Wakefield And District Housing Limited (202005491)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005491

Wakefield And District Housing Limited

23 February 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

  1. The complaint concerns:
    1. The landlord’s decision not to progress the resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application.
    2. The level of compensation awarded by the landlord.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
  2. This complaint is concerned with the resident’s RTA application, which was first made in 2017. Paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
  3. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  4. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to June 2019. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the complaint made in December 2019.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The landlord’s records show that the resident first made a RTA application on 21 November 2017. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 October 2018 and informed the resident that as she had not complied with the final completion notice, it considered that she had withdrawn the notice she had served on it claiming the RTA.
  2. On 2 December 2019 the resident wrote an email to the landlord describing her dissatisfaction with several issues. The resident highlighted:
    1. Homophobic and racist abuse her and her family had experienced from a neighbour.
    2. False allegations of noise nuisance and antisocial behavior (ASB) made against her son.
    3. How these ASB allegations were handled by the landlord.
    4. The decision by the landlord not to consider a new RTA application.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 December 2019. It acknowledged her email and stated that it would investigate the issues she had raised and then send a complaint response. On 3 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident again and requested to meet to discuss her complaint. The landlord and resident agreed to meet on 17 January 2020.
  4. On 3 March 2020 the landlord sent the resident a complaint response at the informal stage of its internal complaint process. It informed her that:
    1. Following the allegations of verbal abuse, a police officer visited the neighbour. Mediation was offered but was refused.
    2. It had written to the police officer and requested that they contact the resident in case she wished to discuss the matter further.
    3. The RTA scheme does not cover new build properties which were bought without grant funding, which was the case with the resident’s property. The landlord was not aware of this at the time when the resident first made an application in 2017, which was why it was initially progressed.
    4. The landlord was now aware of the legislation which is why it was unable to progress a new RTA application. It apologised to the resident for the conflicting information it had previously given her.
  5. The landlord then informed the resident that if she was not satisfied with its response, she could request that her complaint is progressed to stage one of its formal complaints process.
  6. On 14 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested that the element of her complaint relating to RTA be progressed to stage one. She described her unhappiness with how the matter had been handled by the landlord’s customer service team. She also noted that she had made improvements to the property that she would not have undertaken if she had been made aware that it would not be possible to purchase it.
  7. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 March 2020 and confirmed that it had opened a formal complaint. It sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2020.
  8. The landlord explained that its call records show that the resident contacted it on 1 October 2019 and was informed why she was unable to buy her property and it suggested other options available to her to buy another property, such as shared ownership.
  9. It apologised to the resident for the confusion and stated that it was never its intention to mislead her. It explained that although it is a registered social landlord, not all its properties are eligible for the RTA scheme and that it does not rent its properties on a rent-to-buy basis.
  10. The landlord then informed the resident that if she continued to be dissatisfied with its response, she could request that the complaint is escalated to stage two.
  11. The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 March 2020 and requested an escalation to stage two. She stated the grounds for the request were that the stage one response seemed to suggest that there had only been verbal communication relating to the RTA application. The resident noted that the application was authorised, a survey was undertaken, the property was valued, and she corresponded with the landlord’s legal team.
  12. The landlord sent a stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 March 2020. It informed the resident that it stood by its position in its stage one response that it was unable to progress a RTA application for the property.
  13. The landlord apologised again for not being aware at the time of the application that the property was excluded from the RTA scheme. It then informed the resident that it had awarded her £750 compensation in recognition that from October 2017 until July 2019, she believed that she had the right to buy the property due to the advice given to her by the landlord.
  14. The landlord concluded its response by informing the resident that she had now exhausted its internal complaints process and advised her on the steps to take the complaint to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Right to Acquire

  1. The landlord has informed the resident that her property was ineligible for the RTA scheme and has apologised for previously progressing her application. It explained that this was because the RTA scheme does not cover new build properties which were bought without grant funding. This was disputed by the resident.
  2. Section H6 of the tenancy agreement is concerned with RTA and states as follows:

“Right to Acquire (RTA)

You have the RTA your home under the Housing Act 1996, unless you live in an independent living scheme or other housing excluded from this right by that legislation”

Section 11 of the UK Government’s capital funding guidance covers RTA. Paragraph 3 is concerned with property eligibility and in part states:

“3.2.2 Only properties provided through grant funding on or after 1 April 1997, including properties provided with the receipts from the Disposal Proceeds Fund and property transferred from public sector landlords on or after that date, will be eligible”

  1.  The landlord correctly informed the resident that as a new build property built without grant funding, the resident’s property would not be eligible for the RTA scheme. This was also in line with the tenancy agreement signed by the resident.
  2. The landlord apologised to the resident for not being aware of the legislation at the time of her first application. In recognition of this, it awarded her £750 compensation.
  3. The landlord has provided this Service with internal emails from March 2020 where this issue was discussed. These emails state that following this case it had changed its procedures. When the landlord now receives a RTA application, an email is sent to its acquisitions team to check whether the property was grant funded and is therefore eligible for the scheme. This is appropriate action by the landlord. It demonstrates that the landlord learnt from the issues raised by this complaint, and has taken steps aimed at preventing similar errors from occurring in the future.

Compensation

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 8 September 2019 and requested that her complaint with the landlord is considered. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident stated she wanted the landlord to either progress her RTA application or to refund her costs of renovating the property.
  2. The resident noted that she had spent £3,000 installing new flooring and a new kitchen, which she would not have done had she been aware she was not able to purchase the property.
  3. The landlord’s home improvement policy states that an assured tenant can make improvements to a property if they fill out a home improvement application form and receive written permission from the landlord for the work to go ahead.
  4. From the evidence provided to this Service, it is not clear if these steps were taken by the resident. Moreover, this Service has not been provided with any evidence of the costs of the improvement work, such as invoices or receipts.
  5. It should also be noted that the landlord has a compensation for improvements policy. When the resident’s tenancy of the property ends, under this policy she can make a claim for improvements and alterations made to the property up to four weeks from giving notice or two weeks from the end of the tenancy.
  6. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an acknowledgment of its error, an apology, changing its procedures in how it checks the RTA eligibility of properties and a compensation payment of £750) 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.
  7. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by changing its policy to ensure it checks all properties are eligible when receiving a RTA application and awarding £370 compensation.
  8. The compensation award was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings. The landlord demonstrated that it learnt from outcomes by changing its procedures to avoid making similar errors with a RTA application in the future.
  9. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. 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)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to progress the resident’s RTA application. 
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident, which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord correctly explained why the property was not eligible for the RTA scheme.
  2. The landlord recognised its service failure in not being aware of this when the resident first sent a RTA application in 2017.
  3. The landlord made changes to its procedures to make sure it checks the eligibility of properties when it first receives a RTA application.
  4. The landlord awarded compensation at a level proportionate to the service failure identified.

Orders and recommendations

  1. It is recommended that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord re-offer the £750 compensation awarded to the resident, if it has not already been paid.