The Guinness Partnership Limited (202225938)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225938

The Guinness Partnership Limited

13 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to sell her shared ownership property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. Since referring the complaint to this Service, the resident has passed away. The resident is represented by her son, but for the purposes of this report both are referred to as ‘the resident’.
The resident sent the appropriate documents to begin the process of selling the property on 9 March 2022, but the landlord was unable to find a buyer during the 8-week nomination period. The landlord issued an ‘unable to nominate’ letter dated 26 April 2022 and told the resident about this decision on 3 May 2022.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 3 May 2022. The complaint raised 3 main issues:
1. The landlord could not justify the 8–week delay during the nomination period.
2. The landlord had failed to market the property during the nomination period effectively.
3. The landlord was unprepared to sell the property to the resident’s buyer who wished to purchase the property on behalf of a family member.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 June 2022. The response explained that:
1. It was entitled to the 8–week nomination period as this was set out in the lease.
2. During the nomination period it reviewed interested applicants from a register on its internal waiting list.
3. It could not sell the property to the resident’s nominated buyer as they did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in the lease.
4. Due to poor communication and delay during the stage 1 complaint process it would offer a total of £75 in compensation. However, there were no failures identified in the sales process.
On 30 June 2022 the resident escalated the complaint and confirmed to the landlord that he had found a new buyer for the property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 2 August 2022 and reiterated that there had been no failures in the sales process. However, it offered an additional £25 for poor communication, resulting in a total compensation offer of £100.
The landlord sent the conditional approval for the sale to the resident on 15 August 2022. This was followed by it granting full approval for the sale on 25 August 2022.
Between 26 August and 3 November 2022 the landlord dealt with conveyancing enquiries from the resident’s solicitor. Completion of the sale took place on 11 November 2022.
The resident made a second complaint to the landlord on 24 October 2022 about the communication during the sales process. This complaint was registered and acknowledged by the landlord on 23 November 2022.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response and accepted that there were some service failings with its communication and registering of the complaint. As a resolution the landlord offered £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It also explained that it would look to create a sales pack for the sale of any shared ownership extra care scheme to make its process easier.
On 29 December 2022 the resident escalated his second complaint and raised a third complaint. The third complaint raised the following issues:
1. That the sales process had been chaotic and caused delays. The resident asked the landlord to refer to his 2 previous complaints for more details about this.
2. The administration fee of 1.75% of market value (£2,275) was unfair due to the unacceptable levels of service administration.
3. The completion statement was incorrect as the ‘rent and service charge (arrears)’ did not show a credit, and without chasing, a refund of £2,091.37 would not have been paid.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord responded to say that the third complaint had not been accepted for investigation as the complaint had already been considered and no substantive new information had been provided. The following day, the landlord increased its offer of compensation for the second complaint from £150 to £160.
Following contact with this Service, the landlord reviewed its decision not to investigate the third complaint and found that the complaint relating to the administration fee and completion statement had not been considered before. It therefore registered this as a new complaint.
On 21 September 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the third complaint. It explained that:
1. Its process for selling shared ownership extra care scheme homes added to the time it would normally take to sell a property. It was reviewing its process to see if this could be made more efficient. It also accepted that due to the length of time required to complete the sales process for this type of property, the administration charge should be reduced.
2. On the completion statement it would not state if there was a credit balance, only if there were arrears. It would normally take up to 7 days to complete any adjustments, and had the resident not contacted it about this, a refund would still have been made.
3. To acknowledge that if it had a more streamlined process for finding a buyer it could save time in the sales process, it offered £1,000.
The resident escalated the complaint on 21 September 2023 and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. The landlord’s response set out that:
1. There were inaccuracies in the stage 1 response relating to the events that occurred during the sale. However, the reasons given in the stage 1 response for the complaint being upheld remained the same.
2. It was completing a review of its older person sales process and was trialling changes to improve efficiency and the customer experience.
3. It increased its offer of compensation to:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay due to its ineffective sales process.
  2. £50 for the failure to investigate the complaint when initially requested in December 2022.
  3. £50 for the inaccurate information provided in its stage 1 response.
The representative has confirmed that he has accepted the landlord’s offer of £1,100 compensation on behalf of the resident’s estate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states that complaints can be brought by a person who is or has been in a landlord/tenant relationship with a member or with authority to make a complaint on behalf of such a person who is deceased. The representative is the executor of the late resident’s estate, and this is sufficient authority.
The events subject to this complaint occurred before the late resident had passed away, therefore this investigation can consider whether the resident experienced distress and inconvenience because of the landlord’s actions.
The Ombudsman cannot consider any impact the landlord’s actions had on the representative as to do so would serve to make the representative the complainant, and the Scheme’s requirement for a landlord/tenant relationship would not be satisfied.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to sell her shared ownership property

The resident’s lease contains several clauses relating to the sale of the property. In summary, the clauses of the lease that relate to this complaint set out that:
1. Once the resident provides written notice of sale to the landlord, it has 8 weeks to nominate an ‘elderly person’ to take on the property.
2. The property is specifically for persons aged 55 years or over and in need of extra care housing. This is determined by an appropriate officer of the landlord.
Clause 3(17) (i) of the lease also states that, “On or before the completion of any assignment permitted by virtue of sub-clause 3(15) (b) the Leaseholder shall pay the Landlord its administrative costs and expenses not exceeding 1.75% of the consideration received by the Leaseholder for the assignment save that if the assignee has not been nominated by the Landlord pay the Landlord its administrative costs and expenses not exceeding 0.75% of the consideration received by the Leaseholder for the assignment”.
The evidence shows that the landlord issued its unable to nominate letter to the resident within the 8 week nomination period set out in the resident’s lease. While the resident was frustrated that the landlord did not act quicker at this initial stage and considers the 8 week nomination period was not justified, the landlord was entitled to use the full nomination period set out in the resident’s lease. Therefore, its actions during this period were reasonable.
During the nomination period the resident contacted the landlord to explain he had found a potential buyer for the property. The landlord explained that the potential buyer did not meet the criteria set out in the lease. This explanation was fair as the landlord was bound by the conditions of the lease. These set out that the property could not be sublet to another person or be purchased by somebody who already owns another home.
The resident informed the landlord on 30 June 2022 that a new buyer had been found. Between 30 June and 15 August 2022 the landlord liaised with various parties before issuing a ‘conditional approval’ letter on 15 August 2022. The evidence shows that the landlord’s actions did not significantly delay the process as it proactively responded to communication and ensured an efficient assessment of the buyer against the relevant criteria.
Between 16 August and 11 November 2022 the landlord dealt with outstanding conveyancing queries. During this period the landlord’s communication fell below a reasonable standard on the following occasions:
1. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s email dated 30 September 2022 about an electrical safety certificate.
2. The landlord delayed responding to the solicitor’s outstanding queries for 10 working days without explanation between 6 and 20 October 2022
3. Between 21 and 24 October 2022 the resident called the landlord several times in relation to the progress of the sale. There is no record of any call back or email communication sent to the resident to update him on the progress of the sale as requested.
The landlord recognised its poor communication and the impact this had on the sales process as part of its handling of the first, second and third complaint. The landlord made several offers to resolve the complaints which included compensation that totalled £1,235 for distress and inconvenience caused. It was important for the landlord to appropriately recognise that they had failed to effectively communicate during the sales process, and that this had made it more difficult for the resident to understand the steps being taken to progress the sale. The redress offered was in line with what the Ombudsman would reasonably expect for a service failing of this type.
A completion statement was sent to the resident which listed the administration fee to be paid to the landlord as £2,275. This was 1.75% of the ‘consideration’. The consideration is the share value received by the resident for the assignment (£130,000). However, this fee did not follow the clause 3(17) (i) of the lease.
According to this clause the landlord could only take up to a maximum of 0.75% as an administration fee as it was the resident who found the buyer. The landlord had an opportunity to identify and correct this error as part of its complaint handling when dealing with the resident’s third complaint. However, despite the administration fee being raised as a complaint this error was not identified.
When taking an overall view of the landlord’s actions in this case, it did many things well. The landlord followed its nomination process and correctly explained that the resident’s first buyer did not fulfil the appropriate criteria to purchase the property. The landlord did fall short in its communication, but recognised this failing and offered an appropriate amount of compensation to acknowledge the impact on the resident. However, the landlord did not calculate the administration fee correctly and this single error when taking all the circumstances into account amounts to service failure.
To put the resident’s estate in the position it would have been in had the service failure not occurred, the landlord should make a payment of £1,300. This is to refund the difference between the 1.75% fee of £2,275 and the 0.75% fee of £975. The landlord should also make a payment to the resident’s estate of £100 to recognise the inconvenience this caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2–stage complaints process. The policy states that the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days from the date of escalation.
The policy also says that where a customer raises additional complaints during an investigation, these will be incorporated into the response if it is relevant, or a new complaint will be logged.
The resident raised 3 separate complaints between May and December 2022. The landlord either unreasonably delayed or refused to respond to each of the 3 complaints which was not consistent with its complaint policy.
The first complaint was raised on 3 May 2022; the landlord told the resident that there would be a delay in responding to the complaint on 17 May 2022, however no new timescale was agreed. The stage 1 response was not provided until 23 June 2022, which was 33 working days after the complaint was registered.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was provided after 22 working days. The landlord acknowledged the delay to its complaint handling and offered £25 compensation to recognise this service failing. It was appropriate for the landlord to identify its service had fallen short and to offer compensation. The offer of compensation is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would expect for a short delay in complaint handling.
The second complaint was raised on 24 October 2022, but the landlord failed to register this complaint correctly. A stage 1 response was not provided until 6 December 2022 which was 31 working days after the complaint was raised. The response was sent outside of the timescales listed in the landlord’s complaint policy and caused an unreasonable delay in dealing with the complaint.
The resident escalated the complaint on 29 December 2022 and raised some new issues to be considered on the same date. However, the landlord issued a letter on 16 January 2023 to say it would not be investigating the complaint either as a stage 2 or as a new complaint because no substantive new information had been provided. This shows that the landlord failed to identify new issues that the resident raised as a third complaint and missed an opportunity to resolve these outstanding issues.
The landlord issued a stage 1 and 2 response to deal with the outstanding issues in September and October 2023 after contact with this Service. The landlord acknowledged the failure to register a new third complaint and that there had been some factual errors at stage 1 of its process and offered £100 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the offer made fairly recognises the impact caused by the service failure.
The landlord has shown that it acknowledged it had provided a poor service in relation to its complaint handling. It apologised and offered redress to recognise the impact that this caused on the resident. Taking all the circumstances into account the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s actions amount to reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the request to sell the resident’s shared ownership property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the executor of the resident’s estate (the resident’s son) for its service failure.
2. Pay the late resident’s estate compensation of £1,300 to refund the difference in the administration fee charged.
3. Pay the late resident’s estate compensation of £100 for the inconvenience caused because of the incorrect administration fee.
4. If it has not already done so, pay the late resident’s estate compensation of £1,235 for the failings identified during the sales process.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident’s estate £125 if it has not already done so for its poor complaint handling.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its offer of training for staff involved in complaint handling and considers whether it should provide refresher training or additional guidance on how to handle additional issues raised during a complaint investigation.