Orbit Group Limited (202304349)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304349

Orbit Group Limited

25 March 2025

 

Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the sale of a shared ownership property after the death of the resident.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord until he passed away in July 2021. The property is a 2 bedroom house. A Grant of Probate was issued on 19 December 2021. The resident’s partner was named as the sole executor of the estate (referred to in this report as the executor). The executor appointed her daughter to act as her representative in this complaint (referred to as the representative in this report).
  2. A buyer was found for the resident’s property sometime around January 2022. The buyer wanted to purchase the resident’s share of the property under the shared ownership scheme. The sale fell through sometime around August 2022 as the amount of time left on the lease was insufficient to obtain a mortgage. The property was put on the market to be sold outright and another buyer was found.
  3. The representative raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 17 November 2022. She said the landlord had delayed in providing the relevant information to allow the sale of the property to go ahead. She said the delays had caused rent arrears to accrue and had caused financial detriment to family members.
  4. The landlord sent the representative a stage 1 response on 28 November 2022. It apologised for the delays, frustration and upset the situation had caused. It said it had already offered a payment of £1,500 for the delays, which would be paid as part of the completion monies. It said it had also offered to return the £100 payment for the freehold management pack and retrospective alterations agreement.
  5. The resident raised a further complaint with the landlord as the continuing delays had caused rent and council tax arrears to accrue. The landlord sent the resident a further stage 1 response on 23 February 2023. It said, following its correspondence in November 2022, it had requested information from the executor’s solicitor and it had not received a response. It confirmed that it had correctly applied the rent amounts in line with the lease. It also confirmed that it could not contribute towards the payment of council tax and it could not write off the rent arrears. It said it was not responsible for the most recent delays to the sale of the property.
  6. Following escalation to stage 2 the landlord sent the representative a stage 2 response on 28 November 2022. It said it had been responsible for delays prior to November 2022 and it had agreed to return a payment of £1,500. It said it was not responsible for any further delays in the sale of the property.
  7. The representative was unhappy with the landlord’s response, and so she escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 25(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that the Ombudsman can consider a complaint from a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member landlord. It says, if the complaint is made by an ex-occupier, they must have had a legal relationship with the member at the time that the matter complained of arose.
  2. Paragraph 25(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman can consider a complaint from a person with authority to make a complaint on behalf of any person detailed at paragraph 25(a) who is deceased.
  3. It is accepted that the executor (and therefore the representative acting on her behalf) has the authority to make a complaint on behalf of the deceased resident, by way of the Grant of Probate. However, the complaint itself is about the delays in the sale of the deceased resident’s property. The representative brought the complaint to the landlord more than 12 months after the resident had passed away. As the resident was not alive at the time of the delays in the sale, the requirements of paragraph 25(a) are not met.
  4. Instead, the complaint is the executor’s own, rather than being made on behalf of the resident. The issues negatively affected her, in terms of the delayed sale of the property and discharge of the estate, rather than affecting the resident. As a result, the executor does not meet the complainant requirements set out in the Scheme and is not able to bring a complaint to this Service. Therefore, the matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and will not be considered further.