Orbit Group Limited (202227519)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227519

Orbit Group Limited

7 November 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 applicant 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 response to the applicant’s concerns about its handling of its sales process.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

3. The applicant applied to purchase a leasehold property from the landlord. The complaint has been raised by a representative on behalf of the applicant. For the purpose of this report the representative will be referred to as the applicant. The landlord had no registered vulnerabilities in respect of the applicant.
4. On 26 September 2022, the applicant raised a stage 1 complaint. He said that he was dissatisfied with the way in which the landlord had handled his application to purchase a property. He said that the landlord’s handling of the matter had caused anxiety, distress and financial loss.
5. On 29 November 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It upheld the applicant’s complaint. It said that its service had fallen short as it had not identified that the proceedings of the sale should not have started. In addition, it said that its estate agent’s communication with the applicant had been poor. It confirmed that it would no longer be completing any business with that estate agent moving forwards.
6. It said that the applicant had informed the landlord that he had incurred solicitor fees as a result of its failings which amounted to £550. However, the applicant had informed it that he had been reimbursed £350 of those fees already. It offered £350 compensation. £200 for the solicitor fees paid. £150 for the inconvenience caused and poor communication.
7. On the same day, the applicant raised a stage 2 complaint. He said that the landlord had sold other properties without the restriction in that area. He was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation. He said he wanted to be reimbursed a total amount of £4400.64 broken down as follows:
   1. £20 paid for the ID fee.
   2. £180 paid to a 3rd party for using the web to engage the solicitors.
   3. £500 cashback offered by the building society once the mortgage was put in place.
   4. The difference in the mortgage repayments for the fixed period which had been offered at a low fixed rate which has now been offered at a higher rate. He suggested that the reimbursement should be for a 12-month period which amounted to £3200.64.
   5. £500 for the inconvenience caused.
8. On 29 December 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said that the complaint at stage 1 had been upheld and compensation awarded to cover the funds the applicant had spent which had not been refunded. It agreed with its findings within its stage 1 response. It understood that the applicant felt frustrated, but it did not feel it owed any additional compensation. It re-offered £330 compensation as offered in its stage 1 response.

Post complaint.

9. The applicant contacted this Service. He said he remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered and that the landlord should pay £4400.64 compensation. He also said that the landlord had not considered its delay in issuing its stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

10. It will be apparent from the Background section above that the applicant did not enter into a landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord. Paragraph 25 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out a list of the “People who can use the Scheme”. It states, “The following people can make complaints to the Ombudsman about members: (b) an applicant for a property owned or managed by a member.” The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that it can consider this complaint.
11. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to assess whether the landlord’s interpretation of the lease or the section 106 agreement was correct. The Ombudsman cannot make such a decision and substitute its conclusion for that of the landlord. The role of this Service is to consider how the landlord handled the situation and the subsequent complaint. Whether it followed its own policies and procedures, behaved fairly and reasonably and/or offered a reasonable level of service.
12. It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the applicant. Its adverse impact on his welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the applicant’s concerns around financial loss and any damage to his health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can however assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
13. The landlord’s homeownership policy states that it is normally advised of a sale of a lease when it receives leasehold enquiries from solicitors. Once fees are received it will deal with any enquiries and provide any further documentation requested.
14. An offer was put in to purchase the property and accepted on 23 August 2022. The estate agents issued the offer letter and confirmed that the acceptance was provisional on the basis of a successful interview with the site manager. The landlord acknowledged within its complaint response that it was at this point whilst it prepared the paperwork it discovered that there was an age restriction on the property. The age restriction meant the property could only be purchased by someone over 60 or a person of retirement age.
15. The landlord said that as soon as it received confirmation that the age restriction applied it withdrew the sale. The records confirm the landlord’s version of events. The date the applicant was informed however is unknown. The landlord acknowledged that the estate agents had fell short in communicating this information to the applicant at the point the sale was withdrawn which was appropriate.
16. The evidence shows that the applicant contacted the landlord on 26 September 2022. The landlord spoke to the applicant on 29 September 2022 and explained its position. This was 11 working days after it had instructed the estate agents that the sale had been withdrawn. The landlord then followed up to reiterate its position by email sent the next day. This was reasonable in the circumstances. The applicant later requested a copy of the lease, and the landlord provided this. Again, this was appropriate and provided transparency to the applicant.
17. As part of the landlord’s investigation into the matter it contacted the applicant to establish what costs he had incurred as a result of the withdrawal of the sale. The records show that the applicant advised that he had paid £530 but that he had been refunded £330 already.
18. The landlord acknowledged its failings within its complaint response. It explained what went wrong. It said that the scheme attached to the property should have been highlighted before provisionally accepting the applicants offer. Its response was clear and showed that it had listened to the applicant and taken his concerns seriously. The landlord said that it had ceased instructing the estate agents because of its poor service. This showed that it had taken appropriate action to try to prevent further failings in the future.
19. The landlord then sought to put matters right. Its offer to reimburse the costs incurred was appropriate. By doing this it ensured that the applicant was restored to his original position financially. It also acknowledged the stress and inconvenience that the withdrawal of the sale would have caused by offering additional compensation in respect of this.
20. This Service acknowledges the applicants concerns that he had missed a suitable mortgage offer and other properties due to the landlord’s mistake. While this Service appreciates the applicant’s concerns. The acceptance of the applicants offer to purchase was only provisional when the landlord realised its mistake. There was therefore no absolute guarantee at this point that his application would be successful.
21. In summary the landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate. The landlord demonstrated that it had learnt from outcomes by withdrawing from using the estate agents. It sought to restore the applicant’s position by considering the expenses he had incurred. It recognised the impact on the applicant and offered redress. Overall, it took proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of £350 compensation is considered reasonable redress in the circumstances. This offer is also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

22. The landlord’s complaints policy gives ten working days for a stage 1 complaint response, and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. In this case, the stage 1 request was made on 26 September 2022. The landlord’s response was issued on 29 November 2022. This was 47 working days after the applicant’s request. This was not in accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
23. However, the records show that the landlord had been in communication with the applicant during this period. The evidence shows that the delay was in part due to the fact that the landlord was trying to obtain evidence from the applicant to show his actual financial loss. It issued its stage 1 response but said that it was still waiting for further information from the applicant so that it could ensure that its proposed resolution was suitable.
24. The applicant’s stage 2 request was made on 29 November 2022 and the landlord acknowledged this within its stage 1 response. It is noted that the landlord had confirmed again with the applicant verbally what his actual financial loss was. It issued its stage 2 response within 21 working days on 29 December 2022 which was only 1 day outside of its own timescales.
25. Overall, the landlord’s complaint responses evidenced a thorough investigation into the issues raised. The landlord apologised for its mistake and sought to put things right. It appropriately offered redress to restore the applicant back to his original position. It considered distress and inconvenience. It also explained what action it had taken to try to prevent further failings in the future.
26. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling shortfalls in this case were minimal. It failed to adhere to its timeframe at stage 1. It then missed an opportunity to fully explain the reasons for its delay within its complaint response. This Service acknowledges that on occasions there will be circumstances that mean a complaint response cannot be provided by the initial time given by the landlord. This is usually expected when complaints are complex and/or as in this case further information is required.
27. It is however reasonable in these circumstances to expect a landlord to contact the applicant formally, to explain in detail the reasons for the delay. It could then provide a new timeframe whereby the applicant would expect to receive a response. The evidence fails to show that the landlord specifically did this which was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter. It is acknowledged however that given its contact with the applicant during this period the impact was minimal in these circumstances.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the applicant’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the applicant’s concerns about its handling of its sales process.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Recommendations

30. The reasonable redress finding is dependent upon the landlord paying the applicant £350 as offered in its stage 2 response. If it has not done so already.