The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited (202341087)

Decision
Case ID	202341087
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	30 January 2026

Background

1. The resident submitted a Right to Buy (RTB) application to the landlord to purchase her property, and the landlord initially accepted it. The landlord later identified that the resident was not eligible for RTB and stopped the sale. The resident complained about how the landlord handled the process and wanted it to honour the RTB discount.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s complaint regarding its handling of her (RTB) application.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to concerns about its handling of a RTB application.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Summary of reasons

RTB application

4. The landlord acknowledged errors in its handling of the resident’s RTB application. It apologised, offered compensation and identified learning to prevent it from happening again. These remedies were appropriate to recognise the impact to the resident.

Complaint handling

5. Although there were delays in the landlord issuing its complaint responses, the delays were brief and there is no evidence they had any impact.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should pay any part of the £4663 it offered to the resident, if it has not done so already. The finding of reasonable redress is based on the assumption this will be paid.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
April-October 2023	The resident submitted a RTB application to the landlord, which was accepted and progressed, before the landlord withdrew from the sale when it identified the resident was not eligible for the scheme.
17 October 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about its decision and described the financial and emotional impact it had. She wanted the landlord to allow her to continue with the purchase of the property under RTB with the associated discount.
1 November 2023	In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that errors had occurred in the approval process and the impact on the resident. It apologised and offered her £2163 compensation to cover the costs she had incurred, and an additional £2500 to acknowledge its failures.
2 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint, as she was unhappy with the outcome.
1 December 2023	In its complaint response, the landlord reiterated its previous findings and apologised again for the failures in the process. It said the compensation it had offered at stage 1 was appropriate and that it could not overturn the RTB decision.
14 December 2023	At the time the landlord had a 3-stage complaint process. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 3, as she remained dissatisfied with the outcome.
2 February 2024	In its final complaint response, the landlord said it could not increase the level of compensation it had offered previously. It said it was unable to offer an equivalent RTB discount, as there was no legal basis to do so.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident escalated her complaint to us, as she remained dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered by the landlord and wanted the landlord to honour the RTB discount.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Right to Buy application
Finding	Reasonable redress

What we did not investigate

6. The resident told us that she wants the landlord to honour the RTB application to allow her to purchase the property with the associated discount. This is not an outcome that we can consider as part of our investigation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she should consider seeking independent legal advice. This investigation considers the reasonableness of the remedies the landlord offered.

What we did investigate

7. The resident’s complaints in October and November 2023 concerned the landlord’s handling of her RTB application, which she submitted in April 2023. She said after receiving confirmation from the landlord that it had received her intention to proceed with the purchase, she instructed solicitors, applied for a mortgage and arranged a survey of the property. She said that in October 2023 her solicitor told her the landlord had withdrawn from the sale. She believed the landlord’s errors during the RTB process prevented her from purchasing the property at the discounted price and had impacted her emotionally and financially. She wanted the landlord to allow her to purchase the property with the RTB discount applied.
8. In response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for incorrectly telling the resident she was eligible for the RTB scheme. It explained that errors in its records led it to believe she met the eligibility criteria, and that the mistake was not identified until the approval process had progressed. It said the resident was eligible for the alternative Right to Acquire scheme but recognised that this would offer a lower discount.
9. The landlord acknowledged the financial and emotional impact the matter had on the resident. It apologised and offered £2163 to reimburse the fees she had incurred during the RTB process, along with £2500 compensation to recognise its failures. It said it had identified learning in relation to its sales process and had completed a data cleanse to reduce the risk of similar errors occurring again. In its final response in February 2024, the landlord said that after considering its legal and regulatory obligations, it could not honour the RTB application or offer an equivalent discount. It added that the compensation already offered exceeded the amount provided for in its compensation policy and remained appropriate.
10. While the ultimate decision on her eligibility was understandably of great disappointment and frustration for the resident, the landlord’s response to her complaint was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It accepted it had progressed the resident’s RTB application even though she did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in its policies. It acknowledged and apologised for the impact this had on her and explained how the error had occurred. It offered to reimburse the costs she had incurred and provided compensation to recognise the significant impact.
11. It is understandable that the resident wanted the landlord to honour the purchase of the property with the RTB discount applied. However, the landlord provided a clear explanation for why this was not possible. Its RTB policy confirms the resident did not meet the eligibility criteria when taking into account the length of her tenancy. Nothing in the evidence indicates its final eligibility decision and explanations were flawed or inaccurate.
12. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was appropriate. It identified and apologised for the errors that occurred and recognised the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. It offered reasonable compensation and took steps to reduce the risk of similar errors happening again. These actions align with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Complaint	Complaint handling
Finding	No maladministration

13. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord operated a 3‑stage complaint process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days, a stage 2 response within 20 working days, and convene a panel to consider a stage 3 complaint within 20 working days of it being made. The landlord has since updated its complaints policy to comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s 2024 Complaint Handling Code.
14. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints one day after they were made. It acknowledged the stage 3 complaint 6 days after it was made.
15. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 1 day outside its published timescale, its stage 2 response 2 days outside the timescale, and its stage 3 response 9 days later than expected.
16. The landlord should have acknowledged the delays in its complaint responses. However, the delays were not significant and there is no evidence of them causing an impact to the resident. The evidence shows there was ongoing communication between the landlord and the resident during the complaint process while the landlord sought to clarify her complaint and understand her desired outcome.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) and communication

17. This matter arose because of an error in the landlord’s data, and the landlord has said it has already identified learning to address this. However, it should consider the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management for further guidance on effective record keeping if needed.