Homes Plus Limited (previously ,South Staffordshire Housing Association) (202008721)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008721

South Staffordshire Housing Association Limited

30 March 2021

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

This complaint is about:
1. The resident’s concern that the property she bought from the landlord under the Voluntary Right to Buy (VRTB) scheme was mis-sold to her.
2. Problems the resident experienced at the time of her VRTB application and viewing of the property.
3. Delays completing the sales process following the resident’s VRTB application.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Alleged mis-selling

Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure;”
The primary issue in the resident’s complaint to the landlord was her concern that the property she and her husband purchased from the landlord, in November 2019, was not in the same condition it was in when she last viewed it in April 2019. She complained to the landlord that after the purchase she discovered, amongst other things, a number of structural and interior problems, which she said had not previously been present. Notes taken by the landlord at the time after the sale, state that the resident no longer wanted to move.
The property sales process is a formal and legal one. There are rules and regulations about the information provided to prospective buyers, and solicitors play an important role in advising and guiding their clients in the process. Allegations of impropriety, such as the ones made by the resident, are serious matters, and ones which, ultimately, can only be resolved by the courts. The courts can cross examine and call expert witnesses, and can make legally binding judgements on the parties involved in the sale. The Ombudsman does not have the authority or remit to make such judgments. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39(i), this matter is better suited for the courts, and will not be part of this investigation.

Problems the resident experienced at the time of the VRTB application and viewing of the property

Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising;”
The resident first raised complaints with the landlord in November 2019. Amongst the issues she raised were matters which had arisen at the end of 2018, and in early 2019 in relation to the landlord’s VRTB offer, and inspections of the property. These included the resident’s concern that she had only been offered one property, had felt “rushed” into making a decision, and that the previous tenant had still been living at the property at the time of the resident’s viewing, and their belongings had made it difficult to make a thorough inspection.
Because of the length of time that passed between these matters arising and the resident’s formal complaint about them to the landlord, in line with paragraph 39(e), they will not be part of this investigation.
Any references in this report to the condition of the property, or matters from the start of the VRTB process, are for background information only.

Background and summary of events

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association, between October 2005 and December 2019. Both the resident and her husband corresponded with this Service and the landlord during this case. For clarity, the resident and her husband have been collectively referred to as “the resident” within this report.
On 25 October 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her request to purchase her property via the Voluntary Right to Buy pilot scheme. The landlord informed her that the property was exempt from the scheme as it was classified as a rural property.
The landlord then explained that the VRTB pilot is testing a new approach (known as Portability) whereby if an applicant is eligible, but their property is not, the applicant will be offered a limited timed option of using their discount to purchase a suitable alternative property. The landlord included a copy of its VRTB policy with its letter and explained the application process if the resident wished to proceed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2018 regarding a potential property available under Portability. The resident replied on the same day and enquired about arranging a viewing.
On 11 December 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that, following her viewing of the property, it could offer the property to her through the Portability VRTB scheme. The landlord explained that to accept the offer, a £250 administration fee had to be paid by 8 January 2019, which would be refunded at the completion of the sale.
On 22 February 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the purchase price of the property. It also provided a ‘notice of intention to proceed’ form for the resident to complete and return. It advised her that she had until 22 March 2019 to complete and return the documentation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2019. She informed it that she would be returning the signed documentation shortly, and enquired if she could continue to rent the current property, as they intended to undertake some repairs and adjustments to the new property prior to moving in.
The landlord replied on 4 March 2019. It explained that the resident would not be required to move out of the current property on the day of competition, but on giving notice to terminate the tenancy she would have to pay the total rent up-front for the notice period, which could be a maximum of four weeks. The resident returned the completed and signed notice of intention to proceed form to the landlord on 19 March 2019.
The sale was completed on 4 November 2019. No evidence has been provided showing any specific reasons for the time taken.
On 5 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated her unhappiness with the condition of the purchased property. She said she was seeking legal advice, had contacted her MP, and that she intended to raise a formal complaint.
The resident’s MP passed on her email to the landlord on 5 November 2019.
The resident requested that the issue was raised as a formal complaint on 25 November 2019. The landlord acknowledged the request on 26 November 2019. On 4 December 2019 it wrote to the resident to confirm it would respond by 18 December 2019.
The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 20 December 2019. It informed the resident that:
1. It had received a completed application form on 30 October 2018 requesting to register for Portability. The form stated that the resident wished to purchase a property in the area where she was currently renting.
2. On 12 November 2018 it had informed the resident that it had identified a potential property, invited her to view it, and informed her that, after the viewing, a Portability offer would be made.
3. The viewing took place on 22 November 2018. The resident raised several concerns during the viewing regarding the condition and size of the property. However, on 27 November 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord and informed it that she wished to proceed with the Portability offer on the property.
4. It wrote to the resident on 11 December 2018 with a formal offer to purchase the property. This letter informed the resident that the property would be sold as seen with the exception of the fitted wardrobes and carpet. The gas supply of the property was capped, and the kitchen hob removed on 18 December 2018.
5. The resident’s surveyor inspected the property on 7 January 2019. The resident requested that the living room fire be removed, which the landlord complied with. It further noted that the photographs taken on 7 January 2019 show a crack on the front doorstep and broken kitchen cupboards.
6. A further viewing was undertaken by the resident on 15 April 2019, no further requests to view the property were received by the landlord. It noted that although it would not permit the resident to view the property unaccompanied, undertake work, or store items at the property, it would not have declined any further requests for an accompanied viewing.
7. The resident was informed on 4 March 2019 that she would be allowed to remain in her rented property for up to four weeks once the tenancy was surrendered. The sale was completed on 4 November 2019. The landlord then allowed the resident to stay in the rented property to allow work to be undertaken at the purchased property. The keys for the rented property were returned on 4 December 2019.
The landlord partially upheld the complaint on the grounds of the length of time that the sale took to complete, and that the resident had not been told where to collect the property’s keys from. It noted that the resident had been previously told the sale to be completed by June 2019. It explained that as this was a pilot scheme, and the guidance and timeframes could only be tested via tenants going through the process and that, based on the feedback from the resident and others, the timeframes were likely to change in the future.
The landlord apologised to the resident for the inconvenience caused. As compensation, the landlord said it would waive the rent due for the period the resident remained in the rented property after the sale.
On 13 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two. Her primary concern was the condition of the property, however she also complained that the landlord had miscalculated how long she had remained in the rented property after the sale, and that she also had to pay council tax on both properties during this period.
The landlord replied to the resident on 21 January 2020. It confirmed that the complaint had been escalated to stage two and that it aimed to provide a response by 4 February 2020.
The resident called the landlord on 24 February 2020 and wrote to it on 27 February 2020 requesting an update. The landlord replied on 27 February 2020. It apologised for the delay, explained that it required more time to complete its investigation, and confirmed that it aimed to provide its response by 12 March 2020.
The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 12 March 2020. The landlord informed the resident that its stage two investigation had “broadly supported” the decisions it had made during the process as set out in the stage one response. It also recognised that the experience had been disappointing and frustrating for the resident. The landlord offered the resident a further payment of £250 in recognition of costs she had incurred while waiting to move into the new property. It explained that in response to her feedback it had changed its procedures and now encouraged prospective buyers to visit the property again prior to completion of the purchase.
On 10 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage three of the landlord’s complaints procedure, because she did not believe all her questions had been addressed.
On 12 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her that it had declined her escalation request. It explained that:
1. When a complaint had been investigated at stage one and two and it had been determined that the landlord had correctly followed its policies and procedures, it will not escalate further, as that would not change the decision.
2. It recognised that it had not followed its timescales at stage one and two of the complaints process, and that when it calculated the compensation offered at stage two, this delay was taken into account.
3. The resident’s comments that the purchased property was not the property the resident thought she was buying was “difficult for us to address”. It noted that she had gone through a legal process during which she should have received advice from her independent lawyers.
The landlord explained that the resident had exhausted its internal complaints process, and advised her on the steps to take her complaint to this Service, should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Voluntary Right to Buy was at the time a pilot scheme aimed at allowing tenants of some housing associations an opportunity to use the Right to Buy (RTB) process. RTB is usually restricted to tenants of local authorities. The current RTB process has specific timeframes a landlord must comply with, otherwise an applicant can make a formal request for a further discount due to any delays. This aspect of RTB forms its own dispute resolution process, and is not part of the complaints process, or in the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate.
VRTB is/was different because it was at the time only a pilot trial. The Government provided landlords with guidance on how to process VRTB applications, and the timeframes it should aim for. However, the timeframes were not legal requirements a landlord had to meet. As with any pilot scheme, it was intended that the lessons learnt from applicants would help refine or improve the process if it was decided to roll it out more widely. The VRTB process is in the Ombudsman’s remit to investigate.
The VRTB guidance states that a landlord should aim to complete the conveyancing (sale process) within 12 weeks of its offer being accepted by the buyer.
On 22 February 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and provided the offer notice. The resident returned the notice of intention to proceed. It was signed and dated 16 March 2019. The sale was finally completed on 4 November 2019.
The time taken to complete the sale was, accordingly, significantly over the 12 weeks recommended by the VRTB guidance. The landlord acknowledged this in its initial complaint response. It agreed that the resident had originally been told to expect completion around June 2019, and that date had been missed by a wide margin. It explained some of the reasons for the delay, primarily around the newness of the scheme, and that lessons had been learnt, including around setting realistic timeframes. It explained the nature of the pilot scheme, and how the resident’s feedback and experiences would go towards overall improvements. It acknowledged that those improvements would not specifically help the resident, and, in light of that, and the inconvenience and expense caused to her by the delay, offered her compensation of £250 and waived part of the rent due for the old property. The VRTB timeframes were guidance only, nonetheless, the landlord appropriately accepted that the sale process had taken too long, and that there had been an impact on the resident and her family. It was therefore reasonable for it to offer compensation, and the amount it offered was broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance for similar circumstances.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the delays in the VRTB completion at stage one and two of its complaint process. It sought to put things right by apologising to the resident, offering compensation, and changing its procedures. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.