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 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.
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.
