Hyde Housing Association Limited (202208656)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208656

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a right to buy (RTB) application.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident was a secure tenant of the landlord and has now purchased her property. The property is a ground floor 2-bedroom flat. The landlord has no specific vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 27 January 2021 the resident submitted a RTB application. On 24 February 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint as she considered that her RTB application has been unreasonably delayed. As a result of the delays, she said she was incurring additional expenses.
On 25 July 2022 the purchase was completed. On 1 August 2022 the landlord offered to pay £2000 in compensation as half the additional payment to the mortgage and an additional amount as a good will gesture for the delay. The resident responded and said this amount did not compensate the additional expenses she had incurred. The difference in the mortgage offers was more than this. There was also a 4-month delay between the landlord instructing a surveyor. She wanted 4 months’ rent refunded on that basis.
The landlord responded. It said it had responded to the RTB notice and it had explained the reasons behind the delays. Under legislation in respect of RTB there was no rent due back to the resident as the delay had been resolved. It could not guarantee how long the process would have gone on had the plan not been invalidated by the Land Registry. It considered the best approach in respect of compensation would be to agree to pay the difference in the mortgage offer. It offered £3433.92 in respect of this. It also offered an additional £150 for stress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord then sent a final response on 23 February 2023. It agreed it failed to manage and respond to the resident’s complaint appropriately and as such upheld the complaint. It was unable to reimburse for rent as requested. It offered to reimburse for the difference in the mortgage offer which amounted to £3433.92. It also changed its compensation offer to reflect its further service failures which were not included in the original award. It offered an additional amount of £450 broken down as:
1. £50 time and trouble
2. £100 distress and inconvenience caused.
3. £100 delays experienced with progressing surveyor reports.
4. £200 for the complaint handling failures
The resident contacted this Service as she did not agree that the 4-month delay between the surveyor visits should be at her expense. She wanted 4 months’ rent to be reimbursed.

Assessment and findings

Legislation relating to the Right to Buy notes eligibility for the Right to Buy is based upon tenancy type. Under section.118 and 119 of the Housing Act 1985, it specifies that a tenant under a secure tenancy has the right to buy the freehold/leasehold of the property where they have been a tenant for at least three years.
The role of the Ombudsman is to investigate and assess how a landlord has responded to issues raised or notified to it and its subsequent handling of the complaint. The Ombudsman will determine whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and whether its actions were appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances.
The Ombudsman cannot assess the actions of legal representatives acting on behalf of the landlord, or the legal processes for the purchases of property. It follows that when considering this complaint, it has not been the role of the Ombudsman to assess the conveyancing procedure.
The resident is complaining about the landlord’s handling of her application to purchase the property, under the Right to Buy scheme. In particular, the complaint is about the delay in the landlord instructing a new surveyor.
The resident submitted her RTB application form on 27 January 2021, with the landlord sending its approval (RTB2 notice) on 17 March 2021. According to the legislation set out above, the landlord is required to reply within four weeks of the resident submitting her form. Therefore, the landlord should have responded by 24 February 2021, yet its response was sent 3 weeks later. This was not in line with government legislation and a failing.
According to the relevant legislation, once the landlord sent its approval notice on 17 March 2021, it needed to send its offer to the resident within 12 weeks. Therefore, the landlord needed to respond before 9 June 2021. It did not respond until almost 4 weeks later on 6 July 2021. This was not in line with government legislation and was a further failing.
The resident signed her reply notice, accepting the landlord’s offer within the 12-week time frame. The landlord then instructed its solicitor on 1 September 2021.The time taken at this stage does not therefore appear unreasonable.
The Right to Buy does not apply any further timescales to the rest of the conveyancing procedure, and the time taken for a purchase to complete (after the reply notice has been returned by the resident) will be dependent on the individual circumstances of each property purchase, and the parties involved – including their legal representatives.
It follows that there is no requirement on the landlord under the Right to Buy to ensure that it completes the sale of a property within a specified time. However, the tenant can serve notices on the landlord and apply to the county court for an injunction to enforce the landlord to comply with its duties if the resident considers the landlord is delaying. In this case the resident sent a notice of delay on 3January 2022. The notice said that no action had been taken on the case since 9 September 2021.
In response to this notice the landlord must then either move the sale along within one month or send a “counter notice”. The landlord responded on 4 February 2022 and explained its position. It advised that the delay was due to the plan originally provided by its surveyor not being land registry compliant. This meant that the landlord had to instruct a new surveyor to provide a plan which had now been provided. It said its solicitor was now in a position to contact the resident’s solicitors and matters could therefore move forwards.
The appropriate route for requesting rent reimbursement for delays in the Right to Buy process is through submission of the Notice of Delay forms. In this case it may not have been pursued because the landlord had moved the sale along at this point. Whether the resident decided not to at the time, or whether her solicitor did not make her aware of this option at the relevant points is unknown and not for this Service to consider. If the resident is dissatisfied with the advice provided by her solicitor, she may wish to complain directly to her solicitor’s firm or to the Legal Ombudsman or the Solicitors Regulation Authority.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord should use its complaint responses to identify any errors and explain how they occurred. The landlord should also acknowledge the impact to the resident and attempt to put things right.
The landlord could have assessed its earlier delays in accordance with the right to buy process. But overall, the landlord reasonably focused on the specific delay that the resident explained had caused detriment to her. The landlord acknowledged that the delay with the provision of the surveyor’s correct plans had led to the expiration of the resident’s mortgage offer. This was appropriate.
The landlord tried to put matters right. It said that under the right to buy legislation there was no rent due back. On this basis it considered that the difference between the mortgage offer was the best approach to redress in these circumstances which was reasonable.
This Service therefore considers the landlord appropriately acknowledged its failing and the impact by offering sufficient redress. It had attempted to put things right by offering to reimburse her the full difference in her mortgage offers(£3433.92). The amount of £250 offered for distress and inconvenience is also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which can be found on our website.

Landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure. Its policy advises that it aims to respond to complaints at Stage One within 10 working days and within 20 working days if a complaint is escalated to Stage Two.
The resident first submitted a complaint to the landlord on 24 February 2022. Following this, there is no evidence that the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint or engaged its complaints procedure. This was not a reasonable response from the landlord.
The landlord did acknowledge this when it formally responded. It explained that due to the resident’s desire to resolve the matter quickly it had logged the issue as an informal complaint. The evidence does not show however that it had communicated this to the resident. The landlord had said it needed to collate information and it would respond. It failed however to do anything further until the resident raised the issue again 2 months later on 25 July 2022. This did not show that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and was a further failing.
It is acknowledged that the landlord was in communication with the resident after her contact in July 2022. The landlord explained its position in relation to the complaint and it made an initial offer of redress which the resident declined. It then increased its offer. The evidence does not show any further correspondence after this offer.
The resident contacted this Service in February 2023, and we contacted the landlord on her behalf. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and advised it would respond. It said it had been waiting for the resident to advise how she wished to proceed. This response was unsatisfactory and a failing as the landlord should have followed up its offer of redress with the resident to ensure that the matter was resolved.
The landlord acknowledged within its complaint response that it should have communicated better and clarified what stage her complaint was at. It also explained that since her complaint was raised last year it had reviewed its process and switched off its informal complaint service to avoid this happening again. This showed that it had considered learning from its complaint handling in the past and was seeking to improve this moving forwards.
The landlord then explained it could not escalate the complaint as requested as it had not responded at stage 1 formally until now. At the end of its stage 1 complaint response, it then said this was its final response. It did not provide any explanation as to why it had departed from its complaint procedure which was confusing.
By missing this and only issuing a stage 1 complaint, it removed a valuable step and deprived the resident of the right to respond, resulting effectively in a 1 stage internal complaints procedure. This was not appropriate. This was a failure to apply the principals set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its own complaints procedure.
The complaint process was protracted and hard to access for the resident. There were unreasonable delays in issuing a complaint response, and the resident had to spend time and trouble pursuing the matter and had to seek assistance to get a formal response. Then when she did, she was not given access to the second stage of the complaint process.
The landlord did acknowledge some of its failings and sought to make matters right in its stage 1 response by offering £200 redress for its failings. This did not however reflect the full impact on the resident given that she was then not able to access its stage 2. This departure with no explanation would have caused confusion for the resident. It certainly does not a foster a good landlord tenant relationship. It also caused the resident further time and effort in having to pursue the complaint by contacting this Service again for assistance. Consideration has therefore been given to the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance in determining an appropriate amount.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has determined that the landlord offered redress to the resident that resolved the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £250 compensation made up of:
  1. £200 redress it offered in its stage 1 response for its failing in its complaint handling if it has not done so already.
  2. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks the landlord should remind all of its complaint staff of the importance of ensuring that it adheres to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and its own complaint policy. Confirmation that it has done this should be sent to this Service also within 4 weeks.

Recommendations.

Within 4 weeks the landlord should pay the resident £3683.92 redress it offered in its stage 1 response if it has not done so already.