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 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.
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 about communications and poor complaints handling were upheld, and a remedy of £250 was directed.
