Peabody Trust (202003187)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003187

Peabody Trust

21 June 2021

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the advice and support it gave her in relation to the sale of her property.

Background and summary of events

The resident has a shared ownership lease with the landlord.
On 30 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. She explained that she had advertised her property for sale in September 2019 (her later correspondence with the landlord shows that the landlord had done the marketing for the sale). She had found a buyer in March 2020, but had not heard from the buyer since the COVID-19 lockdown. She said the landlord had advised her that she needed a new survey, as her previous one had expired (it is understood that she meant a surveyor’s valuation). She said that the landlord had told her she could “rent the flat, only on condition of clearing [her] debts”. She said that she was stressed, and needed help from the landlord with these issues and decisions, and with how to proceed with the sale of her flat.
There were several emails between the landlord and the resident throughout the start of June 2020. The resident asked the landlord to buy her flat back. The landlord said it was not currently buying back shared ownership properties. The landlord asked the resident whether she wanted it to advertise her flat on the shared ownership market. The resident agreed, and asked for it to “refer potential buyers to view” through her estate agent. The landlord explained that it could not liaise with her estate agent in that way.
The resident told the landlord on 9 June 2020 that she was unable to hold viewings, and the landlord could not either (presumably due to the COVID-19 restrictions, but this is unclear). She said that she needed her estate agent to hold viewings. She said she “could get a buyer and find they have an issue with the lease being at 83 years old-only and not having their mortgage approved because of the cladding”. She said this would leave her in further debt.
On 10 June 2020 the landlord referred the resident’s queries to its resales team. It is unclear whether the landlord forwarded its previous emails with the resident to its sales team at that point.
On 23 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord. She said she had not agreed for the landlord to market her property, as she was unable to hold viewings. She said that “bookings made with the resale team have been referred to [her estate agent] so this hasn’t helped me at all”. She said her estate agent had found a potential buyer. She asked for “this arrangement with resales to be cancelled”.
The landlord escalated the resident’s concerns to stage one of its complaints process on 24 June 2020.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 8 July 2020. It summarised its understanding of her complaint to be her dissatisfaction with the advice it had given her in relation to the sale of her flat. It referred to a telephone conversation it had with her on 1 June 2020, in which it noted she had said she was unable to find a buyer in 2019, as her email address was incorrect on the property advertisements published by the landlord. It said that its sales team had advised that she struggled to find a buyer in 2019 because she was unavailable for viewings. It said it had allowed her to sell her flat on the open market. It said it had suggested that she submit a request to sub-let her home to help with the financial hardship, but she had declined this due to travel times, and COVID-19 restrictions as she would have needed to have facilitated viewings, and been available to visit the flat at short notice. It reiterated that it would not buy back her home and that its position was not likely to change in the near future. It concluded by explaining how she could escalate her complaint if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident informed the landlord in an email on 8 July 2020 that the landlord had told a potential buyer that there was an issue with the lease (the number of years left on it). She asked it to also advise the buyer what it would cost to extend the lease.
On 10 and 14 July 2020 the landlord explained the resident’s options for extending the lease. It provided a brochure with further information. It explained that it could not confirm the expected cost without a lease extension valuation. It explained what other costs she could expect to incur from this process.
The resident escalated her complaint on 21 July 2020. She complained that:
1. The landlord wrote her email address incorrectly in 2019 on the property advertisement. This meant that she did not receive any house viewings for two months. She said she had paid for this service. She disputed the landlord’s previous comment that she was unavailable in 2019 to hold viewings.
2. She said that she thought the marketing the landlord had done in 2020 “was done out of goodwill”. She said she should have been advised about the costs.
3. She said the landlord’s website was misleading as it said that over 90% of people managed to sell their shared ownership flat, as it was not the case for her. She said she expected to sell on the open market after reading the documents it sent her in 2019.
4. She said the landlord’s option to sub-let her flat “was offered too late”. She said she could not travel to show potential buyers around, and could not “risk the flat becoming uninhabitable for potential buyers”.
5. She said that the landlord had forwarded her confidential emails onto its sales team. She said she did not consent to this information being shared. She asked it to reassure her that it had not given her data to other members of staff or third parties without her consent.
6. She said the landlord had not provided her with any information concerning cladding. She said it had sent letters to people acting on her behalf, and asked it to forward her a copy of these emails.
7. She said that she had asked the landlord about the length of the lease, and it had sent its response to the potential buyer. She asked how much it would cost her, or a potential buyer to extend the lease. She asked the landlord “to refrain from putting off buyers because there could be something which could be arranged with [her] and a buyer if everyone knew the costs”.
The resident concluded by saying that she was unsure why the landlord had “not been able to offer [her] any useful help”.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 14 August 2020. It explained that:
1. It could not find any evidence of it having used the wrong email address on the property advertisement in 2019.
2. On 9 September 2019 it made her aware of the marketing costs and on 24 September she confirmed she was aware of them.
3. If an owner of a shared ownership property wanted to sell, it would need to “let anyone waiting for a shared ownership property to have that opportunity to view the property”. If that did not lead to a sale, the current owner would be allowed to sell on the open market.
4. Leaseholders of shared ownership schemes were not allowed to sub-let their homes. It said it used its discretion to offer shared owners the opportunity to do so in exceptional circumstances.
5. It did not need her permission to forward her emails to relevant members of staff who were in a better position to deal with her enquiry.
6. Current safety guidelines concerning cladding only affected buildings over 18 meters, and would not be relevant to her property.
7. When it marketed properties it described the length of the lease, and would have to advise a potential buyer if they enquired. It said that she had enquired about extending her lease, and it had responded explaining the costs, and provided her with a fact sheet. It said that it had been transparent with her, set out its processes, and the costs of extending the lease.
The landlord concluded by explaining that it had not found any evidence to show that the delay in selling her home had been due to any mismanagement on its behalf. It explained how she could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The resident initially asked the landlord to buy her flat back. The landlord immediately set her expectations and said that it would not do this, as the option was unavailable. Nonetheless, the landlord then offered the resident advice about other avenues she could explore to obtain the outcome she was seeking. For example, it offered to advertise her flat on the shared ownership market, and suggested she considered sub-letting it. However, the resident explained that these options were not feasible for her.
The landlord responded to each aspect of the resident’s stage two complaint, except for her comment that she was not among the 90% who managed to sell their shared ownership flat. Nevertheless, it explained when a shared owner would be allowed to sell on the open market, and advised that it had used is discretion when it offered her to sub-let her flat. Also, when she asked for information concerning cladding, it explained how she would not be affected by this. It said that she had been made aware in September 2019 that she would have to pay for marketing, and this is supported by the evidence it has provided for this investigation. Although the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two complaint response, the evidence shows that it responded to her queries, and clarified several aspects in its attempt to support her.
The resident remained dissatisfied that the landlord had advised a potential buyer about the lease term. The landlord explained that it published the lease term when it marketed a property, and would have to inform a potential buyer if they enquired. The landlord would be expected to disclose any relevant information about the property, and the length of time remaining on a lease is a primary issue when selling a property. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the landlord to have provided that information. The landlord also said that it had previously explained to the resident how she could extend her lease. The evidence shows that it provided her with clear and relevant information about extending the lease. It also advised that it could not give a precise cost estimate without a lease extension valuation. Therefore, its explanation that it had been transparent, and set out the relevant information for lease extensions was reasonable.
Ultimately, the evidence shows that the landlord responded promptly to the resident’s queries and gave clear and pragmatic explanations. Its complaint responses were therefore reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s queries, managed her expectations, and gave clear explanations.