| Publishing organisation: | Housing Ombudsman Service |
| Topic: | Complaint handling, Home ownership and leasehold |
| Determination: | No maladministration |
| Tenure: | Shared owner |
| Country of relevance: | England |
Ms D complained that because of the initial valuation of her home in 2003 when she became shared owner, she has been overpaying rent since then.
In 2002 the landlord marketed 13 shared ownership properties and in June 2003 Ms D finalised her purchase of a 25% equity share in her home. In February 2007 she raised her concerns with the landlord about the initial valuation; its final response in September 2008, was that it would not take the complaint to the panel stage of its complaints procedure because it concerned the actions of a body other than the landlord.
Prior to this decision the landlord had responded to Ms D’s complaint by confirming that initial valuations were provided by its surveyor to enable it to set the price of the property. The property was then marketed at this price, which in contractual terms, amounted to “an invitation to treat.” It correctly identified that Ms D was not under any obligation to make an offer to purchase the property at the offer price and that it was "for you to have the property independently valued before making any offer". It was open to her to walk away or make a lower offer. It further noted that "in purchasing your share you relied upon your own independent valuation, commissioned by you through your mortgage lender. As you are now concerned that this valuation was too high, we suggest that you take this up with the surveyors who provided this."
Determination
When selling a property the landlord was required by the guidance of the regulator of the time (the Housing Corporation) to set prices based on a full open market valuation carried out by an appropriately qualified and independent valuer. It could then vary from that valuation provided it met certain additional requirements. There was no evidence that the landlord had acted contrary to the requirements of the Housing Corporation, and consequently no grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate further. It was also for the landlord to decide if it has any concerns about the valuations it obtained and, if it does, to decide what action to take.
Since there were no grounds for the Ombudsman to pursue the complaint about the initial valuation there were also no grounds for considering the complaint about rent payments based on that price.
There was no obligation for a potential purchaser to buy a property at the advertised price; they can make a lower offer or decide that the property is too expensive and look elsewhere. Indeed where there is a mortgage lender that party too must be satisfied that the purchase price is appropriate before agreeing the loan. Ms D’s mortgage lender clearly was satisfied and she chose to proceed with the purchase at the advertised price. We therefore referred to paragraph 13 of the Ombudsman Scheme since it is not the acts or omissions of the landlord that were at issue but those of the surveyor or Ms D:"13 -The Ombudsman will consider complaints about the actions or omissions of a member landlord. The person complaining must have been adversely affected by those actions or omissions."
We also reviewed the landlord’s decision not to take the complaint to the final stage of its internal complaints procedure and found that it was a reasonable conclusion in the circumstances. As the complaint essentially concerned a service provided by an independent valuer it was not appropriate to give the complaint further consideration. We noted that the landlord followed up its decision with a detailed response from its solicitors and so went beyond what might reasonably have been expected of it in terms of dealing with matters outside its remit.