Together Housing Association Limited (202341374)

Background

1. The resident was in the process of purchasing the property she lived in. The resident reported delays in the sale process which she said caused her financial and emotional strain. The resident felt that the landlord should compensate her for the impact of the delays.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the delays in purchasing the property.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We made a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with the delays in purchasing the property.
4. We made a finding of reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord was not responsible for progressing the legal sale process. When the resident reported delays, the landlord acted appropriately by engaging solicitors, providing updates and taking reasonable steps to assist.
6. The landlord delayed in issuing its complaint responses. It acknowledged this and offered appropriate compensation.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. The landlord’s website says that when a resident is purchasing their home, the legal process will be dealt with by the landlord’s and the resident’s solicitors. It says that if the resident has questions, they can speak with the landlord or their own solicitor. The landlord’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 25 September 2023 confirming that they would liaise with the buyer’s solicitor, submit documents, execute the documents for signing and complete the purchase. The landlord did not have a responsibility to manage the sale process. We found no evidence that the landlord agreed completion timescales to the resident or to progress the sale on the resident’s behalf.
8. On 20 November 2023 the landlord contacted its solicitor to progress the sale following a call from the resident. On 8 December 2023 when the resident enquired with the landlord about the delay, the landlord responded on the same day, contacted its solicitor, and gave an update to the resident. The landlord acted appropriately by responding quickly to the resident and providing updates following enquiries.
9. The landlord continued to intervene unprompted in the weeks following this, including contacting the buyer’s solicitor directly on 11 December 2023. The landlord sought updates from its own solicitor in January and February 2024, asked them to expedite the matter with Land Registry and asked them to engage with the buyer’s solicitor.
10. The landlord apologised to the resident in its complaint response for poor communication during the sale process and offered compensation. While more proactive communication might have helped, we did not consider the landlord’s approach amounted to a service failure. The landlord also addressed this point in its complaint response and said it would review its processes to improve future communication with residents. This addressed the resident’s concerns about communication and demonstrated that the landlord had considered improvements.
11. The resident asked to be reimbursed for the increased costs incurred because of the delay. In its complaint response the landlord explained that it could not control the extent of the delay as it was largely caused by an error with Land Registry. The landlord’s website also confirms that the resident is responsible for all valuation, legal and mortgage costs. It was reasonable that the landlord did compensate the resident for this.
12. Our finding of no maladministration was made on the basis that the landlord responded to the resident when approached. The landlord took steps to progress the sale once it became aware of the delays. Ultimately the resident’s complaint was about how long the sale process took, and the responsibility for managing the legal aspects of the sale was with the solicitors.

13. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires the landlord to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of the acknowledgement and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaints and issued its stage 2 response within the required timeframes. It took 23 working days to issue its stage 1 response. The landlord acknowledged this delay, apologised and offered £150 in compensation. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its error and the compensation it offered was above the level we would have ordered for this service failure. The resident told us she had accepted this sum.
15. The resident told us that the landlord had prevented her from escalating the complaint. On 14 February 2024 the landlord explained that it could not escalate the complaint until it had issued its stage 1 response and confirmed that it would do so within a week. The landlord issued the stage 1 response as agreed and then allowed the resident to escalate the complaint. While we recognise the resident’s concerns, we do not find that the landlord acted in a way that obstructed the complaints process.

Learning

Learning

15, It may have been beneficial for the landlord to have taken a more proactive approach in its communications with the resident. The landlord took learning from the resident’s complaint and agreed to review its procedures to ensure improved communications in the future. This was positive and showed a commitment to improvement and customer service

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. We did not identify any issues with the landlord’s record keeping.