Paragon Asra Housing Limited · Case 202006279 · 7 September 2021
Paragon Asra Housing Limited — case 202006279
The Ombudsman determined the complaint about liability for fees arising during the sale of a property was outside its jurisdiction, as it would require a binding decision on contractual terms more suitable for the courts.
Findings by complaint head
Summarised automatically from the decision below. The Ombudsman's decision text is the authoritative record.
-
Liability for fees arising during the sale of a property
Outside jurisdictionThe Ombudsman determined the complaint was outside jurisdiction under paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, as resolving the matter would require a binding decision on contractual terms and liability for fees, which is more suitable for the courts.
The full determination
REPORT COMPLAINT 202006279 Paragon Asra Housing Limited 7 September 2021 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 The complaint is about the liability for fees arising during the sale of a property. Determination (jurisdictional decision) 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Summary of events In June 2017, the landlord instructed solicitors to act on its behalf for plot sales.
It was confirmed at that time, what the required fee was for issuance of a certificate of compliance to the resident’s solicitors. It came to light in March 2020, after checks were made with the Restriction of Title, that there were additional fees incurred by the resident. The resident raised this issue with the landlord due to their dissatisfaction with these additional fees. The landlord investigated the complaint made by the resident and issued its final response letter on 14 July 2020.
The landlord explained that the additional fees had been charged by another firm of solicitors, who were acting for their own client (a third-party company). The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and contacted our Service in November 2020. Reasons Paragraph 39 (i) of the Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
” To resolve this complaint, a decision will need to be made about the resident’s liability for fees arising during the sales process. There is also a lack of clarity around whether these fees were due to, or charged by the landlord, or by another party associated with the sale. This Service cannot issue a binding decision about the terms of sale, nor can it determine whether these additional fees are due, nor to which party. This may be a matter for the Courts to decide, which can issue a binding decision on the terms of contractual agreements.
I am therefore satisfied that this is not a complaint which the Ombudsman can consider further.
This is a structured summary of a published determination. The official decision is the authoritative record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.