Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202215952)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215952

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

17 February 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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s survey following his request to staircase.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared-owner and owns 75% of his home. On 7 March 2022 he asked the landlord about purchasing the remaining 25% – this is call staircasing.
  2. The landlord sent the resident its staircasing guidance on 15 March 2022. The landlord told the resident that he could start the process by obtaining an independent valuation. The landlord said it had an exclusive arrangement with a particular surveyor and could offer surveyors at a more competitive price. The resident agreed to go with this surveyor and paid £300 to the landlord.
  3. The surveyor sent the valuation report to the landlord as it was ‘the client’. The landlord, in turn, sent it to the resident. On receiving the valuation report the resident raised concerns that it commented there was not a fire risk assessment and had not commented on a section 20 process underway.
  4. The landlord said a fire risk assessment was not required for building less than 18m high. It said it was satisfied that the building met regulations, and a new fire risk assessment would be commissioned in early Autumn.
  5. The resident complained on the basis that:
    1. the landlord had failed to send relevant information to the surveyor regarding the section 20 process
    2. he was not informed that he would not be the client when he paid the £300 valuation fee
    3. the wording in the guidance was not clear and was misleading about the surveys
  6. In its final response, the landlord said:
    1. that the wording in the guidance could have been clearer on who the client was.
    2. it could have been clearer to say that valuations are on a market-based approach and do include all issues with a property, including potential fire remedial work.
    3. it was sorry for the lack of clarity and said it would review the guidance it sends out.
  7. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. He referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. He explained the guidance suggested had he obtained his own surveyor, the landlord may not have accepted the report. He was also concerned about the information on the fire safety certificate and no information had been provided about the section 20 process. He asked that the landlord reimburse him his cost (£300 for the survey). He said his total losses amounted to £480.

Assessment and findings

  1. We contacted the landlord on 10 January 2024 and asked if it would reimburse the resident the £300 that he had paid for the valuation. We also asked the landlord to confirm to the resident that, should he commission his own valuation, it would be accepted subject to it being undertaken by a RICs chartered surveyor and in line with its policy.
  2. The landlord contacted this service on 16 January 2024 and confirmed that it would reimburse the £300 paid and that it would accept an alternative RICS qualified surveyor to provide a market rate valuation. 
  3. Paragraph 53(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that the member has made an offer of redress following the Ombudsman’s intervention which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.”

  1. As the landlord has committed to reimbursing the £300 and has confirmed that the resident can commission his own RICS chartered surveyor to do an independent valuation, the Ombudsman is of the opinion that the redress now offered resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
  2. Whilst the resident has stated that the correct level of compensation should be £480, the role of the Ombudsman is to place a resident back into the position they would have been in had the error not occurred. In this instance a refund of the £300 would achieve that.

Determination (decision)

  1. The complaint has been resolved with intervention under paragraph 53(c) of the Scheme.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that:
    1. pay the resident £300 for the reimbursement of the valuation fee the resident paid
    2. provide evidence of compliance to the Ombudsman
    3. accept the resident’s own survey
    4. review its guidance on staircasing in respect of surveys. The landlord may wish to allow the surveyor to be a jointly-instructed – that way residents can raise questions directly with it. If there is a cost to this, the landlord should update its guidance to say who would be responsible for these.