West Kent Housing Association (202111894)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111894

West Kent Housing Association

11 February 2022

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 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 query regarding the right to buy.

Background

2. During 2013, the resident first became a tenant of the landlord when she mutually exchanged to one of its properties. Under the terms of the assured (protected) tenancy agreement that she was assigned at this time, she had the right to buy. In 2016 the resident transferred to another property owned by the landlord; she was granted an assured tenancy that did not include the right to buy. The resident moved to her current property following a mutual exchange in 2017.
3. During September 2020, the resident enquired with the landlord about buying the property under the right to buy. In response, the landlord informed the resident that she held a fully assured tenancy agreement and did not, therefore, have the right to buy.
4. The resident submitted her stage one complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2021. She was unhappy that she did not have the right to buy and said she had not been informed by the landlord that she would lose this right when the mutual exchange was agreed.
5. The complaint was progressed through the landlord’s complaints procedure. The landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident on 24 June 2021, which is summarised as follows:
   1. It confirmed that the resident’s property did not have a right to buy within its tenancy, which she had taken over from the previous tenant following the mutual exchange.
   2. It had communicated this to the resident prior to the completion of the mutual exchange, and it had seen evidence of the resident having responded to this email. Therefore, it was satisfied that she had received the email.
   3. It said that the resident should also ensure that she understood documents before signing them, and sought advice where necessary.
   4. It did identify that it could have considered the resident’s right to buy for a historic property, as she had a need to move which was outside of her control. It confirmed that it may have granted her the right to buy that property at that time.
6. The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service. She was unhappy that the landlord had not granted her the right to buy her property, that it had failed to inform her that she would not have the right to buy prior to the mutual exchange. She also said that she had felt pressurised to sign a joint tenancy instead of a sole tenancy, and raised concerns that the landlord had not assigned her the right to buy following a previous property move.

Assessment and findings

Tenancy agreement, policies and procedures

7. The tenancy agreement for the resident’s property confirms that residents who became a tenant after 23 March 1989, would not normally have the right to buy.
8. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy confirms that the right to buy stays with the tenancy and property and that tenants should be made aware of their rights in respect to the right to buy, which could be lost when the exchange takes place. Tenants who were formally tenants of the local authority and retained the right to buy may lose this right should they exchange with a fully assured tenant.

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has raised concerns that she felt pressurised into signing a joint tenancy by the landlord. As this is a separate issue to the complaint raised with the landlord, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident first. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

Assessment

10. Following the resident’s complaint that she did not have the right to buy her property, the landlord would be expected to investigate the matter and respond to the resident in a timely manner. The landlord did so and confirmed that the resident’s tenancy agreement did not grant the resident the right to buy. The landlord explained that the right to buy stayed with the property and did not move with the resident, and that the tenancy agreement which she had taken over following the mutual exchange did not include the right to buy.
11. This was correct and was in accordance with the tenancy agreement and the mutual exchange policy. The resident’s tenancy agreement does not include the right the buy as the tenant she exchanged with was a fully assured tenant and was not a former tenant of the local authority (as this tenancy was originally granted in July 1998).
12. The resident has raised concerns over the landlord’s communication in respect to her losing the right to buy. In response, the landlord investigated the matter and confirmed that it had emailed the resident to inform her of this in 2017, prior to her completing the mutual exchange. The resident has disputed that she received the landlord’s email. However, the landlord has provided evidence to show that it emailed a letter to the resident on 4 September 2017.
13. In this letter the landlord advised the resident that she may lose any retained right to buy if she was exchanging to a fully assured tenancy, and that it was important to check what type of tenancy she was exchanging with. The landlord has provided evidence to show that the resident responded to its email on 25 September 2017, therefore suggesting that she did receive its letter emailed on 4 September 2017. Accordingly, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to make the resident aware that she may lose her right to buy when exchanging properties.
14. The landlord has acknowledged that it should have granted the resident the right to buy the second property that she moved to, as the circumstances around the resident’s need to move were outside of her control. It confirmed, however, that this would have had no bearing on whether she had the right to buy her current property, as she would have lost any right to buy on exchanging. The landlord has therefore taken steps to clarify its position on the status of the resident’s right to buy a previous property, and the explanation it gave regarding the resident losing any right to buy on exchanging to the current property was correct. 
15. In summary, the landlord has evidenced that the property the resident moved to did not include a right to buy, and that it had made the resident aware that she may lose her right to buy prior to her completing the mutual exchange. It is understandable that this is disappointing for the resident. However, the landlord has acted in accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement and its mutual exchange policy, and accordingly, no service failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

16. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s query regarding the right to buy.