The Guinness Partnership Limited (202220124)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220124

The Guinness Partnership Limited

31 January 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The sale of the resident’s shared ownership property.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder. The landlord is a housing association.
On 4 March 2022 the resident notified the landlord that they intended to sell their property.
During March and April 2022 there were discussions between the resident, their solicitor, and the landlord about what percentage of the property the resident owned. There was also discussion around the meaning of a 6% subsidy factor within the lease and how that applied to the property value. The discussions concluded with an understanding that the resident owned 47% of the property.
On or around 18 March 2022 the resident informed the landlord they had a prospective buyer. On 5 April 2022 the landlord advised the resident’s solicitor that once the prospective buyer had completed the affordability assessment it would formally confirm the price for the property share being sold. On 6 April 2022 the resident advised the landlord they had moved to their new residence and the property was now empty.
On 25 August 2022 the resident contacted the landlord as they believed a ‘stalemate’ had been reached in the sales process. They advised that the buyer’s solicitors were waiting for a deed of variation to confirm what the fixed equity in the property was and how the subsidy factor related to the sale price.
The landlord responded to the resident on 7 October 2022. It explained it had been in contact with its solicitors as it wanted a clear picture of what was happening with the sale. It advised its solicitors had raised a couple of queries on 6 October 2022 and it had passed these to its internal legal team (‘Legal Services’).
On 3 November 2022 the resident, via their solicitor, submitted a stage 1 complaint. They were unhappy about the delay since August 2022 for the landlord to agree to a deed of variation.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 22 November 2022. It said:
1. It had received a query about a deed of variation on 25 August 2022 but needed to clarify the specifics with its solicitors.
2. It had received information from its solicitors on 6 October 2022 and had then referred the matter to Legal Services.
3. It had now made a decision that it would not be able to agree to a deed of variation as the provisions in the lease were intended to ensure the property remained as affordable housing.
4. It was upholding the complaint as it had not responded to the query within its specified 5 working day timescale.
5. It offered £30 compensation to acknowledge the inconvenience caused. It explained it had provided feedback to the relevant team to ensure it dealt with enquiries within its specified timescales, or kept residents updated where there were delays.
The resident responded to the landlord on 23 November 2022. They said the stage 1 response did not answer the outstanding issues with the lease. They asked for clarity from the landlord’s Legal Services so they could advise the buyer what percentage of the property they were buying and how the subsidy factor worked.
During December 2022 and early January 2023 there was further discussion between the resident, their solicitors, and the landlord about how the percentage ownership should be calculated and how the subsidy factor applied. This resulted in the landlord agreeing a deed of variation to reflect the agreed position. The landlord advised the resident on 17 January 2023 that the matter had been passed to its solicitors and that it could not do anything further from a complaint perspective.
On 5 May 2023 the resident informed this service that they had escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 23 November 2023 but had not received a response. We wrote to the landlord the same day to request it provided a final response by 15 May 2023.
The landlord issued its final response on 13 May 2023. It said:
1. It should have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 23 November 2023. It apologised that it had not done this.
2. It had agreed to investigate the matters raised on 23 November 2023. It had provided the resident with an update on 14 December 2022 and had explained what it believed was the purpose of the subsidy.
3. The resident’s solicitors had raised further questions and the landlord had responded on 6 January 2022. In this update the landlord had advised it was happy to agree that the resident owned 47% of the property.
4. The landlord had passed the matter to its solicitors to agree a deed of variation. It explained that this matter was still ongoing due to the need to re-draft the deed following requests from both the resident’s and the buyer’s solicitors. It had also needed to obtain agreement from the local authority.
5. It explained the draft deed was currently with the local authority and it had chased for a response on 10 May 2023.
6. It offered £280 in compensation. This comprised £150 for the delay in the resident’s application progressing, £100 for time and trouble spent pursuing the complaint, and £30 for the delay in issuing its stage 1 response.

Events after the end of the complaints procedure

On 2 June 2023 the landlord sent a completion statement to its solicitor. This stated the estimated completion date for the sale was 9 June 2023.
On 13 July 2023 the resident confirmed they wanted to escalate their complaint to this service. They advised that the property had now sold and the only outstanding issue was the amount of offered compensation. The resident stated they believed the landlord had delayed the sale for at least 13 months and this had cost them in the region of £6,000.
On 18 April 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that, while preparing evidence requested by this service, it had identified errors in how it had handled the resident’s complaint. It said it wanted to apologise for the service the resident had received and the personal impact it had on them. It explained it had recently changed how it calculates remedies. It now felt it had not taken the impact on the resident into account as much as it should have. It offered £680 in compensation. This comprised £30 for the stage 1 delay, £100 for failure to escalate the complaint in a timely manner, and £550 for the delay in progressing the resident’s application as well as time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
It advised that it had a new training programme for complaint handlers and new guidance on offering remedies. It was also reviewing its complaint policy and procedures based on feedback from residents and this service. It explained that accepting the revised compensation offer would not impact on the resident continuing their complaint with this service.
The resident responded to the landlord on 20 April 2024 to advise they were not prepared to accept the revised offer. They repeated their view that the landlord’s delays had cost them approximately £6,000 and asked the landlord to reconsider its offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In their contact with this service the resident has indicated that their complaint, and request for compensation, relates to alleged delays caused by the landlord throughout the entire sales process. This appears to include a period between May 2021 and March/April 2022 where the resident had previously tried to sell the property. It appears this had been unsuccessful and resulted in the resident extending their lease before attempting to sell again in March 2022.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
Having reviewed the available information the complaint made to, and investigated by, the landlord related to delays after August 2022. There is no evidence to indicate the resident raised any specific concerns with the landlord about its handling of matters prior to that point in the sales process. The Ombudsman does not consider it would be reasonable to hold the landlord to account for matters that it has not had the opportunity to review or respond to through its internal complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that there was discussion between the resident, their solicitor, and the landlord in March/April 2022 about potential concerns with the lease. While this did suggest a deed of variation may be required, there is no evidence that it was agreed a deed would be needed or that the resident had formally requested the landlord vary the lease.
This investigation will focus on events after the resident had made the landlord aware that the buyer’s solicitors required a deed of variation before proceeding with the sale. This is from 25 August 2022 onwards. Given the resident’s position that the only outstanding matter is the level of offered compensation, this investigation will consider:
1. whether the landlord was responsible for any delays, and
2. if so, whether it could have reasonably avoided them.
The resident has also indicated that the landlord’s actions (or inactions) caused a significant impact to their health and wellbeing. It is beyond the remit of this service to determine whether there was a causal link between the landlord’s handling of the reported matters and an impact on health.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of independent expert reports. This will give an expert opinion of the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. This would be a more appropriate and effective means of considering such an allegation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, they should seek independent legal advice.

The landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s shared ownership property

Following the resident contacting it on 25 August 2022, the landlord contacted its solicitors the same day to ask if the issues had been raised with them. It followed up on 22 September 2022 (after the resident had chased a response) as it had not received a substantive response. Given the nature of the issues raised it was reasonable for the landlord to seek information from its solicitors before taking further action. However, it would have been preferable for the landlord to have been clear when it expected a response from its solicitors. This would have allowed it to hold the solicitor to account and be pro-active in following up when deadlines were missed.
There is no evidence the landlord had acknowledged receipt of the resident’s contact or provided an interim update. This was not appropriate or in line with its stated timescales for providing a response. It should have acknowledged receipt of the resident’s concerns and advised what steps it was intending to take to address them. It should have also updated the resident immediately when they chased a response on 22 September 2022.
As well as the information it had sent on 6 October 2022, the landlord’s solicitor sent additional information about the lease issues on 17 and 19 October 2022. This included information received from the resident’s solicitor. The landlord passed this information to its Legal Services. This was a reasonable action for it to take.
There is no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with a further update prior to them making their complaint. This was not reasonable as information from its solicitors had made it clear that the resident’s solicitor had been chasing them for an update. It was also explained that the resident’s solicitors had advised the resident was chasing them daily for an update.
The available evidence indicates that the landlord’s Legal Services did not allocate the resident’s case to anyone until the first week in November 2022. The landlord has not provided any evidence to explain why there was this delay or that it had not been possible to allocate the matter any sooner. There is therefore insufficient evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord had taken all reasonable steps to progress the matter.
Once the matter was allocated it took Legal Services approximately 3 weeks to review and reach the decision that the landlord would not be able to agree to a deed of variation. This was a reasonable period, given the nature of the matters being considered and the need for Legal Services to consult with the landlord’s solicitors.
Following the resident’s response on 23 November 2022 the landlord carried out further investigation into the lease and the subsidy factor. Internal emails indicate that it had discussed the request for a deed of variation again at a senior level. The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 December 2022 to set out its position on what percentage the resident owned and how the subsidy operated. It was appropriate for the landlord to review its position and decision on the deed of variation before responding to the resident. The Ombudsman does not consider the 3-week period to respond was undue.
The resident advised on 16 and 17 December 2022 that they did not agree with the landlord’s position. The resident’s solicitor contacted the landlord on 21 December 2022 to explain their view and the calculations they had used to reach it. This was passed to Legal Services who reached a decision on 6 January 2023 that the landlord would be happy to compromise and agree a deed of variation. The resident’s solicitor was notified of this decision the same day. The time taken to reach this decision and provide the further response was not, in the Ombudsman’s view, undue.
Having agreed to a deed of variation it took the landlord until 24 January 2023 to pass the matter to its solicitors for them to draft the deed. The landlord has not provided an explanation for this delay. The Ombudsman therefore considers this delay was unreasonable.
This service has been provided with limited evidence regarding events after January 2023. However, the resident has not disputed the explanation the landlord provided in its final response. This explanation, as well as the stated dates for actions having taken place, appears to be reasonable and does not suggest there was an undue delay caused by the landlord.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s view that the landlord had significantly delayed the sales process and should compensate them for the costs incurred in having two properties, it is not accepted that this is supported by the available evidence. There were 2 periods (each of approximately 3 weeks) were there was an unexplained delay in the landlord taking action; however, this was, overall, a small part of the time taken to complete the sale of the property. The remaining time appears to either have been periods where the landlord had taken action within a reasonable period or events were outside its control.
The Ombudsman does consider that the resident’s frustration with the process was likely to have been exacerbated by the landlord’s approach to communications. Response times and provision of updates were inconsistent. The landlord has not provided evidence to allow the Ombudsman to be satisfied that it had always appropriately responded to queries from the resident or their solicitor within reasonable timescales.
The landlord’s final response acknowledged that there was learning arising from the resident’s complaint. It advised it had provided relevant feedback about the delays and poor communication the resident had experienced. This was a reasonable step for it to take.
While the landlord did offer compensation in its final response, the offered £150 was insufficient to redress the failings in this case or appropriately recognise the impact on the resident.
The landlord’s later offer of £550 compensation (made in its letter of 18 April 2024) was, in the Ombudsman’s view, a reasonable outcome for the failings identified above. However, the landlord did not make this offer until after this service had accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord would have made the same offer if this had not been the case. It would therefore not be appropriate to reach a finding that the landlord had offered reasonable redress.
For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure by the landlord in relation its handling of the sale of the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would acknowledge complaints within 2 working days and respond to stage 1 complaints within a further 10 working days. This was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code).
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in line with its policy but took 12 working days to issue its stage 1 response. There is no evidence the landlord explained to the resident that it needed additional time to issue its response. The landlord’s actions were therefore not appropriate.
The landlord took 117 working days to issue its final response. This was not appropriate as it was significantly longer than the 20 working days set out in its policy or the Code.
On 17 January 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it could not proceed with the raised matters any further from a complaint perspective. If this were the case then the landlord should have issued a final response at that time, either advising it was refusing to escalate the complaint to stage 2 or setting out its stage 2 findings.
When contacted by this service the landlord issued its final response within the requested timescale. It is apparent that the landlord took steps to carry out an appropriate stage 2 investigation and it recognised its failings in its complaint handling.
When reaching a finding the Ombudsman must consider the detrimental impact of any failures. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman’s opinion is that the detriment caused by the landlord’s complaint handling was low. This is because:
1. The delay in responding at stage 1 was within the additional time that the landlord could have used if it had notified the resident within the initial 10 working days.
2. While the landlord did not issue a final response within 20 working days it did take actions to progress the substantive matters the resident had raised.
3. The resident was aware of this service at the time the landlord notified them it could take no further action from a complaint perspective. The resident did not raise the lack of a stage 2 response with this service until March 2023.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer of £130 compensation for the stage 1 delay and the resident’s time and trouble in raising the complaint was a reasonable outcome.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the sale of the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers the landlord offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of the date of this determination pay the resident compensation of £550.
If the landlord has already paid the compensation to the resident it is entitled to offset any payments against this sum. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord re-offers the previous offer of £130 compensation to the resident in recognition of its complaint handling failures.