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

Abri Group Limited (202302093)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302093

Abri Group Limited

11 March 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:
    1. The residents request to sell her share of her property.
    2. The complaint.

Background

  1. At the time of the complaint, the resident was a leaseholder of her property, owning a 25% share, while the landlord, a housing association, held the remaining 75%.
  2. The resident asked to sell her share of the property in October 2022. The landlord told her that the property had not been registered with the Land Registry, which may cause delays once she had found a buyer.
  3. In March 2023, the resident complained to her landlord about her property not being registered with the Land Registry at the time of her purchase in June 2021. She stated that the delay affected her ability to sell her share. She requested reimbursement for the cost of a desktop survey and valuation should she need to arrange additional ones, as well as for the rent paid since February 2023, when the property sale was supposed to complete.
  4. On 29 March 2023 the landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response. It said:
    1. Its solicitor applied to register the title for the property in 2020. Due to delays caused by COVID-19, the applications could take years to process. The delays were outside of its control and the Land Registry could not provide a timescale for when the registration would be completed.
    2. The resident’s solicitor was responsible for ensuring she was updated on the progress at Land Registry.
    3. It was sorry for the delay.
  5. The resident was unhappy with the response and raised her complaint to stage 2 on 17 April 2023. She said there had been no progress with her sale, and the landlord’s communication had been poor. She asked to be reimbursed for the rent she had paid from February 2023 (when the property sale was due to be completed) and for the desktop survey.
  6. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 30 August 2023. It reiterated the points made at stage 1 and added:
    1. The resident’s solicitor had access to information awaiting registration with the Land Registry, and the landlord did not cause the delays.
    2. It would reimburse the resident up to £300 if she required an additional desktop survey or valuation.
    3. It would not pay the rent after February 2023 as it did not cause the delays.
    4. The resale team would continue to monitor the Land Registry lead times for all future sales, so it was aware of delays during the sales process.
    5. It apologised and offered £100 for the frustration caused by the delay in providing a stage 2 response. It said it was recruiting additional staff to help.
  7. In July 2023, the resident asked us to investigate her complaint. She wanted the landlord to pay the rent from February 2023, when the property was expected to be completed. She asked for £2,500 because her property valuation had reduced.

Assessment and findings

  1. On 4 December 2020, the landlord submitted a transfer of part application to the Land Registry and as such fulfilled its responsibility.
  2. In October 2022, the resident told the landlord she wanted to sell her share of the property. The landlord told the resident that the registration document for the property had not been uploaded to Land Registry, which could cause delays if she found a buyer.
  3. The landlord suggested the resident ask her solicitor to contact the Land Registry to speed up the application. However, the resident’s solicitor could not do this because the landlord’s transfer of part application submitted in December 2020 was still pending. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for pursuing this with the Land Registry to mitigate delays.  
  4. On 28 December 2022, the landlord fast-tracked the application with the Land Registry 2 months after becoming aware of the issue. While the landlord is not automatically required to fast-track a title registration application, it knew that the resident’s sale relied on the property’s registration and was expected to act reasonably and proactively to address the delays as soon as possible. It failed to do this or recognise this within its complaint responses.
  5. The landlord should have a procedure in place as part of the handover process to ensure that property titles are correctly registered with the Land Registry. The Land Registry confirmed that the application was still outstanding in December 2022, 2 years later.
  6. Most of the delays were outside the landlord’s control. Specifically, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Land Registry experienced significant backlogs and reduced staff. This meant applications took much longer than usual to process.
  7. In her communication with the landlord, the resident explained the distress, time and financial strain the delays were causing her. This situation was worsened because she had recently had a baby.
  8. The landlord delayed the request to fast-track the Land Registry application. While not fully accountable for the delays, the landlord did not recognise that the resident was impacted during this time, as her sale depended on the landlord’s actions regarding the Land Registry. The property was registered in June 2023, 8 months after the landlord recognised the problem. The landlord found no failings in its management of the situation.
  9. Regrettably, this led to distress and inconvenience for the resident, further complicated by her recent childbirth and financial struggles. As such, we have found a service failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  10. The landlord appropriately offered to reimburse the resident for an additional desktop survey or valuation up to the value of £300, as she had requested. This demonstrated a resolution focus. The landlord also identified learning from the complaint, specifically that its resales team would monitor the registration of properties in the future.
  11. The landlord can offer compensation as detailed in its guide to redress, remediation, and compensation where a resident has experienced distress and inconvenience. We have ordered the landlord to pay £100 for the delay in expediting the application with the Land Registry, which caused time delays, distress, and inconvenience to the resident. This is in line with our remedies guidance for service failings.
  12. As part of her resolution, the resident asked that the landlord cover the rent on her property from February 2023, when the property was expected to be completed. The landlord would not be expected to cover the resident’s rent. As a shared owner, the resident remains responsible for paying the rent until the sale is completed. As such, the landlord was not responsible for the rent due to administrative delays.
  13. The resident requested £2,500 because of the decline in her property’s value. It is uncertain if this request was included in her complaint; however, she did indicate that it was part of her resolution request to us. Regardless, the landlord is not obligated to compensate her for valuation changes since property prices can vary. The landlord’s actions did not directly lead to any financial loss.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s guide on making complaints (in place at the time of the resident’s complaint) stated that stage 1 complaints would be resolved within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days after being received.
  2. The resident complained on March 9, 2023. The landlord replied on 29 March 2023, 4 days outside its 10-day response time. 
  3. The resident escalated her complaint on 19 April 2023. The evidence shows that the landlord requested an extension and said it would respond by 8 June 2023. It was reasonable to request an extension once it knew its response would be delayed. However, the stage 2 response was not issued by the promised date, and there is no evidence that a further extension was requested.
  4. As such, the resident contacted us to obtain a response from the landlord. This was unreasonable. We asked the landlord to respond by 18 August 2023. However, it did not issue a response until 30 August 2023, 8 days after our deadline and 92 days after the escalation request was made.
  5. The landlord apologised for the delays and the frustration they caused and offered £100 in compensation. The landlord attributed the delays to staff shortages, which had been addressed through additional staffing.
  6. The landlord described this compensation as a “full and final settlement.” The resident expressed concern that accepting the compensation would result in losing her right to bring her complaint to us. We understand how the wording might have led to confusion.
  7. The landlord acknowledged some of its failings, but its handling of the complaint compounded and delayed an already stressful situation for the resident. Because the complaints process spanned 5 months and the resident had to request our Service’s help to get a final response from the landlord, we have found a service failure in its complaint handling.
  8. We have ordered the landlord to pay £200, inclusive of the £100 offered at stage 2, to proportionately recognise the detriment caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to sell her share of her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise in writing for the failings identified in our investigation.
    2. Pay £300, made up of:
      1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the sale.
      2. £200 for the time and delay caused because of the landlord’s handling of the complaint. This is inclusive of the £100 offered at stage 2. If paid, it can be deducted from the total amount.
      3. The money should be paid directly to the resident.

Recommendation

  1. Re-offer to reimburse the resident if she required an additional desktop survey or valuation up to the value of £300.
  2. The landlord should consider removing “full and final settlement” from its complaint responses it to ensure residents do not feel confused or think that accepting the compensation offer forfeits their right to escalate the complaint to us.
  3. More information can be found on our website: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/guidance-notes/remedies-offsetting-and-the-ombudsmans-approach/