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

Peabody Trust (202205032)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205032

Peabody Trust

20 February 2024


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this.

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is the landlord breached the lease in its handling of the resident’s application to purchase additional shares of the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint the landlord breached the lease in its handling of the resident’s application to purchase a share of the property, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a shared owner with the landlord since 2018. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. In March 2021, the resident made an application to increase her share of ownership of the property, (staircasing). As part of the process, the resident instructed a valuation of the property. The landlord disagreed with the  valuation provided by the resident and in March and April 2021 instructed its own valuations.
  3. The resident did not agree with the landlord’s valuations and complained it had not used an independent valuer. She stated that not using an independent valuer was a breach of the terms and conditions of the lease it held with her.
  4. In May 2021, the case was referred to the District Valuation office. In July 2021, the district valuer provided a valuation of the property that was binding on both the parties. The valuation was close to the valuation provided by the resident in March 2021.The sale of the property was completed in December 2021.
  5. The resident states the landlord’s alleged breach of the lease (not instructing an independent valuation) caused her to refer the case to the district valuer which delayed the sales process. This delay caused her to incur financial losses in the amount of £9892. This comprises stamp duty fees of £6982 because the sale did not complete in time for her to receive the stamp duty holiday incentive and £3000 in district valuation fees. The resident also considers the landlord should pay £3000 compensation for her inconvenience.
  6. In April 2022, the resident complained about the issues. In its stage 1 response the landlord disputed it had breached the lease by instructing the valuer it did and did not uphold the complaint. The resident was dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to stage 2. In its stage 2 response the landlord confirmed its position that it had not breached the lease in its choice of valuer and declined to pay the compensation the resident was seeking.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated the complaint to this service. To resolve the matter the resident considers the landlord should compensate her for the financial losses that were incurred and her inconvenience.

Reasons

  1. The lease the resident holds with the landlord is governed by English Law. The court has jurisdiction in relation to any disputes between the parties arising out of the lease. In this case the parties have a disputed view over the term ‘independent valuer.’ This Service cannot interpret the terms of a lease. This is a matter that should be settled by the court with a legally binding decision.
  2. Additionally, paragraph 42(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide.
  3. In this case the resident is seeking £12,983 based on stamp duty fees, valuation fees and her inconvenience. Unlike a court we are unable to establish liability or award damages. Additionally, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord has breached the terms of the lease and is liable for financial losses the resident incurred. This is an issue for the court to decide. It is recommended the resident obtain independent legal advice.