One Manchester Limited (202332199)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202332199

One Manchester Limited

20 December 2024

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 Right to Buy application.

Background

2. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, who is a housing association, which began on 8 March 2019. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom, end-terraced property. There are no known vulnerabilities.
3. In September 2023, the resident submitted a Right to Buy application for the property. In October 2023, after taking legal advice, the landlord informed the resident that they were unable to purchase the property through the Right to Buy scheme because they had been granted a discretionary succession tenancy. The landlord explained that the resident’s stepfather had succeeded the tenancy when the resident’s mother passed away and that there could not be a further statutory succession.
4. The resident was unhappy with this decision. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on their behalf on 11 October 2023. The MP asked the landlord to review the Right to Buy application on the basis that the resident had succeeded the tenancy from their mother. Due to the resident’s dissatisfaction, the landlord appears to have decided to use the MP’s contact as reason to log a complaint.
5. When addressing the resident’s concerns, the landlord referred to the resident’s stepfather as the resident’s father. In its stage 1 response dated 7 November 2023, the landlord explained the following:
   1. The resident’s mother was the secure tenant of the property by a tenancy agreement dated 8 March 1985.
   2. On 23 December 2013, the tenancy transferred by Deed of Assignment to both the resident’s mother and stepfather.
   3. When the resident’s mother passed away, the stepfather was able to remain in the property by way of a survivorship tenancy. This counted as a succession and, under the law, there can be only one succession per tenancy.
   4. The resident applied to succeed the tenancy after their stepfather passed away on 29 January 2019. The landlord initially declined the application because the resident’s stepfather was already a successor. However, on 8 March 2019, the landlord granted the resident a discretionary succession.
   5. The landlord explained that, because the resident was occupying the property under a discretionary succession, they did not have the Right to Buy the property but did have the Right to Acquire the property.
   6. The landlord apologised for errors in the confirmation of succession document signed by the resident and offered £1,500 compensation in recognition of issues that the resident had experienced.
6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 20 November 2023. The resident said:
   1. The landlord did not make them aware that it had issued a discretionary succession.
   2. The landlord should honour the signed agreement.
7. The landlord sought further counsel in the interim, on 14 November 2023.
8. On 6 December 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 response, the main points being:
   1. The landlord apologised for issuing the incorrect paperwork for the succession and increased its compensation offer to £2,000 in recognition of this.
   2. The landlord explained that the succession did not expressly state the resident retained a Right to Buy and that the paperwork was not sufficient to override legislation.
   3. The landlord offered full legal references and contractual provision in case the resident wanted to take legal advice.
9. The resident referred their complaint to the Ombudsman on 14 August 2023. The resident requested that the landlord approve their Right to Buy application. The complaint became one that this Service could consider on 28 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the Ombudsman may not consider events prior to the resident’s Right to Buy application in October 2023 due to the length of time that has passed. Reference to historical and more recent events is to provide context only.
11. The Ombudsman cannot consider whether the discretionary tenancy granted to the resident or the refusal of the Right to Buy is lawful. This would be for a court to decide, as per paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. However, we can consider whether the landlord dealt with the application fairly under the circumstances.
12. The Ombudsman cannot conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

13. Section 171B of the Housing Act 1985 provides a list of persons who are entitled to exercise the Preserved Right to Buy, being the former secure tenant, certain successors or persons who become the tenant because of certain family orders.

Landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Buy application

14. The resident submitted a Right to Buy application dated 20 September 2023.
15. Upon receiving the application, the landlord sought legal advice regarding whether the resident qualified for the Right to Buy scheme.
16. On 9 October 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to explain why they did not qualify for Right to Buy. The landlord followed this up by letter dated 12 October 2023 in which it clarified that that legally there could only be 1 statutory succession and as the resident’s stepfather had succeeded the tenancy from the resident’s mother, there could not be a further statutory succession. We consider the landlord acted reasonably by seeking legal advice and explaining its position to the resident.
17. The resident was unhappy with the response. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 11 October 2023. When responding to the MP on 24 October 2023, the landlord confirmed it had opened a complaint and would contact the resident.
18. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord should have acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days and then provided its stage 1 response within a further 10 working days.
19. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 30 October 2023. It discussed the complaint with the resident on 2 November 2023 before issuing its stage 1 response on 7 November 2023. Therefore, the landlord acted within the required timeframes.
20. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its administration of the succession in March 2019. It noted the resident’s complaint that no one had stated the new tenancy was discretionary and that they had lost the Preserved Right to Buy the property. The landlord acknowledged the distress caused due to the resident being under the impression for the last 4 years that they had retained the Right to Buy.
21. Following its stage 1 response, the landlord arranged a face-to-face meeting with the resident. The landlord sought further legal advice in the interim, on 14 November 2024, which we consider is further evidence that the landlord acted reasonably in considering the resident’s complaint.
22. The resident appears to have requested escalation of the complaint during the face-to-face meeting that took place on 20 November 2023.
23. In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy and this Service’s complaint handling code, the landlord should have acknowledged the escalation request within 10 working days and then provided its stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
24. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on the same day of the meeting and issued its stage 2 response on 6 December 2023. Therefore, the landlord acted within the required timeframes.
25. We consider that the landlord acted reasonably in considering and responding to the resident’s Right to Buy application and the resulting complaint. In its responses, the landlord clearly stated the situation, answered all aspects of the complaint, acknowledged its failings and offered compensation. It also sought legal advice on more than one occasion.
26. The landlord initially offered £1,500 compensation, which it later increased upon further consideration. This was in acknowledgement of issuing incorrect paperwork in 2019, failing to clarify the nature of the succession to the resident at that time and the issues that the resident had experienced due to this. We consider the landlord’s offer of £2,000 is reasonable redress regarding its handling of the Right to Buy application and the distress caused.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Buy application.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

28. The landlord should pay the resident the £2,000 compensation offered in its final response. This Service has found reasonable redress based on the landlord paying this amount to the resident.