From 13 January 2026, we no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Stockport Homes Limited (202338672)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202338672

Stockport Homes Limited

17 June 2025

 

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s shared ownership property purchase.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of a new-build property. At the time of the complaint, the landlord was still completing the resident’s home as part of ongoing works across a wider housing development. The landlord had appointed an external contractor to carry out the construction.
  2. The resident reserved his home with the landlord in October 2021. At that time, the landlord said the property was expected to be completed and handed over by the contractor by March 2022. In February 2022, the landlord sent a newsletter to buyers explaining that delays had occurred because of the regional power network operator. It said the delay would affect other parts of the construction and that the contractor would need to set new handover dates. The newsletter also said that all dates remained estimates and could still change depending on how the site progressed.
  3. From March to December 2022, the landlord told the resident on several occasions that the expected handover date had been delayed. It explained through newsletters that the delays were due to a shortage of street lighting columns and tarmac. It also said the road needed to be block paved, but this work depended on dry weather. By the end of this period, it advised that completion was now expected in January 2023.
  4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 9 February 2023. He said the landlord was taking too long to complete and hand over his home. He was aware of initial delays with the electricity supply on site but noted that progress on the build had stalled for several months. He asked why he could not move in if the property itself was finished. Although the road remained incomplete, he said other buyers had moved into their homes despite the same issue.
  5. The resident said his mortgage offer had been extended several times and that continuing to pay rent for his current accommodation was causing him financial loss. He also raised concerns about higher energy costs at his current property, as he expected the new home to be better insulated. He had already bought new carpets and furniture, which remained in storage at his own expense. He said the repeated delays were affecting his and his family’s mental health. At the time, he was living in a 2-bedroom property with 2 children, 1 of whom needed a separate room for additional support.
  6. The resident also said he felt frustrated that other buyers had been allowed to view their homes, while his request had been refused. He believed the landlord was not concerned if buyers’ mortgage offers fell through, as it could then resell the homes at a higher price. He referred to rumours of a dispute between the contractor and its staff over pay, and said he had seen work being carried out on other parts of the site, which he thought was unfair. He also believed the landlord was benefitting from the delays, as some properties were being rented out after failed sales.
  7. On 22 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It explained any visits to the site had only been allowed when it was considered safe to do so. The landlord said it had no reason to delay sales, as this would have financial consequences for the landlord. It clarified that the property being rented out was bought by an investor, who chose to use the landlord as the managing agent. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s inconvenience and storage costs, but said buyers were advised not to purchase items until contracts were exchanged. It confirmed the earlier delays with the electricity supply and said recent setbacks were due to wet weather.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also said that other delay factors included rising construction costs and extended delivery times due to the war in Ukraine. It said the outstanding works to the resident’s home were mainly external, including the roads. These needed to be completed for home warranty and building control approval, which required safe access to the property. The landlord explained that the block paving to the road could only be laid in dry weather and this had caused delays. It also explained that homes served by tarmac roads could sometimes be signed off earlier, as different rules applied to that surface type. The landlord said it relied on estimated handover dates from the contractor, which it believed to be achievable at the time, and it apologised for any disruption caused.
  9. On 10 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and other buyers to confirm that its contractor had entered financial difficulty.
  10. On 12 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. He accepted that some delays were outside the landlord’s control but believed the contractor’s financial position was the main cause. He felt the landlord could have been more transparent and asked why regular site newsletters had stopped, as this left some buyers better informed than others. He also said he could not delay ordering carpets due to long delivery times after moving in.
  11. The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 March 2023. It acknowledged that delays may have been linked to the contractor’s financial position but said it had not been aware of this when handover dates were set. It explained it first became aware of the contractor’s financial issues through word of mouth, but when it raised concerns, the contractor reassured it that the difficulties were minor and temporary. The landlord said it believed the contractor would continue trading and meet its obligations. It also said buyers were invited to book face-to-face appointments to discuss updates, but the resident did not attend.

Events after the conclusion of the complaints process

  1. On 5 April 2023, the landlord informed the resident and other buyers that the contractor had gone into administration. Between June and October 2023, it told the resident it was trying to secure a new warranty provider and appoint a replacement contractor to complete outstanding works on site.
  2. In October 2023, the landlord appointed in-house contractors to resume works on the housing development.
  3. On 7 February 2024, the resident escalated his complaint to our service. He told us his home was still not complete, and that the landlord had repeatedly raised his expectations without delivering. He explained he had lost his original mortgage rate, which had since increased, and that his current landlord wanted him to move out by the end of March 2024. He said this put him and his family at risk of homelessness and was causing significant stress. He wanted the landlord to arrange overtime to complete his home and compensate him for the expenses and emotional impact caused by the delays.
  4. On 24 May 2024, the resident collected the keys to move into his home.
  5. In June 2024, the resident told us he wanted the landlord to compensate him £10,612.78 for expenses incurred during the delay in completing and handing over his home. This included rent paid above his expected mortgage instalments, storage fees, solicitor charges, van rental, and search fees. In response, the landlord said it had held the property’s value from the point of reservation, meaning it sold the home to the resident £7,000 under market value. It also said it had allowed early storage of some belongings at the property before legal completion, which it would not usually permit. The landlord offered £543.29 to cover the resident’s legal fees, but the resident rejected this.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident said he lost his original mortgage rate and incurred higher costs due to the landlord’s delays in completing his home. He also requested over £10,000 in compensation for various costs linked to the delayed completion. In line with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we do not consider matters where it is more appropriate, fairer, or more effective to seek a legal remedy through the courts or another tribunal. Claims for financial loss arising from interest rate changes or market fluctuations usually require legal assessment of causation and liability which is outside our remit.
  2. Additionally, we do not have clear evidence that the additional costs the resident incurred were solely and directly caused by the landlord’s actions or omissions – and that no other factors contributed. As such, we cannot determine legal liability or award compensation at the level a court might if a breach were proven.
  3. This investigation is therefore limited to considering the landlord’s communication and complaint handling during the sales process, and whether it acted fairly and reasonably in the circumstances with regards to this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s shared ownership property purchase

  1. The evidence shows the landlord became aware of a developing issue with electricity connection to the site around the time the resident reserved the property in October 2021. It asked the contractor for clarification and updates. The contractor advised that the matter would not affect the estimated March 2022 handover date. Around the same time, the contractor explored using generators to power the site temporarily, but the landlord decided this would not offer a practical long-term solution. This shows both parties were actively engaged at an early stage and looking for ways to reduce disruption, even before the impact of the delay became certain. The landlord’s response was proportionate to the information available at the time.
  2. The landlord continued to follow up in January 2022, and in February 2022, the contractor confirmed that delays on site were due to the regional power network operator. This confirmed that the cause lay outside both the landlord’s and contractor’s control. We are satisfied the landlord remained appropriately engaged and responded reasonably to the emerging situation during this period.
  3. In February 2022, the landlord sent a newsletter to buyers with a clear update about the electricity delay. It explained the cause of the problem, how this would affect other building work, and why the handover would take longer than expected. The update also confirmed that any new dates were estimates and could still change depending on how work progressed. This was a constructive step that gave buyers a better understanding of the situation and what to expect. In new-build developments, estimated completed dates often change because of issues outside the developer’s control. This kind of update reflected good practice.
  4. The evidence shows the resident was given a second estimated handover date of June 2022. However, the landlord gave no further updates until July 2022 – by which time this revised date had already passed. The resident received no warning that the handover would be delayed again, which meant he spent 4 months without meaningful updates. This lack of communication likely caused avoidable stress and uncertainty.
  5. In June 2022, the landlord began chasing the contractor for an update and asked for a meeting to discuss the delays. It also raised concerns about the growing number of complaints from buyers. While this showed some effort to escalate matters, the landlord waited until the handover date had already passed before taking these steps. This was too late. The contractor was responsible for completing the works, but the landlord remained responsible for keeping buyers informed. We would have expected it to check whether the handover date was still achievable in advance, and to update the resident if there was any risk of delay. Its failure to do so likely made it harder for the resident to plan and increased his frustration and uncertainty.
  6. The evidence shows the landlord continued to send monthly newsletters to buyers throughout the remainder of 2022. These provided regular updates on the progress of works, which was a positive step in maintaining contact and sharing information. The newsletters explained that delays during this period were caused by a shortage of street lighting columns, limited supply of tarmac, and the need for dry weather to complete block paving. These were factors outside the landlord’s control, and it was appropriate to share this information with buyers. However, the timing of some updates remained too close to the handover dates to support meaningful planning.
  7. For example, the July 2022 newsletter set September 2022 as the new estimated handover date, but the landlord did not issue a revised date until the September 2022 newsletter – by which time the handover date had already passed. This pattern continued: in September 2022, buyers were told to expect October; in October, the date moved to November; in November, it moved to December; and by December 2022, the landlord said completion was now expected in January 2023. These last-minute changes, even though caused by supply and weather issues, undermined the value of the updates and made it harder for the resident to plan. This showed the landlord needed a stronger working relationship with the contractor to secure clearer and more timely information.
  8. There is evidence the landlord attempted to address this in September 2022, when it met with the contractor and agreed that the contractor would begin providing weekly updates, including reasons for any changes to the handover timelines. This showed the landlord recognised the need for better communication and took steps to improve oversight. It was appropriate for the landlord to escalate matters at this stage, as the pattern of last-minute updates was creating confusion and uncertainty.
  9. However, the evidence does not show that this agreement led to more timely or reliable information. Since delays were likely to continue, these updates offered a key way to help the resident understand what was happening and manage his plans. We recognise that even if the landlord had given 1- or 2-months’ notice before each change, that would not have removed the resident’s frustration or uncertainty – because the goalposts kept moving. But stronger communication could have made the situation clearer and helped the resident feel more informed.
  10. The evidence shows the landlord became aware of the contractor’s financial difficulties in January 2023. At that stage, it offered to pay subcontractors directly to help keep work on site moving. Although the contractor gave assurances it could continue trading as normal, the landlord repeated this offer in February 2023, suggesting it still had concerns. The resident later complained that the landlord must have known about the situation earlier than it said and should have told buyers sooner. The landlord explained that it first heard concerns informally and did not have confirmation until March 2023. The evidence supports this account. The same week it met with the contractor in March 2023, the landlord issued an update confirming the contractor was seeking refinancing and that it had stepped in to pay for some materials.
  11. It was reasonable for the landlord to try and support the contractor at this stage. Finding a new contractor to take over part-finished works would have taken time, increased costs, and created further disruption. By sticking with the contractor and offering temporary financial support, the landlord took steps to avoid additional delays. On balance, the evidence shows it acted appropriately in a difficult situation.
  12. In April 2023, the landlord learned that the contractor had gone into administration and told buyers immediately. It offered all buyers the chance to book a video call to discuss the situation, and the evidence shows the resident met with the landlord in person on 11 April 2023. This showed the landlord acted quickly to share what it knew and made itself available to answer concerns face to face. While information was limited at that point and the situation may have felt unsettling for the resident, the evidence shows the landlord continued to provide updates as and when it could.
  13. Between May and July 2023, the evidence shows the landlord was trying to secure a new home warranty provider after the original provider withdrew. It also became clear during this period that the contractor’s refinancing efforts had failed, and the landlord told buyers it now needed to find a new contractor to complete the works. The time taken to manage these developments was reasonable given the complexity of the situation. However, the resident had already experienced repeated delays and still had no clear timeframe for moving in, so we recognise this period would have remained uncertain and frustrating.
  14. It ultimately took until October 2023 for the landlord to appoint a new set of contractors. This meant there was a 6-month gap between the original contractor going into administration and the point at which works resumed on site. During this period, the evidence shows that resident chased for updates on at least 2 occasions. The landlord had previously said it hoped to appoint a new contractor by the end of July 2023, but its records show it was still working to confirm the scope of the remaining works. We accept these factors contributed to the extended delay. However, the landlord should have proactively updated the resident when the July 2023 timeframe passed. A short update at that point would have shown awareness of the resident’s position and helped manage expectations at a key point in the process.
  15. In November 2023, the evidence shows the landlord gave the resident a new estimated handover date of April 2024. This was the first projected date issued since the appointment of the new contractors, and it helped re-establish a clearer expectation after a prolonged period of uncertainty. The evidence shows the new contractor was part of the landlord’s in-house team. This likely made it easier for the landlord to have direct oversight and influence over the work, which marked a clear shift from earlier phases when it relied on external contractors and had less control over communication and delivery.
  16. In February 2024, the landlord asked the contractor to prioritise completion of the resident’s home. This was a positive step that demonstrated renewed focus on progressing the individual completion and responding to the resident’s situation. The evidence shows that in March 2024, it told the resident that the final task was completion of the road outside the property, which remained dependent on weather conditions. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain this constraint, as it showed transparency about the risks to the timeline.
  17. When April 2024 arrived, the landlord took the resident on site to show the progress of the block paving and confirmed that operatives had been given overtime to complete the road over the weekends. This showed practical efforts to accelerate the progress and keep the resident engaged and informed. Although the resident collected the keys to his home in May 2024 – 1 month later than the estimated handover date – the landlord showed a clearer grip on the process during this period. Unlike earlier phases, it actively monitored delivery, gave timely updates, and supported the contractor to minimise delay. This marked a more coordinated and resident-focused approach.
  18. The resident’s complaint raised several wider concerns about the impact of the delays during the sales process. These included costs for carpet fitting, furniture storage, and ongoing rent payments. We acknowledge the uncertainty around handover dates would have been difficult to manage, and it is understandable that the resident felt financially exposed as a result.
  19. However, the evidence shows that the landlord advised the resident through newsletters and directly, not to commit to purchases or arrangements until legal completion had taken place. While we have not assessed whether the landlord’s actions directly caused the resident financial loss, we are satisfied that it gave appropriate warnings about the risks of making early arrangements. In this context, the landlord’s communication set a reasonable expectation about the possibility of delay and the importance of waiting for a confirmed completion date before incurring costs.
  20. The resident also raised concerns that the landlord was deliberately allowing buyers’ sales to fall through so it could re-sell the homes at a higher price. The landlord denied this in its stage 1 response, explaining that doing so would have financial implications for itself. The evidence shows that in October 2023, the landlord made a specific decision to hold the agreed value of the resident’s property, despite the delays, to avoid him paying more. The landlord later told us this decision protected the resident from a potential price increase of £7000.
  21. Although we have not seen evidence confirming the exact amount, it is reasonable to conclude that the market value of the property likely increased over the 31-month period between the reservation in October 2021 and legal completion in May 2024. On balance, we are satisfied the landlord took a fair and consistent approach by honouring the original sale price and there is no evidence that it sought to profit from the delays.
  22. The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s decision not to allow him to move in while the road was still incomplete. He explained that he had seen other buyers move into their homes under similar circumstances and recently told us that he now lives on site, which he described as still resembling a construction area. Based on this, he questioned the landlord’s original decision to refuse his request.
  23. The landlord explained that the type of road surface being used outside the resident’s property meant the home could not be signed off by building control or the warranty provider at that time. It also explained that in some cases, tarmac roads may allow for temporary approvals where safety and access conditions were met. This was a reasonable response. It showed the landlord had taken the correct approach by following the required sing-off processes rather than exercising discretion in a way that could have compromised compliance or future warranty coverage.
  24. We also note there are multiple factors that influence whether a home can be safely occupied before site completion, including the layout of the development, access routes, and service connections. These vary by property and stage of construction. We are not in a position to determine the reasons behind any decisions made for other residents, but in this case, the landlord aced in line with health and safety responsibilities and regulatory requirements.
  25. The resident said the delays had a significant impact on his family, particularly as they were living in a 2-bedroom property and needed more space to accommodate his children’s needs. He also told the landlord he was facing eviction in March 2024 and had nowhere else to go.
  26. While we do not underestimate the pressure this placed on the resident and his family, the landlord was not responsible for providing temporary housing or managing the resident’s wider accommodation needs during the sales process. However, the evidence shows that as the home neared completion, the landlord did make enquiries about offering a temporary property from its own housing stock. Although it had no suitable homes available, it did allow the resident to store some belongings in the property before he completed the purchase. These actions were outside the landlord’s obligations and showed a willingness to offer practical support where possible.
  27. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s shared ownership property purchase. The evidence shows some avoidable communication failings during the early stages of the process and minor gaps in contact while the landlord worked to appoint a new contractor. While these issues were limited in scope, they had a significant impact on the resident and his family.
  28. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, available on our website, sets out the approach we take to resolving disputes. Where we find maladministration by a landlord that has caused an adverse effect, we would usually expect landlords to offer residents compensation between £100 to £600 to put things right. The landlord offered £543.29 compensation after the conclusion of the complaints process. This amount falls within the typical range and exceeds what we would have ordered it to pay, considering the positive steps it took elsewhere. These included acting in good faith to progress the property despite delays beyond its control, holding the sale price to protect the resident from rising costs, and offering to store the resident’s belongings.
  29. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the landlord’s handling of the complaint through its complaints process. Although the landlord made a reasonable offer of compensation, this was only made after the end of its complaints process. The landlord did not make a reasonable offer during its complaints process. This was a failing which means there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.
  30. We consider it appropriate for the landlord to honour the compensation it has already offered. It must therefore pay the resident £543.29, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of his shared ownership property purchase.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s shared ownership property purchase.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must pay the resident £543.29 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of the resident’s shared ownership property purchase.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide evidence of compliance with the above order to the Ombudsman, within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.