Plus Dane Housing Limited (202218640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218640

Plus Dane Housing Limited

14 August 2023

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 right to acquire application.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom, first floor flat, and holds an assured tenancy with the landlord.
3. She applied to purchase her property through the right to acquire scheme on 14 September 2021. The landlord informed this Service that during the complaint, the resident advised she has ADHD and autism.
4. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 20 September 2022 due to delays in her right to acquire (RTA) application being progressed. The resident felt that she had not been kept updated on the progress of the sale and had been informed the process would take 6 to 8 weeks. She was dissatisfied that her mortgage was due to expire in 3 days after an extension had previously been approved.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 14 October 2022 which stated:
   1. It did not act promptly to obtain a plan of the property which caused delays to the conveyancing between 18 May 2022 until 19 August 2022.
   2. On 6 October 2022, it became aware the freeholder of the building was a non-public body and the RTA did not apply to the resident’s property. The resident was informed that she would be unable to purchase her property.
   3. There had been service failures caused by delays and the landlord not being aware of who the freeholder was.
   4. It offered £500 compensation in recognition of delays, distress and inconvenience caused. In addition, it offered to reimburse costs incurred by the resident through the RTA application.
6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she felt she should have been informed sooner than 13 months after her initial application that her RTA would not go ahead.
7. On 14 November 2022, the landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response. It stated:
   1. The time taken to process the resident’s RTA application was unacceptable. The matter was compounded by the resident finding out towards the end of the process that she could not purchase the property.
   2. The landlord re-offered £500 compensation and to reimburse the sales costs incurred by the resident through the RTA process as per the stage 1 complaint response.
   3. It would make enquiries to the freeholder regarding the landlord purchasing the property.
   4. It had learnt lessons and steps were taken to improve processes so that the situation did not re-occur.
8. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 17 November 2022 as she is dissatisfied with the length of time the landlord took to discover it was unable to sell the property to the resident through the RTA scheme. She is also dissatisfied with the compensation offered and does not feel it went far enough to account for the stress and anguish experienced due to her health conditions. As a resolution to the complaint, she wants the landlord to amend the wording on its tenancy agreements and offer a higher level of compensation for the failures.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s right to acquire application.

9. There were significant errors in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s RTA application. The criteria of whether the property was eligible for the scheme was not checked correctly at the onset of the application. It took the landlord 13 months to identify that it was not the freeholder of the property and therefore the resident’s property was not eligible for the scheme. During this time, the resident was of the understanding that the application was proceeding, and she would be able to purchase the property.
10. After the RTA process began, the landlord’s records evidence that there were delays in it obtaining plans for the property between 18 May 2022 until 19 August 2022. The resident did not receive sufficient updates from the landlord despite being advised of a 6 to 8 week timeframe for the RTA process which had expired. The resident advised the landlord that she was distressed by the lack of communication and expressed the importance of receiving a response as her mortgage was due to expire having already extended it once. The resident experienced a significant amount of distress and inconvenience chasing the landlord, attempting to proceed her application which was submitted on 14 September 2021, only to be told that she was not eligible for the scheme on 11 October 2022.
11. This Service has been provided with invoices charged to the resident evidencing the costs incurred throughout the RTA process. The resident was charged £636.47 in solicitor fees and £990 for broker charges. The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it would offer the full amount to cover these costs, totalling at £1,626.47.
12. The landlord’s offer to reimburse the sales costs was in line with its compensation policy whereby, “there may be circumstances where as a result of service failure or inaction the landlord may make an offer to either reimburse certain expenses that may have been incurred or to make a discretionary offer in the form of an ex gratia payment as a gesture of goodwill”. The offer of reimbursement put the resident back financially in the same place she would have been in had the failing not occurred. It was appropriate for the landlord to ensure the resident was not out of pocket as a result of the process, which was due to no fault of her own.
13. In addition, this Service expects that the landlord’s redress should acknowledge that the resident was provided with incorrect advice and was led to believe for a significant amount of time that she was going to purchase the property. Her hopes had been raised, and the redress should recognise the disappointment and distress caused by her hopes of purchasing her property being diminished through no fault of her own.
14. The resident advised she felt that the offer of compensation was not proportionate given her medical conditions. She advised that by having ADHD and autism, the experience impacted her more than other individuals. Although this may be possible, it is not within the remit of this Service to assess the extent to which a landlord’s failure has contributed to or exacerbated a resident’s health without medical documentation.
15. In this case, having considered the available evidence, this Service is of the view that the £500 compensation offered by the landlord (in addition to the reimbursement) is reasonable and proportionate to redress its failings when dealing with the resident’s RTA application. The amount offered by the landlord is in accordance with what this Service would have determined as a result of failure which adversely affected the resident. The landlord took into consideration its failures and the impact on the resident when offering the compensation.
16. In addition to offering compensation and apologising to the resident for its failings, following a request from the resident, the landlord made enquiries to the freeholder of the resident’s property about purchasing the freehold itself. It set the resident’s expectations by explaining it could not guarantee that this would be successful. Further, the landlord explained that other opportunities to purchase properties were soon to be released if the resident was interested. It was appropriate for the landlord to respond to the resident’s query about it purchasing the freehold, and to seek other opportunities for the resident in an ongoing attempt to put things right.
17. The resident felt that her tenancy agreement was misleading and that it should have stated she did not have the right to acquire her property. Her tenancy agreement outlines that she has the right to acquire provided that the right has not been excluded. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that examples provided in her tenancy agreement of why the resident cannot purchase her home are not an exhaustive list. The landlord’s response to this concern was reasonable as eligibility for the RTA should be considered by the landlord on a case by case basis.
18. It is clear from the landlord’s stage 2 response that the landlord has recognised where things went wrong and demonstrated learning from its mistakes. The landlord advised that a number of steps would be taken to prevent the matter from reoccurring. As part of this, the landlord said it was amending its processes for when new homes are built to ensure the freeholder status is flagged along with whether the resident will have the right to acquire. Further, the landlord has since created a clearer RTA policy which outlines the landlord’s position for when it is not the freeholder of a property.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This is because the landlord’s complaint responses recognised its failings, it apologised, used learning from the case to make improvements, and made a reasonable offer of compensation.

Recommendation

20. If it has not already paid it, the landlord is to reoffer the £2,126.47 it offered in its final stage 2 complaint response.