Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202016624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016624

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

15 July 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 concerns the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s applications to purchase the property under the Preserved Right to Buy (PRTB) and Right to Acquire (RTA) schemes.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Legal matters

3. The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 12 February 2020 and disputed its position on whether the property was in a designated rural area. The solicitor highlighted the landlord’s interpretation of the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 as it related to the current eligibility of the property to be purchased.
4. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, states that this Service will not consider matters which The Ombudsman considers could be resolved more effectively by a court of law a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. As a result, the Ombudsman will not make a finding on the correct legal interpretation of the property’s eligibility to be bought. The Ombudsman would not be in a position to determine whether the property is or is not in a designated rural area and any such decision would not be legally binding on the parties involved.
5. The role of the Ombudsman is not to establish whether the landlord’s legal position on the property’s eligibility to be purchased is correct or not; the Ombudsman’s role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was in line with its legal and policy obligations, and whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Scope of investigation

6. As part of this case, the resident and his solicitor have raised issues relating to the resident’s housing status between 1994 and 1998, as well as a RTA application made by the resident in February 2019.
7. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
8. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to September 2019. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focussed on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint raised in March 2020.

Background and summary of events

Background

9. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a bungalow.
10. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.
11. The complaints policy also states that in cases where the complaint is complex and/or contains numerous different elements, that it may extend the stage one response time to 20 working days and the stage two response time to 30 working days.

Summary of events

12. On 12 February 2020 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord regarding its decision to decline the resident’s RTA application made in February 2019. The solicitor noted that the reason given by the landlord for refusing the application was that the property was located in a rural area that was excluded from the RTA scheme.
13. The solicitor then disputed the legal interpretation of the legislation made by the landlord and requested it review its decision to decline the application.
14. The landlord received the letter on 14 February 2020 and passed the matter on to its legal department. A formal complaint was then opened on 4 March 2020 and a stage one complaint response was sent to the solicitor on 27 March 2020.
15. The landlord explained that the property fell within a designated rural area, which were excluded from the RTA scheme. It confirmed that it did not have any discretion to grant RTA to a property in this situation and apologised if the letter sent in March 2019 declining the application did not make that position clear.
16. On 25 June 2020, the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two. It cited the letter they had sent on 12 February 2020 as the grounds for requesting the escalation.
17. The landlord escalated the complaint on 30 June 2020 and a stage two complaint response was sent on 9 July 2020. The landlord informed the solicitor that it had undertaken a review of the complaint and that it was satisfied with the legal position it set out at stage one is correct and was in line with Government policies and initiatives.
18. The landlord then explained that this response was the end of its internal complaints process and that the resident could now request the involvement of a designated person, such as a Member of Parliament (MP) or a local councillor, or he could take his case to this Service to consider.
19. The resident wrote to his MP on 4 August 2020 and described his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision to decline his RTA application. The MP’s office wrote to the landlord on 12 August 2020 and requested further information relating to the matter.
20. The landlord wrote to the MP on 17 August 2020 and explained that:
    1. The Preserved Right to Buy scheme was available to residents who were residing in properties owned by a local authority on or before the date the property was transferred to the landlord.
    2. For the resident to be eligible for this scheme he would have had to been resident in a qualifying property. The resident’s current tenancy started in October 2017 and his previous tenancy started in October 1998; both of which were after the acquisition dates and therefore the resident does not possess the PRTB.
    3. The Right to Acquire scheme allows housing association tenants to purchase their property at a discount. The property must meet certain criteria in order for it to be eligible for the scheme.
    4. The resident’s property does not meet the criteria as it was listed as being in a rural exemption area, and also because the freehold of the property was not owned by a registered provider or a public sector body.
21. At some point between August 2020 and February 2021, the resident completed a PRTB application and sent it to the landlord. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 February 2021 and requested more information regarding the resident’s residency status between December 1994 and October 1998. This was provided by the resident.
22. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 March 2021 and informed him that his application had been declined. The resident replied and disputed the landlord’s decision. He noted that a break in tenancy would not affect his application and that all the evidence he and his solicitor had provided to the landlord showed that he had a legal right to buy the property.
23. The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 March 2021 and informed him that the application was declined because the PRTB is lost when there is a break in the tenancy chain and that the freehold of the property was not owned by a public sector body.
24. The resident replied to the landlord on 16 Match 2021 and disputed its decision. He disagreed with the landlord’s interpretation that the gap in tenancy affected his eligibility and that as he was a tenant in 1994, he was eligible for PRTB. He stated that if the landlord refused to allow him to buy the property, an alternative property should be offered. The resident also noted that the landlord seemed to provide different explanations for the reasons it declined his requests to buy the property whenever he raised the matter.
25. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 March 2020. It informed him that its decision to deny his PRTB and RTA applications remained unchanged and that it was unable to progress his complaint any further. It advised the resident that if he remained dissatisfied that he could bring his complaint to this Service to consider.

Assessment and findings

26. The Government’s guide to the RTA scheme describes what properties are and are not eligible. This, in part, states that:

“The Right to Acquire only applies to property built or purchased with public funds or transferred by a local authority after 1 April 1997 subject to the following exemptions:

• Properties in certain rural parishes identified by the Government as being exempt from the Right to Acquire.
• Properties where the landlord does not have sufficient legal interest to be able to grant a lease exceeding 21 years for a house or 50 years for a flat.

This list is not exhaustive and your landlord will be able to tell you whether your property qualifies when responding to your application.”

27. The landlord explained that it had declined the RTA application on the grounds that the property was in a designated rural area and the freehold of the property was not owned by a public sector body.
28. This position is in line with the Government’s guidance for RTA. The resident and his solicitor have disputed the landlord’s position that the property is in a designated rural area. As previous stated, it is not within the remit of this Service to make a determination on the different interpretations the parties have on the associated legislation surrounding designated rural areas.
29. The Government’s guide to the Right to Buy scheme states that a tenant has a Preserved Right to Buy if they occupied the property as a secure tenant of a local authority while the property was transferred to a registered provider and became an assured tenant of that provider.
30. The landlord informed the resident that he was not eligible to purchase the property under the PRTB scheme as his first tenancy with it began in October 1997, whereas the transfer of housing stock between the local authority and the landlord occurred in September 1994. This has been disputed by the resident who has maintained that he was a tenant of the landlord in September 1994.
31. Due to the period of time that has elapsed since this event (26 years), it is not within the jurisdiction of this Service to adjudicate as to which party’s version of events is correct, However, the landlord did correctly inform the resident that to be eligible to purchase the property via the PRTB scheme, he would need to have occupied the property as it was transferred from the local authority to the landlord.
32. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in this case. When it received the letter from the resident’s solicitor, it passed the matter on to its legal team and opened a formal complaint. The stage one response stated in detail why the RTA application made in February 2019 was declined.
33. When this was disputed, the landlord escalated the complaint and sent a stage two response. This response provided further information on how it handles properties in rural areas and how it responds to designated rural area orders.
34. Following an enquiry from the resident’s MP, the landlord sent a letter which provided more context to the situation and described the circumstances in which the property was transferred to it from the local authority.
35. When the resident’s further application to purchase the property under PRTB was declined, the landlord wrote to the resident and provided an explanation of what criteria was required to be eligible under this scheme and the reasons why his application was declined.
36. Throughout the process, the landlord has followed its complaint policy and remained in contact with the resident, responding to all of his queries and provided detailed responses that set out its position and the reasons why it would not permit the resident to purchase the property. There is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the complaint.
37. As has been previously stated, it is not within the remit of this Service to consider the legal position held by the landlord and the alternative interpretation provided by the landlord’s solicitor.

Determination (decision)

38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to decline the resident’s applications to purchase the property under the PRTB and RTA schemes.