Housing 21 (202426905)

Background

1. At the time she raised her complaint, the resident had a restricted shared ownership lease with the landlord. The property was a flat in an extra care living scheme designed for people over the age of 55.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its buy back process.
   2. How the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about its buy back process.
   2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in how it handled the complaint.
4. We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

5. The reasons the landlord gave the resident for offering her 80% of the purchase price to buy back her property was in accordance with its policies and procedures. There was an error in the information given to the resident by the Head of Extra Care about what percentage the landlord would offer her to buy back her property. This was quickly rectified and the landlord apologised for this miscommunication in its complaint response.
6. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its complaints policy and the Code.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

What we have not investigated

7. On 17 January 2024, a completed buy back form was signed by the resident. This confirmed the resident had agreed to be paid 80% of the purchase price. The purchase price stated on this document was consistent with that given in the lease.
8. According to an HM Land Registry Deed of Surrender, the resident’s application to surrender the lease was logged on 24 March 2024.
9. We appreciate that in hindsight, the resident may have reconsidered whether the price she was paid was fair and would have preferred the landlord to have offered her a greater percentage of the market, and not the purchase, price. However, as the sale of the property has been through the legal/conveyancing process and the surrender of the lease confirmed by the Land Registry, if the resident now wanted to challenge the amount she was paid, she would need to seek legal advice as to whether she had grounds to challenge the sale.

What we have investigated

10. In this case, whilst we cannot investigate the sales process itself, we have considered how the landlord responded to the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint. These concerns were:
    1. That she had initially been advised the landlord would buy back the property at 80% of the market value:
       1. On 29 December 2023, the landlord’s Home Ownership Manager emailed the resident to confirm the buyback would be offered at 80% of the purchase price.
       2. It is not disputed that following this the landlord’s Head of Extra Care sent a message to the resident saying that the buyback would be at 80% of the market, not the purchase, price. Whilst it was reasonable for the resident to believe this was correct, this was quickly rectified. In a follow up email to the resident on 15 January 2024, the landlord’s Head of Extra Care said they were ‘incredibly sorry’ for this error. The landlord also apologised for this lack of clarity in its final response to her complaint.
    2. That it was unfair for the landlord to only offer her 80% of the purchase price:
       1. The landlord provided a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns.
       2. This is because in 2015 the landlord’s board approved a proposal to offer to buy back properties at 80% of the ‘initial investment’ (purchase price). This was confirmed in an executive team meeting in October 2023 where its draft Buy Back Policy and Procedure was agreed. The finalised Buy Back policy confirms:

(1)  ‘When offering to buy back a property we can only offer a value of 80% of the purchase price or market value, whichever is lower. We are governed by Homes England Capital Funding Guidance because they funded the construction of the property in the first place’.

3. What the landlord did with the property once it had bought it back from her.
   1. whilst the landlord was not obliged to provide a response to this point, it did, and explained to the resident the property was now rented.

11. Given the above we have found no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this complaint.

12. 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 is the 2024 edition (April 2024).
13. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 5 working days of her complaint being received (2 April to 3 April 2024). The landlord then provided its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being acknowledged (3 April to 15 April 2024). This was in line with its policy and the Code.
15. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days of this being received (19 to 26 April 2024). The landlord then provided its stage 2 response within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request being acknowledged (26 April to 28 May 2024), the 6 and 27 May 2024 being bank holidays. Again, the landlord acted in line with its policy and the Code.

Learning

16. We have identified no additional learning in this case.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was good. It was able to provide, on request, detailed and timely records which enabled us to carry out a fair investigation of the concerns raised.

Communication

18. The landlord’s overall communication in this case was good.