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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202319186)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319186

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 February 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 reported delays in communication from the landlord during the sale of the shared-ownership property, and the impact of these delays.

Background

  1. The resident was a shared owner of a 1-bedroom flat. She has since sold the property.
  2. The resident found a buyer for her property on 9 January 2023. The landlord’s solicitor requested documents from the buyer so it could carry out anti-money laundering checks. He emailed the resident on 13 January 2023 to say he was getting some resistance from the buyer in providing the documents. The landlord and buyer’s solicitor communicated about the requested documents, and the anti-money laundering checks were completed by the landlord’s solicitor on 15 February 2023.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 March 2023 to inform the landlord that the buyer’s solicitor had not had the sales pack. This was needed to allow the sale to complete. The resident and the buyer’s solicitor had requested this previously. On 27 March 2023, following receipt of the sales pack, the buyer’s solicitor requested further information from the landlord. The buyer’s solicitor had identified works, from 2020, to the communal front and rear entrances that had been subject to section 20 of the landlord and tenant act. They wanted to know if the landlord had completed these works, and whether these works had been paid for. 
  4. The landlord sent internal emails on 28 March 2023 and 11 April 2023 to find out whether the section 20 works had been completed. The resident continued to contact the landlord for an update and said that not having the information was compromising her sale date. The landlord responded on 24 May 2024 and advised the resident that the accounts for the section 20 works had not yet been finalised.
  5. On 1 June 2023 the landlord confirmed that the works had been completed in November 2021 but reiterated that the accounts were not yet finalised. However, it said there was a sinking fund which would cover any fees and as such the resident would not have a final invoice to pay.
  6. The resident raised a complaint on 6 June 2023. She said the landlord had still not provided final accounts for the section 20 works. She advised this had caused delays to her sale, and that it was having a significant financial impact. The sale completed on 16 June 2023.
  7. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 23 June 2023. It confirmed what it had previously said about the accounts not being finalised. It reiterated the reserve funds would cover any costs and so this should not delay the sale. It offered £100 for the delay in confirming this information.
  8. The resident escalated the complaint on 27 June 2023 as she said that the compensation did not cover the costs she had incurred. She said that the sale had been delayed due to excessive anti money laundering checks and a failure to respond to the questions about the section 20 works promptly. The resident also raised a concern about an arrears service charge, which Clarion had issued her.
  9. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 1 August 2023. It felt its offer at stage 1 was fair. It advised that as the reserve funds would cover any cost of the section 20 works, this should not have delayed the sale. It confirmed it needed to complete the anti-money laundering checks, as per its policy, and that it had faced delays in getting the required documents from the buyer. It advised that the issue around service charges was not part of the original complaint, however it understood this had now been resolved. It upheld the offer of £100 compensation.
  10. The resident remains unhappy with the response and the financial compensation. She has advised the delays in communication caused her significant distress and affected her financially. She feels the landlord has not treated her fairly and would like the Ombudsman to investigate this.

Assessment and findings

Scope.

  1. The resident has told the Ombudsman that she experienced delays early on in the sales process. She has told the Ombudsman that the landlord delayed putting the house on the market, and this was eventually resolved by the resident placing the home on the open market. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that these delays were raised in the internal complaints process. As per paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which have been made prior to exhausting a member’s complaints procedure. As such we have been unable to consider any impact of these delays, in this investigation.
  2. The Ombudsman is also aware the resident had a concern regarding a service charge which may have been incorrect. The landlord advised in its stage 2 response that this was not part of the original complaint. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence which supports that the resident raised this at stage 1. As such, as per paragraph 42a, this is out with the scope of this investigation. However, we understand this matter has now been resolved.

Reported delays from the landlord in communication during the sale of the shared-ownership property, and the impact of these delays.

  1. When the landlord was informed that the resident had found a buyer for her property, the landlord was expected to act swiftly to make sure all relevant documents were sent to the buyer. This includes taking all actions necessary to process the sale promptly. We have seen evidence that the landlord contacted the buyer and his solicitor, within a day of being made aware that an offer had been received. The landlord requested documents to complete anti money laundering checks. The Ombudsman is aware that these were considered onerous by the buyer and his solicitor, and that the resident also raised concerns. The stage 2 response confirms that it is the landlord’s policy to complete anti-money laundering checks. We have not seen the landlord’s policy in relation to anti-money laundering checks, however we do not find it unreasonable that a landlord would carry these out. As such, we consider the landlord acted appropriately at this time.
  2. The Ombudsman has seen several communications between 10 January 2023 and 15 February 2023. These are between the landlord, the buyer, his solicitors and the resident in relation to obtaining the documents for the anti-money laundering checks. On 3 occasions the landlord’s solicitor told the resident that he was having difficulties obtaining the documents from the buyer and that this could impact the sale. The Ombudsman has seen sufficient evidence of emails showing that the landlord was trying to obtain the documents necessary, and that it was communicating with all parties. While we recognise that this period of time may have been frustrating for the resident, we have not seen evidence which supports that a delay was caused by the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman is aware that concerns have been raised about the nature of the communications that the landlord had with the buyer and his solicitor, specifically that the buyer felt “harassed”. The Ombudsman is unable to provide detail around the communications between the landlord’s solicitor and the buyer due to General Data Protection Regulations. However, we acknowledge that the landlord had a responsibility to chase the buyer for any documents and provide deadlines where necessary. The evidence we have seen supports that the landlord was communicating to obtain documents needed for the sale.
  4. The resident extended her valuation of the property on 28 February 2023 as she had advised that she would not be ready to vacate the property until 21 April 2023, due to personal circumstances. She received an extension on the valuation until 22 April 2023. After this time, the resident would need to pay for a new valuation to be done, if the sale had not completed. On 1 March 2023, the resident told the landlord that the buyer could not proceed with the sale, without the sales pack.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 2 response the landlord acknowledged that there was a one-week delay from the memorandum of sale being produced, until the landlord requested the sales pack to be issued by its internal teams. It stated that the pack was issued on 17 March 2023, which was within its service level agreements. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the landlord’s policies around the resale of a home and has not been advised what the service level agreements are in relation to issuing a sales pack. As such we cannot comment on whether the delay in issuing the sales pack was reasonable.[FP1]
  6. We have seen evidence that the resident chased the sales pack on a number of occasions and that she clearly advised this was causing a delay in the sale. We accept this may have been frustrating for the resident. Although the landlord advised the resident that it was chasing the pack, we have seen no evidence that it provided timescales to the resident, or that it communicated why there was a delay. Whilst we are unable to establish if the delay was reasonable, we consider that the landlord could have communicated better with the resident, which may have reduced any concerns the resident had relating to her sale.
  7. When the landlord received a query from the buyer’s solicitor regarding outstanding section 20 works, the landlord should have taken action to provide a response as soon as possible. We have seen evidence that the landlord was communicating internally to obtain this information. However, despite regular chases to the landlord from the resident, we have not seen evidence that the landlord communicated with the resident about what was causing the delay, or how long it expected it would take to provide the information to the resident. There was a failure to provide reassurance that the landlord was taking all action to obtain the correct information, despite the fact that the resident repeatedly made the landlord aware that the delay could prevent the sale from completing.
  8. As the information regarding the section 20 works, was not available, this meant that the sale could not go ahead on 22 April 2023, as planned. This resulted in the resident needing to get a new valuation at a cost of £84. The Ombudsman has considered the resident’s request for this cost to be refunded.
  9. The landlord has stated that a sinking fund meant there would be no invoice to pay, and as such the sale should not be delayed. However, it did not advise the resident of this until 1 June 2023, which was after the date the valuation expired. It is unclear from the evidence if this would have been sufficient for the buyer’s solicitor to allow the sale to proceed. The sale completed after the finalised accounts were produced. However, the landlord should have provided this information to the resident at an earlier date. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 response. We are unable to award the valuation fee as compensation, as we cannot conclusively confirm if this information would have allowed the sale to proceed before the new valuation was needed.
  10. The Ombudsman has also considered the resident’s other costs which she has said she incurred due to the delay in sale. These relate to mortgage costs, rent, interest and utility bills. It is the responsibility of the resident to continue paying these bills until the point of sale, as per the lease agreement. Where the resident has incurred high or unfair interest rates, this would be a matter for the resident’s mortgage provider. As such, we do not consider that the landlord needs to reimburse these fees.
  11. We have noted that the works completed in 2021 and that the accounts were not finalised until 2023. Although this seems a considerable amount of time, we are aware that landlords can have delays, particularly for large communal works. However, the landlord should reflect on whether there are any actions they can take to finalise accounts quicker, so the impact on residents is minimised moving forward.
  12. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted appropriately in completing its anti- money laundering checks. We are unable to conclude whether there[FP2] was a delay in issuing the sales pack, however on balance we do not think the length of time to provide the sales pack contributed to significant delays in completion. We find that the communication with the resident was poor at times, and that the landlord failed to provide the resident with sufficient information to manage her expectations during the sale. The Ombudsman is aware the landlord offered £100 for the communication delays, and we consider that this is sufficient compensation for the failings it acknowledged in its stage 2 response. Although the communication was poor at times, and there was a delay, we consider that in context of a house sale, the delay was not excessive.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in reported delays from the landlord in communication during the sale of the shared-ownership property, and the impact of these delays.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended the landlord re-offer the £100 compensation, offered at stage 2 of the complaints process.
  2. It is recommended that landlord look into the delay in finalising the accounts for the section 20 works and consider if there was any action it could have taken to expedite this. If there was something it could have done, it should review how it can improve this is in similar cases moving forward.

 

 

 

 


[FP1]Although if it was only a week then this is not an unreasonable length of time (regardless of whether we have seen the SLAs or not)  and it looks like the LL acknowledged the delay (provision of documents and information can take a lot longer in sales…)

[FP2]I think you can take this out – the second part of the sentence is safe to say. Provision of the sales pack is only one part of the entire process and it would be difficult to even say the sales process was delayed unreasonably as they take as long as they take.