Social Tenant Access to Information Requirements (STAIRs) consultation is now open. 

Take part in the consultation

The Abbeyfield Society (202402794)

Back to Top

 

 

 

  

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402794

The Abbeyfield Society

10 September 2025

 

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

  1. The complaint is about:
  1. The information provided by the landlord to the resident when they purchased their independent living accommodation about its provision of care services and whether this amounted to mis selling.
  2. The landlords decision to end its care service provision and whether this amounted to a breach of contract or neglection of duty of care to a vulnerable adult.
  3. The landlord’s response to the residents request for it to buy back the property.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, we have determined that the complaints, as set out above, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder, who purchased an Independent Living apartment in September 2017. The landlord is the freeholder. The resident has a neurological condition which meant that she required additional care services. At the time of the purchase there was an inhouse care team providing care for those residents who required it. The care was arranged and paid for under a separate contract. The provision of the inhouse service was a deciding factor in the resident purchasing the property.
  2. On 20 October 2021 the landlord gave residents 28 days notice that the inhouse care service would be ending and that they would need to arrange alternative private care. A letter from the landlord dated 11 November 2021 confirmed that the resident had arranged alternative care and that the landlord’s inhouse team would no longer be providing her care.
  3. In May 2023 the resident moved out of the property and into a care home. The property was put on the market in October 2023.
  4. In January 2024 the resident’s representative contacted the landlord to request that it buy back the property as they felt the lack of inhouse care was preventing it from selling. They also felt that the property had been mis sold as a home for life where inhouse care would be provided. (For simplicity, the representative’s actions will be referred to as the resident’s throughout the remainder of report)
  5. The landlord declined to buy the property and so the resident raised a formal complaint on 2 February 2024 on the basis that:
    1. The landlord had mis sold the property as somewhere which would be a home for life with inhouse care.
    2. The landlord’s actions had devalued the property and affected the chance of reselling it.
    3. Removing the inhouse care had been a breach of contract by the landlord and a neglection of duty of care towards a vulnerable adult.
  6. In its complaint responses on 19 February 2024 and 19 March 2024 the landlord disagreed that it had mis sold the property, or that there had been a breach of contract or a neglection of duty of care. It said as a charity it had to be accountable for its spending and was not in a position to buy back the property.
  7. The resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman on 19 April 2024 as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses.
  8. The resident has since confirmed to the Ombudsman that the landlord has agreed to buy back the property (along with other properties in the building). However, the price it has agreed to pay is substantially lower than the price originally paid.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 42 (f) of the Scheme states that ‘The Ombudsman may not consider 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, other tribunal or procedure.’
  2. The resident believes there has been mis selling, a breach of contract and a neglection of duty of care towards a vulnerable adult by the landlord. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, we are not able to determine whether there has been mis selling, a breach of contract or a neglection of duty of care towards a vulnerable adult. Such determinations are more appropriate for a court. Therefore, this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident has the option to seek legal advice on these matters.