This firm should have been more proactive in resolving an issue...
Ms B instructed her firm to represent her in the purchase of a New Build Leasehold property that she was purchasing. The purchase completed seven months after instruction, following which Ms B complained that the firm had unreasonably delayed matters and failed to ensure that the purchase had progressed at a reasonable timescale.
Ms B explained that the firm had incurred delays in failing to obtain information from the sellers for two months; and failed to chase information generally which led to delays in completing the purchase. She felt that she could and should have moved into her new house two months earlier than she eventually did.
When we investigated the matter, we found that the sellers had sent requested documents to the firm via a document sharing site which the firm were unable to access. Whilst the firm responded to the sellers to explain that they could not open the documents, they did not specify what the issue was or to ask the sellers to resend the documents via email. The firm did not then chase the sellers until almost two months had passed, and when they did so the sellers agreed to send the documents directly via email, which they then did promptly.
Although we determined that it was not the firm’s fault that they could not access the file sharing site and they did then let the sellers know that this was the case, the firm unfortunately did not then chase this until Ms B asked them for an update a month later, and it then took them three further weeks to chase the seller to send the information.
We would have reasonably expected the firm to have chased the information before then and we did therefore uphold the complaint that they had delayed matters. At the point at which the sellers sent the information, almost two months had elapsed.
We determined that completion could not take place until the documents, which related to proof of certification for the new build property, had been seen by the firm and Ms B.
As the property was new and had vacant possession, Ms B could have moved in earlier had the firm obtained the certification documents, and we therefore agreed with her that she could have moved in earlier, had the firm’s service been reasonable.
The firm had accepted that they had provided poor service to Ms B and had made an offer to settle her complaint by paying her a goodwill payment of £175. When we determined the complaint, we found this to be reasonable in the circumstances, and we endorsed the firm’s offer in our decision.
This was a case where the delay had not caused Ms B to suffer any financial loss – she was a first-time buyer who was living with her parents prior to moving into her new house, and the detriment to Ms B was frustration and upset, rather than financial loss. As this detriment was relatively short-lived, we decided that the firm’s offer was reasonable and within the ‘modest’ range of compensation as set out in our guidance.
Guidance: Our approach to putting things right | Legal Ombudsman
