Unity Housing Association Limited (202119565)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119565

Unity Housing Association Limited

25 May 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 about her ‘Right to Acquire’ application.

Background

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy of a three-bedroom semi-detached house owned by the landlord. Her tenancy commenced on 1 September 1997.
3. The resident in 2006, made inquiries about the right to acquire her property and was informed the property fell outside scope of the scheme.
4. The resident made further applications in 2007 and 2008, which were rejected on similar grounds. She was advised of the ‘Homebuy’ scheme as an alternative.
5. On 23 June 2010 and in response to a telephone inquiry made by the resident, the landlord confirmed in writing that the resident could proceed with a right to acquire application. The resident did not complete the purchase within the specified time and the right to acquire was withdrawn in May 2011.
6. In August 2018, the resident reapplied under the right to acquire, and again received written confirmation that the application could proceed, but that application lapsed.
7. A fresh application was made in September 2021 when the resident was informed that her property fell outside the scope of the scheme. The resident raised a complaint and was informed the assessment in 2010 and 2018 were incorrect and was offered a refund of the valuation fees (£125). The resident wished to proceed with the purchase of her home and escalated her complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord explained the right to acquire legislation requirements, it maintained the property was out of scope and offered an ex-gratia payment of £275 for distress caused to the resident.
8. The resident has stated that she wants the landlord to reverse its decision and to enable her to purchase her home under the right to acquire scheme.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

9. The resident in her correspondence with this Service, expressed that one of the outcomes she is seeking is for the landlord to reverse its decision so she can purchase her home.
10. The Right to Acquire a property is governed by legislation which sets out clear eligibility criteria and process. If the landlord has properly considered the legislative criteria and rules, the Ombudsman is not empowered to compel a landlord to act contrary to legislation; neither can it compel it to reverse its decision if that would require the landlord to act beyond its legislative authority. The resident may wish to consider other alternatives such as the Homebuy scheme, which has previously been referred to her, or consider seeking legal advice.

The landlord’s response to the resident about her ‘Right to Acquire’ application

11. The landlord’s compensation policy says it aims to provide a good and reliable service to all its customers and to resolve any issues before the need for a compensation payment arises. The policy reflects the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and aims to restore a person to the position they would have been had the service failure not occurred. The police also sets out its aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days.
12. The resident applied to acquire her property under the Right to Acquire scheme in 2006, 2007 and 2008, after which the landlord provided written confirmation on each occasion that her property was ineligible, because the social housing grant confirmation date was prior to April 1997.
13. The resident then reapplied in 2010 and 2018. On both occasions, the landlord provided written confirmation that she was eligible to purchase the property, and in 2010, the resident paid a cheque of £125 towards a valuation of the property. However, the 2010 application was withdrawn as the resident did not complete the acquisition, and the 2018 application also did not progress.
14. On 8 September 2021, the resident applied again for the right to acquire her property and was told two calendar days later that her property fell out of scope. The reason for the decision was also explained to her by letter. That decision letter was dispatched with a copy of a Right to Acquire guide.
15. On 12 September 2021 the resident wrote a letter of complaint; a holding letter was sent on 15 September, identifying the resident’s letter as a stage 1 complaint. Within 10 working days on 24 September 2021, the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint and reiterated that the property was out of scope and why. The landlord apologised for the incorrect assessment in 2010 and in 2018 and explained that as the decision maker was now deceased, they could not explain why the resident was allowed to commence the process both times but nonetheless, she was not entitled to acquire the property under that scheme. The resident was offered a refund of her valuation fees of £125.
16. On 18 October 2021, after making a data request, the resident wrote to express her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. She said that she wanted to understand why they would revoke their decision to allow her purchase her home; why the error was not corrected; and why she was allowed to conduct a valuation if the property was out of scope. A holding letter for her complaint escalation was sent the same day, however a further response was not provided in a timely manner, and the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 23 November 2021.
17. Following this, a response from the landlord was sent to the resident on 10 December 2021, 40 working days later, maintaining the same position that the property was out of scope. It noted that the resident failed to complete her application on each occasion she was incorrectly allowed to commence one, so there was no adverse effect on her and no error to correct. It continued by stating that each application had a timeline which required a fresh look without any reference to previous application decision. The landlord offered the resident an ex-gratia payment of £275.
18. The landlord has clearly acknowledged that its decision was disappointing to the resident, and provided reasonable explanation about why it cannot account for the most recent admittances of her application. While this is the case, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to review lessons learned, to try to ensure it effectively manages resident expectations in future.
19. The landlord has stated in 2006, 2007, 2008 and again in 2021 that the property is ineligible, as grant funding for the property in question was prior to 1 April 1997. This is in line with the relevant government guidance that to qualify for the scheme, a property must have been funded, or built or purchased by a registered provider, on or after 1 April 1997 and not before. The landlord’s ultimate response in the matter is therefore appropriate, as this seems in accordance with the relevant regulations it is obligated to adhere to in its decision-making.
20. The resident’s expectations were not as managed as well as they could have been in the previous two applications, and it is understandable that she will have been deeply disappointed by the landlord’s position. However, the Ombudsman considers that no significant detriment beyond this was caused, as the landlord’s decision is in line with what it should have always been.
21. The landlord met its service standards in most of its correspondence with the resident, however it was delayed in its response to the stage 2 complaint. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord may have required some time to work through the case given it dates to 2006, but it would have been customer focused if, in addition to its holding letter of 18 October 2021, the resident had been sent a further letter explaining why it would require additional time. The landlord’s delay in conveying its final response is one which would amount to a service failure and in keeping with the Ombudsman remedies guidance and the landlord’s compensation policy, this would be deserving of a sum of up to £50.
22. The landlord’s willingness to offer £275 demonstrates that it wanted to put things right for the resident and to restore trust and confidence. The Ombudsman acknowledges the disappointment the resident will feel at the landlord’s decision but again, it is a decision that is compelled by legislation and as such, the Ombudsman finds that the £275 offered by the landlord represents sufficient redress.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect to the landlord’s response to the resident about her ‘Right to Acquire’ application.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

24. The landlord to pay the resident the £275 if it has not done so already.
25. The landlord to review any lessons learned about the erroneous admittance of the two previous applications, to try to ensure this does not happen again.