Yorkshire Housing Limited (202234682)

Background

1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord back in 2009. She completed a mutual exchange and moved into a property with a different landlord in 2009. In 2010 she did another mutual exchange and moved back in to the original property and signed a new tenancy with the landlord. In 2021 the resident made a right to buy application, and the landlord refused her application. It said she had lost her preserved right to buy (PRTB) status when she completed the mutual exchange in 2009. The resident was unhappy and made a complaint in August 2023. She said the landlord gave her incorrect advice at the time of her mutual exchange in 2009.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the information given during the mutual exchange process in 2009/10.
   2. Refusal to grant a PRTB application.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the information given during the mutual exchange process in 2009/10 is outside our jurisdiction to investigate.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Refusal to grant a PRTB application.
   2. Complaint handling.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right. But we have made recommendations based on the information received after the complaints process was exhausted.

Summary of reasons

Concerns about the information given during the mutual exchange process in 2009/10

6. We are unable to investigate complaints that were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable period of the matters arising.

The landlord’s refusal to grant a PRTB application

7. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident may have been given incorrect advice at the time of her mutual exchange, but due to the length of time that passed it could not corroborate this. The landlord sought legal advice and was told it was unable to reinstate the PRTB status of the resident. The landlord was entitled to rely on the legal advice it received and it explained its position with clarity and transparency.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

8. Our scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident has complained about the advice given about her PRTB at the time of the first mutual exchange in 2009, and again in 2010 when she moved back in to her original property. The resident raised a formal complaint on 31 July 2023. However, there is no evidence she raised a complaint promptly and in any event within 12 months of when she was given advice at the time of the mutual exchange. We have not seen evidence she was prevented from raising a complaint sooner.
9. Due to the passage of time the landlord was unable to investigate the complaint about this matter as it did not retain records from around that time. The resident has also reported concerns about the advice she was given in 2014, after moving back in to her original property. This matter also occurred more than 12 months prior to making the complaint in 2023. Considering this, and the lack of available information from around that time it is not possible for us to complete a thorough and detailed investigation about its handling of the matters from 2009/10 or 2014.
10. For the above reasons, we will not investigate the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the information given during the mutual exchange process in 2009/10.

11. When the resident complained about its refusal to honour the resident’s previous PRTB, the landlord sought legal advice. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The legal advice it received said that when the resident surrendered her original tenancy she lost the PRTB she had from when the property was transferred from local authority stock in 2003. The landlord was entitled to rely on the legal advice it received, and it communicated its position with clarity.
12. The government guidance on right to buy, available on its website, says if a resident moves to another property owned by the new landlord: “The Preserved Right to Buy is lost if you move to a property owned by another housing association or where your tenancy is terminated or when you move to a property in the private sector.” The landlord’s position on the resident’s PRTB was in line with the government guidance on right to buy.
13. The landlord used its final complaint response to restate its legal advice. It also outlined its understanding of RTB rules that there was no statutory framework at which it could reinstate the PRTB. We appreciate this was a disappointing decision for the resident. However, the landlord was entitled to rely on its legal advice, and communicated its position with clarity. The landlord appropriately acknowledged the resident may have been given incorrect advice at the time of her mutual exchange, but due to the length of time that passed it could not corroborate this.
14. The resident provided us with a letter she received from DLUHC in December 2023. She said the content of the letter made it clear the landlord could use its discretion to offer to sell the resident the property with the same discount had she had the PRTB. This letter was sent to the resident after she exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to respond to first.  This letter was not available at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response. Therefore, we have no power to investigate the landlord’s response to it. Considering the content of the letter, we recommend the landlord writes to the resident setting out its position on whether it is prepared to use its discretion and offer to sell the property with a similar PRTB discount applied.

15. The landlord sent the resident it stage 1 complaint response 19 working days after the resident complained. This was outside the timeframe set out its complaint policy and our complaint handling code. However, the landlord requested an extension, advised how to seek our assistance, and sent its response within the additional 10 working days allowed by the Code. This was in line with the approach mandated by our code.
16. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response within the 20 working day timeframe set out in its complaint policy and mandated by our code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s records were adequate to enable us to conduct our investigation. We note it did not have records available from around the time of the mutual exchanges in 2009/10. Given the passage of time, and data retention rules, this was reasonable in the circumstances.

Communication

18. While the resident was evidently disappointed with the landlord’s position on the resident’s PRTB status, it communicated with clarity and consistency throughout. It gave a detailed explanation of its decision. It showed transparency by passing on the legal advice it received.