Wandle Housing Association Limited (202230608)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230608

Wandle Housing Association Limited

30 January 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 Buy (RTB) application.
   2. Associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has lived in the 1-bedroom flat since 2011.
3. In early January 2023, the resident applied to purchase his flat from the landlord under the RTB scheme. It responded on 19 January 2023 rejecting his application on the grounds that he did not have the relevant tenure. It advised that he did, however, qualify under the Right to Acquire (RTA) scheme for a capped discount of £16,000 on the purchase price.
4. Between January and April 2023, the resident sent many emails to the landlord and other public bodies, including the local authority. He was challenging the landlord’s decision on various grounds, including that he believed the RTA scheme was no longer available. The resident also submitted a ‘notice of delay form’ in February 2023 asking the landlord to use the rent he had paid to reduce the purchase price.
5. After 2 intervention letters from this Service, the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 4 July 2023. It said that:
   1. The resident had been given correct information that the RTB scheme was not available to him.
   2. Guidelines on the RTA scheme were set by the government and it was, therefore, unable to change the requirements and benefits, such as the level of discount that could be applied.
   3. It was unable to agree to his request to put the rent he had paid towards the deposit on the property.
6. On 2 October 2023, the resident asked to escalate his complaint. He reiterated that he believed he qualified to apply under the RTB scheme.
7. In the stage 2 response dated 27 October 2023, the landlord said it had not been able to find a copy of the resident’s completed RTA application form. It was unsure if this was because it had not been sent or had not been recorded on the system. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience and sent another copy of the RTA form for him to complete.
8. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his RTB application. He advised that he has not been able to purchase the flat he rents. The resident is seeking the Ombudsman’s view on the matter.
9. Following the complaint, the resident submitted further applications under the RTB process. In April 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident advising it will not respond to issues that have been addressed through its complaints procedure.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The governments guidance, entitled ‘Your right to buy your home’, sets out the eligibility criteria for the RTB scheme. The guidance is for landlords and tenants. It recommends that tenants who disagree with a landlord’s reasons for declining an application seek legal advice. It is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to decide if the resident meets the criteria, and as per the guidance the resident should seek legal advice if he wishes to challenge the landlord’s decision. We can, however, consider if the landlord followed the relevant process in its handling of his application.

RTB application

11. The government’s guidance states that a landlord is required to give a decision within 4 weeks of receiving a RTB1 application form. According to the available evidence, the resident sent his completed form on 9 January 2023. The landlord responded on 19 January 2023, which was within 2 weeks of the form being received. It therefore met the required timescales set out in the guidance.
12. Using the RTB2 form that the guidance required it to complete, the landlord explained its reasons for declining the resident’s application. This was that he, as an assured tenant, did not have the right tenure to apply under the scheme. It explained that section 118 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) states that only a secure tenant can apply. The landlord did then provide a reason for denying the application, as it was required to. It also referred to relevant legislation to explain its decision, which was appropriate.
13. The landlord gave a different reason in its initial complaint response from early July 2023. This was that the RTB scheme was not available to its residents because it is a housing association and not a local authority. Its explanation was not factually correct, according to the government guidance and the landlord’s tenure policy. These state that some housing association tenants who were secure tenants of a local authority and whose property was reassigned may still have the RTB. This is called a ‘Preserved Right to Buy’. Therefore, the landlord’s explanation not entirely correct. We have not found that this had a negative impact on the resident’s application or the process that it followed. We will though consider the quality of the landlord’s responses under the complaint handling section of the report.
14. For cases where a landlord has delayed RTB proceedings, the guidance states a tenant can request a reduction in the purchase price using rent paid over the period in question. To do this, the tenant must submit a completed RTB6 form. The resident sent the landlord one of these forms in February 2023. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that the landlord responded to this formally. However, we have also not seen that it was required to, under the government guidance, because it had:
    1. Given a decision on the RTB within the 4-week timescales.
    2. Declined the resident’s application.
15. While the Ombudsman has seen no need for the landlord to have followed the RTB6 process, it would have been reasonable for it to provide explanations for not doing so. There is no evidence, that we have seen, that it did so until the stage 1 response. Even then, it did not acknowledge that the resident had made a formal application. Rather, it presented it as a request, which was not accurate or reasonable. Its failure to do so was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). This requires that the landlord’s responses are clear and reasons for decisions are explained. It was also not in keeping with the landlord’s commitment to its customers, as outlined in its values, to always have the customer in mind.
16. The resident said that the RTA was no longer available as a separate scheme. We have not seen any evidence that supports this and, in fact, the government guidance does distinguish between the 2 schemes. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to include details of the RTA scheme. Its position was also consistent with the resident’s assured tenancy agreement, which specifies that he may be eligible for the RTA.
17. While the landlord missed opportunities to reiterate the reason for its decision, the Ombudsman is satisfied the evidence shows it followed the guidance and process in declining an RTB application.

Associated complaint

18. After receiving the decision, the resident sent numerous emails, often copied to different members of the landlord’s staff. He also included other public bodies. While it was not always clear who the resident was addressing his emails to, it was apparent that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his application. The landlord should have dealt with the resident’s dissatisfaction through its complaint’s procedure and policy. This recognises the Code’s definition of a complaint as any “expression of dissatisfaction” about the landlord by a resident. Not doing so was a failing that led to the complaint process being delayed.
19. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2-stage process. This includes that it will acknowledge complaints and escalations within 5 working days. It then commits to responding within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the Code. While the landlord met the stage 2 timescale, it exceeded its stage 1 timeframe significantly. This was in part due to the failure to escalate the complaint explained above. Delays were further compounded by the landlord not responding to a request from this Service, in April 2023, to investigate the complaint. As it took over 5 months overall, the Ombudsman finds this to be a clear failing.
20. In the stage 2 response from October 2023, the landlord referred to the resident wanting to apply under the RTA. This was factually incorrect. The final response is intended to be a review of the original decision, both under the landlord’s policy and the Code. Therefore, it was a failing that the landlord did not make any reference to its initial finding.
21. Neither of the landlord’s responses acknowledged any complaint handling failings. It has, therefore, not taken any of the actions the policy says it can take to remedy the complaint. These include providing explanations, apologising, paying compensation, or changing a policy. These are outcomes that the Code encourages a landlord consider making. The Ombudsman therefore determines maladministration and orders the landlord to undertake actions to put right the impact of its failure to:
    1. Escalate the resident’s complaint.
    2. Provide responses that were of an appropriate standard.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s RTB application.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

24. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should provide evidence showing it has complied with our orders to:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for not escalating his complaint.
    2. Pay the resident £100 distress and inconvenience arising from the complaint handling failings.
    3. Explain to this Service what changes it will or has already made to:
       1. Ensure staff know how to recognise a complaint and know the process to escalate it. This should include consideration to providing training to all customer facing staff.
       2. Improve the robustness of its responses to complaints. This should include consideration to implement a quality assurance process.