Abri Group Limited (202520334)

Decision
Case ID	202520334
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Abri Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Shared Ownership
Date	26 February 2026

Background

The resident purchased a 75% share of the property in February 2019, and lived alone until he passed away in March 2023. The property is a, grant funded, older person shared ownership (OPSO) and extra care scheme property. This means that applicants and residents must be over 55 with care requirements.
The resident’s nephew, who is the executor and representative of the resident’s estate, has made the complaint on the resident’s behalf.He has challenged the initial sales process and the landlord’s decision not to buy back the property.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the representative’s:
1. Concerns that the resident was not eligible to buy the property.
2. Buy back application.
3. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found that:
1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the representative’s concerns that the resident was not eligible to buy the property.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the representative’s buy back application.
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the representative’s associated complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the representative’s concerns that the resident was not eligible to buy the property.

The landlord provided a reasonable explanation to support its position that the resident was eligible to purchase the property.
However, it failed to provide an explanation (or reason it was unable to provide an explanation) for some of the representative’s concerns.

The landlord’s handling of the representative’s buy back application.

The landlord failed to follow (or evidence that it followed) its buy back procedure when considering the representative’s application.

The landlord’s handling of the representative’s associated complaint.

The landlord responded to the representative’s complaint in line with its policy.

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.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the representative for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 27 March 2026
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident’s estate £175. This is made up of: £100 for the impact of its failures in its handling of the representative’s concerns that the resident was not eligible to buy the property. £75 for the impact of its failures in its handling of the representatives buy back application. This must be paid directly to the resident’s estate by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.	No later than 27 March 2026
3	Take Specific Action Order The landlord must contact the representative and establish if the resident’s estate incurred a financial loss in obtaining the updated valuation it requested as part of the buy back application. If it did occur such an expense, the landlord must consider reimbursement of this expense and provide an explanation of its consideration to the representative. If the representative is unhappy with the landlord’s response, he can raise a new complaint with the landlord in respect of this.	No later than 26 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 May 2025	The representative raised his complaint. In summary he said: He was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to buy back the property, and he summarised the events leading up to, and including, the landlord’s consideration of his application. He was unhappy with the service provided by the sales and marketing team and its marketing strategy to sell the property. The landlord had breached Homes England capital funding guide (CFG) when selling the property to the resident, as he was not eligible under the CFG for shared ownership. He summarised his reasons for this claim and highlighted sections of the CFG he felt supported his claim. The landlord had not made him aware of the CFG at any stage.
28 May 2025	The landlord acknowledged the representative’s stage 1 complaint.
29 May 2025	The representative added an additional point to his complaint. He asked the landlord to explain what was meant by the resident being “deemed charitable by HM revenue and customs, the Charity Commission and Homes England.” He said it was his understanding was that none of those organisations were involved in the application process and he felt this statement was dishonest.
9 June 2025	The landlord informed the representative that it needed additional time to respond and would do so by 25 June 2025.
23 June 2025	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary it said: In April 2023 it had not been taking applications for buy backs and it had told the representative this at that time. It had accepted an application in April 2025 and, despite not having the capacity to complete a housing condition survey, it had considered the application without this. It had decided not to proceed with the buy back request and had provided the representative 3 reasons for this. It had not identified any service failures in its decision-making process and as a non-profit business it had ownership over any purchases it made. It had reviewed the sales process and confirmed the resident had been eligible for the shared ownership property as it was an OPSO property meaning the resident could retain a higher level of savings for future care needs. The figures the representative had provided differed from what the resident had provided. It did not provide a copy of the capital funding guide as it was deemed unnecessary but would be provided should a query be raised. When it had described the resident as “deemed charitable” it was using HMRC terminology to indicate that the resident was eligible to purchase the property. It apologised and confirmed this was not meant in an offensive manner. It had not identified any service failures in the resident’s purchase process. All available methods had been undertaken to market the property, including additional methods not used as standard. It would cover the expense of marketing the property further to increase exposure. It suggested that the representative could consider marketing this with an estate agent also. The representative could sub–let the property. The sales team had been correct in not providing details of the property which had recently generated interested but it could confirm the information provided had been correct. It had not identified any service failures in relation to the sales and marketing of the property.
23 June 2025	The representative requested his complaint was escalated to stage 2. In summary he said: The landlord had misinterpreted or failed to answer his points. He disputed the Landlords account of what he had been told in 2023 regarding a potential buy back – he said it had not told him this was possible in the future and at that stage in the process the requirements for CFG buy back would not have applied. He was not asking the landlord to buy back the property because of difficulty selling, rather that the purchase should never have been allowed. That the landlord did not properly assess the resident’s application otherwise it would have been declined in line with the CFG eligibility criteria. He highlighted relevant sections he said supported this claim. The resident would not have bought the property had he been aware of the eligibility requirements. The landlord had not responded to the following points: That it took 17 months for the valuation discrepancy to be noticed. His reasons why sub-letting was not an option for him. That HMRC, charity commission and homes England were implicated as involved in the application process. How its figures were different than what was provided by the resident. Why 2 material facts were not disclosed to the resident when purchasing the property but are now included in the re-sale documents. Why did the stage 1 say “the application wasn’t processed and approved with the relevant policies and procedures” if this was not an admission of service failure.
24 June 2025	The landlord acknowledged the representative’s escalation request.
17 July 2025	The landlord informed the representative that it needed additional time to respond and would do so by 19 August 2025.
14 August 2025	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary it: Said it had found the stage 1 investigation was handled correctly, a thorough investigation had been completed, and the correct outcome had been concluded. Said it had, however, identified a service failure in communication from the sales team since the stage 1 investigation. It offered £100 compensation for this and committed to providing fortnightly updates on the sale of the property. Summarised the eligibility requirements for an OPSO and extra care property. And confirmed that the resident had been assessed by an independent financial advisor and was deemed eligible for the purchase. Said it was, therefore, confident his eligibility had been assessed in line with the correct policies and the Homes England CFG. Confirmed that while Homes England were not directly involved in each individual assessment, it is expected to operate in accordance with their guidance. Said that its buyback procedures outlines that applications are discretionary and assessed case by case. Had complied with the CFG by exploring other options where a shared owner had experienced difficulty in selling. Recognised the process of repeating valuations was a burden and it had changed its process, now only requiring an updated valuation once a buyer was in place.
Referral to the Ombudsman	When the representative brought his complaint to us, he said he wanted the resident’s estate to be put back in the position it would have been had the property never been sold to the resident. He explained that he wanted the landlord to buy back the property and reimburse expenses such as council tax, service charges, legal fees etc.

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	The landlord’s handling of the representative’s concerns that the resident was not eligible to buy the property.
Finding	Service failure

What we did not investigate

We acknowledge it is the representative’s view that the resident was not eligible to purchase the property (in line with Homes England’s capital funding guide for shared ownership) and that the landlord should not have sold him the property. The representative would like a decision on the merits of his claim and, as redress, would like the landlord to buy back the property and reimburse related expenses.
It is our position that it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the representative to seek independent legal advice on the resident’s purchase of the property. We’ve, therefore, not investigated this aspect of the complaint. We have, however, considered the adequacy of the landlord’s response.

What we did investigate

It was positive that the landlord used its discretion to accept this issue as a complaint, given its policy allows it to exclude complaints arising from issues which had occurred more than twelve months before, and the sale had been made in 2019.
Prior to raising his complaint, the representative had been in communication with the landlord’s post sales team following its decision not to buy back the property. We have not been provided with all email correspondence from this time. However, on 21 May 2025, in response to an email from the representative, the landlord told him that it could not comment on the CFG criteria or that of the landlord at the time of the purchase as the criteria may have been updated since then.
Given the landlord later confirmed in its stage 2 complaint response that Homes England’s eligibility criteria were embedded into its processes, and that it was expected to operate in accordance with their guidance, this statement was not reasonable and was a shortcoming of the landlord.
The representative replied and told the landlord that the CFG had not changed since the time of sale and expressed frustration that it had not answered all his questions. The landlord replied on 23 May 2025. It provided a fuller response and said that it did not hold specific records relating to the resident’s purchase since the transaction had not been handled by that team. It confirmed that an application assessment, financial review, and an interview had been conducted with the resident and a note on the system confirming that the resident had been deemed charitable supported the approval of his application.
While we expect landlords to retain comprehensive records, in this case, we understand that due to the passage of time, and the merger with another landlord, that the landlord’s records may have been limited.
In his original complaint, the representative provided the eligibility list provided to the resident at the time of purchase. He confirmed that, in line with that list, the resident had appeared eligible to purchase the property. His concern, however, was that the landlord had not made the resident aware of the full eligibility criteria, meaning he had been unaware that eligible applicants must:
1. have a gross household income of no more than £80,000.
2. be otherwise unable to purchase a suitable property for their housing needs on the open market.
The representative said that had the resident been aware of this he would not have proceeded with the purchase, as he could have afforded to buy a suitable property on the open market.
The landlord used its stage 1 complaint response to explain that, because the property was an OPSO and extra care property, it had different eligibility than a standard shared ownership property. It explained that this allowed the applicant to have a higher level of savings (in consideration of future care needs).
However, part of the stage 1 response was confusing. The landlord stated that “the application wasn’t processed and approved with the relevant policies and procedures” which the representative interpreted as an admission of a service failure. On the face of it, this was likely an administrative error which ought to have said that the application was processed and approved correctly.
This, however, was likely to have caused confusion and additional frustration to the representative. And it was understandable that the resident raised this point in his escalation request, along with highlighting other sections of the capital funding guide to support his position.
The landlord addressed this in its stage 2 response. While it did not acknowledge it had made an administrative error in its stage 1 response, it did confirm that its position was that “based on the information available, we’re confident his eligibility was assessed in line with the correct policies and the Homes England Capital Funding Guide”.
The landlord explained that OPSO properties were intended for those who could not purchase a suitable home outright. Since this was the basis of his complaint, this statement is likely to have caused further frustration to the representative.
We have found that the landlord did not provide an adequate response to all the representatives concerns related to this aspect of the complaint, such as:
1. How the landlord’s assessment figures, it had provided in response to the representative’s subject access request, were different than those provided by the resident.
2. Why 2 material facts had not been disclosed to the resident when purchasing the property but were now included in the key information document for the property’s resale.
We acknowledge that the representative does not agree with the landlord’s position. However, we have found that, while the landlord provided a reasonable explanation of how it considered the resident eligible to purchase the property, it failed to provide an explanation to all the representatives concerns and this amounts to service failure.
The landlord failed to identify this failure throughout its complaint process, therefore did not offer any redress for this. This failure may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the representative, given the landlord’s position was that the resident was eligible to purchase the property. However, it caused the representative additional frustration, time, and disappointment that his concerns were unanswered.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the representative’s buy back application.
Finding	Service failure

The landlord has a “buy back procedure” in place. It says it can consider a buy back if there is financial difficulty, building safety, safeguarding reasons, mandatory rural buyback or a business need for repairs and maintenance.
The procedure makes it clear that the landlord’s decision is discretionary. Therefore, our investigation is not to assess its decision not to proceed, rather it is to assess that the landlord followed its procedures in reaching its decision.
On 27 January 2025 the representative asked the landlord if it would consider buying the property back using funds from Homes England’s recycled capital grant fund. While the evidence shows that the representative had discussed this with the landlord previously, this was the representative’s first formal request for this to be considered.
The landlord’s procedures states that, on receipt of a buy back enquiry, its post sales executive (PSE) will download a copy of the property lease and titles and create an electronic case file. Additionally, the PSE will request relevant safety certificates and property information from the executor and will ensure identification has been checked. The evidence shows that the executor’s identification had been checked in April 2023. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it completed the other steps in its procedure.
While this is highlighted as a record keeping issue for the landlord, we accept there is nothing in the evidence provided to suggest there was an issue with any of this information and not providing this evidence has not hindered our investigation.
The procedure then states the PSE will instruct both a RICS valuation to determine the market value of the property and an internal inspection to determine the cost of any repairs/redecoration required for resale.
However, the evidence shows that, on 6 February 2025, the landlord requested an up-to-date valuation from the representative. Because of delays with the surveyor, the representative was unable to provide this until 2 April 2025. The landlord’s request for the representative to provide a valuation was not in line with its procedure, and the landlord has not provided a reason for this.
The evidence shows that the landlord made internal enquiries to arrange the internal inspection of the property, but when it encountered issues with establishing who would complete this it made the decision to proceed with its consideration without this. While this was not in line with its procedure, this was a positive decision which prevented an unnecessary delay to the process.
The buy back procedure says the PSE will supply all available material to the landlord’s head of project and programmes to establish if the buyback option is viable. The landlord has not provided evidence of what material it provided or to which department this was provided. Without this information, we are unable to conclude that that it had sight of all the required material before reaching its decision or that its decision was made by the correct department head.
We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the representatives buy back request.
The landlord failed to identify any failure in following its procedure throughout its complaint process, therefore it did not offer any apology for this. Given, the landlord’s decision is discretionary, its failure to follow its procedure may not have significantly affected the outcome.
However, the representative had the inconvenience of having to arrange and provide an updated valuation. As such, we have awarded compensation for his time and trouble and made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of the representative’s associated complaint
Finding	No maladministration

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant Code in this case was published in April 2024.
The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at the time, was compliant with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
The representative raised his initial complaint on 22 May 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 28 May 2025. It informed the representative it required an extension on 9 June 2025 and issued its stage 1 response on 23 June 2025. These actions were in line with the Code.
The resident requested his complaint was escalated on 23 June 2025. The landlord acknowledged this on 24 June 2025. It informed the representative that it required an extension on 17 July 2025 and issued its stage 2 response on 14 August 2025. These actions were in line with the Code.

Learning

The landlord identified learning in its resales process and told the representative that it had made changes to what stages an updated valuation was required. This was a positive improvement for shared owners in any resale process.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

As mentioned above, the landlord did not provide relevant information to evidence that it followed its buy back procedure in making its decision.
It also failed to provide comprehensive notes in relation to its complaint handling, in line with the expectations of the Code.
These omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. It is, therefore, recommended that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, with consideration of our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.

Communication

Overall, this investigation has found the landlord’s communication with the representative to have been reasonable. It was positive that when the landlord identified an occasion its standard fell below its expectations, that it offered appropriate redress for this.
The representative’s frustration that the landlord failed to address all his concerns has been assessed in this investigation.