Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202302070)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302070

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

19 March 2025

 

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 refusal of the resident’s right to acquire application.
  2. The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a property that is owned and managed by the landlord, which is a housing association. The property was let to the resident by a previous housing association under an assured tenancy agreement in 1999. The housing association transferred the property to the current landlord via a stock transfer in 2008. The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The resident applied to buy the property under the government’s Right to Acquire (RTA) scheme in 2012. The landlord offered to sell her the property, but it later explained that the property did not qualify for the RTA scheme. The resident addressed the matter with the landlord via solicitors in 2019, and 2020.
  3. The resident sent a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 9 February 2023. She said her complaint was about her RTA application, which had not been resolved since 3 April 2012. Additionally, she said:
    1. The landlord sent her a property sale offer letter in May 2013 and August 2013, but it later denied her application. It did not keep records of its offer of sale, explain its actions, or provide her with an apology.
    2. She had followed the RTA procedures by requesting a district valuation of the property, but the landlord did not provide a final decision, or another offer of sale.
    3. She had not withdrawn her RTA application, she had tried to reapply, but this had been unsuccessful.
    4. The landlord had treated her unfairly. It had not given her the same chance to buy suitable alternative properties that it had offered to her neighbours.
    5. Some tenants had bought their properties in the building, but they were under “gag clauses” about these property sales.
    6. She had received a letter in 2016 about a merger affecting her landlord. This did not mean that the landlord should not address any earlier issues.
    7. The landlord had breached its contractual agreement by denying her RTA application without providing a clear reason, which had caused her distress.
    8. She wanted the landlord to investigate the case fairly and allow her to exercise her RTA, as it had already offered the property to her.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 February 2023, and it sent a stage 1 response to her on 7 March 2023. It apologised for its delayed response and any distress, or inconvenience that it may have caused her. It also said:
    1. Her RTA application had progressed to the offer stage, but it could not find a record of the sale of the property.
    2. Her landlord had incorrectly provided her with a RTA application form in 2012, but this would not be enough for it to sell the property to her.
    3. If it sold properties that did not have grant funding it would lose the property, and it would not be repaid the discount it had provided. This went against the rules of the RTA scheme. It was bound by policies and procedures that had been set by the government.
    4. It had responded to 2 different solicitors representing the resident in 2019 and 2020, explaining why the property was not eligible for sale under the RTA scheme. It had not received a response from the solicitors.
    5. It was sorry that she felt the landlord had treated her unfairly. It was unaware of any “gag clauses” for the sale of any eligible properties. If a property and the resident had met the RTA criteria, it would have sold the property to her.
    6. It had not sold any property since 2008, and it could not be held responsible for any sales before then as it had not owned the properties.
    7. Properties on the resident’s road had been built before the RTA scheme started on 31 March 1997. They had not been grant funded or approved for future sale and so they were not eligible for the RTA scheme. It had not sold any properties on the street under the RTA scheme.
    8. The property remained ineligible for sale. This position would not change, despite the landlord merging with another housing provider and despite an error with her RTA application taking place in the past.
    9. It did not usually address matters that had happened over 6 months already in line with its complaint policy. It had replied to the resident as an exception to provide clarity. It did not uphold the complaint.
  5. The resident sent stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 12 July 2023 which the landlord acknowledged on the same day. It sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 14 August 2023. In addition to advice it had previously given it said:
    1. The property had been registered with the land registry before the RTA scheme started in 1997.
    2. The resident could apply for a mutual exchange and if she found a property it could confirm if that property had a RTA.
    3. It had examined all the information, and it would not change its decision. It understood and it apologised for an earlier error which had caused the resident inconvenience and disappointment.
    4. Allowing the application to progress to an offer of sale did not mean it should allow the sale to happen. This went against the RTA scheme and so it did not uphold the complaint.
    5. It offered the resident £100 compensation because it should have registered the resident’s complaint at stage 2 within a reasonable time. It also said it should have referred her to the Ombudsman in its response to her email of 19 May 2023.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 19 August 2023 asking us to investigate her complaint. She said that the landlord had made errors when handling her application to buy the property. She explained that, to put the matter right, the landlord should correct its error by giving back her right to purchase the property or providing a suitable property for her to buy. She also wanted it to provide her with compensation for distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In the resident’s email of 18 May 2023 she told the landlord that its decision to deny her RTA application had affected her mental health. The courts are the most effective place for disputes about personal injury and illness. This is largely because independent medical experts are appointed to give evidence. They have a duty to the court to offer unbiased insights on the diagnosis, prognosis, and cause of any illness or injury. When disputes arise over the cause of an injury, oral testimony can be examined in court. Whereas we do not have the authority or expertise to do so and are not bound by the legal rules of evidence.
  2. Therefore, the effect of the landlord’s decision about the resident’s RTA on her health is better dealt with via the court in line with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme. This says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that in an email dated 18 May 2023 the resident has alleged that the landlord discriminated against her. We cannot decide whether discrimination has taken place, as this is a legal decision which only a court can decide. It is not clear if the resident has contacted the Equality Advisory and Support Service (EASS) about this. The EASS are the proper body to advise about in dealing with allegations of discrimination which the Ombudsman cannot consider.
  4. The resident applied to buy her property under the RTA scheme on 3 April 2012. The landlord at the time accepted her application, and it provided her with an offer of sale before it explained that the property had not been eligible for the scheme. The resident raised her concerns about the landlord’s handling of the matter via 2 different solicitors’ firms in 2019 and 2020. The landlord provided information about the property’s ineligibility for the scheme to the resident’s solicitor on 25 June 2019. Its solicitor also explained the matter further in a letter it sent in reply to her solicitor on 28 April 2020. The landlord also explained that it had checked its records going back to 2021, and it had not found any complaints raised about the RTA issues except her complaint of 9 February 2023.
  5. The historical issues provide useful contextual background to the complaint. However, our assessment focuses on the landlord’s actions in responding to the issues in the resident’s formal complaint of 9 February 2023 from 12 months prior to that complaint onwards. This is line with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme. This says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that a resident has not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising.

Refusal of the RTA application

  1. The resident explained to the landlord in her complaint that she would like it to investigate its refusal of her RTA application. She said that it should reverse its decision so that she could buy her home or to provide another property for her to buy. The landlord explained in its stage 1 response of 7 March 2023 that it was bound by policies and procedures that had been set by the government. It further explained that the properties located on the resident’s road had been built before the RTA scheme started on 31 March 1997. They had not been grant funded or approved for future sale and so they were not eligible for the RTA scheme.
  2. It was appropriate for the landlord to have explained this to the resident. The RTA scheme sets out that to qualify for the RTA a property must have been built, or bought using grant funding, after 31 March 1997. Alternatively, it would need to have been transferred to the landlord by a public sector landlord since 31 March 1997. Neither of these circumstances applied to the resident’s property which the landlord’s solicitor had already explained in its earlier letter of 28 April 2020.
  3. The landlord repeated advice about the eligibility rules of the RTA scheme in its final complaint response of 14 August 2023. It also said that allowing her earlier RTA application to progress to an offer of sale did not mean it should allow the sale to happen. Furthermore, it recognised that this was likely to have caused inconvenience and disappointment to the resident. The landlord’s decision to repeat its earlier advice, was appropriate given there had been no changes to the rules of the RTA scheme. It was also reasonable for it to have clearly addressed the earlier error that had taken place and recognised the effect this was likely to have had on the resident.
  4. The landlord advised the resident that if she found a suitable property via its mutual exchange procedures it could confirm if that property had the RTA. This was a reasonable offer for it to have made in recognition that the resident wished to buy a property and that she qualified to move via its mutual exchange procedures. The landlord’s offer showed that it had taken a solution focused approach to the matter.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to have agreed to reinvestigate the resident’s complaint and provide further responses in keeping with the rules of the RTA scheme. It looked to offer the resident an alternative solution to buy a property via a mutual exchange process. Furthermore it was very clear that its decision about her RTA could not and therefore would not change. Taking all matters into account we have found no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s refusal of the resident’s RTA application.
  6. When the resident raised the matter with the Ombudsman, she repeated that she would like the landlord to reverse its decision so that she can buy her home or to provide a suitable property for her to buy. As already explained, the RTA scheme has rules that the landlord has to follow by law. We cannot ask it to do something that is outside of these rules nor ask it to reverse its decision if it would go against that scheme. This is in line with Paragraph 42.o. of the Scheme which says we may not investigate complaints about matters where an outcome a resident is seeking is not within our authority to provide. Consequently we have not ordered the landlord to take any further action related to the matters contained in the resident’s complaint.

The resident’s complaint

  1. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as it:
    1. Did not issue its response to the resident’s complaint of 9 February 2023 until 7 March 2023. This was 8 working days later than the 10-working-day response timescale in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time of the complaint.
    2. Did not recognise or log the resident’s email of 18 May 2023 as a stage 2 complaint, despite her saying that she was not satisfied with its response, and it had not fully addressed her complaint. This caused time and trouble to the resident in resubmitting the complaint on 12 July 2023.
    3. Did not respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint of 12 July 2023 until 14 August 2023 which was 3 working days later that the 20-working-day response timescale in the Code. However, this was 61 working days later than the resident’s escalation request of 18 May 2023.
  2. It was reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s complaint despite the matters she referred to taking place in 2012 and its solicitor addressing the matter, most recently in 2020. It explained that it would not, in ordinary circumstances respond to the complaint because it had been sent over 6 months after the events had happened. This was in keeping with its housing complaints policy which says unless there is a good reason for not making a complaint at the time, the limit would be no more than 6 months after the event happened.
  3. The landlord summarised its earlier handling of the resident’s RTA application in its response, and it repeated the advice from its solicitors. It recognised and it apologised for its delay in issuing its complaint response. It also apologised for any distress the matter may have caused, and it offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition that it should have registered the stage 2 complaint sooner. It also said that it should have referred her to the Ombudsman in response to her email of 19 May 2023.
  4. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord had put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in all the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress (an apology, an acknowledgement of service failure, and compensation) was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  5. The landlord showed that it sought to be fair by responding to the complaint, despite the events of the complaint happening over 12 months before. The response appropriately summarised the landlord’s earlier actions in responding to the RTA application. It also recognised its failings, and it repeated the legal position of its solicitor which was more than reasonable under all the circumstances.
  6. The landlord was able to offer compensation in keeping with its compensation policy. This was an opportunity for the landlord to put right matters, in recognition that it had failed to meet its own service targets. Its award was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for circumstances where, like here, there were service failings that did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident but caused her time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved. We consider the compensation was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failures.
  7. Therefore, taking all matters into account we have found the landlord to have provided reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of the resident’s complaint. We have recommended the landlord to pay this to the resident if it has not already done so.

Determination (decision)

  1. In line with Paragraph 52. of the Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s refusal of the resident’s right to acquire application.
  2. In line with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is recommended to pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered in the stage 2 response if it has not already done so.

 

Chat to us