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

Camden Council (202128343)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128343

Camden Council

19 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 sales process of the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The residents are leaseholders who occupy a flat that spans over the second and third floors of a building. In late 2021, the residents wanted to sell the property. As part of the sales process, it is standard practice for the parties to appoint solicitors to make enquiries.
  2. The resident complained on 5 February 2022 about the time taken by the landlord to respond to their solicitor’s enquiries. The complaint related to:
    1. the time taken to provide a pre-sales pack and respond to the additional questions asked
    2. the residents’ solicitor was waiting for information about Japanese Knotweed from the landlord
    3. he needed the information as soon as possible as it was holding up the sale of the property
    4. he had struggled to contact the landlord
    5. he wanted a senior member of staff to take responsibility for the queries and give a date when they would be answered
  3. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 25 February 2022. The landlord:
    1. provided a breakdown of the dates that information was requested and provided
    2. responded to the queries raised about the fire risk assessment, boundary wall and Japanese Knotweed
    3. accepted that there had been a delay in providing information requested by the solicitor in November 2021
    4. confirmed all queries raised had now been responded to
    5. said it would arrange for a refund of the £200 the resident had paid for the Assignment Pack
    6. said it would waive the cost of a second Assignment Pack if required
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied. He said the landlord’s delays had caused the sale of the property to fall through. He told the landlord that he wanted:
    1. a more appropriate apology
    2. the landlord to pay the £1500 solicitors fees
    3. the landlord to pay 1% of the expected sales value of the property, as compensation for the lost sale
    4. the landlord to pay additional compensation for the time and trouble of having to find a further buyer for the property
    5. the landlord to consider buying the property at the expected price of the lost sale
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 21 March 2022. The landlord:
    1. offered further apologies for the delay in responding to the sales queries raised
    2. said it could not uphold the complaint, as it was unable to agree to the proposed remedy the resident wanted
    3. it would not cover legal costs nor pay for the lost sale
    4. said the offer in stage 1, to refund the £200 fee for the Assignment Pack and waive the cost for a second if needed, was a suitable remedy
    5. said there was no duty or requirement for the landlord to buy back the lease under the circumstances
    6. told the resident if he wished to pursue this option, to confirm this and the landlord would consider the request
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked the Housing Ombudsman to investigate.

Assessment and findings

  1. The key issue for the Ombudsman to decide in this case is whether the landlord unreasonably delayed responding to the enquiries made by the resident’s solicitor.

The pre-sales pack

  1. A pre-sales pack sets out key details about the property being sold. It is standard practice for landlords to provide these to residents upon request. The landlord’s policy for selling or remortgaging leaseholds explains that the landlord has 15 days to provide the pre-sales pack from the date the landlord receives the relevant fee (£200).
  2. The resident’s solicitor asked for the pre-sales pack on 12 October 2021 and the pack was sent out on 1 November 2021. This was 15 days after the request. This was in line with its policy.

The further enquiries made

  1. The solicitor requested further information on 3 November 2021. The landlord responded on 8 December 2021. This was after the third request from the solicitor. This was not acceptable.
  2. The landlord has acknowledged there was a delay in providing the initial evidence requested on 3 November 2021. It has also acknowledged the delays in providing further information about the Japanese Knotweed. The landlord has apologised and offered to refund the £200 fee paid and to waive the cost for a second pack if it was required. This was reasonable under the circumstances.
  3. The resident believes the landlord’s delays caused the sale to fall through. Whilst this service empathises with the resident about the lost sale, we cannot say for certain that the landlord’s delays were a factor or the sole reason that the sale was lost. There are no guarantees when selling a property that a sale will complete. A sale can fail at any point within the process and for several reasons. Therefore, the response the landlord gave the resident to this request, was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
  4. When considering compensation, this service considers how the landlord handled the sales process and if it was in line with its policy. We can also consider the impact of any service failures on the resident and award compensation for that impact, including time, trouble, and inconvenience.
  5. In summary, the landlord has acknowledged the delays on its part. It apologised to the resident for those delays and offered to refund the £200 fee the resident paid for the first pre-sales pack, as well as waiving the cost for a second pack. Therefore, this service considers the landlord offered redress which resolved the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord refund the £200 for the original pre-sales pack if not already done so.