Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202211147)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211147

Notting Hill Genesis

23 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s former leasehold property.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident applied to their landlord to sell their share of the property on 8 October 2021. The landlord was responsible for producing a management pack within 10 working days of receiving a request and payment. The landlord was also responsible for looking for potential buyers, in the first instance. By mid-November 2021 the landlord confirmed that it had approved a prospective buyer. On 14 December 2021, it informed the resident that it could take four weeks to have a confirmed completion date. It said this was a guideline, and it could take longer. The resident requested that the sale complete on 11 January 2022.
  2. The landlord informed the resident that it would send the management pack to its solicitor by 7 January 2022. It later confirmed it had sent the management pack on 20 January 2022. This date was incorrect. The pack was actually sent on 1 March 2022. The resident complained to their landlord on 1 March 2022 claiming that the lack of proper management and monitoring amongst the landlord’s staff had delayed the completion of the sale and caused them financial loss. The resident stated that they should not have to pay any rent for February and March 2022 until the completion of the sale to compensate for this.
  3. On 10 March 2022, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one of its internal complaints process. In its response, it accepted that it should have provided the resident’s solicitor with the management pack by 12 January 2022. It also accepted that the resident had been incorrectly informed that it had sent the management pack when it had not. The landlord acknowledged a service failure but stated that it was not solely responsible for any delays and would not refund the rent for February and March 2022. The landlord claimed that neither the resident’s solicitor nor the buyer was able to complete the sale in January 2022. In light of the delay in providing the management pack, the landlord offered to reimburse the fee of £150 for the management pack as well as the March 2022 service charge amount of £213. 87. The total refund was £363.87.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the response and complained about her landlord not communicating in a timely way with solicitors or her, having to chase things with the landlord’s staff without receiving updates, her landlord not keeping track of important sales documents, having to resend documents with no follow up and their landlord lying about the dispatch of the management pack, in their opinion. The resident said in light of the emotional stress caused, they wanted reimbursement of two months’ rent and their mortgage payments totalling £2400.
  5. The sale of the property completed on 7 June 2022.
  6. On 10 June 2022, the landlord accepted that “there has been a lack of proper monitoring and management from our end regarding the management pack request”  and made an increased compensation offer of £321. This equated to 50% of the resident’s monthly service charge rounded up for the period of three months. The resident refused the offer and on 19 June 2022, they requested that the landlord consider their complaint at stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints process. This was on the basis that their losses far exceeded the offer made by the landlord.
  7. The landlord responded to the stage two complaint on 27 July 2022. The landlord concluded that the compensation offered at stage one was reasonable, having regard to its compensation policy, it was willing to make an increased offer. The landlord offered £471, made up of the management pack fee of £150 and the compensation offer of £321 made on 10 June 2022.
  8. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer on 30 July 2022 as they said the complaint response did not respond to their concerns about how the landlord had handled the sale. The resident requested reimbursement of three months’ rent and mortgage payments.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the sale

  1. The resident did not believe that the landlord’s responses sufficiently acknowledged their concerns about a lack of proper monitoring or management of the landlord’s staff during the sale process. The resident was also unhappy about the delay in the production and delivery of the management pack and believed this caused them financial loss. The landlord accepted that there was a long delay in the provision of the management pack in both of its complaint responses. When failings are identified, a landlord should aim to put matters right for the resident in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
  2. The landlord’s response to stage one of the complaints process stated that ” … the delay in providing the pack and having to chase the Resale and Legal Team was not handled appropriately”. In its stage two response the landlord accepted that its failures had caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and apologised. The landlord should have provided the management pack by January 2022 and failed to put it together or send it before 1 March 2022 due to human error. The staff member responsible for sending out the pack did not do so in a timely manner and management was unaware. It was right for the landlord to apologise for this service failure and offer compensation at both stages of the complaints process to put things right.
  3. Conveyancing transactions can create uncertainty and can be stressful. There are factors and issues which may arise which can cause delays and/or expenses. The resident experienced frustration and disappointment with the progress of the sale, the landlord’s handling of the management pack was a contributory factor. It is important that the landlord reflects on this and undertakes steps to improve communication with residents during the sale process.
  4. However, the evidence shows that any delays in the sale of the property were not solely due to the landlord’s errors. There were also delays due to other factors, outside the landlord’s control. On 12 January 2022, the buyer’s solicitor was still awaiting a draft contract and property information form, leasehold information form, and fixture and fittings form (property forms) from the resident’s solicitor. Furthermore, it reported that on 13 January 2022, the resident’s solicitor disclosed that their buyer was not able to complete the sale at that time.
  5. On 18 February 2022 it was disclosed that the buyer’s solicitors were still waiting for the property forms from the resident’s solicitor, suggesting they would have been unable to complete by that date. The buyer confirmed on 21 February 2022 that although they had received the property forms they had not received the documents referred in them. The buyer’s solicitor advised they were awaiting outstanding documents on 21 February 2022 and had outstanding answers to questions raised as of 21 March 2022. These were all issues that were outside the landlord’s control and were independent of the management pack delay.
  6. It is therefore clear that the sale could not have completed before 21 March 2022 irrespective of the management pack delay. The sale would not have completed by January 2022 had the landlord provided the management pack by then based on the evidence. As the management pack was not the sole cause of delays, the landlord would not be responsible for the extra rent and mortgage payments which the resident had to pay during this period. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s handling of the sale. The resident can make a complaint to her solicitor if she considers that they caused any avoidable delays to the sale.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy requires the landlord to respond to complaints at stage one within ten working days and complaints at stage two within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one within its published timeframe. However, the resident’s request to escalate to stage two made on 19 June 2022 was not responded to until 27 July 2022. This was eight working days after the required deadline. Although any delay would cause some level of inconvenience for the resident, overall the delay was not excessive and therefore the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this issue.
  3. The landlord offered £471 as its final offer of compensation for delays in providing the management pack. The resident requested £2,400 to cover two months’ rent and mortgage payments. When dealing with the request for compensation the landlord missed an opportunity to clearly explain that its compensation and goodwill gestures policy would not allow such an offer. This policy allowed the landlord to make a discretionary payment of up to £250 where there has been a serious failure in service delivery over a period of time which has caused a significant level of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
  4. The landlord did not provide a rationale for its choice of formulating or calculating what compensation should be payable. Its offers of compensation lacked explanation and referred to compensation in relation to service charge fees which could have confused the issue of duly made and lawfully collected payments by the landlord with discretionary compensation for service failure. In doing so this may have reinforced the resident’s belief of entitlement to compensation for payments they made in connection with their property such as rent and mortgage payments.
  5. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance published on our website. Where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration by the landlord, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant it can award a payment of between £250 and £700. The situation has been distressing for the resident however the compensation offered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and therefore this is a fair offer in view of all the circumstances.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about:
    1. the handling of the sale of the resident’s former leasehold property by their landlord.
    2. the associated complaint.

 Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should pay the resident £471 compensation offered in its complaint response within four weeks of this report unless this has already been paid.
  2. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord introduce improvements to its sales process to include a checklist or other similar measure, reviewed by senior staff, so that residents receive regular updates and to ensure the timely issue of management packs.