Together Housing Association Limited (202226423)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202226423

Together Housing Association Limited

28 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application, particularly, the events that occurred during the conveyancing process.
2. Communication with the resident and its solicitors during the RTA process and the associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The Ombudsman notes that an aspect of the complaint is the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her RTA application, specifically, the length of time it took after it issued the offer notice.
The statutory timeframes associated with an application for the RTA are set out in law and as such, is a statutory process, upon which the Ombudsman does not have authority to rule. Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident is complaining about the landlord’s handling of her application to purchase the property, under the RTA scheme. She complained about the delay to the conveyancing process and that the landlord should have taken steps to prevent the issue that occurred with the boundary line when the property was built.
There is a statutory provision for residents to seek redress for certain delays in the RTA procedure. If a landlord does not respond to the notice claiming the RTA (RTB1), the resident may submit an ‘Initial Notice of Delay’ (RTB6) form to the landlord. The landlord must then either move the sale along within one month or send a “counter notice”. The counter notice will detail that the landlord has already responded, or why it is unable to speed things up. If the landlord does not respond to the RTB6 within one month, the resident may submit an “Operative Notice of Delay” (RTB8) form. The purpose of submitting this form is such that any rent the resident pays whilst they are waiting for the landlord to respond can be deducted from the sale price of the property. The landlord must also send a section 125 offer notice within eight or twelve weeks of the response to the RTB1. The delay forms must be completed at the time of the delay.
The RTA does not apply any further timescales to the rest of the conveyancing procedure, and the time taken for a purchase to complete will be dependent on the individual circumstances of each property purchase, and the parties involved, including their legal representatives. Therefore, there is no requirement on the landlord under the RTA to ensure that it completes the sale of a property within a specified time.
In this case, the resident complained that there was a delay in the RTA process after the S125 notice was sent to her. The evidence suggests there were delays in the conveyancing arising from a boundary issue with a neighbouring land, and from the consequent legal processes involving the landlord’s solicitors, the resident’s solicitors and the Land Registry. These legal processes cannot be assessed by this Service, however, they can be considered by the courts. The court has the power to make a definitive ruling on the overall handling of the resident’s RTA application and can order redress.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g), this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service to consider. This is because the appropriate route for the resident to take, should she wish to pursue this, is by taking the matter to the Courts.
What the Ombudsman can investigate, however, is the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for updates on the status of the application and the subsequent handling of the complaint, which is done below. Any reference to the events that occurred in the conveyancing process in this report will be for context only.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is described as a 2 bedroom semi-detached house. The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord, a housing association, which started on 8 June 2015. The resident purchased the property through the RTA scheme, and she became the owner on 30 January 2024. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Landlord obligations and relevant legislation

The Government’s guide to the RTA (RTB) scheme states that the scheme is available to secure tenants of a public sector landlord, normally a local authority, who have spent at least three years as a public sector tenant.
Under its RTA policy the landlord:
1. Aims to process all applications in accordance with the timescales prescribed in RTA legislation.
2. Once an offer has been accepted by the resident, it will prepare all paperwork including plans showing boundaries for its solicitor.
3. Once a solicitor is instructed, a sales progressor will gather any additional information requested by the solicitor and pass on to them.
The landlord’s complaints policy (effective October 2022) states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days and respond to:
1. Stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
2. Stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for financial payments to redress instances of service failure.

Summary of events

The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 January 2022 and advised her that her application for the RTA the property had been admitted. It said a surveyor would contact her within 2 weeks for the valuation of the property. It further stated that the notice stating the proposed terms of sale, including the purchase price would be sent to her. The landlord said this would be within the next 8 weeks if she was purchasing the freehold of the property or 12 weeks if she was buying the lease.
On 17 February 2022, the landlord sent the resident an offer notice (S125), which included the market value of the property and the discount as at 10 January 2022. It gave the resident 12 weeks from the date of the letter to respond to the notice.
The resident’s solicitor sent an introduction letter to the landlord on 22 February 2022.
The resident responded to the offer notice on 1 March 2022.
The landlord and its solicitors discussed the progress of the RTA in various emails between June and October 2022. A summary is provided below:
1. It noted in its discussions that the search index map appeared to show that the strip of land to the southwest of its property encroached onto the neighbouring title.
2. It appeared from their latest report that HM Land Registry (HMLR) required an amended plan and photograph of the property.
3. The landlord asked the solicitor to advise an approximate timescale for resolution if there was an issue regarding the initial registration of the property from acquisition. It noted that the matter was complex and may take time to resolve.
4. The landlord and its solicitors communicated regarding the best option to address the issue around the boundary lines in an email dated 1 September 2022.
The resident expressed concerns about the delay in progressing the RTA in June and July 2022. She asked the landlord to advise on the timescales for the resolution of the matter. The landlord responded that it was awaiting feedback from its solicitors.
The landlord advised the resident on 5 July 2022, that its solicitors were concerned that the plans HMLR had were not accurate which might cause some difficulties after she had purchased the property. It advised that its solicitors had requested photographs of the boundaries to assist with their enquiries and asked the resident for access.
The resident asked for an update on 8 August 2022. The landlord responded that there was still an issue with the plans at HMLR to be resolved.
The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 26 August 2022, on her behalf, for an update on the RTA process. The landlord responded that its solicitors had confirmed they were awaiting clarification regarding the piece of land to the side of the property. It said the land was under a title not owned by the landlord so it could not progress the application until it was satisfied that it was only disposing of what was within its ownership. It further advised that it had written to the resident’s solicitors to provide them with a further update on the situation so they could keep the resident informed. The landlord and resident also communicated on the progress of the case.
The resident asked for an update on 21 September 2022, the landlord responded that its solicitors were still liaising with HMLR to try to resolve the plans. It also provided a summary of its opinion on how the issue arose.
The solicitor requested information such as drawings and plans from the landlord on 27 September 2022. The landlord responded on 7 October 2022.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 31 October 2022.
The landlord’s solicitors advised on 2 November 2022 that it had submitted an application to HMLR to query and rectify the boundary line. It noted that there were delays with applications, but it would provide an update once it received a response. The landlord updated the resident with the advice received on 7 November 2022.
The resident’s partner contacted the landlord on 28 November 2022 for an update on the purchase of the property. The landlord responded on 29 November 2022 that its solicitors were still waiting for an update from HMLR. It said it had asked its solicitors if the case could be expedited.
Around 30 November 2022, the landlord and its solicitors discussed the grounds on which the case be expedited by HMLR. It said it wanted to get the case resolved as soon as possible and she would also like to register a complaint against the landlord for its handling of the application. The landlord responded on 1 December 2022 and provided a link for the resident to submit her complaint. It also assured her that it would try to get the boundary issue resolved.
The resident complained to the landlord on 4 December 2022 regarding the delay in processing the RTA. She said the landlord should have resolved the boundary issue causing the delay when the property was built. She said the delay was causing her stress and impacting her finances adversely as she was still paying rent monthly.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 12 December 2022. It advised that it would respond within 10 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 9 January 2023. Below is a summary of the response:
1. The delay of the sale was being caused by a query relating to the plan for the property registered with HMLR. This was to ascertain if there was a dispute with the side of the property boundary and the neighbouring land as to where the official boundary sits.
2. It did not previously know of the issue at the time the property was built, and it only became aware when the solicitors raised concerns during the conveyancing process.
3. Its properties are not built for sale so issues surrounding boundaries only arise within the conveyancing process when someone exercises their statutory right. This would be the first time the property was being purchased.
4. A staff member and a surveyor had been sent to assess the boundaries to ascertain if there was anything the landlord could do, but the delay was caused by (HMLR) due to a significant backlog they were facing.
5. It had checked with its solicitors who advised that there was nothing they could do to speed up a response from HMLR.
6. It was her solicitor’s responsibility to liaise with its legal representatives for regular updates and provide feedback to her directly.
7. It was sorry that the stage 1 response had taken 23 days longer due to the Christmas break and staffing issues.
The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 7 February 2023 that the landlord’s actions had resulted in financial loss and personal stress for her. She said the landlord should have anticipated this issue occurring in the first place and should offer financial compensation for the inconvenience caused.
The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 10 February 2023. She said:
1. She remained frustrated that there had been no further progress on the matter and the landlord was not taking responsibility for the boundary issue arising.
2. It is confusing that the landlord said its properties were not designed for sale as it is a registered housing association that offers its tenants the opportunity to purchase their property through the RTA scheme.
3. The landlord handling of the boundary oversight had already cost her approximately £2,000 to £3,000 in rent which could have been avoided if purchase had gone through.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 16 February 2023. It said it would respond by 16 March 2023.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 16 March 2023. It said:
1. As an organisation it instructs developers to build properties and the developers instruct their own solicitors to complete the legal work on their behalf. The landlord instructs solicitors to act on its behalf and they are responsible for its legal work when new properties are built and in updating HMLR.
2. As HMLR had not informed it of any boundary issues relating to the properties in the neighbourhood, it would not have known there was an issue to resolve.
3. Its solicitors had been in contact with HMLR to try to resolve this issue, but they were dealing with a significant backlog, which the landlord had no control over. However, it had received some positive news this week as its solicitors had advised that HMLR had accepted a request to expedite her case. Her solicitor should be able to advise her further on the timeframe.

Actions following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The landlord contacted its solicitors between January and February 2023. It asked for an update on the case. The solicitor advised that it was still waiting for an update from HMLR. The landlord asked it to keep the resident’s solicitors updated.
The resident informed this Service on 20 March 2023 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the purchase of the property.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord’s solicitors said that it was still waiting for a response from HMLR following its AP1 (a form prescribed by HMLR to register the transfer of land) application. The landlord asked its solicitors to confirm if HMLR had decided to expedite the case. Its solicitors responded on 26 April 2023 that it had not received any further updates. The landlord also informed the resident that it was still waiting for feedback from HMLR but there was no indication on timescales for a resolution.
The landlord noted in its internal email on 5 June 2023 that HMLR had said that the neighbouring land did not belong to it and could not be included in the sale. It said its solicitors had requested that the plan should be executed and the property revalued.
The landlord noted in its internal emails on 7 June 2023 that the landowner whose land it encroached upon had expressed a view of selling. On 27 June 2023, the landlord said as HMLR had confirmed it had encroached on the neighbouring land, it had to revert to the true boundary line. It said this may affect the resident’s decision to purchase the property, so it arranged for the resident to be updated.
Between 11 and 13 July 2023, the solicitors advised the landlord that it had relayed HMLR’s response to the resident’s solicitors. It said it had advised them of the extent of the land within the landlord’s ownership that it was able to transfer to them on completion. The landlord also arranged for its staff to advise the resident that she needed to communicate through her solicitors to avoid any misrepresentation. It also advised the solicitors to update the resident’s solicitors on the outcome of the revaluation.
The resident contacted this Service around July 2023 and said that HMLR had advised him that the landlord had been slow to respond to their request for information. The resident stated that the sale should have been completed around 12 months, but she had incurred additional expenses due to the landlord’s delay in processing the sale.
The landlord sent a revised offer letter to its solicitors on 17 August 2023. It noted that as the boundary for the property was incorrect, it needed to amend it. The solicitors responded on 18 August 2023 that it had sent the offer letter to the resident’s solicitors for execution. The landlord further noted in its internal email on 22 August 2023 that the resident raised enquiries about the boundary fence line and the likelihood of completing the sale before the fence was moved. It noted that it advised the resident to discuss this with her solicitor.
Around September 2023, the landlord’s solicitors advised it that they were liaising with the resident’s solicitors about their requirements in relation to the boundary fence and the completion date.
The landlord advised this Service that the RTA process was completed on 29 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s communication with the resident and its solicitors during the RTA process

The role of the Ombudsman is to investigate and assess how a landlord has responded to issues raised or notified to it and its subsequent handling of the complaint. The Ombudsman will determine whether the landlord acted in accordance with its policies and procedures and whether its actions were appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances. The Ombudsman cannot assess the actions of legal representatives acting on behalf of the landlord, or the legal processes for the purchases of property. It follows that when considering this complaint, it has not been the role of the Ombudsman to assess the conveyancing procedure, including the registration of land.
Having reviewed the history of this case, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s communication was satisfactory throughout the life of the case. This is noted in its responses to enquiries raised by the resident between June and July 2022. It also updated the resident on the status of the application in September and November 2022 on the discussions its solicitors were having with HMLR. Whilst its updates to the resident were a times reactive, it was open and transparent about the issues that were holding up the sale of the property. This said, the landlord was not obliged to provide regular updates to the resident, regarding their purchase, as she had engaged the services of a solicitor to manage the purchase. Therefore it was reasonable that it advised her to liaise with her solicitor for any updates and enquiries she wished to raise about the process.
We have seen from the evidence that the landlord actively communicated with its solicitors and it regularly prompted them to keep the resident’s solicitors updated on the status of the RTA. It promptly responded to the resident’s requests for updates even when it had no new information to report back to her. It also passed on the resident’s concerns to its solicitors and it explored if there were any grounds on which they could speed up the process of the sale. When the landlord received a decision regarding the boundary issue from HMLR in June 2023, it worked with its solicitors to determine the next course of action. The evidence shows that it sent a revised offer letter to its solicitors on 17 August 2023 and it arranged for it to be sent to the resident’s solicitors. In view of the above, this Service has found no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident and its solicitors during the RTA process.

The associated complaints.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the agreed timescales, however, it took over 20 working days to respond to the complaint. It acknowledged the delay in its response and apologised to the resident for the inconvenience. However, it failed to consider any financial redress even though its policy has provision for it. From the evidence seen, the landlord did not inform the resident of any anticipated delays or write to her to advise of the amended response date. It advised in the stage 1 response that it would respond within 10 working days so it should have notified the resident of any changes if it was unable to meet the previously agreed timescale. It did not adhere to its internal policies and in so doing failed to manage the resident’s expectations. This would have caused the resident some frustration and inconvenience.
The landlord did not learn from its previous error because the stage 2 response was also slightly delayed by 4 working days. The resident requested the escalation of her complaint to stage 2 on 10 February 2023 so it should have responded on 10 March 2023. This Service notes that it advised the resident that the response would be sent on 16 March 2023 (outside the 20 days timescale) but it did not offer her any explanation for the added time. Whilst there is no evidence of a significant detriment to the resident as a result of the delay, it should have acknowledged the error and offered apologies to the resident.
The resident was unhappy about the progress of her RTA application and sought redress through the landlord’s complaints process. The overall delays in responding to the complaint would have caused her some inconvenience. The landlord failed to offer compensation to address the impact of its repeated errors on the resident. It is for this reason that the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. An order has been made to address this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Acquire (RTA) application, particularly, the events that occurred during the conveyancing process is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident and its solicitors during the RTA process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord proactively managed communication with its solicitors regarding the resident’s RTA application. It responded to the resident’s requests for updates and prompted its solicitors to ensure it updated the resident’s solicitors on any updates.
The landlord delayed in responding to the complaints at stage 1 and 2. It acknowledged the delay and apologised in its stage 1 response, but it failed to offer any compensation for the extra 10 working days it took to respond. It failed to learn from this mistake as its stage 2 response was also delayed by 4 working days.

Orders

The landlord should within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £100 for the inconvenience to the resident due to the failures identified in its complaint handling.