7. The landlord’s response also said that the resident and her solicitor were jointly responsible for checking that relevant documents were included in the leasehold title at the time of her original purchase. It appropriately set out steps that could be taken to resolve the issue. The principle of ‘buyer beware’ means the onus is on the buyer to ensure they are satisfied before making the purchase. Therefore, its position was reasonable in the circumstances.
8. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 3 June 2025 acknowledged that the process relating to the freehold took longer than anticipated, causing distress and inconvenience. It provided a further update on its legal position regarding the freehold title. It said it would review the resident’s request for compensation. The delay was inappropriate because it prolonged resolution of the complaint, compounding the resident’s distress.
9. The landlord’s letter of 16 July 2025 acknowledged that its use of an incorrect form caused the error with the transfer of the freehold. The evidence suggests the matter is currently subject to legal proceedings which it outside the scope of our service. The landlord offered to reduce its legal fee for rectifying the plans and offered £250 for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. Considering that we cannot establish issues around liability, and steps taken by the landlord to rectify the issue, we consider this to be proportionate to its failures.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.