Onward Homes Limited (202120809)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120809

Onward Homes Limited

24 September 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 handling of:
    1. The resident’s Right to Buy (RTB) application.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 24 December 1984.
  2. The resident was previously a tenant of the local authority; however, due to his property being demolished, the resident was subsequently moved into a property owned by the landlord. The resident applied to buy his property on 30 September 2020, as he believed he was entitled to buy the property under the preserved Right to Buy scheme.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 19 November 2021 as the landlord had not made a decision on his RTB application within four weeks as per the government guidance. The landlord subsequently responded to the resident’s complaint on 22 February 2022 and stated that the resident did not have the right to buy his property, because it was a charitable housing association and, therefore, exempt from the Right to Buy scheme. However, it acknowledged that there was delays in its decision and offered the resident £100 compensation in consideration of this.
  4. The resident subsequently escalated his complaint on 25 February 2022 as he stated that the information provided was ‘contradictory’ as three other neighbours had been able to buy their property under the scheme. The resident also stated that, as per the government guidance, if the housing association was a member of ‘Homes England’ then he would be eligible to purchase his home.
  5. The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 23 March 2022. It stated that as his house was demolished and not apart of a stock transfer, which is typically when an RTB becomes preserved; the resident’s Right to Buy did not become preserved and, consequently, he was not entitled to buy the property regardless of any tenancy status.
  6. The resident remains dissatisfied that he is unable to buy his property through the RTB scheme, as other neighbours who had been subject to the same events had been able to purchase their property via the RTB scheme; the resident felt that this was ‘unfair’. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident would like to purchase his home via the RTB scheme.

Assessment and findings

Relevant legislation, policies and procedures.

  1. The Right to Buy is available to secure tenants of local authorities and non-charitable housing associations, and to assured tenants of registered providers (housing associations) who moved with their homes from a local authority to a housing association as part of a stock transfer (this is known as the Preserved Right to Buy).
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy states that at both stages of the complaint procedure, a response should be provided within ten working days.

RTB application.

  1. The Government guidance states that there are exemptions to the RTB. It states that homes which are let by a charitable registered provider or a charitable housing trust or association, would be exempt from the RTB.
  2. The landlord has explained that by way of legislation, due to it being a charitable housing association, the property would be exempt from the RTB scheme. In consideration, it was unable to authorise the resident’s application and this was reasonable based on the evidence provided and in accordance with the relevant legislation and government guidance. The RTB process has strict criteria and does not allow landlords any discretion. Therefore, the landlord could not allow the resident to purchase the property as he did not meet the criteria for RTB and the Ombudsman would not order the landlord to do so.
  3. Nevertheless, as per government guidance, landlords should provide a response to resident’s requests to buy the property within four weeks of receiving the application forms. In addition to the government guidance, the landlord stated that if it cannot fulfil the application process within four weeks, it would reply within a maximum of eight weeks.
  4. The resident submitted his application for the right to buy on 30 September 2021, meaning that the maximum date the landlord should have responded to the resident with its decision was on 25 November 2021. However, the landlord did not provide a decision until 22 February 2022, approximately twelve weeks after the maximum deadline date. Therefore, the landlord has not acted in-line with its policy obligations.
  5. However, it is acknowledged that on 26 November 2021, the landlord informed the resident that applications had been delayed due to staff shortages and apologised for this.
  6. In consideration of the evidence provided, the landlord should have kept in regular communication with the resident by providing updates between November 2021 and February 2022, to ensure that the resident had realistic expectations of how long the delays to the process were going to take, and also reducing the resident’s involvement in the process, so as to cause as little impact on the resident as possible. On the other hand, whilst the delays were inconvenient to the resident, it did not impact the outcome of the RTB application and, therefore, this has been considered in the compensation award below.
  7. While the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has previously offered £100 compensation, this offer is insufficient to remedy the detriment caused to the resident. Given the length of the delay to the application process and the impact this had on the resident, an amount of £150 compensation is appropriate to recognise the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which notes compensation of £50 to £250 may be ordered for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.

Complaint handling.

  1. As per the landlord’s complaints policy, the resident should have received a response to his complaint within ten working days at each stage. However, at stage one the landlord did not provide a response for an additional 60 working days outside of its policy timeframes. The landlord, in its stage one response, did not apologise nor acknowledge this delay to the complaint procedure and subsequent service failure.
  2. Furthermore, at stage two the landlord also did not provide a response within its policy obligation, as it was eight working days outside of its obligation. However, the landlord did communicate to the resident on 9 March 2022 that its stage two response would be delayed until 23 March 2022. The landlord subsequently apologised for this delay in its complaint response.
  3. It is acknowledged that the landlord did issue an apology for some of the delays; however, this is not sufficient as the resident had to have an increased involvement in the complaint procedure, which is not in line with good practice. Therefore, the landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation which is appropriate to recognise the time and trouble caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s RTB application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. That within 28 days of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident £300 compensation. This is comprised of:
    1. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident as a result of the delay to the RTB application process.
    2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
  2. This compensation is inclusive of the £100 already offered to the resident.