East Midlands Housing Group Limited (202112444)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112444

East Midlands Housing Group Limited

10 May 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports about his attempts to purchase the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. In 2019, the resident submitted an application to buy the property through the Voluntary Right to Buy scheme (VRTB). This was a government pilot scheme that offered the opportunity for an assured tenant to purchase the property they lived in. In the case of this resident, under the scheme he would have received an £80,000 discount as confirmed by the February 2019 valuation that was made available to this Service. The property was valued at £160,000 and this would therefore constitute a 50% discount.
3. The resident could not secure a mortgage in time to purchase the property following his 2019 application and the VRTB scheme then closed. The landlord confirmed that the resident was then eligible for the Right to Acquire scheme (RTA) which entailed a discount of £9000 in respect of the property. The resident was unhappy with this and submitted a complaint on 21 May 2021. The resident suggested that as he had lived in the property for over twenty years, he should be entitled to a larger discount, and conveyed that he believed the £9000 discount was unacceptable.
4. The landlord offered its formal response on 24 May 2021, in which it explained that the VRTB was a pilot scheme that had now ended. It further explained that the only scheme that he was legally entitled to was the RTA. Through further correspondence, the resident again disputed the £9000 discount and asked for a discount of a higher percentage. The landlord consistently explained that it was out of its control as it was a government scheme. It suggested that he should either proceed with the RTA or to wait to see if the government re-introduced the VRTB.
5. The resident asked to escalate his complaint, yet it was formally denied on 2 August 2021. The landlord’s denial acknowledged that the resident wished to appeal but explained that there was nothing further the landlord could offer. It explained that it had already advised him of the RTA, and where to access information regarding it. After a review from a director, it concluded that there was no service failure and that ‘it would not be reasonable or productive to go through this process’.
6. It is also worth noting that during the complaints process with the landlord, the resident also made a complaint about a decoration issue with the property. This Service hasn’t investigated that aspect of the complaint as in all communications with the resident, he has only brought to this Service the complaint about the VRTB/RTA discount.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

7. Section 4.7 of the landlord’s complaints policy outlines the landlord’s four-stage complaint procedure (for relevance, only the first two stages are described below).
8. Stage one is to be dealt with by ‘an appropriate officer’ and stage two will be reviewed by an internal panel.
9. ‘Note 2’ of section 4.7 of the complaints policy states that ‘It is not always appropriate…to be heard by both a board member and/or representative’.
10. Section 4.8 of the complaints policy states that a formal stage one response will be made ‘without exception’ to ensure that:

1. ‘[The landlord has] the full details of the complaint’.
2. ‘[The landlord has] confirmation of what action the complainant is expecting from [the landlord] to resolve the complaint’.

Scope of Investigation

11. In accordance with paragraph 39(r) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service cannot consider the level of discount offered in the government’s Right to Acquire scheme. Paragraph 39(r) states that ‘The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the matters where the complainant is seeking an outcome which is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide’. However, this Service can investigate how the landlord has responded to the resident’s complaint and determine whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the landlord has acted reasonably and followed its procedures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the possible purchase of the property

12. On 21 May 2021, the resident called the landlord and made a formal complaint regarding the discount he had been offered as part of the RTA scheme. He explained that he was unhappy with the offer of a £9000 discount as he had previously been offered an £80,000 discount as part of the VRTB. Due to not securing a mortgage in time, the VRTB scheme ran out and he was no longer entitled to the £80,000 discount.
13. The landlord issued its formal response on 24 May 2021. It explained that the VRTB ‘was a government pilot which [the landlord] took part in. That pilot [was] now over’. It informed the resident that legally he was entitled to the RTA scheme and that he was not entitled to any other scheme. It explained that the £9000 discount set out in the RTA is a set discount for the property which is determined by the government. It said that ‘[the landlord is] only allowed in law to sell as outlined by the government therefore [the landlord is] not allowed to grant more discount and [the landlord is] unable to change this’. It also suggested that the resident could either progress with the RTA or to wait and see if the VRTB is reintroduced.
14. The landlord’s formal response was issued within a reasonable timeframe as it only took three days to respond. It was appropriate to explain the legalities to the resident and to explain that the discounts from the scheme are determined by the government. This attempt to manage the resident’s expectations is what is expected of a landlord as it lets the resident know where it stands regarding the complaint, and it lets the resident know what the landlord can and can’t do in order to attempt to resolve the complaint.
15. Following another call from the resident, in which he attempted to appeal the offered discount again, the landlord sent an email on 11 June 2021 which explained in further detail its position on the matter. It explained that as the resident’s tenancy was an assured tenancy, law grants him access to the RTA scheme. It explained that he was not eligible for a Right to Buy (RTB) scheme as he did not hold a secure tenancy. The email also showed the resident how to find more information about the RTA scheme and further explained that eligibility for these schemes is defined by law, and that it was unable to deviate from prescribed eligibility.
16. It is unclear when the resident made a formal stage two complaint, but the landlord’s records show that the resident’s last communication before the stage two denial was issued was on 11 June 2021. It is therefore reasonable to determine that the escalation request was made between 4 and 11 June 2021. The landlord’s formal response to the stage two complaint was issued on 2 August 2021. It was therefore issued within a reasonable timeframe.
17. In the response, the landlord explained that stage two is normally to ‘hear any point that a customer feels [the landlord] has not addressed in the stage one response’. The landlord acknowledged that the resident wished to appeal the discount and the landlord’s response but explained that as it had already advised him of the RTA, where to access information about it and the potential discount available, there was nothing else the landlord could offer. It also confirmed that the complaint had been reviewed by a director in accordance with the complaints policy in order to establish if there was a sufficient reason to escalate the complaint. It concluded that there had been no service failure on the part of the landlord and therefore believed it ‘would not be reasonable or productive to go through this process’. It confirmed that the complaint procedure had been exhausted and offered contact information for the resident to contact this Service.
18. It was reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to deny escalating the complaint to stage two as this was in accordance with the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As stated in section 4.7 of its complaints policy; ‘It is not always appropriate… to be heard by both a board member and/or representative’. This is justified as the landlord had covered all aspects of the resident’s complaint in its stage one response and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had raised further issues as part of his stage two escalation request.
19. Additionally, the landlord had attempted to explain the details of the VRTB and RTA to the resident outside of the complaints procedure, through multiple calls and emails. It signposted the resident to relevant information and explained in detail why it was unable to adjust the discount offered. These actions were reasonable as they demonstrate the landlord taking time to clarify its role and to confirm the legal basis underlying its decision making. The landlord has acted with transparency and fairness in doing so.
20. It should also be noted that during a call with this Service on 12 October 2021, the resident said that he had escalated the complaint to stage two but had not received a response. It is clear from the investigation into this case that the landlord declined to escalate the complaint to stage two. Additionally, the landlord made it explicitly clear that the formal complaint procedure had been exhausted by saying ‘[the landlord confirms] that [its] complaints procedure has been exhausted. If [the resident wishes] to pursue the matter further, the Housing Ombudsman’s details can be found overleaf’.
21. It is evident that the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in a reasonable and appropriate manner. It offered its complaint responses in a reasonable time and addressed every aspect of the resident’s complaint. It also went above and beyond to signpost the resident to relevant sources to learn further about the several schemes. Additionally, it kept in good contact with the resident and explained on multiple occasions and in varying detail, exactly why it was unable to adjust the discount offered as part of the RTA.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about his attempts to purchase the property.