Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Onward Homes Limited (202311791)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311791

Onward Homes Limited

18 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:
    1. Right to Acquire application (RTA).
    2. Communications and Complaint.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from May 2017 until she purchased the property in February 2024. The property is a 3 bedroom, semi-detached house.
  2. In December 2021 the resident received a mortgage illustration from her bank, this offer was valid as long as the purchase was completed by 30 June 2022. She then submitted an application to purchase the property under the RTA on 28 January 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the application on 10 February 2022. The landlord then confirmed it had been successful on 5 April 2022 and said it would provide an offer by 31 May 2022. However, the landlord did not value the property until 3 August 2022.
  3. On 3 November 2022 the resident told the landlord she disagreed with its valuation of the property and asked that a district valuer be instructed. She said the landlord had not reduced the value by the cost of the improvements she had made to the property. The district valuer inspected the property on 13 December 2022 and provided their report on 12 January 2023. The landlord issued its RTA offer notice on 26 June 2023. However, the resident remained dissatisfied as she said neither the district valuer nor the landlord had taken into account the costs of the improvements she had made to the property.
  4. The resident raised her complaint on 26 September 2022. She said she was unhappy with the amount of time it was taking to purchase the property and the landlord’s lack of communication throughout. She said that since submitting her application in January 2022 she had had to chase the landlord for updates every step of the way. She also said that the landlord had cost her money because the amount of time the purchase had taken meant her mortgage would have a much higher term and interest rate.
  5. On 5 October 2023 the resident resubmitted her complaint through this Service as the landlord had not responded to her original complaints. She told this Service her complaint was about:
    1. The time taken to process the RTA had led to her missing out on the original interest rate she was offered by the bank.
    2. The lack of communication from the landlord.
    3. The landlord’s failure to log 4 complaint’s raised by the resident.
    4. The lack of transparency from the landlord about the complaints process.
  6. She also said that in resolution of the complaint she wanted the landlord to:
    1. Compensate her for the delays in processing the RTA application. She said these had led to her having to pay extra rent and resulted in her mortgage offer expiring.
    2. Reduce the valuation by £20,000 to honour the improvements she had made to the property.
    3. Carry out the required repairs, ensuring that they were guaranteed and matched what the home buyers survey stipulated.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 November 2023. It said:
    1. The resident’s mortgage illustration would have been subject to additional checks and could have been altered or withdrawn by the lender at any time. As such, it could not conclusively determine whether or not any delays would have affected the final mortgage offer.
    2. The RTA legislation does not allow applicants to make any claims for a reduction in rent due to landlord delays in processing the application.
    3. Its valuer and the district valuer had been informed of the improvements made by the resident. It said the district valuers report confirmed they had followed the correct process in regard to these and therefore the value of £180,000 would not be changed.
    4. A homebuyers survey is a tool to help buyers understand what repairs may be required when they purchase a property. It does not make the seller liable for carrying out those repairs before or after the sale is concluded. As such, it would not be undertaking any property repairs and recommended she instruct a contractor once the purchase was completed.
    5. It acknowledged that there had been failings and offered £1,000 for the delays in processing the RTA application and £250 for the service failures in relation to communication and the handling of her complaint.
  8. The resident escalated her complaint on 8 November 2023. She said:
    1. She did not believe the mortgage in principle would have changed had there not been delays and the purchase completed before the offer expired.
    2. The landlord’s communication between February and June 2022 was ‘almost non-existent’ and she had to constantly chase it.
    3. The £1,250 compensation offered was not enough to address the additional rent the resident had paid for 2 years and the additional costs of the mortgage.
    4. She disputed that the property was worth £180,000 in January 2022 and that the improvements she had made to the property wad been deducted from the value.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 December 2023. It addressed the resident’s concerns and reiterated what it had said in response to these in its stage 1 response. However, it also confirmed that it was increasing the compensation offered for the delays in processing the RTA and its failures in relation to communication and complaint handling to £2,500.
  10. On 9 December 2023 the resident confirmed she wanted this Service to investigate the complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s responses as it had not taken any responsibility for the purchase not being completed before the mortgage in principle expired. She also said that the delays had had a serious financial impact on her and the landlord had not addressed this.
  11. The Ombudsman is aware that on 20 December 2023 the resident accepted the landlord’s RTA offer and the purchase was completed around February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

  1. The Ombudsman cannot investigate 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 Ombudsman will not consider claims for financial loss. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the authority to award damages nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss. These are matters better suited to the courts which are able to provide a legal determination. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent legal advice on this matter. Whilst we cannot consider financial loss, such as the loss of the original mortgage illustration and additional rent paid, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports they experienced because of any errors made by the landlord.

RTA application

  1. The right to acquire for tenants of private registered providers of social housing (PRPSHs) was introduced in the Housing Act 1996. It is now contained in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008. The government’s timescales state that the landlord must say yes or no within 4 weeks of receiving an RTA application. This is normally done by way of issuing a ‘notice in reply’ (RTA2) to the resident.
  2. The resident submitted her RTA application on 28 January 2022 and the landlord acknowledged it on 10 February 2022. Therefore, the landlord had until 10 March 2022 to confirm whether or not the resident’s RTA application had been successful. However, the landlord did not issue its RTA2 until 5 April 2022. This was nearly 3 weeks late. During this period the resident chased the landlord for a response by email on 2 occasions and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that it responded to her. Additionally, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord did not provide the resident, and has not provided this Service, with an explanation for the delays. Without an explanation the Ombudsman cannot but conclude that such a delay was unnecessary and unreasonable. It was also unreasonable for the landlord not to have responded to the resident’s emails.
  3. The landlord’s RTA2 confirmed the resident’s application had been successful and that it had instructed its valuers to contact her to arrange a survey. It said that once it received the survey report it would prepare an offer notice and she would receive this by 31 May 2022. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that in June 2022 the resident chased the landlord on 3 occasions by email because she had not received any further updates from it or its surveyor. The landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident on 8 July 2022 asking her to call it to arrange the survey. The survey then took place on 3 August 2022 and the surveyor issued their report the same day.
  4. The landlord’s RTA2 did not clearly explain to the resident the deadlines involved with the next part of the application process. Under the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 the landlord has 8 weeks from the date of the RTA2 to provide an offer notice. While the landlord’s RTA2 did mention this, it then said it would issue an offer notice by 31 May 2022. The landlord failed to meet the deadline it gave and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that it responded to any of the resident’s emails from June 2022. Not only was this unreasonable but the landlord also missed an opportunity to better explain the process and timescales to the resident. The landlord has also not provided an explanation as to why it took 3 months for its surveyor to contact the resident and arrange a survey. Without such an explanation the Ombudsman can only conclude that this delay was avoidable.
  5. Following the surveyors report of 3 August 2022, the landlord issued its offer notice on 28 October 2022. This was around 5 months after the deadline it had given the resident. During this period the resident chased the landlord twice for an update and the landlord responded to apologise for the delays. It said these were caused by the ‘unprecedented demand’ the team had experienced in the past few months. While the Ombudsman appreciates the pressures the landlord may have been under, this does not change the fact that this was a further significant delay to the RTA process. This additional delay in turn caused the resident further time, trouble and inconvenience as she continued to have to chase the landlord for updates.
  6. On 3 November 2022 the resident confirmed that she disagreed with the landlord’s valuation and requested a survey by a district valuer. The landlord confirmed it had instructed a district valuer on 4 November 2022 and the survey took place on 13 December 2022.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 February 2023 and confirmed she received the district valuers report on 12 January 2023 but had not had an update from the landlord. The landlord confirmed on 27 February 2023 that it had not received the district valuers report and the resident sent it a copy the same day.
  8. Between 30 March and 1 June 2023 the resident chased the landlord by email on 7 occasions because she had not had any further updates regarding the RTA application. The evidence seen does not show that the landlord responded to these emails until 1 June 2023 when it told the resident it had not received the district valuers report. The resident replied and confirmed she had sent it a copy in January 2023. The landlord then issued its offer notice on 26 June 2023. The landlord has not explained why it took around 6 months for it to provide its offer notice following receipt of the district valuers report from the resident in January 2023. This was an unreasonable delay and the landlord failed to adequately communicate with the resident. Additionally, the landlord’s failure to adequately communicate with the resident caused her avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience over an extended period of time.
  9. Overall the landlord’s failures, as set out above, can be summarised as a failing to:
    1. Adhere to the timescales for RTA applications set out in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and caused significant delays to the process.
    2. Adequately communicate with the resident throughout the RTA process.
  10. In identifying whether there has been maladministration the Ombudsman considers both the events which initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to resolve them.
  11. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that there had been delays in processing the RTA application as well as service failures with regards to communication. In recognition of these failings it offered the resident £2,250 compensation for the delays. In its stage 2 response the landlord also outlined what learning it had identified from this complaint and the steps taken to improve its service.
  12. Having taken into consideration the delays in processing the RTA and the impact this had on the resident, the Ombudsman finds that the amount of £2,250 offered for the landlord’s failings in this area is reflective and proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This is because the landlord has compensated the resident for the tangible detriment caused by the significant delays but also the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress.
  13. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident has said that as a result of the delays her mortgage illustration expired before she could purchase the property. She has said that had this not been the case she would not now have a mortgage with a much longer term and higher interest rate.
  14. However, there is no guarantee that the sale would have completed by the mortgage illustrations expiration date of 30 June 2022 without the landlord’s delays. The government’s guide to RTA indicates that purchases are normally expected to complete within 3 to 7 months of an offer notice. So the process progressing beyond the mortgage illustrations expiry date (just over 3 months after the offer notice should have been issued) does not seem unreasonable. The involvement of a district valuer further prolonged the process and meant that it took longer than a normal to complete the purchase.

Communications and complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) says that landlords must respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of it being logged. It also says they must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. If more time is needed at either stage, the landlord must inform the resident and an extension should not exceed a further 10 or 20 working days respectively unless agreed.
  2. The resident first raised her complaint on 26 September 2022 and the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 November 2023. This was over a year later and significantly outside of the timescales set out in the Code. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that the resident had made it clear on several occasions that she wanted to raise a complaint. It said that it had responded to these and explained its position in telephone calls, but it had not confirmed if the resident accepted its response as a solution to her complaint. It acknowledged that it should have been clearer and ensured that the complaint was progressed through the formal route. In recognition of this failing the landlord offered £250 for the service failures in relation to communication and the handling of your complaint. The landlord has not provided a more detailed breakdown of the £250 compensation. As such, the Ombudsman is of the understanding that this equates to £125 for its poor communication and £125 for its handling of the complaint.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and the delay this caused in formally responding to the resident’s complaint. However further compensation is warranted to adequately address the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident. While the landlord may have spoken to the resident each time she raised a complaint, this does not change the fact that it missed several opportunities and it took over a year to follow the complaints process set out in the Code. This caused the resident time, trouble and inconvenience for over a year as she tried to raise her complaint multiple times without success.
  4. With regard to the landlord’s offer of £125 for its communication failures, the Ombudsman finds that the amount offered does not adequately address the impact this had on the resident. Between January 2022 and when the final offer notice was issued in June 2023 there were regular and persistent failings with the landlord’s communication with the resident. The landlord not only failed to proactively keep the resident up to date but regularly failed to respond to her emails chasing for updates. Having to constantly chase the landlord for updates for over a year caused the resident unnecessary and avoidable time, trouble and inconvenience. Additionally, the landlord’s failure to respond to a lot of these emails cannot but have worsened the impact the delays were having on the resident.
  5. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.
  6. In view of this, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Increase the compensation offered for its handling of the complaint to £300.
    3. Increase the compensation offered for its failure to adequately communicate with the resident to £400.
  7. These sums are in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for failings where the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident and the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s Right to Acquire application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s communications and complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failures. This written apology must be from a member of the landlord’s senior management team and it may wish to refer to the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance on our website.
    2. Directly pay the resident:
      1. £300 for its handling of the complaint.
      2. £400 for the lack of communication.
    3. The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £2,250 compensation it offered through its complaints process. The Ombudsman’s reasonable redress determination is made on the basis that this amount is paid.
  2. The landlord should write to this Service within 4 weeks of the date of this determination to set out its intentions regarding the above recommendation.