Arches Housing Limited (202219344)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219344

Arches Housing Limited

30 April 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to buy her home.
2. Reports of a historical leak.
3. Associated complaint.

Scope of investigation

There are some aspects of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her request to buy her home which the Ombudsman cannot address:
1. The resident believes that delays in the purchase process caused her cancer to recur after it had previously been in remission. Whilst we empathise with the resident’s situation, the Ombudsman cannot make conclusions about the cause of the resident’s cancer. Allegations of damage to health are more appropriately addressed by the courts.
2. The landlord and resident had instructed their respective solicitors to act for them in progressing the resident’s purchase of her home. Solicitors are regulated by the solicitors regulation authority and disputes between consumers and legal service providers fall within the jurisdiction of the legal ombudsman. The Housing Ombudsman Service cannot investigate or assess the actions of the solicitors instructed by the resident or the landlord.
3. An outcome sought by the resident is for the landlord to sell her home to her at a price which is less than its current market value. It is not within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide this outcome and we cannot make any orders to this effect.
However, the Ombudsman can address the landlord’s actions during the sale process. As such our investigation of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to buy her home is limited to assessing the landlord’s actions in the sale process.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may decide not to consider complaints which were not brought to a landlord’s attention within a reasonable period. A reasonable period would normally be within 12 months of the matter arising.
Having carefully considered the evidence, we have decided not to investigate the historical leak. This is because the leak was resolved in 2012 and the resident did not complain to the landlord until 10 January 2022. We consider that it would not be proportionate for us to investigate what went wrong over 12 years ago given that the landlord’s policies and practices have changed since then.
As such, we have decided that the landlord’s handling of the historical leak is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. However, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the leak within our assessment of its complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the property, a 3 bedroom house, from 2009. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the property.
When the property was let to the resident in 2009 it was as a ‘rent to buy’ arrangement. In addition to the assured shorthold tenancy agreement, the resident signed an accompanying option to purchase agreement which gave her the option to buy shares of, or the full ownership, of the property.
The resident has multiple health issues which the landlord is aware of. From 2009 the landlord was aware that the resident had mobility problems, arthritis, chronic pain and depression. In March 2023 the resident told the landlord that she had received treatment for cancer previously and that her cancer had recurred. From June 2023, the landlord was aware that the resident had been given a terminal cancer diagnosis.
In October 2020, the resident enquired about buying her home. The landlord arranged for the property to be valued, sent the valuation to the resident and asked for her solicitor details.
In January 2021 the landlord told the resident that she qualified for the right to acquire and was eligible to buy the property with a £10,000 discount from the valuation price of £120,000. The resident completed a right to acquire application and both parties instructed solicitors to progress the sale.
Around November 2021 the landlord told the resident it had made a mistake and that she did not quality for the right to acquire.
On 16 December 2021, the landlord logged a formal complaint noting the resident’s dissatisfaction with the incorrect advice it had given about the right to acquire. It sent the resident an acknowledgement on 20 December 2021 and said it would respond by 18 January 2022.
The landlord called the resident on 5 January 2022. Its record of the call says that the resident thought the purchase price of her home should be £100,000. The landlord had explained that the valuation price in November 2020 had been £120,000 and it had incorrectly told her she was eligible to a discount from this. It confirmed that she was not eligible for a discount and that the purchase price would be £120,000. The landlord and resident agreed to wait for the outcome of her complaint.
The landlord visited the resident on 10 January 2022 to discuss her complaint. On 14 January 2022 it wrote to her to extend its response timescale to 24 January 2022.
On 26 January 2022, the landlord’s solicitor emailed it saying it had not heard from the resident’s solicitor since 5 March 2021.
The landlord gave its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 28 January 2022 in which it said:
1. It was sorry for the time it had taken to respond to her complaint.
2. It had given her incorrect advice about her eligibility for right to acquire initially. It told her about its mistake on 19 November 2021 but had then given further conflicting advice.
3. It had checked the guidance on right to acquire and her tenancy agreement. It confirmed that her tenancy type did not quality for the right to acquire and she was not eligible for a discount.
4. A senior manager would contact her to progress her purchase and it would give training to staff to avoid similar problems in future.
5. It would not accept the complaint she had raised on 10 January 2022 about a historical water leak. It explained that the leak had happened more than 6 months previously which mean it was excluded from its complaints policy. It offered to give help and advice to address her water bill debts.
On 2 February 2022, the resident confirmed that she wanted to proceed with buying her home. The landlord’s note of the call said the resident was aware that no discount would be applied to the purchase price.
The landlord requested a new valuation on 9 March 2022 which it received on 12 April 2022. The value of the property was £135,000. The landlord asked its valuer to provide a retrospective valuation of the property’s value in November 2021, which was given as £132,500.
The landlord’s records suggest it spoke to the resident on 16 May 2022 and that she was frustrated with the sale process. The landlord wrote to her on 23 May 2022 confirming that it was offering to sell the property to her at £132,500 and that the valuation would be valid for 3 months. It sent a further copy of its letter on 30 June 2022.
On 23 December 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman saying she was dissatisfied that the landlord had increased the purchase price. We asked her to send us a copy of the landlord’s complaint response but did not receive a reply.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 March 2023 saying:
1. She had tried to buy her home for £110,000 in January 2021 but it had given her incorrect advice about being eligible for a discount.
2. It had not replied to her solicitor’s attempts to contact it from January 2021.
3. It had revalued the property and told her the price had increased to £132,500. This had come as a shock, during a time when she had been having treatment for cancer.
4. It was unfair that the price had increased as the delays had all been on the landlord’s side.
5. She had complained but the landlord had only apologised and it had not dealt with her complaint about the leak.
6. She wanted to know how much the house would cost now, with the £10,000 discount.
The resident sent the same letter to the Ombudsman which we received on 21 March 2023.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord met with the resident to discuss the issues she had raised in her letter. The landlord’s record of the meeting noted the following:
1. The resident said she had asked for her complaint to be escalated after receiving the stage 1 response. The escalation had not been actioned and the resident could not take her complaint to the Ombudsman. She wanted a new complaint to be logged about the landlord’s failure to escalate the previous complaint.
2. The resident was still unhappy about not being eligible for a discount and wanted to buy her home for £110,000. The landlord had noted that the valuation in November 2020 had been £120,000 and thought that the resident may have been mistaken about the figures.
3. The resident wanted to buy her home at the “full price”. It had told her that another valuation was needed to establish the current value and purchase price. The resident had been disappointed by this and was concerned that the price might increase again. The resident would arrange her own valuation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2023 saying:
1. It understood that she was dissatisfied with its previous complaint response and had said she had asked to escalate her complaint previously.
2. The events she was complaining about had happened more than 12 months ago.
3. It had investigated previously and upheld her complaint at stage 1. It had apologised, explained what went wrong, and clarified its position.
4. It had no record that she had asked to escalate her complaint at the time. It had received several contacts from her in 2022 but none had been about her complaint.
5. It did not believe that a stage 2 investigation would have resulted in a different outcome.
6. It was not able to reopen her previous complaint or log a new complaint about the same issues. She should contact the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The landlord wrote to her separately about her request to buy her home on 31 March 2023. It summarised the process to be followed and confirmed that she would provide it with a valuation. When it received the valuation, it would send her a revised offer to purchase and would need to see that she had the funds in place to proceed. The landlord wrote to her again on 14 April 2023 saying it had not received a valuation from her.
The landlord called the resident on 20 April 2023 and she confirmed that she had instructed a valuer. The landlord’s record of the call says the resident told it that she was having cancer treatment and that there could be delays in her contact but she did want to proceed with the purchase.
The resident’s valuer valued the property on 20 April 2023 at £127,500. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 May 2023 offering to sell her the property at the valuation price of £127,500. It said its offer would be valid until 20 July 2023. The resident confirmed her intention to proceed on 5 June 2023 and the landlord instructed its solicitor the same day.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman again on 9 June 2023 saying that she disputed the valuation of her property and wanted the landlord to sell it to her for £100,000. She told us that she had been given a terminal cancer diagnosis and, with her consent, we told the landlord on 26 June 2023. We asked the landlord to reconsider the resident’s complaint and respond to her by 2 August 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 July 2023 confirming it would reopen her complaint and review its position regarding her concerns. The evidence suggests that the landlord and resident met on 30 July 2023. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 August 2023 saying she had agreed to extend the timescale for it to respond to 18 August 2023.
The landlord and resident met on 18 August 2023 to discuss the outcome of its complaint investigation. It emailed its stage 2 response to her later that day which said:
1. Its offer to sell her home to her under the right to acquire in 2020-21 had been a mistake. Her tenancy did not qualify for right to acquire and it could not give her a right to acquire discount from the purchase price. It understood that its mistake had caused her distress and disappointment and apologised for the way it had handled the situation.
2. Property prices changed regularly and it was required to get up to date valuations. It could not consider the valuation that she had provided from 2017 or a valuation done by an estate agent (in April 2021). It did not agree with her interpretation that the initial sale price should have been £110,000 and did not uphold this part of her complaint.
3. It had needed to have the property revalued when she confirmed her wish to proceed in February 2022.
4. It had later obtained a retrospective valuation to establish the value in November 2021. It had chosen this date as there had been a pause in contact from her from 19 April 2021 until 19 November 2021 when she had confirmed she wanted to proceed with the purchase.
5. It had offered to sell the property to her at the retrospective valuation of £132,500 on 23 May 2022 and 30 June 2022.
6. She had not responded until 23 March 2023 and a new valuation had been needed which she had obtained.
7. It agreed that the first change in valuation from November 2020 was due to its service failure. The further valuations may have been avoided if it had followed the correct process and it upheld this part of her complaint.
8. However, it had found no evidence to support her belief that it had deliberately delayed the purchase to increase the purchase price.
9. It noted periods where the sales process had been interrupted due to lack of contact from the resident. It now understood these were due to her cancer treatments and that she had been unable to respond. However, the sale could not progress without her involvement.
10. It had no records of having received contact directly from her solicitor. It had reviewed the records of contacts between its solicitor and hers and noted occasions when her solicitor had not responded to its solicitor.
11. It had agreed to respond to her complaint about the historical leak even though it had been resolved in 2012. It concluded that there was likely to have been a slow leak present from 2009 to 2012. She should not have needed to have her own survey done to trace the source of it.
12. It had found no evidence that the leak had damaged her kitchen units. Its records showed that she had removed the units as part of kitchen improvements. On 18 September 2012 its contractor had assessed that the leak had not damaged the units. However, it did accept that the leak would have resulted in higher water costs.
13. It had investigated her initial complaint in line with its policy but its response had been late. Although it had no record of her requesting escalation, it now agreed that she would likely have done so as she had not been satisfied with its stage 1 response. It should have spoken with her further before deciding not to accept her complaint in March 2023.
14. In recognition of the failings identified it offered:
  1. To sell her home to her for £120,000 which it said was a £7,500 reduction from its value at that time. The sale offer would be valid until 18 February 2024.
  2. £600 compensation for her increased water costs and £500 to reimburse her for the cost of the surveyors report.
  3. £1,000 compensation for its handling of the sales process.
  4. £1,000 compensation for its complaint handling.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

On 31 August 2023, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She confirmed that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and compensation offer.
Between 18 December 2023 and 22 December 2023, the resident and landlord communicated about the sale process. The resident asked if the landlord had heard from her solicitor. The landlord said it had not and advised her to chase her solicitor. On 22 December 2023 the landlord confirmed its solicitor had received the resident’s notice to purchase from her solicitor. The purchase was for full ownership of the property at a price of £120,000. The landlord expected the sale to complete by 18 February 2024.
On 9 January 2024 the landlord called the resident. She said that she was in hospital but hoped to be discharged soon. The landlord had confirmed that the sale was proceeding in the hands of its solicitor and hers. It advised her to stay in contact with her solicitor.
The resident wrote to us on 9 February 2024 confirming she wanted us to investigate her complaint. She said the outcome she wanted was for the landlord to sell her the property for £100,000 and increase its compensation offer.
On 21 March 2024 the landlord told us that the sale had not yet completed. It said its solicitor had been chasing the resident’s solicitor. The landlord confirmed that it would maintain its offer for the resident to purchase at £120,000 until we had determined the resident’s case. It also confirmed that it had paid the £3,100 compensation on 18 September 2023.

Assessment and findings

There were some gaps in the evidence that the landlord provided for this investigation. This was especially the case during the initial period of the sales process where the landlord’s records did not include all the events that took place. For example, in its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had contacted the resident on 19 November 2021 to tell her she did not qualify for right to acquire. However, there was no reference to this contact in the landlord’s other records.
There were also occasions where the landlord’s records did not adequately explain contacts with the resident. For example, the landlord’s records show that the resident had called it on 4 January 2022 and that it had left her a voicemail message in response. The landlord’s records did not explain what either of the calls were about.
We have given further examples in our findings below and the evidence we have seen suggests inadequacies in the landlord’s knowledge and information management during the events in this case. In May 2023 the Ombudsman published a spotlight report on knowledge and information management which made recommendations to help landlords improve their practices. Although most of the events in this case happened before we published our report, the landlord should consider the recommendations we made if it has not already done so.

Handling of the resident’s request to buy her home.

It is not disputed that the landlord gave the resident incorrect advice that she was eligible for the right to acquire. The matter in dispute is whether the landlord’s handling of the sale process caused the purchase price to increase.
The right to acquire was introduced by the Housing Act 1996 and is now contained in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. It applies to assured and secure tenants of social housing providers but some tenancy types are excluded including assured shorthold tenancies that began before 1 April 2012. As the resident’s assured shorthold tenancy started in 2009, her tenancy is excluded from the right to acquire. The landlord should have known that the resident’s tenancy was excluded.
The option to purchase agreement accompanying the resident’s tenancy agreement sets outs the arrangements for her to buy a share or full ownership of her home. It says that:
1. The process starts when the resident gives notice of her interest in purchasing and pays the landlord a fee for the cost of obtaining a valuation.
2. The landlord will complete an eligibility assessment to decide if the resident qualifies and can afford to buy the agreed share.
3. The market value will be assessed by an independent and qualified surveyor. The landlord will instruct the surveyor within 14 days of receiving the valuation fee.
4. The landlord will notify the resident of the market value, date of valuation and purchase price within 7 days of receiving the valuation.
5. The valuation is valid for 3 months. After this period, unless the landlord agrees an extension, a new valuation will be needed.
6. The resident will then give notice of the intention to purchase and must complete the purchase within 28 days.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not apply this process when the resident enquired about buying her home in October 2020. For example, the landlord received the first valuation of the property on 11 November 2020 but did not send it to the resident until a month later on 15 December 2020. Under the terms of the option to purchase agreement, it should have sent the valuation within 7 days of receiving it. Nor have we seen evidence that any eligibility assessment was done as required by the terms of the option to purchase agreement.
The evidence suggests that the landlord may not have referred to the resident’s tenancy and option to purchase agreements. This is because on 15 January 2021 the landlord emailed its solicitor noting that the resident was a “rent to home buy tenant” and asking if the sale would be treated similarly to a right to acquire sale. If the landlord had checked the agreements, it would have known the correct process to follow.
The evidence suggests that the landlord had spoken to its solicitor after its email but we have seen no records of the discussion that took place or the advice given by the solicitor. Later that day, the landlord incorrectly told the resident that she qualified for the right to acquire and was eligible for a discount of £10,000. It said this meant she could buy her home for £110,000.
From that point, the landlord incorrectly handled the sale as right to acquire purchase. It sent the resident a right to acquire application on 26 January 2021 and sent the completed form to its solicitor on 1 February 2021 after the resident had returned it.
It is not clear why the sale did not proceed after the landlord’s solicitor sent a transfer document to the resident’s solicitor in March 2021. We explained in paragraph 8 that we cannot investigate or assess the actions taken by either the landlord’s or resident’s solicitors. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have had regular communications with its solicitor to check the progress of the sale. After instructing its solicitor initially between 15 January 2021 and 1 February 2021, we have seen no evidence that the landlord took any steps to check the progress with its solicitor.
The evidence shows that the resident had obtained a “market appraisal” from an estate agent on 13 April 2021. The estate agent had suggested an asking price of £100,000 if the property were to be sold which was lower than the valuation being used in the landlord’s sales process. It is not clear whether the resident sent this to the landlord. Even if she had, the landlord would not have been able to use the estate agent’s appraisal for its sales process. This is because the landlord is required to use valuations provided by a royal institute of surveyors (RICS) qualified surveyor for its sales processes. The market appraisal given by the estate agent was not a valuation by a RICS qualified surveyor.
It is not clear from the evidence we have seen how or when the landlord became aware of its mistake in handling the sale as a right to acquire sale. The evidence suggests it told the resident she was not eligible for the right to acquire around November 2021. This suggests it had taken the landlord 11 months to realise its mistake during which time the resident thought she was getting a £10,000 discount from the valuation price of £120,000. The landlord’s mistake caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The sale process was paused from 5 January 2022 pending the outcome of the resident’s complaint. After the landlord had given its stage 1 response, the resident confirmed she wanted to proceed with the purchase on 2 February 2022.
By this time, the landlord had acknowledged it had given incorrect advice until November 2021 and had taken over a month to respond to the resident’s complaint which it had upheld. Under the terms of the option to purchase agreement, the landlord could have given an extension to the period that a valuation is valid for. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered extending the validity period of the first valuation.
However, the landlord decided to get a new valuation and it is not clear why it took over a month (from 2 February 2022 to 9 March 2022) to instruct its valuer. After it had received the valuation on 12 April 2022, the landlord asked its valuer for a retrospective valuation of the property at November 2021. We cannot comment on whether it was reasonable for the landlord to have chosen that date because it is not clear from the evidence seen what caused the sale process to be interrupted between April 2021 and November 2021.
The updated valuation meant that the purchase price increased to £132,500 in the landlord’s revised offer to sell the property to the resident of 23 May 2022. It is clear from the evidence we have seen that the increase in purchase price was a significant contributory factor to the sale not progressing between May 2022 and March 2023. We understand that another contributory factor may have been the resident’s health issues and her cancer treatment.
From 15 March 2023, the landlord was aware that the resident had received cancer treatment during 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered whether this had affected her ability to engage in the sales process. The landlord met with the resident on 23 March 2023 and, on this occasion, made a record of the matters discussed. Its record of the meeting contains no reference to the resident’s health issues suggesting that the landlord had not discussed this with her.
The outcome of the meeting of 23 March 2023 was that the resident wanted to proceed with purchasing the property and would get another valuation. The landlord received the valuation on 26 April 2023 and sent the resident a revised offer to purchase the property for £127,500 on 3 May 2023. This was an example of clear and timely communication by the landlord after it had received the revised valuation.
The landlord received the resident’s confirmation that she intended to proceed with the purchase at £127,500 on 5 June 2023. However, the resident’s contact with the Ombudsman 4 days later shows that she remained dissatisfied with the purchase price.
The outcome of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint investigation on 18 August 2023 was that it offered to sell the property to the resident for £120,000. The Ombudsman considers that this was a reasonable offer which effectively put the resident back in the position she would have been in if the landlord had not mishandled her purchase initially. It was also reasonable that the landlord held this offer open to the resident until we finished our investigation.
The landlord’s mishandling of the sale process from October 2020 resulted in the sale not progressing at the time. The increase in the purchase price was the result of the property value increasing over time. However, this may have been avoided if the landlord had not mishandled the sale at the start. The landlord took too long to realise its mistake and missed earlier opportunities to put things right. Its failings amount to severe maladministration.
The landlord paid the resident £1,000 compensation for its handling of her purchase request. We do not consider this to be sufficient redress considering the 34 month duration (from 13 October 2020 to 18 August 2023) of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation.
We note that landlord has changed its approach to managing property sales since the events in this case. The evidence in this case suggests that the landlord’s oversight improved from March 2023. From that point, the landlord’s actions were timely and its communications clearer. However, the landlord should review our findings to identify any further improvements it needs to make.

Handling of the resident’s complaint.

It was appropriate that the landlord recognised the resident’s complaint during the calls and emails exchanged after it told her of its mistake in November 2021. In its acknowledgement it told the resident there would be a delay in it starting to investigate her complaint. It explained this was due to COVID-19 causing staff shortages. We consider this to be reasonable given the circumstances at the time and it was reasonable that the landlord notified the resident in advance.
It was reasonable that the landlord visited the resident to discuss her complaint. This should have enabled the landlord to gain a thorough understanding of her concerns and desired outcomes. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have made a record of the discussion for future reference but we have seen no evidence that it did so.
The landlord had obtained its solicitor’s records of contacts with the resident’s solicitor as part of its investigation. This was appropriate given the solicitor had been acting on the landlord’s behalf in administering the sale.
The landlord’s stage 1 response of 28 January 2022 was 4 days later than the extended timescale that it had given (24 January 2022). The response addressed the complaint issues that the resident had raised including explaining why the resident was not eligible for the right to acquire and referring her to the guidance it had relied on. The landlord also explained what had caused it to give the incorrect advice which shows it had investigated the matter. It had acknowledged that it had given the resident incorrect advice and upheld this part of her complaint.
However, it would have been reasonable for it to have explained why it took so long to realise its mistake. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered compensation at this stage.
The landlord’s decision not to accept the resident’s complaint about the historical water leak was in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in 2022. The landlord’s offer to give the help to address her water bill debts was reasonable and the evidence shows that the landlord followed through with its offer to give help.
The resident says that she asked to escalate her complaint after receiving the stage 1 response. The landlord’s records show it did receive calls from her, but its notes do not refer to the resident escalating her complaint. However, the evidence suggests that the landlord’s record keeping at the time was inadequate. For example, we have seen evidence of calls made by the resident to the landlord on 9 March 2022, 8 October 2022, 19 October 2022, and 21 October 2022 which are not included in the landlord’s records. As such it is possible that the resident could have asked to escalate her complaint, but the landlord had not recorded or actioned her request.
The resident raised her dissatisfaction with the landlord again in her letter of 15 March 2023. It was reasonable that the landlord again visited to discuss her concerns and considered whether to reopen her complaint or log a new complaint. However, the resident’s letter had also referred to her having cancer treatment during 2022 and the landlord should have considered whether her health had affected her ability to communicate with it and to progress an escalation request. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have reopened her complaint and provided a stage 2 response.
When the Ombudsman intervened in June 2023, the landlord decided to reopen the resident’s complaint. It was reasonable that the landlord assigned the investigation to senior manager and that it met with the resident to discuss her concerns and its findings. It was also reasonable that the landlord made audio recordings of meetings and gave copies to the resident afterwards.
By this time, the resident’s complaint was complex, and longstanding and it was reasonable that the landlord agreed an extension to its response timescale with the resident. However, it should have told us about the agreed extension at the time as this would have avoided us chasing the landlord to give its response.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 August 2023 gave further explanation of why the resident did not qualify for the right to acquire and repeated the landlord’s acknowledgement that its handling of her purchase had been inadequate. It was reasonable that the landlord also addressed the resident’s challenge about the initial purchase price and why it could not accept the estate agent’s market appraisal as a valuation. However, the landlord again missed the opportunity to explain why it had taken so long to discover that it had given incorrect advice at the start.
The landlord’s investigation of the historical water leak as part of its stage 2 investigation suggests that the landlord wanted to resolve the resident’s dissatisfaction. Due to the elapse of time, neither the Code nor the landlord’s policy required it to accept that part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s decision to compensate the resident for her water costs and having the survey done was reasonable under the circumstances.
It was appropriate that the landlord investigated its handling of the complaint and reasonable that it accepted it had failed to escalate her complaint following its stage 1 response. It was also reasonable that the landlord acknowledged that it had not sufficiently considered the circumstances when it decided not to reopen her complaint in March 2023.
It should not have taken the Ombudsman’s involvement for the landlord to complete its complaints process. Its handling of the complaint at stage 1 did not put things right for the resident and it missed opportunities to reconsider its position. Its failings amount to maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint. However, we consider the £1,000 compensation that it paid in recognition of its failings was reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord had identified its learning in both of its complaint responses and, in its stage 2 response, set out specific action it intended to take to avoid similar failings in future. The landlord should ensure it implements its intended improvements if has not already done so.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to buy her home.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a historical leak is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident £2,400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her request to buy her home. This has been calculated at £100 per month for the 34 month duration of the landlord’s failings. We have deducted the £1,000 that the landlord has already paid.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Hold open its offer to sell the resident her home for £120,000 for a further period to enable the resident to consider our determination and the options available to her.
2. Implement the improvement actions identified in its stage 2 response of 18 August 2023 if it has not already done so.
3. Consider the recommendations in our Knowledge and Information Spotlight Report to identify if it can improve its current approach.