Salix Homes Limited (202123579)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123579

Salix Homes Limited

17 March 2023

 

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 Right to Buy (RTB) application and an associated offer of compensation.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, having moved to the property following a mutual exchange in March 2019.
  2. In July 2019, the resident applied to purchase the property under the RTB scheme. This application was approved by the landlord. The landlord took action to begin the purchasing process, including a valuation of the property.
  3. The resident requested an extension to the deadline for the purchase. This was for the resident to obtain proof of previous tenancies, so an accurate discount could be applied. The extension was agreed with the landlord.
  4. The application was subsequently cancelled when the landlord did not receive the required acceptance. This was confirmed in a letter to the resident in February 2020.
  5. In October 2021, the resident requested a RTB form and discount figure from the landlord. The landlord provided the resident with a Right to Acquire (RTA) form. It stated internal checks revealed the resident was not eligible for RTB, due to the fact that she had moved to the property following a mutual exchange. The landlord stated this meant the preserved RTB was not retained.
  6. In November 2021, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and made a formal complaint. In its response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged an error had been made during the initial RTB application in 2019 and upheld the resident’s complaint. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord apologised for this error and made an offer of £100 compensation for the difficulty and distress caused.
  7. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s complaint responses, referring the complaint to this Service. To resolve her complaint, the resident requested:
    1. The landlord reinstate her RTB application and provide her with a property.
    2. An amount of compensation which is fair.
  8. The resident has since vacated the property.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is important to note that ordering the landlord to reinstate the resident’s RTB application, or provide her with a property, falls outside of the Service’s powers to resolve complaints. It is also noted that the resident has now moved out of the property. However, the Service has considered the actions taken by the landlord regarding this complaint and whether it acted fairly, in line with its legal obligations and its own policies and procedures.
  2. The landlord’s purchasing a property policy sets out how residents of the landlord can purchase their home through the RTB and RTA schemes. It also details reasons for denying applications, one of which being:
    1. “The applicant hasn’t satisfied the qualifying period of three years holding a public sector tenancy.”
  3. The resident became a tenant of the landlord after a mutual exchange in 2019. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord has explained that when a mutual exchange occurs between tenants of different landlords, the preserved RTB is not retained by either tenant. As the resident moved into the current property from a property owned by another landlord, she was not eligible for RTB at the time of applying in 2019. This should have been identified by the landlord and it should have ended the RTB application at that stage.
  4. Although she was not eligible for purchasing the property under the RTB scheme, the resident was allowed to proceed with an application in 2019. The process neared completion and was only cancelled when the resident did not provide an acceptance form, following a valuation of the property.
  5. The resident requested a RTB form again in 2020 and 2021. It was during the request in 2021 that the landlord identified the resident as being ineligible for RTB. In doing so, it advised the resident she would not be able to apply to purchase the property under the RTB scheme. However, the landlord told the resident she had the RTA.
  6. Having received a formal complaint from the resident, the landlord sought legal advice about her rights under the tenancy. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord told the resident it had been advised it would be unable to offer RTB under the terms of the tenancy. The landlord explained that the resident was not eligible for RTB because she had moved to the property following a mutual exchange. The landlord apologised for failing to provide accurate information in 2019 and acknowledged the difficulty and distress this had caused the resident.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out payments for gestures of goodwill, these are:
    1. “…up to £100 can be made in recognition of the time, trouble or inconvenience caused by our actions, or lack of action.
    2. In addition, senior managers have the discretion to award a gesture of goodwill payment of up to £250 for the same purpose. This also includes reviewing managers at stage two…”.
  8. The same policy provides examples of inconvenience where a goodwill payment may be appropriate. These include “failure to follow policy and procedure”. The landlord’s policy also states “consideration should be given to the severity of any service failure and the associated impact on the customer”.
  9. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord made an offer of £100 to the resident, for failing to provide the correct advice during the RTB application in 2019.
  10. The service has found it was reasonable for the resident to believe her 2021 RTB application would be successful, given her 2019 application had been accepted and all but completed. The resident had fair reason to have made plans for the property and also indicated to the Service she may have vacated the property sooner, had she known she was ineligible for RTB.
  11. While the landlord has acknowledged its failings and sought to put things right, the Service has found the level of compensation offered was insufficient given the impact and circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The Remedies Guidance suggests that awards of £100 to £600 may be appropriate for cases where the landlord has made an error which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has acknowledged failings but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s RTB application.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £350, made up of:
    1. £100 that it offered during its complaint process (if this has not already been paid).
    2. an additional £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by providing incorrect information about the resident’s right to purchase the property.
  2. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should run refresher training for all relevant staff, covering the process for RTB and RTA applications and identifying ineligible residents.
  2. The landlord should review its RTB application process to ensure residents who are ineligible are unable to proceed beyond the inquiry stage.