Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202234205)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234205

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

29 April 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 response to the resident’s request to buy the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The evidence indicates the resident is a secure tenant. She had a joint tenancy with her late husband. It began when they moved to the property in 2009. After her husband sadly died in July 2023, the landlord converted the resident to a sole tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow. The resident is elderly. She is also vulnerable. She has a visual impairment and mobility issues.
4. In late October 2022, there were some interactions between the parties about the resident’s eligibility to buy the property through the Right to Buy (RTB) scheme. There were further interactions about the matter in March 2023. The resident approached the Ombudsman at this point. Subsequently, we asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint for her. The landlord issued a stage 1 response the following month. It said she was unable to buy the property.
5. The resident called the landlord several times after it had issued its response. She expanded on her initial complaint at this stage. The landlord escalated her complaint in late April 2023. It issued a stage 2 response in May 2023. It reiterated that the resident was not eligible to buy the property. However, it accepted it was responsible for a record keeping error. This related to the parties’ previous interactions. The resident remained unhappy subsequently.
6. The resident updated the Ombudsman during a call in April 2025. She said she still wanted to buy the property. She referenced various repair issues at her previous address (also rented from the landlord). She said these issues were not her fault and they caused her and her husband to move. It was understood she felt that the family would have been eligible to buy their previous home. However, in her opinion, they had effectively been penalised by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. The resident raised a similar complaint in September 2021. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 5 October 2021. It believes it resolved her related concerns at this point. There is no indication that the resident asked it to escalate this complaint subsequently. The evidence shows the response was issued around 13 months before the resident raised her current complaint. The scope of an Ombudsman investigation can be limited by various factors. This includes the length of time that has passed since the events in question.
8. Residents must also bring their complaint to the Ombudsman within a reasonable period. This is usually within 12 months after a complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. In line with our remit and out of fairness to both parties, we have focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s current complaint. Any events that occurred before 25 October 2021 are out of scope for this report.
9. The resident feels the landlord may have breached its data protection obligations by calling one of her family members about her RTB request. The Ombudsman is not specialist in data regulations. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is an independent body that specialises in upholding data protection and information rights. Any concerns of this type are better suited to the ICO. As a result, they are also out of scope for this report.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to buy the property

10. Contact records show the resident called the landlord on 25 October 2022 about the RTB scheme. They also show the landlord’s relevant member of staff (‘the RTB officer’) called her back on the same day. However, the landlord’s records did not capture the specific details of either interaction. This is concerning.
11. The parties spoke again on the following day. There is some conflicting information about events at this point. Records from 26 October 2022 said the resident had called “very confused as to who made the application for RTB”. They also said she subsequently acknowledged that she had “made the application”, but “she doesn’t want to apply”. The notes show the resident reported that the landlord’s RTB officer had called a member of her family (presumably to discuss her eligibility for the RTB scheme). They indicate that the landlord told the resident it would call her back about the matter. Subsequent events suggest it did call the resident again as promised, which was appropriate.
12. Later, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said the resident had called it about an unrelated matter. It said this related to a family member’s tenancy with the landlord. It also said, after the parties had finished discussing this, the resident asked to speak to its RTB team. It said it was unable to transfer her call at that time. However, it raised a callback request to its relevant team instead. While this was a reasonable approach, the landlord’s call records do not reflect this version of events. This is concerning and points to a record keeping failure.
13. Records show the resident called the landlord again on 27 October 2022. She reported that she and her family member had both missed calls from the landlord’s RTB officer. She said she would return the RTB officer’s call on 28 October 2022. From the information provided, there is no indication she did this. There is a significant gap in the evidence after 27 October 2022.
14. In March 2023 the resident made similar enquiries to the landlord. Records show she wanted information about her previous address. This was around 5 months after the parties’ previous interactions. There is no evidence to show the landlord was responsible for any related delays. On 27 March 2023 the resident asked to speak to the landlord’s RTB officer. Records show the landlord told her the officer would return her call within 5 working days. This was a reasonable timescale. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 28 March 2023. The main points from her complaint to the Ombudsman were:
    1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her RTB request.
    2. She wanted to buy the property.
    3. She had previously complained to the landlord about the matter but it did not respond (it is unclear when the resident felt it had failed to respond).
15. Records show the landlord called the resident on 30 March 2023 to acknowledge her complaint. The evidence suggests the parties discussed the resident’s previous home at this point. This is based on the wording in the landlord’s subsequent stage 1 response. It is noted that, at the time of the call, the resident had lived in the property for more than 13 years.
16. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 6 April 2023. It acknowledged the resident had lived in another of its properties previously. It also accepted that she had moved due to repair issues. It said an RTB application would not consider her former address. It also said there was an age exclusion in the government’s RTB scheme. The landlord said, if she applied, it would decline her application based on this exclusion. It also said the resident had not made a formal application to buy the property. It did not agree with her complaint.
17. We considered the government’s RTB information. Details can be found in a guidance document which is available on its website. The government’s guidance confirms there are limitations on the RTB scheme. Specifically, it says landlords can deny an RTB application if 2 criteria are met at the same time. These criteria are:
    1. The property is “particularly suitable for elderly persons” (based on various features such as its size, design, location, and type of heating system).
    2. The property was let to a person who was aged 60 or over.
18. It is noted the property is a bungalow. This type of accommodation is known to benefit elderly people. It is also noted the resident and her late husband were both aged over 60 when they moved to the property in 2009. Overall, there is no evidence to show the landlord’s position was incorrect. Still, it could have provided more information in its response. For example, it could have quoted the relevant criteria in full or signposted the resident to the government’s RTB guidance. This may have improved her knowledge of the RTB scheme, and helped the landlord to support its decision. However, its decision did reflect the government’s guidance. As a result, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
19. Between 8 and 26 April 2023 the resident called the landlord around 7 times to discuss its response. Contact records show that she did not ask to speak to the landlord’s complaint handler. Nevertheless, this was an excessive amount of calls. It should not have been necessary for her to call the landlord this many times. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient for the resident. Similarly, that the landlord could have avoided this if it had communicated clearly, signposted the resident to the right person, and managed her expectations accordingly. Its communication was inadequate at this stage. Its handling likely contributed to the number of calls that the resident made.
20. The resident added to her complaint during the above referenced period. Records from 20 April 2023 show she was unhappy that the landlord’s RTB officer had called her family member about her RTB request. It is noted the officer may have called the family member around 2 times in October 2022. Other records show the landlord tried to obtain a copy of the relevant call (to the family member). This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
21. The landlord called the resident on 27 April 2023. Complaint records show that, during the call, the resident reiterated there were issues with her previous home. In response, the landlord reiterated that an RTB application would only consider her current home (the property). This is consistent with the wording in the government’s guidance and we have not seen any evidence to the contrary. Ultimately, there is no indication the landlord was obliged to consider the resident’s historical circumstances. It escalated her complaint on the same day as the call. There is no evidence it was responsible for any failures at this time.
22. Between 28 April and 3 May 2023 the resident made more calls to the landlord. In related internal records, the landlord said it had given her an incorrect timescale for a call back. This suggests at least 1 of her calls may have been avoidable. Again, it is likely they were inconvenient for the resident. The landlord was responsible for a further communication failure at this stage. The resident was adversely impacted by the inaccurate information it provided.
23. During the parties’ discussions on 3 May 2023, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s RTB officer. Records said she was unhappy with their attitude. The landlord also added these concerns to her existing complaint. At this point, it told her that she should allow sufficient time for it to investigate the complaint. To manage her expectations and the level of contact between the parties, this was a reasonable step by the landlord.
24. On 9 May 2023 the landlord issued a stage 2 response. The response included information about its investigation process. The landlord said it had consulted its legal team about the resident’s RTB request. It reiterated that she could not buy the property due to the age exclusion. It did not agree with her main complaint. It did agree with some of her related concerns about its communication. It said it had listened to a call between the parties from 26 October 2022. It also said it had identified a record keeping error from the call. However, it said a call recording was not available for the discussion between its RTB officer and the resident. The landlord’s other key points at stage 2 were:
    1. After the parties had discussed the unrelated matter on 26 October 2022, the landlord’s agent had logged the callback request on the family member’s account. The resident had authorisation in place to discuss this account.
    2. This record keeping error caused the landlord’s RTB officer to call the resident’s relative about her RTB request. The landlord was sorry about this. It had raised the matter internally and would provide “refresher training” to its agent/agents.
    3. The landlord understood the resident was also unhappy with the way its RTB officer had spoken to her. It was sorry to hear about this and for any upset that may have been caused.
    4. Since a call recording was not available, the landlord was unable to comment further about the RTB officer’s conduct. However, it had spoken to the RTB officer to make them aware of the resident’s concerns.
25. The landlord said it had consulted its legal team about the resident’s RTB request. There is evidence that supports this assertion. Given the individual circumstances of the case, it was good practice for the landlord to obtain specialist legal advice. There is no evidence to show its position is incorrect.
26. In relation to its overall handling, the landlord rightly acknowledged its record keeping failure and took reasonable steps to address it. From the information that was available, it also took proportionate steps to address the resident’s concerns about its RTB officer’s attitude and/or conduct. There is no evidence to show it could have retrieved their calls. However, the landlord should have recognised that it was responsible for a number of communication failures between 8 April and 3 May 2023. Having done so, it should have made a reasonable attempt to address the resident’s related inconvenience. It did not do this. This aspect of its stage 2 response was unreasonable.
27. The landlord’s compensation policy shows it can award a discretionary amount of compensation to address service failures. It will consider various factors in its calculations. These include the duration of a problem and the associated level of inconvenience to a resident. Based on this approach, it should have reasonably awarded the resident some compensation to put things right. As mentioned, it contributed to the resident’s excessive number of calls.
28. Following the landlord’s response, there were further interactions between the parties in May 2023. Records show the resident reported that she had not received a copy of the landlord’s stage 2 decision letter in the post. They also show the landlord posted her another copy. Overall, there is no evidence of any failures by the landlord at this point. Later, the resident updated the Ombudsman in April 2025. She largely reiterated her previous concerns.
29. In summary, the landlord’s response to the resident’s request was consistent with the government’s RTB guidance. However, there were some issues with its wider handling of the matter. While the landlord recognised some of these issues and took reasonable steps to address them, it overlooked some failures that caused inconvenience to the resident. Specifically, its inadequate communication contributed to her excessive number of calls. It should have attempted to put things right for her in line with its policies. It did not do this. Aspects of its record keeping were also concerning. Given the extent of its failures and the corresponding impact to the resident, we find there was service failure by the landlord in respect of this complaint point.
30. Its compensation policy says the landlord can pay £100 in cases where it is responsible for a repeated failure and it has not addressed it. The evidence shows this criteria applies to the resident’s case. As mentioned, there were similar communication failures on at least 2 occasions and the landlord did not address these. We have ordered the landlord to pay a proportionate amount of compensation. Our award reflects the evidence we have seen, the landlord’s compensation procedure, and the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies.

The landlord’s complaint handling

31. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident said she had complained to the landlord but it did not respond. The landlord’s case evidence included her contact history, its complaint notes, and other records. We checked the records carefully. There is no indication the landlord overlooked a complaint from the resident between 25 October 2022 and 28 March 2023. Ultimately, there is no evidence to show it was responsible for an initial complaint handling failure.
32. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 28 March 2023. We notified the landlord about her complaint on the same day. Records show it called the resident 2 working days later to acknowledge the complaint. This was a reasonable timescale. It is likely the landlord logged the complaint at this point. Subsequently, it issued a stage 1 response on 6 April 2023. This was 5 working days later. The landlord’s relevant complaints procedure says it should respond to complaints within 5 working days at stage 1. It adhered to this timescale.
33. On 27 April 2023 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint. Subsequently, it issued a stage 2 response on 9 May 2023. This was 6 working days later. Its complaints procedure says it should respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 2. Again, the landlord complied with its applicable timescale. This was appropriate complaint handling.
34. There was a procedural issue with the landlord’s responses. They did not include a clear complaint outcome (upheld or not upheld). The landlord’s complaints procedure says its responses should include details of its decisions. This is consistent with the applicable version of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which was published in March 2022. Section 5.8 confirms a compliant response must include a decision on the complaint “in plain language”. The landlord’s lack of clarity was inappropriate. It could have caused some confusion for the resident. In mitigation, the parties were in regular contact about the complaint following its responses. The evidence suggests the landlord explained its position during these discussions. There is also no evidence that the resident was adversely impacted by the issue. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, an apology is sufficient to put things right for her.
35. In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was largely consistent with its complaints procedure. However, its responses did not include clear decisions on the complaint at either stage. This was contrary to the landlord’s procedure and the Code. While this could have caused some confusion, there is no indication the resident was adversely affected by this issue. Given the extent of the failure and its corresponding impact, we find there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request to buy the property.
    2. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

37. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a relevant manager to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology should reflect the additional failures highlighted in this report. It must also reflect the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance, which is available on our website. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman a copy of its letter within 4 weeks.
38. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident £100 in compensation within 4 weeks. This is to address the distress and inconvenience she was caused by the landlord’s inadequate communication. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
39. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to share a brief summary of the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. It should provide a copy of its relevant internal communication to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.