Places for People Group Limited (202229662)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229662

Places for People Group Limited

11 March 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 landlords:
    1. Delays in providing requested information for the sale of the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied a house under a shared ownership lease. The resident owned 50% share of the lease.
  2. In June 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he had agreed to a sale on his property. On 1 September 2022 the resident paid for the landlord to provide a management pack to his solicitor. This information was required as part of the sale of the resident’s property for the prospective buyer. The landlord sent the management pack on 11 October 2022. The resident has said that the delay in receiving the management pack was a “significant contributory factor” that led to the falling through of the sale of his property.
  3. The resident also stated that in November 2022, the landlord delayed providing information relating to a fire risk assessment and an external wall system fire review certificate (EWS1). The resident raised a stage 1 complaint, following the breakdown of the sale of his property on 30 November 2022.
  1. On 5 January 2023 the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord apologised that it had delayed in providing his solicitor with the management pack. It refunded the cost of the pack and awarded the resident £25 compensation. The landlord stated that it did not accept this delay was the ‘significant contributary factor’ in the breakdown of the sale of the resident’s property. The same day the resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint.
  2. On 15 February 2024 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. It increased its compensation offer to £150 in recognition of the delay in providing the management pack.
  3. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 2 May 2023 stating his desired outcome was for £6,250 compensation. He also wanted an assurance that the landlord would provide any future request for information immediately.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Delays in providing requested information for the sale of the property.

  1. On 1 September 2022 the landlord told the resident that the management pack would cost £187. It said the pack would be processed within 10 working days of it receiving said payment. The resident paid the £187 the same day. This was appropriate communication by the landlord.
  2. Between 1 September 2022 and 16 September 2022, the resident and his solicitor made 3 requests to the landlord for the management pack. On 16 September 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for not providing the management pack within its timescale of 10 working days. It was appropriate that it apologised. The landlord then asked a different member of staff to prepare the management pack. This was because its staff member who normally prepared the pack was on leave. The landlord should have already allocated a member of its staff to conduct this work, during its staff members absence. This is evidence of both poor planning, and poor communication.
  3. The landlord provided the management pack on 11 October 2022. This was 28 working days later. This was an unreasonable delay in providing the information required to the resident’s solicitor. On 5 January 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident. It then refunded the cost of the management pack. This was an appropriate response by the landlord as it recognised and sought to provide a remedy to its error in causing the delay.
  4. In its final complaint response the landlord acted appropriately by apologising to the resident. In addition to the refund of the management pack, it increased its compensation offer to £150. This was a reasonable and proportionate response by the landlord. The compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website), where there is evidence of maladministration, as identified by the landlord in its complaint response.
  5. On 2 November 2022 the resident’s solicitor asked the landlord for a copy of the building’s fire risk assessment and its external wall system fire review certificate (EWS1). On 4 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord to respond to his solicitor’s request. The correspondence shows that the landlord conducted enquiries into this request. It provided a response 9 working days later, on 14 November 2022. This was a reasonable amount of time in which to provide the information requested.
  6. The landlord told the resident that it was not responsible for the errors identified in the buyer’s lenders’ report, in respect of its fire risk assessment. The landlord said it had provided the correct information on 11 October 2022, in its management pack. It said it could not comment on what the buyer’s lender did with this. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. This was because it was not responsible for errors of the other parties involved.
  7. The resident believes the landlord’s delay in providing the management pack significantly contributed to the sale falling through. As a result, the resident said he had to reduce the asking price of his property for a quick sale. He said this was because he had vacated the property.
  8. The landlord disputed that its delay had been a significant contributory factor in the breakdown of the sale. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s decision to reduce the asking price of his property. This was a decision for him. However, the landlord is not responsible for the buyer withdrawing his offer on the resident’s property. It is also not responsible that the resident will receive less money from the sale of his property by his choosing to lower the asking price of the property.
  1. The Ombudsman has reviewed the evidence provided in respect of the resident’s complaint. There is evidence of maladministration as described above, caused by the delays in the landlord providing the management pack. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s final complaint response which included the offer of £150 compensation, as well as an apology, and the refund of the cost of the management pack, to be reasonable redress for this incident. Therefore, the landlord is not required to do anything further beyond its offer in its final response.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It states it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response within 10 working days of it being in receipt, of the resident’s complaint. The landlord states it will acknowledge a request to escalate a complaint at stage 2, within 3 working days. It will provide its written response at stage 2, within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
  2. On 1 December 2022 the resident raised his stage 1 complaint. The landlord spoke to the resident about his complaint on 14 December 2022. It then provided its stage 1 response on 5 January 2023. This was 22 working days after the resident raised his complaint. Whilst this overall delay was not excessive, it is evidence of poor complaint handling. The Ombudsman has also not been provided with any evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days as per its complaint’s policy. This is evidence of poor communication. The landlord later sent a further letter to the resident, correcting a typo error in its previous response. It was appropriate thatthe landlord corrected its error.
  3. On 5 January 2023 the resident requested that the landlord escalate his complaint. The landlord provided its written complaint response 29 working days later. On 7 February 2023 the landlord told the resident that it had to extend the deadline of its complaint response due to exceptional circumstances involving the member of staff investigating his complaint. This was 23 working days after the resident escalated his complaint. It was appropriate the landlord updated the resident that it required more time to investigate his complaint.
  4. However, it should have provided this update within 20 workings days. This is because it should have told the resident before its complaint response was due. The landlord provided its written response on 15 February 2023. The overall final response was provided within a reasonable period, taking into consideration the extension. The Ombudsman’s expectation is that any extension to a complaint, does not exceed a further 10 working days.
  5. In the landlord’s final response it made a further typed mistake in respect of awarding differing amounts of compensation within its letter. This will have confused the resident. It was appropriate that when the resident highlighted this to the landlord, that it apologised and confirmed the correct amount of compensation it had awarded.
  6. For the reasons described above the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. This is because of the number of small errors, which although not significant, has caused some level of distress to the resident. The landlord has already apologised; however, it did not fully consider the detriment caused to the resident in its response. The Ombudsman has considered its own remedies guidance (published on our website) and awards the resident £50 compensation for the landlord’s handling of his complaint. An example of this type of award, is where there has been a minor failure in the service provided, and the landlord has not fully put it right.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the delay’s in providing a management pack and responding to queries to the resident’s solicitor.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Order

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £50 within 28 days of this report for its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with this order within 28 days.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already the landlord should:
    1. Reimburse the resident for the cost of the management pack as it previously offered.
    2. Pay the £150 compensation it awarded the resident in its stage 1 and 2 complaints process if it has not already done so, within 28 days of this report.