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.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202225705)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225705

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 October 2024

 

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 the resident’s request to purchase her property using the Right To Buy scheme.

Background

  1. The tenant is recorded as having an assured tenancy with the landlord; this began on 14 May 2001.
  2. In January 2023, the resident requested that the landlord remove her ex-husband’s name from the tenancy agreement. She asked for a copy of the tenancy agreement from the landlord.
  3. The resident then raised a stage 1 complaint on 9 February 2023, after receiving the tenancy agreement and finding there were pages missing. She asked that the landlord provide the full tenancy agreement she had signed in 2001.
  4. While awaiting a response to the complaint, the resident made enquiries about utilising the Right to Buy scheme. She was told that she would not be eligible but she could utilise the Right to Acquire scheme instead. The resident disputed this and said that the tenancy she signed in 2001 detailed her entitlement to use the Right to Buy scheme.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 23 February 2023. It said that it was unable to provide a copy of her original tenancy agreement but it had provided a blank copy of a 2005 tenancy instead. The landlord said that as the property was part of a stock transfer from another housing association, the resident would be unable to purchase the property using the Right to Buy scheme.
  6. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on the same day. She said the landlord had disadvantaged her, due to it being unable to provide an original copy of the tenancy agreement.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 14 March 2023 and reiterated that the resident had an assured tenancy and would not be eligible for the Right to Buy scheme. It said that it did not have a copy of the entire tenancy but it had the signatures page from the assured tenancy agreement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is outside the remit of the Ombudsman to make a decision on the resident’s eligibility to utilise the Right to Buy scheme to purchase her home. This, and other similar schemes, are statutory processes and are not matters that this Service can make binding decisions on. In view of this, the resident may wish to seek legal advice on any dispute around the eligibility element of her complaint.
  2. Instead, this investigation will focus solely on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to utilise the scheme and determine whether it acted reasonably in its interactions with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to purchase her property using the Right to Buy scheme

  1. On 9 February 2023, the resident raised her complaint after receiving a copy of a tenancy agreement from the landlord. She said that somebody at the landlord had told her that her tenancy said she had the Right to Buy on it but the copy she received did not. Given the belief that this new tenancy had removed such beneficial information, it was reasonable that the resident would raise a complaint.
  2. Internal emails show that the landlord considered the resident’s points in full with the relevant team to ensure accuracy in its response. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord provided a detailed explanation of the resident’s eligibility for each scheme (voluntary Right to Buy, Right to Acquire and Right to Buy). The landlord considered the information held, such as the tenancy type and the property history, along with the available information and obligations relating to each scheme. Overall, its responses were reasonable and well informed.
  3. When the resident disputed the outcome of the stage 1 complaint, she referenced having been a secure tenant with the local authority. She said that this would mean that she had entitlement to the Preserved Right to Buy scheme. The resident provided some documents from a local authority that would indicate that she discussed housing options with it, prior to her tenancy beginning with the landlord.
  4. Internal emails show that these points were again fully considered but the landlord noted that it had no knowledge or evidence of the resident having held a secure tenancy.
  5. In response to the resident’s claims, the landlord said in its stage 2 response that her property was not eligible for purchase under Preserved Right to Buy. It explained that the property was not a local authority property and had instead been part of a stock transfer from another housing association. It also said that as her tenancy was an assured tenancy, rather than a secure one, she would not be eligible to use the Right to Buy scheme. It reiterated that she would be able to purchase using the Right to Acquire scheme.
  6. Given the resident believed that her circumstances would enable her to utilise a more beneficial scheme, this response would have been disappointing. However, the landlord provided clear and reasonable responses to the resident’s requests, along with detailed explanations behind its decisions. It is evident that the landlord provided timely responses and considered each of the resident’s claims in full. In view of this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to use the Right to Buy scheme.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to purchase her property using the Right to Buy scheme.