Torus62 Limited (202210507)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210507

Torus62 Limited

16 June 2025

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 holds an assured tenancy. She holds a preserved right to buy as her tenancy had transferred from a local authority to a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
3. The resident contacted us as she was unhappy with her landlord. She explained she had concerns with its handling of her right to buy (RTB) application. She said it had delayed processing the application and it had not communicated updates to her. The resident’s main concern was around its handling of her request for a revaluation of the property offer. On 23 December 2022, we wrote to the landlord and asked it to log a complaint about these concerns.
4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 8 January 2023. It outlined steps it had taken, in line with relevant statutory processes, following her RTB application submitted in November 2021. It said the resident could not request a revaluation of the property as she had not responded within the statutory timescales to do so. It confirmed it had not found any delays in its handling or processing of the RTB application.
5. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 6 April 2023. She asked it to do so as she remained unhappy with other matters unrelated to this complaint, such as repair issues.
6. On 11 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said it had dealt with the repair issues under a separate complaint. It repeated the information about the steps it had taken to process her RTB application. It said it had still not found any delays in its handling or processing of the application. It offered her a meeting to discuss this further if she wished to do so on 19 May 2023.
7. The resident contacted us as she remained unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her RTB application. She felt it did not provide her with updates, and it failed to process her application in a timely manner. The complaint became one we could investigate on 5 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

8. During the resident’s complaint escalation to the landlord, she included issues which she had not referred to in her initial complaint. This included issues with repairs to the property. The landlord did not include the unrelated matters within its final response, as it said it had responded to this under a separate complaint. In line with the Code, this approach was appropriate. As such, the focus of our investigation will be on the landlord’s handling of the RTB application, as outlined in the resident’s initial complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s right to buy application.

9. The landlord’s right to buy policy states that it will follow the relevant legislation when assisting tenants who wish to purchase their home.
10. The government’s right to buy guidance states that the landlord must:
    1. Issue an RTB2 notice confirming whether or not the resident is eligible for RTB. It must do this within 4 weeks of receiving the application.
    2. Send an offer notice to the resident within 8 weeks of sending the RTB2 notice. This is known as a S125 notice. It should set out the property valuation, the terms and conditions of the sale, and any known structural problems at the property. The timescale is extended to 12 weeks for leasehold properties.
    3. Allow the resident up to 12 weeks to decide the next steps. The resident must either accept the offer, request an independent revaluation in writing, or withdraw the application. The option to request a revaluation expires after the 12–week period ends.
    4. Issue a further notice to the resident to allow them a further 28 days to respond to the offer, if they do not do so within the 12–week period. This is known as the default notice period.
11. The resident submitted a RTB application to the landlord on 10 November 2021. She sent this again to the landlord on 20 November 2021. It is unclear why the landlord did not respond to the resident initially. By not doing so, the resident spent some time and trouble in resending her application 8 working days later. However, the landlord then responded to her application promptly. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that this minor delay caused any significant detriment to the resident.
12. In line with statutory guidance, the landlord should have sent the initial RTB2 notice to the resident within 4 weeks of her application. Instead, it did so on 21 January 2022. This was over 8 weeks after the resident submitted her application. While we acknowledge the landlord had requested further information from the resident such as her tenancy history, this should not have delayed the statutory timescales. During this time, the resident was left unsure of whether she was eligible for the RTB or not.
13. As the landlord is bound by the government’s statutory timescales, the resident was entitled to seek statutory redress for any delays. She could have issued a notice of delay form (RTB6) if needed. Given that this statutory route was available to the resident, she could have taken such action to mitigate her loss. It is important to note that we are not assessing why the resident did not do so but rather explaining the options available to her at the time.
14. The landlord sent the S125 offer notice to the resident on 25 March 2022. This was slightly over the statutory timescales as it should have sent this within 8 weeks of sending the RTB2 notice. It did so within around 9 weeks instead. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that this caused any significant detriment to the resident or her application. Additionally, the resident had the option to issue the RTB6 form at the time if needed, as previously noted.
15. The delays identified above were not included in the resident’s complaint to the landlord. However, given the issues identified, we have made a recommendation to learn from this going forward. The resident’s concerns centred around its handling of her request to revalue the property. She disagreed with the valuation it had reached.
16. The S125 notice is a prescribed form. It states the options available to the resident. She could either accept the offer, withdraw her application, or request a revaluation of the property price. The landlord explained she must provide her response using the form it had attached and send this to its office in writing. In line with the statutory timescales, the resident had to return the response form with her chosen option within 12 weeks.
17. The resident first notified the landlord of her concern with the offer price on 17 April 2022. The landlord provided advice to her on 20 April 2022. It suggested she choose the revaluation option if she was unhappy with the valuation. It correctly explained that it could not proceed with the revaluation until she returned the signed form in writing. This advice was correct in line with the statutory guidance.
18. The resident asked the landlord to arrange the revaluation again on 3 June 2022. The landlord appropriately repeated its advice on 6 June 2022 about returning the form in writing for it to do so. It also explained that if the resident did not do this within the 12-week timescale, she would lose the right to request a revaluation. It was good practice for the landlord to make the resident aware of this given the pending deadline.
19. The landlord wrote to the resident and issued a default notice to her on 23 June 2022. It acted in line with the statutory guidance in doing so, as it had not received her response to the S125 offer notice in writing within the 12-week period. The landlord explained the resident had a further 28 days to respond confirming her next steps. She could either continue with the offer or withdraw her application. In line with statutory guidance, the resident no longer had the option to request a revaluation.
20. Between 2 July 2022 and 14 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on 6 occasions. She noted her concerns with its handling of the RTB application. She felt it had not given her the correct advice of how to request a revaluation. The landlord responded promptly to her concerns on each occasion by confirming the advice given at the time. The resident also asked to put her application on hold, but the landlord advised her that it could not do so under the statutory guidance. It was appropriate for it to confirm this to her so she knew the options available to her.
21. From the evidence provided, the landlord gave the correct advice at the time of the resident’s RTB application. There is no evidence that the resident responded in writing to request the revaluation. As such, as explained by the landlord, it could not proceed with this option. The RTB application follows a statutory process, and the landlord could not instruct a revaluation without the written response from the resident requesting this using the relevant form.
22. It is clear the resident was unhappy that she was no longer able to request a revaluation. However, we have not found any failings to suggest this was as a result of the landlord’s actions or inactions. In the landlord’s final response, it offered her a meeting to discuss the matter further if she wished to. It was good practice for it to offer this, as it would have given her a chance to express her concerns and for the landlord to try to explain this further. It was also appropriate that it acknowledged it could have offered such support sooner in the process. However, given that it followed the appropriate process, it is not a failing that it did not do so.
23. Overall, we have found the landlord delayed in sending both the RTB2 notice and the S125 notice to the resident. However, the resident had the opportunity to seek a remedy for the delays at the time. We cannot find a failing for the landlord’s handling of the delays as this was not included within the resident’s complaint. As such, the landlord was not given reasonable opportunity to investigate and respond to this before the complaint was referred to us for formal investigation. The resident also had options for redress through the statutory process. We have not found any failings with the landlord’s handling of her request for a revaluation of the property price. As such, we have found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s RTB application.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s right to buy application.

Recommendations

25. We recommend the landlord provides refresher training to its staff handling right to buy applications. This is to ensure that it follows the timescales set out in statutory guidance to prevent any delays with future applications.