SDLT - complaint resolved by guided negotiation Background Mr J was buying a freehold residential property with no chain for £300,000. He instructed his service provider on 1 January 2021, and initially the purchase ran smoothly. However, during April and May 2021 the seller’s solicitors were slow to respond to Mr J’s service provider’s enquiries. In particular, there was a need to obtain information about an extension that had been made to the property. When responses were received, they were not complete and the firm had to seek further information. As a result of the issues that arose, the purchase completed on 7 July 2021, this was after the SDLT threshold’s changed on 30 June 2021, and so Mr J paid SDLT on the £50,000 that was above the £250,000 threshold. Mr J's complaints Mr J complained to the service provider that they had caused delays resulting in the SDLT deadline of 30 June 2021 being missed. Mr J was also unhappy that the firm had not kept him informed about the risk he would not complete on time. The service provider investigated the complaint and recognised that there was a small delay on their part and that their communication could have been better. They issued a detailed final response, in line with the timescales set out in their complaints handling procedure. However, they did not offer any remedy. The Legal Ombudsman's view and approach Mr J escalated his complaint to the Legal Ombudsman. As the firm had accepted that there was a service failing, the case was reviewed and passed to the Early Resolution Team to consider a guided negotiation. The review agreed with the service provider that there were some service failings and considered that there should be an impact payment paid to recognise the upset caused to Mr J. However, the Early Resolution Team also explained that if the Legal Ombudsman was to investigate, no remedy in respect of the SDLT Mr J had paid would be directed. This was because the delays caused by the seller’s solicitor meant that it was not possible to say the purchase would have completed sooner had the service of Mr J’s own provider been reasonable. The Legal Ombudsman proposed a remedy of £200. This was accepted by both Mr J and the service provider, and the case was closed as an early resolution.
SDLT - complaint resolved by final decision Background Mrs P was purchasing a residential property and wanted to simultaneously exchange and complete on 30 June 2021 to take advantage of the temporary nil rate SDLT band applying at that time.However, the purchase did not complete until 12 July 2021, after the temporary nil rate band had ended, resulting in Mrs P paying more SDLT than she had expected Mrs P's complaints Mrs P complained that the service provider had told her that if they had the paperwork in good time, they could complete on 30 June 2021, before the temporary nil rate SDLT band ended. She felt that the firm’s communication and complaints handling had been poor. Mrs P sought the payment of her SDLT as a remedy to her complaint. The service provider did not provide any response to Mrs P’s complaint. The Legal Ombudsman's view and approach As the service provider did not respond to Mrs P’s complaint, this case progressed to a full investigation, and resulted in an Ombudsman’s decision.The Legal Ombudsman investigated the matter and found that the service provider had only said they would try to complete the purchase on time, and that no guarantee of completion had been provided. The investigation also found that the firm did not have all of the relevant information it would have needed to possess in order to complete by 30 June 2021.In view of this, and because the firm did not provide an assurance that it could complete, the Ombudsman decided that the firm’s service had been reasonable and did not direct a remedy related to the SDLT Mrs P had paid. However, the complaints and about communications and poor complaints handling were upheld, and a remedy of £250 was directed.
SDLT - reasonable offer made Background AB Property Co, a micro-enterprise, instructed a service provider in respect of the purchase of a buy-to-let property.The service provider was instructed in April 2021, and as matters had not completed by 30 September 2021, AB Property Co withdrew from the transaction, as they would now be liable for SDLT. This was because the point at which SDLT was payable returned to standard levels on 30 September 2021. AB Property Co's complaints AB Property Co complained to the service provider about poor communication and delay. In particular AB Property Co complained that the firm were slow to raise queries with the other side, which caused delays in the transaction.The service provider provided a detailed response and offered a remedy of £300 to acknowledge the impact of their service failings on AB Property Co. The Legal Ombudsman's view and approach AB Property Co were unhappy with the remedy offered, and escalated their complaint to the Legal Ombudsman.As the service provider had offered a first-tier remedy, the case was passed to the Early Resolution Team for consideration. The service provider’s final response showed that by 24 September 2021 there was still information outstanding from the other side, and as such they were not in a position to complete by 30 September 2021.The service provider accepted that there were some delays on their part. But it was not possible to say with confidence that, had those delays not occurred, that the purchase would have completed sooner. As a result, the Early Resolution Team felt that the service provider’s offer of £300 was reasonable in the circumstances, and the case was closed under Scheme Rule 5.7(c), without a full investigation.
