Mrs R instructed the service provider to help her buy a leasehold flat. Following completion of the purchase, she raised concerns about the time taken to complete given that there was no chain. Mrs R also raised concerns about communication and information provided to her.
Mrs R was unhappy with the service provider’s response to her complaint and escalated her complaint to the Legal Ombudsman as she was buying the property following difficult personal circumstances and wanted larger financial compensation than that offered by the firm.
The complaints raised by Mrs R fell into two broad categories:
Delay – Mrs R complained that the purchase took 19 weeks instead of 6-8 as she expected, and that the firm delayed in sharing information from the management company.
Communications – Mrs R also complained that her communications to the firm were not responded to, or that there were delays in those responses.
Mrs R told the firm that she found the situation very stressful because of her personal circumstances.
The service provider provided a timely response to Mrs R’s complaint and included a chronology of the transaction.
The service provider accepted that some of their communications were unreasonable, and that the transaction had taken longer than expected. However, they also explained that many of the delays were down to third parties. The service provider offered Mrs R £100 to resolve her complaints.
The complaint was reviewed upon receipt and passed to the Early Resolution Team, on the basis that the service provider’s offer was reasonable and as a result no further remedy was needed.
Mrs R wanted additional compensation, and to put the service provider’s service failings on record. Her complaint was therefore passed to an Ombudsman for a decision on whether the complaint should be dismissed on the basis that the service provider’s offer was reasonable.
The firm’s offer of £100 is within the Legal Ombudsman’s bracket for a modest award. Whilst Mrs R found the purchase stressful, that was at least in part due to her own personal circumstances, rather than as a result of the firm’s actions. The purchase did complete and therefore the offer made by the service provider, considering all the circumstances of the complaint, was reasonable. The complaint was therefore dismissed.
As the complaint was resolved at Early Resolution no case fee was payable by the service provider.
Service providers should take account of the nature of the transaction, for example if it is a leasehold, when providing a likely timescale for completion. This better manages customer expectations and is likely to lead to fewer complaints.
Providing information about the key stages in any transaction at the outset of a retainer, in particular those key points where the service provider may have to wait for third party information (e.g. searches, or management packs), results in more informed customers, and potentially reduces customer contact.
Buying a house is inherently stressful, and so remedies directed by the Legal Ombudsman will only reflect the impact of any service failing on the part of the firm.
