Orbit Housing Association Limited (202109170)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109170

Orbit Housing Association Limited

15 December 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 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Buy (RTB) application.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied her home under an assured tenancy in a three-bedroom terraced house. The tenancy began on 9 July 2001. It was a tenancy agreement for secure tenants whose homes had transferred from the local authority as part of a stock transfer in the 1990’s. In the circumstances, the resident had a statutory “preserved” right to buy, pursuant to Section 171A of the Housing Act 1985.
This service requested a copy of the tenancy agreement but it only provided the heads of terms and not the terms and conditions. According to the landlord, the tenancy agreement set out that the resident required the landlord’s permission to carry out works including improvements and the landlord would have to be satisfied such works were carried out by an approved contractor.
Part 5 of the Housing Act 1985 (“the Act”) sets out the provisions for the RTB process.
1. Section 121AA of the Act obliges landlords to prepare and make available to tenants information tenants should have when considering whether to exercise the RTB. The information is prescribed by the Housing (Right to Buy)(Information to Secure Tenants)(England) Order and includes the resident’s rights to serve a notice of delay on the landlord. Section 121B provides that any document with the information should be published or otherwise made available.
2. Government guidance to landlords Right to Buy: A guide for local authorities (publishing.service.gov.uk) suggests that the landlord signpost the resident to the government website and offer resident guidance with the application.
3. Under Section 122 of the Act, the resident should claim their right to exercise their RTB by written notice to that effect served on the landlord. The form is referred to as the RTB1 form.
4. Under Section 124, the landlord must respond within four weeks with a RTB2, either admitting or refusing the resident’s RTB.
5. Under Section 125 of the Act, If the landlord agrees that there is a RTB, it must send an offer notice stating the sale price of a freehold interest within 8 weeks.
6. Under Section 153A, the tenant can serve an ‘initial notice of delay’ (form RTB6) if the landlord does not provide the RTB2 or notice under Section 125 within the prescribed time limits.
7. The landlord can serve a counter–notice in those circumstances, explaining the delay.
8. If the landlord does not serve a counter–notice within one month of the RTB6, then the tenant can serve an ‘operative notice of delay’ (form RTB8). This would result in rent counting towards the purchase price.
9. Section 181 sets out that the county court has jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings and to determine any question arising under Part 5.
10. The government guidance for landlords currently states that the instructions to a valuer could include any tenants’ improvements and a plan indicating the boundaries of the property
11. Under Section 126, the price payable for the property is its value at the “relevant time”. Under Section 122, the “relevant time” is the date the RTB1 was served (usually the date of receipt by the landlord). Under Section 127, the valuation is the price it would achieve on the open market, disregarding any improvements made by the resident.
12. Under Section 128 of the Act, any question arising under this Part as to the value of a dwelling-house at the relevant time shall be determined by the district valuer in accordance with this section.
13. Under Section 155, the resident would be obliged to repay the discount or a proportion of the discount if she sold the property within five years of the sale.
14. According to the Government guide to landlords, the only time a landlord could cancel or withdraw the Right to Buy application was after it had served a Section 125 notice. In the case of Copping V Surrey County Court 2005, the tenant was deemed to have abandoned their RTB claim that the tenant had made 10 years earlier, despite it having been wrongfully refused at the time.
15. According to the Government guide to landlords, if the tenant delays the Right to Buy process at any other stage of the application the landlord should take reasonable steps to progress the Right to Buy to the next relevant stage where a default, first or final notice can be served.
The landlord’s homeownership policy provides that:
1. Once the RTB has been admitted, “and the route to sale has started”, all minor repair works to the property will be stopped. Only emergency repairs would be carried out.
2. All property improvements needed the landlord’s consent, but retrospective permission could be granted if necessary.
The landlord’s application form for retrospective consent for alterations stated that the landlord reserved the right to reject a request for improvement. The work must have been carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner by fully experienced and qualified trades persons. It was the responsibility of the resident to obtain any necessary statutory approvals.

Chronology

According to the landlord’s records, the landlord posted a RTB pack to the resident on 20 June 2014. The landlord received the RTB form on 5 August 2014 and left a voicemail for the resident requesting information on 11 September 2014. On 14 November 2014, the landlord sent the resident a “Section 125” notice. There were no further entries until 22 February 2016 when the resident made a fresh enquiry.
The next entry in the records was on 14 September 2018, stating that the landlord sent a fresh RTB application pack to the resident. The landlord returned the form to the resident as it was incomplete.
On 23 November 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident and acknowledged receipt of the resident’s RTB application dated 18 November 2018. The RTB form contained the resident’s list of works that had been undertaken to the property.
On 31 December 2018, the landlord wrote to the resident with form RTB2, admitting the resident’s RTB. It stated that the next step was to obtain a valuation of the property. It stated that the price of the property would be the valuation at 29 November 2018.
On 4 January 2019, the landlord noted that it had been agreed that the resident would supply documents in relation to the boiler she had had installed, and building permission and plans for a summer house and garage.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 January 2019 requesting plans, details and permissions in order to instruct a surveyor to value the property. The resident was looking to supply the paperwork. The landlord stated that the application could not progress without a valuation.
According to the resident, she did not hear from the landlord except for in January 2019, September 2019 and on 17 March 2020. The records showed the landlord left a voicemail message to chase the RTB application on 15 January 2019.
The resident has informed this service that she sent forms RTB6 and RTB8 to the landlord and provided this service with a certificate of posting dated 21 May 2019. The resident also provided to this service an extract of an RTB6 form dated 5 May 2019 and a signed RTB8 form dated 23 June 2019.
The landlord informed this service that the team manager who had dealt with the case had not been aware of the team receiving an RTB6 or an RTB8. It carried out a search but had not located any documents received at or around 21 May 2019. It noted “activity” relating to the wet room alterations with the local authority at that date.
The landlord’s further records show that the resident left messages in September in 2019 and the landlord left two voicemail messages on 3 and 4 October 2019.
On 12 March 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord chasing the valuation and enquiring what was the position in relation to her RTB application.
The following day, the landlord referred the resident to its letter of 29 January 2019 and earlier voicemail.
On 17 March 2020, the landlord wrote and said that the application had been made “over a year ago”. It had noted the landlord’s consent but it still had not received the relevant plans. It would investigate what was needed for the application and asked whether the resident had contacted the local authority for a copy of the plans. It stated it would send a fresh RTB1 application form to the resident to complete. The resident informed this service that she completed the RTB1 form and returned it to the landlord but did not specify at what date.
The landlord wrote the same day that it was checking what information was required. It explained it required such information for the valuation as the works the resident had carried out could impact on the value of the property to the resident’s benefit.
The resident informed this service that the landlord did not contact her after this email and did not inform her that the resident could complete a RTB6 and RTB8 form to claim her rent off the valuation.
The landlord received the resident’s fresh application on 5 October 2020 dated 25 September 2020 together with plans, photographs and permission.
The resident completed and signed an application for retrospective consent for alterations on 27 October 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 October 2020 that it needed to establish the property value. The resident would be obtaining retrospective consent for improvements. It had instructed a surveyor. It enclosed a RBT2 form which stated that the purchase price would be based on the value at 5 October 2020.
The landlord wrote to the resident. The letter was not dated. It referred to its inspection visit on 27 November 2020. It had the location plans for the property, The next step in the RTB process was to instruct a surveyor to carry out a valuation. The resident had requested the valuation be carried out early the following year, as the housing market might see a reduction in house prices. It required dates in writing.
On 13 November 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord that her previous application in 2014 had been straightforward. She had carried out works as she was not happy with works carried out by the landlord and raised issues regarding her boiler. She said that she was “not really in a rush to get a valuer out as the prices are going to plummet after January”. She would “leave it up to you to decide it doesn’t really matter to me.”
The landlord’s report of 3 December 2020 of the inspection 27 November 2020 stated as follows:
1. The resident’s partner set out the works she had funded and carried out including re-wiring the house, changing the gas boiler, changing the kitchen and flooring, doors, and decoration in the property.
2. The resident had only changed the fronts and doors of the cupboards but they had required the landlord’s permission.
3. The decoration was the resident’s “responsibility” under the tenancy terms.
4. The re-wiring works should have been carried out by qualified contractors. The boiler should have been installed by a qualified person, with the relevant certification.
5. The only permissions on the system for works to the house were for the detached garage and the grant–funded works in relation to a wetroom. Improvements would not be taken into account for which the landlord had not given permission.
6. The only improvements the landlord would take into account were the grant funded adaptations and the detached garage at the rear.
7. It would not take into account the extension itself, as the resident had improved what was already there but not extended the living space or building. It was not prepared to give retrospective permission for the other items as the works were not carried out by qualified contractors.
8. The resident wanted to wait for the surveyor as she and her partner believed house prices would fall in January 2021.
The landlord wrote, the letter was undated, that following the inspection visit, the landlord had the location plans it required. The next stage in the RTB process would be to instruct a surveyor to carry out a valuation. It referred to her request that the valuation should be carried out in the following year, as the resident felt the housing market may see a reduction in house prices. It wanted confirmation in writing together with an indication of a date when the resident wished the landlord to instruct the valuation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 January 2021 that a valuer had not attended.
There followed a gap in the evidence. However, it was not disputed that the resident required a further delay as she had contracted Covid, the resident instructed the landlord to value the property on 19 March 2021, and a valuation of the property was carried out on 21 March 2021.
There was a further gap in the evidence. According to the landlord’s letter of 25 June 2021, it received the valuer’s report dated 22 April 2021 on 28 April 2021 and instructed its solicitors on 6 May 2021. The notice was dated 5 May 2021 requiring a response date of 12 weeks. The valuation or “relevant” date was 21 March 2021.
On 18 June 2021, the resident wrote querying why it had taken took so long to obtain a valuation, given the application was made in October 2018. She acknowledged that she had said it should wait until after Christmas but it had not been carried out in early 2020 or after first lockdown. She wished to make a complaint.
The resident wrote on 19 June 2021 to make a formal complaint as follows:
1. She had been advised that she should have received two forms to complete regarding the RTB being delayed. The landlord had not informed her that the rent could be deducted from the sale price if the application had taken too long.
2. The landlord had failed to inform her that house prices were going up “drastically”. The landlord would benefit from delaying the process. She had said in November 2020 that a delay did not matter as she believed at the time that house prices would fall. The landlord should have known differently.
3. She requested a form to challenge the valuation.
4. She had lost the benefit of the stamp duty holiday and had been paying rent instead of a mortgage. She did not have a right to repairs during the application process.
On 23 June 2021, the resident wrote again as a formal complaint as follows:
1. She had sent the required paperwork, drawings, and information stating that no plans were needed for the work carried out because she did not require planning permission. Building permission was not needed for the wetroom. All permissions were granted by the council through the disability grant.
2. The valuation was carried out in March 2021 and she received it in June 2021.
3. She had had a water leak “a couple of” months previously. The landlord informed her that she had pay for repairs because she was in the RTB process.
4. The landlord had been unable to state whether the wetroom and £70,000 spent on external improvements would be included in the valuation of the property, including a double garage and dropped curbs.
5. The landlord should hold better records. There were difficulties in communicating due to her hours of work. The housing officer’s voicemail memory was full so she could not leave message. The housing officer had taken a long leave. She had chased by text and email.
6. As a result of delays, the valuation had increased by 11% that year alone. The housing market had gone up.
7. She was paying rent unnecessarily, she had lost the benefit of the stamp duty holiday, the valuation would have been lower, and she would be two years into the five–year period (where she would have to repay the discount or proportion of the discount if she sold the property).
The landlord replied on 25 June 2021 as follows:
1. The landlord had written to the resident on 19 January 2019 to chase up some paperwork. It did not hear back until 13 March 2020. That application therefore did not proceed.
2. The current application form was dated 6 October 2020.
3. The landlord requested the paperwork regarding the improvements and to collate the documentation it required. There were various discussions regarding the improvements which resulted in the inspection on 27 November 2020. The landlord reiterated at that meeting what could be taken into account as far as improvements were concerned. Some that were detailed on the application form had not had the requisite consent from the landlord.
4. The resident requested that the valuation be carried out in early 2021. She then informed the landlord that due to having contracted Covid, the property valuation could not take place until after 10 February 2021.
5. It received the resident’s instruction to proceed with the valuation on 19 March 2021, which it raised a few days later.
6. RTB was a statutory process and the landlord did not have the right to agree discounts other than what was laid down by Government.
7. It was satisfied that the process followed in her current application had not been delayed, except at her request.
The resident replied on 29 June 2021:
1. She had provided “all permissions”.
2. The landlord “should have” some of them from her application in 2014.
3. She was not aware she had required permission to have a new boiler fitted. Although she informed the landlord of it, she was not told permission was required.
4. She had provided the landlord with plans to extend the fence line. The plans for the grounds, outbuildings, and front of the house were drawn up by the landlord when the resident applied for an extension of the land on 3 October 2014. She made a drop curb application to the local authority. She was told she did not need permission for the interior. She was only required to note what works had been carried out so that they could be taken off the price of the valuation.
5. The housing officer “constantly” requested plans. The landlord should have located the plans, not the resident. The wetroom was being built in 2019 so no planning permissions were available at the time. The wetroom was installed in an attached outbuilding.
6. The previous tenant had made changes, including removing doors. She had installed new ones. She had installed new flooring due to a leak she blamed the landlord for, and an asbestos investigation.
7. She was told that the garage she had added would not be taken off the value which she disputed and the landlord would not take into account the value of a kitchen upgrade as the landlord had installed one a few years earlier.
8. She queried why the process had been less complicated in 2014.
9. In October 2020, she was told the valuation would be carried out when lockdown had finished. She acknowledged her request for delays but said she had “joked prices might go down”.
10. She asked why the “location plan” was not requested in 2018 but was in 2020?
11. She asked why was the application form for retrospective consent not provided to her in 2018?
12. She considered the landlord had delayed the sale deliberately for its own benefit.
13. She contested the valuation which should have been that in the 2018 RTB2.
The landlord replied on 9 July 2021 as follows:
1. It had responded to the resident’s complaint on 25 June 2021. It intended to reply to her email of 29 June 2021 by 15 July 2021.
2. She had requested a redetermination of the valuation by the District Valuer. The application would be on hold until the District Valuer valuation came back so she did not need to return her documents to its solicitors by 31 August 2021.
The landlord wrote again on 15 July 2021 as follows:
1. It had acknowledged that it received a RTB application in 2018. The resident was going to supply further details of her improvements listed on the then application form. It had some photos on file but nothing further. There were entries regarding permissions for a disabled shower room in early 2019 but no other permissions. It was established what could and what could not be taken into consideration following the October 2020 application. It referred to the inspection visit on 27 November 2020.
On 21 July 2021, the resident wrote asking what held up the RTB in 2018 and subsequently 2020, what planning permissions did the landlord need to see consent for and for what alterations did it require proof of consent.
The landlord replied on 21 July 2021 as follows:
1. Her application from November 2018 was not held up. She had listed various improvements on the application form and as it could not see consent had been given for them all, the landlord had asked the resident for more information.
2. What improvements would be taken into consideration were discussed at the inspection and in the landlord’s email of 15 July 2021 so it was not waiting on any further documentation with regards to improvements. The resident requested a delay to the application. The resident instructed the landlord to proceed on 19 March 2021.
3. It received the valuer’s report on 28 April 2021 and its solicitors were instructed on 6 May 2021.
On 23 July 2021, the landlord wrote as follows:
1. The 2014 application had been made seven years previously and was therefore not relevant to the current application.
2. The current application (Oct 20) prompted the same request as previously regarding the improvements. This resulted in a visit from its property manager and the landlord’s agreement to improvements.
3. There was no retrospective consent to alterations and improvements on file, therefore the landlord sent this to the resident to complete. Nothing further on improvements was required.
4. The landlord would instruct the District Valuer. The application would go “on hold” until it received his report.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord made the following representations to the District Valuer:
1. The only permissions on the system for works to the house were for the detached garage and wetroom. This was not an extension. No other issue would be taken into account.
2. The decorations would not be taken into account as they are not classed as “improvements”.
The landlord wrote on 5 August 2021 that the resident should have reported any “bad workmanship”.
The landlord wrote to the District Valuer on 24 August 2021 that it had reviewed the garden landscaping at this property following information and plans provided by the tenant. It requested this was included in the valuer’s recommendations regarding the benefit that this improvement had made to the value of the property.
The resident wrote to the District Valuer on 9 August 2021 that the valuation date should be 29 November 2018. The 2020 RTB1 application should have been valued as at 5 October 2020. It set out her complaint to the landlord and made further submissions.
The landlord wrote with its final complaint response as follows on 24 August 2021 as follows:
1. It did not close the application in March 2020. The application did not progress and was considered closed due to lack of activity and that the required information was not received.
2. The RTB process requires the applicant to support their application with any supporting documents or evidence required. The onus was on the applicant to provide the information to support the application.
3. The officer sent the new application form out on 17 March 2020 and attached a copy of a previous application form for information. The new application was received by the landlord on 5 October 2020.
4. It did not hold complete records of the 2014 application. It was not the landlord but the surveyor who calculated the deductions from the valuation. Each application is looked at individually and previous decisions were not automatically applied to a later application, particularly if they were not supported by the required evidence.
5. In relation to the resident’s query as to why the landlord could not locate the plans she had submitted in 2014, which the then housing officer dealing with the RTB in 2018 had said she held, it stated that it held plans for the garden and garage the resident provided on 30 October 2020. As the officer in question was no longer employed with the landlord, it could not “sensibly comment” on why it had not been able to confirm this.
6. The landlord did not send the application form for retrospective consent to the alterations form in 2018 as it was not part of the RTB process. It was issued in the 2020 application in order to clarify the items for which approval was being sought in an attempt to assist the application. Approvals were required by the tenancy agreement.
7. In relation to why there was no inspection in 2018, it did not send out a member of staff as a matter of course. The onus was on the applicant to provide the information. It was made in this instance in order to attempt to clarify the position and help with the process.
8. It concluded that the RTB process was a statutory process and the onus was upon the applicant to provide the current information and approval required. The landlord had approved the garage and wetroom improvements, and these would be considered in the valuation. It had reviewed the garden landscaping, and, in light of the information and plans provided, it would request the valuer’s recommendations on the benefit that this improvement had made to the value of the property. General decoration i.e. painting, wall papering, coving etc was not considered. The flooring, kitchen fittings, electrical work, and boiler replacement would not be considered as the required supporting paperwork had not been supplied.
On 2 September 2021, the District Valuer wrote to the resident to explain it would only have regard to the factual information namely the offer notice dated 5 May 2021 with a valuation date of 22 March 2021. It had noted that the extent of tenant’s improvements at that date may also have been in dispute so it would take no further action until the factual matters were resolved.
It was not disputed that the process and valuation were suspended pending an agreement on the valuation date.

Assessment and findings

While the evidence showed that the landlord issued a notice under Section 125 in 2014, it was reasonable of the landlord to address each and any further application afresh and not to rely on the information provided in historical applications as a matter of course. This is because circumstances may have changed in the meantime.
While the resident was unhappy that her 2014 application had been progressed swiftly, yet the 2018 application was not, the landlord was entitled to approach each application as it saw fit, as long as it acted in accordance with its policies, the law and good practice. The enquiries it made were reasonable. The RTB is a statutory process, with statutory restrictions. The landlord was entitled, and, in some regards, required, to ensure that the improvements it into account in the valuation were reasonable and appropriate both under the Act and within its policies.
The landlord would be entitled to expect the resident to retain and provide their own documents and information. It was reasonable of the landlord to consider that the onus is on the resident, not the landlord, to collate and provide the necessary information for their application. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to keep good records, and to make the necessary arrangements to retain records and correspondence, including after a staff member leaves their employment. However, the landlord would not be under an obligation to retain a resident’s documents indefinitely, or without good reason. There was no evidence that the resident asked the landlord to retain or investigate the 2014 application in 2018, so that the next time the issue was raised, it was some six years later. Indeed, there may be reasons under data protection regulations why the landlord should not retain records. The evidence was not clear as to whether the landlord held plans in 2014. However, in any event, those plans alone would not have sufficed, given there had been changes since that date.
The Ombudsman has considered whether it was reasonable for the landlord to deem, in the circumstances of the case, that the resident had ‘abandoned’ the 2018 application. The Ombudsman has noted the case of Copping referred to above and the spirit of the legislation which is to adhere, as far as possible, to the prescribed timescales.
The parties dispute whether the resident sent RTB6 and RTB8 notices to the landlord in May 2019 and June 2019. It is noted that the resident did not follow up on the formal notices, nor she did not raise with the landlord in her correspondence or throughout her complaint correspondence that she had served the landlord with notices of delay. It is also noted that part of the resident’s complaint was that she was not informed of her rights to serve a notice of delay and that she had lost the opportunity to claim rent against the sale price. However, it is also noted that, while the landlord’s view was that it did not receive the notices, the landlord has been unable to confirm whether or not it received any documents at the time. That is unsatisfactory.
While there is no definitive evidence that the resident sent the notices or that the landlord received them, there was a significant gap (whether from January 2019 or June 2019, to March 2020) before there was any significant further contact from the resident. It is the view of the Ombudsman that in the circumstances, the landlord was entitled to consider that the resident had abandoned the 2018 application. The Ombudsman is not making a determination in law but what is reasonable, fair and proportionate in all of the circumstances. If the resident disagrees with this view, it is open to the resident to seek legal advice and make an application to the County Court for a decision in law.
The Ombudsman has also considered whether the landlord took reasonable steps to progress the application. The evidence shows that the delays were due to the landlord seeking to establish the extent to which the value of the improvements could be deducted from the valuation. This would have been for benefit of the resident. The evidence showed that the landlord sought to be helpful. It suggested that the resident should apply for retrospective consent for her alterations. In order to clarify the position on the improvements, it exercised its reasonable discretion and carried out an on-site inspection which it did not do as a matter of course. It instructed the surveyor promptly, once it received the resident’s instruction. How long it took for the valuation to be carried out was in the hands of a third-party surveyor. The landlord instructed its solicitors within a reasonable time of the valuation.
Delays in issuing a section 125 notice would not normally have affected the valuation date. However, in this case a) the resident did not pursue the 2018 application and b) she requested a delay to the valuation in the 2020 application. Had the landlord ignored the resident’s request, this could have been a matter of complaint had property prices had fallen.
The Ombudsman notes the impact of the delay reported by the resident. Property prices had increased and, in 2021/2021, she had lost the full benefit of the stamp duty holiday. The Ombudsman has noted the resident’s reports of difficulties in communication. It is noted also that the landlord promised to check its requirements in March 2020 and there was no evidence that it did prior to October 2020. However, the evidence did not show this unduly impacted on progress, given the resident did not submit the 2020 application until October of that year. In relation to the 2020 application, the resident herself requested a delay to the valuation and she did not serve notices of delay. The resident would have been aware that the stamp duty “holiday” was due to change, indeed, at the time of her request for a delay to the valuation, it was due to end in March 2021. There was no evidence that the resident raised this as a concern with the landlord at the time.
The timescale for a response in the Section 125 notice (12 rather than 8 weeks) would appear to be incorrect as the statutory requirement would be for a response within 8 weeks in relation to freehold property. Moreover, it is not clear why, given the Section 125 notice was dated 5 May 2021 and gave a response date of 12 weeks, the landlord stated that response had been required by 31 August 2021. However, there was no evidence of an adverse impact as a result, given the valuation was disputed in any event, but the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
The resident was unhappy that she was not informed of her right to serve a RTB6 on the landlord until 2020. There was no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with the prescribed information regarding the RTB or followed the Government guidance in that regard. Given the resident did not pursue the 2018 application and deferred the 2020 valuation, and that she stated that she had in fact served those notices in 2019, there was no evidence that any lack of information prejudiced the resident’s position.
In relation to the landlord’s decision on improvements, consent was granted where it was appropriate to do so. It was reasonable that the landlord applied its policy as set out on the form, and that the works were required to be carried out by an approved contractor. The landlord was entitled to stipulate standards for any alterations, given, as, until sold, the property was its property and its responsibility, in particular where safety was concerned, such as gas and electrical works. The landlord’s explanation that it would exclude decorations as they were the resident’s responsibility was reasonable and appropriate. Decorations were not improvements. While the resident was not happy that she felt compelled to carry out the decorations because of the landlord’s management, this was an issue separate to that of the RTB application.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord acted reasonably in adopting a different valuation date to that of the 2020 RTB2. The evidence showed, and was moreover not disputed, that the resident requested that the landlord postpone the valuation. The evidence showed that, initially, the request was made with the anticipation that property prices would fall and therefore, by implication, the valuation date would be postponed. The resident was effectively requesting a later valuation date. Subsequently, the resident requested a delay due to illness in the family. While the RTB process is timescale driven and designed to adhere to strict timescales, there is no indication that the parties were not entitled to agree a later valuation date, which is essentially what the resident required.
The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to have predicted a rise in house prices and there was no evidence that the landlord was ill-intentioned.
The resident reported that she had been deprived of repairs during the RTB process. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have dealt with a leak given it fell under its statutory obligations but there was no evidence that the resident reported the leak and of its actual response. According to the policy, the landlord would have responded to an “emergency”. The landlord may not have explained its policy and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Right to Buy (RTB) application.

Reasons

The evidence showed that the delays were, in the main, due to the landlord investigating the resident’s improvements, that the resident did not pursue her 2018 application and she requested a delay to the 2020 valuation, and, effectively the valuation date. In the circumstances, fault is not attributed to the landlord.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should ensure that the timescales for responses in its statutory notices are correct, if it does not already do so.
2. The landlord should clarify its policy regarding its obligations to repair during the RTB process and ensure it does not exclude its statutory repairing obligations.
3. The landlord should ensure that it provides accessible information as required under Section 121AA of the Housing Act 1985 and ensures it signposts any resident claiming their RTB to the relevant government website, if it does not already.
4. If it does not do so already, the landlord should ensure that there is a procedure for keeping records of incoming post, and in particular documents, received at their offices, and that its correspondence is dated. It should also ensure that voicemail messages for absent staff provide a redirection and that its communication is clear so that there is a record of its requests for information.
5. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.