The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (201915632)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915632

Clarion Housing Association Limited

3 June 2021


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 refers to:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s Right-to-Buy application (RTB).

Background and summary of events

  1. The complaint has been raised by both the resident, and her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and her representative as ‘the resident’.
  2. The resident was previously a tenant of the local authority and purchased her previous property under the RTB scheme. She then transferred that property into her son’s name and moved, becoming an assured tenant of the landlord, who is a housing association.
  3. On 17 July 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident following her RTB application, enclosing an “RTB2” notice, confirming that the RTB application had been declined and explaining that tenants who transferred from a local authority to the landlord through a stock transfer would hold a preserved RTB. The resident had not taken part in a stock transfer and her tenancy did not include a preserved RTB.
  4. The landlord’s records show that the resident called the landlord for a further explanation in August 2019. The landlord confirmed that the resident was not eligible and provided details of the voluntary RTB pilot scheme for housing association tenants. The resident called the landlord again on 4 February 2020 and again asked about RTB. The landlord provided information about the Right to Acquire scheme and the voluntary RTB pilot scheme and the resident confirmed that she was already signed up to the voluntary RTB website.
  5. The resident raised her concerns to the landlord regarding the denial of her RTB application in June 2020, although the details of this have not been provided to this Service for review. The resident then contacted this Service for support in raising a formal complaint to the landlord. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 15 June 2020 and asked for it to provide a response in line with its formal complaints process within three weeks.
  6. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 18 June 2020 and acknowledged that the resident had raised her concerns about the denied RTB application throughout 2019 and 2020 but this was not pursued as a formal complaint. It explained that she had become its tenant in 2006 and confirmed that, as she was not a tenant of the local authority at the time of the stock transfer in 2007, she was not eligible for the preserved RTB. It hoped that this had provided further clarity and said that the resident could escalate the complaint within 20 working days if she remained dissatisfied.
  7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 22 July 2020 to advise that she had not had any further response from the landlord following the stage one complaint response. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 22 July 2020 and asked the landlord to provide a stage two complaint response within 15 working days. The landlord responded on 6 August 2020 and said that it had not received an escalation request; it confirmed that it would contact the resident for more information.
  8. The landlord emailed the resident on 6 August 2020 asking her to provide further information about why she remained dissatisfied. The resident responded and confirmed that she wished to escalate the complaint.
  9. On 20 August 2020 the landlord emailed the resident again to ascertain the reasons for escalation. The resident responded, stating that she would like to be given the opportunity to purchase her property. She contended that she had been treated unfairly as other tenants had been given the opportunity to purchases their properties. 
  10. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 October 2020 following a telephone call that day where the reasons for escalation were established. It had arranged for a review of the resident’s complaint to take place on the basis that: she was not told that the RTB would not be included in the new tenancy; she felt she had lived at the property long enough to qualify for a RTB; and she felt it was unfair that other tenants had been given the RTB and she had not. It confirmed that the resident should receive a response within 20 working days.
  11. The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 9 November 2020 and explained that it was satisfied that the response provided at stage one was correct. It added that it could not comment on the status of neighbouring properties, nor confirm whether other tenants had the right to buy, due to data protection legislation. It said that the terms of a tenancy could be different for a number of reasons and other tenancies had no bearing on the resident’s RTB application. It confirmed that the outcome of the resident’s complaint remained unchanged.

Assessment and findings

  1. This Service finds the landlord’s decision to deny the resident’s Right to Buy application reasonable and in line with policies surrounding the Right to Buy scheme. The landlord followed the correct process by issuing an “RTB2” notice that confirmed that the Right to Buy application had been declined and provided a satisfactory explanation as to why this was the case.
  2. The landlord confirmed that the Right to Buy scheme was introduced for secure tenants of local authorities, and that Part V Section.171A Housing Act 1985 as modified by the Housing (Preservation of Right to Buy) Regulations 1993 preserves the Right to Buy in the event of a stock transfer. It advised that since there had been no stock transfer from the resident’s previous local authority tenancy, her tenancy did not provide for preserved Right to Buy.
  3. The resident had the Right to Buy her property with her previous landlord, which was a local authority. If she had moved to a different home with the local authority, she may have kept that right. However, these rules do not apply when a resident moves from a local authority to a housing association. In most cases, housing association tenants do not have the Right to Buy.
  4. In cases where the resident was a secured tenant of a local authority when the ownership of their property was transferred from a local authority to a housing association, then they may have a ‘preserved Right to Buy’. If so, they would have the same rights within the Right to Buy scheme as if they were still a local authority tenant. This only applies if the resident continued to live in their property when it was transferred from a local authority ownership to a housing association. It would not apply if the resident moved to a different property, owned by a housing association, as happened in this case.
  5. It is noted that the resident expressed concern that other tenants had been given the Right to Buy their properties and she did not feel that this was fair. The landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation that other tenancies may have different terms. Ultimately, the legal right to buy is a legislative rule and the landlord cannot accept a Right to Buy application if the resident does not have this legal right. The landlord has provided the resident with alternative options in regard to purchasing the property, including the Right to Acquire scheme and the voluntary Right to Buy pilot scheme, when it becomes available for housing association tenants.
  6. In summary, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to deny the resident’s Right to Buy application. The landlord’s explanations to the resident were accurate regarding her eligibility and it has acted in line with policy by issuing an “RTB2” notice and explaining this decision.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to deny the resident’s Right to Buy application.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s decision to refuse the resident’s Right to Buy application was appropriate and in line with the policies of the Right to Buy Scheme.