We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Incommunities Limited (202118732)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118732

Incommunities Limited

14 March 2023


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s Right to Buy application.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. This complaint was brought to the Ombudsman by joint complainants who live in the same property and will be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report. The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord with preserved Right to Buy which was carried over from their former local authority landlord and former property.
  2. The resident submitted a Right to Buy application to the landlord on 5 March 2020. The purchase was completed on 17 May 2021.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 10 July 2021 seeking compensation for delays in the purchase of their home under the Right to Buy scheme. The resident attributed this to the landlord losing documents, a delay in arranging an energy performance check and failing to provide paperwork to the resident’s solicitor.
  4. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 14 July 2021 and did not uphold the complaint. The landlord stated that the delay had been caused by the resident’s solicitor. The resident remained dissatisfied with this and escalated their complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 27 July 2021.
  5. The landlord’s stage two response was issued on 20 October 2021 and partially upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord admitted delays in processing the resident’s complaint and in the statutory Right to Buy timescales. The landlord offered discretionary compensation of £200 for the delays with the purchase and £50 for the complaint handling delays.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated their complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 November 2021 seeking compensation of £2,000 to account for rent paid during the period of delay which they said was caused by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Right to Buy

  1. Right to Buy is a government-backed scheme that allows local authority secure tenants the ability to purchase their home. The scheme can also extend to former local authority tenants when their property is transferred to a housing association under certain circumstances. This is called ‘preserved Right to Buy’. Depending how long the resident has been a tenant of the landlord they can be given a discount of between 35 and 75% off the market value of the property when purchasing.
  2. The resident submitted their Right to Buy application (RTB 1 form) on 5 March 2020 and the sale was completed on 17 May 2021. It is acknowledged by the landlord, in its stage two complaint response, that it breached the statutory timescales related to Right to Buy as follows:
    1. In issuing its formal reply to the resident’s application, known as an RTB 2 form on 21 May 2020. The RTB 2 form has a statutory deadline of four weeks and the landlord took 11 weeks to respond, resulting in an unreasonable delay of seven weeks over the statutory timescale.
    2. In issuing its offer letter, known as a Section 125 notice on 30 September 2020. The Section 125 notice has a statutory deadline of eight weeks and the landlord took 19 weeks to respond, resulting in an unreasonable delay of 11 weeks over the statutory timescale.
  3. This resulted in delays of 18 weeks (4.5 months), which amounts to maladministration by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged these delays and offered £200 compensation in its stage two complaint response. The landlord attributed these delays, in part, to staff not being able to access files and correspondence in the office during the COVID-19 pandemic. This Service recognises the impact that COVID-19 and the national lockdown had on service delivery during this time. However, overall the delay was not fair and reasonable, taking into account the effect of the pandemic.
  4. The resident raised three other factors which they say caused delays in the process:
    1. The landlord requested two forms on 13 March 2020 along with proof of a previous tenancy with another housing provider. The resident states in their correspondence that these were submitted by post to the landlord on 16 March 2020. The landlord disputes receiving these documents and requested them a second time on 22 September 2020. The resident posted these documents on 23 September 2020 but maintained, in their correspondence, that this request from the landlord was a result of the landlord misplacing the previous documents sent. In this Service’s view, it is reasonable to conclude that the first set of documents were sent by the resident, however it is not possible to conclude whether these were received by the landlord.
    2. The landlord confirmed that it had instructed an energy performance assessor to complete an assessment of the property on 21 May 2020. The energy performance assessment was completed on 29 April 2021. The resident felt that this delay had hindered the progress of the sale, however in the evidence provided to this Service, the timing of this assessment would not have impacted the sale timeline as the resident’s solicitor was still awaiting search and enquiry results at this time.
    3. The sale completed on 17 May 2021, however the resident noted that this was delayed by the landlord on the day, as it raised a query regarding rent arrears. The resident’s solicitor had previously confirmed on 23 April 2021 that there were no arrears on the resident’s account. The resident contacted the landlord’s rent department, which again confirmed no arrears were present and the sale progressed. The landlord’s failure to keep accurate records across its departments led to a delay of several hours in the completion of the purchase, which would have been stressful for the resident.
  5. The landlord advised that the resident should have completed an RTB 6 and RTB 8 form to advise of the delays in progressing their sale. If these forms had been completed, the resident may have been entitled to offset their rent for this period against the sale price, provided this was not contested by the landlord. It is not possible for this Service to determine what, if any, rent reduction the resident may have received, as this may have been contested by the landlord on the basis that it was not solely responsible for all of the delays. There is no evidence that the resident had previously been sent any information about these forms or this process. As the sale had completed, this was no longer a viable remedy in this case at the point of the stage two complaint response. Therefore, it was not helpful for the landlord to suggest in its complaint response that the resident should have followed this process.
  6. It appears from the available evidence that some of the delays experienced by the resident between December 2020 and April 2021 may have been due to the landlord awaiting information from the resident’s solicitor, as below:
    1. The landlord sent the conveyancing pack to the resident’s solicitor on 24 December 2020. From the evidence provided to this service, the resident’s solicitor did not contact the landlord again until 12 April 2021, when they confirmed that the resident had signed all relevant documents and that they were ready to proceed with the purchase.
    2. The sale was originally due to complete on 10 May 2021, however the resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord on the day to advise that completion would not be possible, as there was one search outstanding that would take two or three days to return. The solicitor requested that the completion be rescheduled for 17 May 2021.
  7. If the resident is dissatisfied with any potential delay caused by their legal representative in this case, they may be able to raise a complaint with the representative. If they remain dissatisfied they may be able to approach the Legal Ombudsman once they have received a response from their legal representative. It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on the actions of the resident’s solicitor and therefore we will not address this matter further in our report. Any references to the resident’s legal representative in this report are for contextual purposes only.
  8. It is noted that the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but, in the opinion of this Service, the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, available on our website, redress of £100 – £600 should be considered in cases where:
    1. There was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
    2. The landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.
  9. The delays in this case were substantial and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and therefore the landlord is ordered to pay £500 compensation to the resident, calculated at £100 per month of delay. If the landlord has already paid the £200 (or any part of it) offered within its stage two complaint response, this can be deducted from the £500 ordered.  

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that all complaints will be acknowledged within two working days and a response issued within 10 working days. If these timescales cannot be met, the landlord commits to keeping residents informed.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), published on our website, sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaints handling. The Code specifies that stage one complaints must be responded to within 10 working days. Stage two complaints must have a response issued within 20 working days, other than in exceptional cases when a further 10 working days may be allowed, provided that this is explained clearly to the resident.
  3. The resident submitted their stage one complaint on 10 July 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint with a letter dated 7 July 2021, three days prior to the submission of the complaint. This discrepancy reflects a record keeping issue that needs to be addressed by the landlord. The landlord responded to the complaint on 14 July 2021. Notwithstanding the date of the acknowledgement letter, this complaint was handled in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
  4. The resident’s stage two complaint was submitted on 27 July 2021. The landlord did not handle this complaint in accordance with its policies or the Code. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 September 2021 This was 46 working days after submission and 44 working days over the landlord’s timescales. It responded to the complaint on 20 October 2021, 61 working days after submission and therefore 51 working days over the landlord’s published timescales. The landlord acknowledged these delays in its stage two complaint response and attributed the delay to an internal communication error and the wider impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on its service. The landlord offered £50 compensation to apologise for the delay.
  5. Whilst the delays in the complaint handling were contained to the stage two complaint response, the amount of time was significant and caused additional distress to the resident. Overall, this amounts to maladministration by the landlord.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy notes that compensation paid must be “appropriate and proportionate” although it gives no banding or indicative amounts to be awarded. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (as set out above) suggests that redress of £100 – £600 should be considered in cases where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has not done enough to put things right. Therefore, the landlord’s offer of £50 in this case is not, in this Service’s opinion, proportionate. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 of compensation in relation to the complaint handling in this case. If the landlord has already paid the £50 (or any part of it) offered within its stage two complaint response, this can be deducted from the £150 ordered.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
    1. The resident’s Right to Buy application.
    2. The associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm to this Service that it has complied with the following order:
    1. To pay the resident a total of £650, comprised of:
      1. £500 for the delay in processing the Right to Buy application, calculated at £100 per month.
      2. £150 for the delays in handling the resident’s complaint.
         

If the landlord has paid the £200 for delays in the Right to Buy process or the £50 for complaint handling, that it offered in its stage two complaint response, this can be deducted from the amounts ordered above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should:
    1. Consider reviewing its Right to Buy policy, in particular, the landlord should review how it communicates the resident’s right to submit RTB 6 and RTB 8 forms in the event of delays occurring.
    2. Consider reviewing its record keeping processes to ensure that correspondence is dated correctly and able to be responded to within the relevant Right to Buy and complaint handling timescales.