Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202120857)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120857

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

24 August 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 handling of the resident’s purchase of their home through the Right to Buy scheme.

Background  

  1. The resident was a tenant of the landlord, and has now purchased their property.
  2. On 15 July 2020, the resident contacted the landlord for advice about purchasing his home through the Right to Buy scheme (RTB). The landlord responded on 17 July 2020 stating that the resident was not eligible for the scheme. The resident queried this on both 18 and 21 July 2020, explaining that he had been a local authority tenant for over 25 years. The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 July 2020. It apologised, explaining that its previous response had been incorrect due to an administrative error, and that the resident would be eligible for the RTB scheme.
  3. The resident submitted his application to buy his home using the RTB scheme on 5 August 2020. The landlord sent its response on 9 October 2020, confirming that the resident had the right to buy his home. It also arranged for a valuation of the property for 19 October 2020. The landlord sent an offer to the resident on 25 November 2020, explaining the terms of sale. The landlord has said that this was accepted by the resident on 22 December 2020. The landlord instructed its solicitors to act in the sale on 4 January 2021, with the sale completing on 17 May 2021.
  4. On 12 May 2021, the resident complained to the landlord about the length of time it had taken for him to purchase his home. He later explained that he felt the landlord had been needlessly delayed in supplying an offer for his home in November 2020, after he had submitted his application in August 2020. He complained that he had paid rent needlessly for months while the delays were ongoing. The resident asked to be compensated for the unnecessary rent paid. The landlord sent its response on 28 May 2021. It apologised for the delays to the resident’s purchase of his home. It explained that an increase in the number of people buying homes had delayed house purchases across all sectors, particularly with the governments implementation of the stamp duty tax break. It further explained that this was exacerbated by low staffing numbers throughout the pandemic. The landlord offered £50 to the resident, in recognition of the inconvenience the delays had caused.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 3 June 2021. He further complained about the landlord’s provision of incorrect information at the start of his application in July 2022. The resident acknowledged that there had been delays outside of the landlord’s control once the process reached the solicitors in January 2021. However, he clarified that he was dissatisfied with the delays caused by the landlord at the start of the process, between his initial application in August 2020, and the landlord making an offer on his home in November 2020.
  6. The landlord responded on 30 June 2021. It apologised that its first advice to the resident was wrong. It explained that it had identified that there had been a delay in issuing the resident with its approval of his right to buy notice (RTB2 notice), which took nine weeks instead of the required four. The landlord offered the resident £527.10 compensation, for the five weeks of additional rent the resident paid due to its delay.
  7. In his complaint to this Service, the resident remains dissatisfied with the initial delays to his property purchase. He would like to be further compensated for the delays between him making his application in August 2020, and the landlord responding with an offer in November 2020.

Assessment

  1. The Right to Buy scheme (RTB) enables eligible residents to buy their home at a discounted rate from their local authority. Some local authority properties were acquired by housing associations and therefore would no longer be eligible for the scheme. However, according to the landlord’s right to buy and right to acquire policy, if a resident was a tenant and living in their home when it was transferred to the housing association from the local authority, the resident usually maintains a ‘preserved right to buy’ (PRTB). The preserved right to buy still applies if the resident then moves from one property to another owned by the same landlord.
  2. According to the official government website, gov.uk, (which offers advice based on current legislation), the landlord should provide the right to buy application form (RTB1 notice) to the resident. Once the resident has sent their completed form to the landlord, the landlord must approve or deny the application within four weeks (RTB2 notice). If the landlord agrees to sell, they must send the resident an offer for the property within eight weeks of sending the RTB2 notice. The landlord’s Right to Buy policy states that it will instruct appropriate independent valuers to provide the current market value for PRTB applicants, in line with legislative requirements.
  3. The resident was a tenant of the local authority when his current landlord acquired his property through an exchange of housing stock. This meant that he had a persevered right to buy his home. The resident moved from the original property in 2015, to another property owned by the same landlord. Again, according to the landlord’s RTB policy stated above, the resident continued to have a preserved right to buy.
  4. When the resident enquired about buying his property on 15 July 2020, the landlord mistakenly advised that he did not have the right to buy his property using the RTB scheme. This area of law is complex, however the landlord needs to ensure that it gives correct advice to its residents regarding their various rights and entitlements. It was not appropriate that the resident had to query the landlord’s response twice before it realised its mistake. It was also not appropriate that the landlord did not explain its decision, which would have added clarity and perhaps aided it in discovering its error more quickly. Nevertheless, the landlord did re-assess its decision, discovering its error seven days later and apologising to the resident. These were prompt and reasonable responses and remedies to its error.
  5. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident complained about the time period between his application submission in August 2020 (the RTB1 notice), and the landlord’s offer on his home in November 2020. He explained to the landlord that although the Covid-19 pandemic may have resulted in delays, (which were exacerbated by the government’s stamp duty tax holiday), he felt that this initial period was unreasonably delayed by the landlord’s errors.
  6. The resident submitted his application form on 5 August 2020, with the landlord sending its approval (RTB2 notice) on 9 October 2020. According to the legislation set out above, the landlord is required to reply within four weeks of the resident submitting his form. Therefore, the landlord should have responded by 2 September 2020, yet its response was sent over five weeks later. This was not in line with government legislation. Additionally, the landlord was unsure why the delay occurred, and could not offer an explanation other than that it was an administrative error. That was a failing.
  7. According to the relevant legislation, once the landlord sent its approval notice on 9 October 2020, it needed to send its offer to the resident within eight weeks.Therefore, the landlord needed to respond before 4 December 2020. The landlord acted appropriately and in-line with its obligations, by arranging for an independent valuer to attend the property on 19 October 2020. A valuer ensures that the property’s value is assessed accurately, so that the landlord can calculate the resident’s RTB discount based on the market value of the home. Without this assessment, the landlord cannot send an offer to the resident. The landlord received the valuation on 16 November 2020. It sent its offer to the resident on 25 November 2020, within the required eight weeks timeframe. Its handling of this part of the process was therefore appropriate.
  8. The resident signed his reply notice, accepting the landlord’s offer on 16 December 2020. The landlord then received the notice on 22 December 2020. It instructed its solicitor on 4 January 2021, after the Christmas holidays. The landlord needed to receive the resident’s confirmation before it could instruct its solicitors. The Christmas holiday period reduced the number of days the landlord had in which to proceed, and therefore the time taken at this stage does not appear unreasonable.
  9. In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord should use its complaint responses to identify any errors and explain how they occurred. The landlord should also acknowledge the impact to the resident and attempt to put things right. The landlord’s first complaint response did not identify that it had caused unnecessary delays in the first instance, by failing to send the RTB2 notice within designated timescales. Without identifying where it went wrong, and acknowledging this to the resident, the landlord cannot be said to have properly recognised the resident’s complaint, or have learned from its mistakes for the future.
  10. However, the landlord acted appropriately in its final response, by acknowledging that it had initially given incorrect advice to the resident. It apologised and explained that it had implemented a new system that would prevent this from occurring in the future. The landlord also assessed how it had handled the resident’s application. It explained that due to an error, it had caused an unnecessary five-week delay at the start of his application, by failing to send the RTB2 notice within the correct timescales. The landlord acted appropriately by offering the resident £527.10 compensation, based on five weeks’ rent.
  11. By identifying that it made mistakes and acknowledging the impact this caused to the resident the landlord has offered sufficient redress for its failing. It attempted to put things right by apologising to the resident, and has reimbursed him for the period of delays that can be attributed to its mistakes. The amount offered is also in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which can be found on our website.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.