Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Tuntum Housing Association Limited (202000313)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000313

Tuntum Housing Association Limited

28 January 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 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 resident complains about:
    1. The information provided by the landlord in response to her Right to Acquire application.
    2. The landlord’s communication in relation to a Voluntary Right to Buy scheme, specifically, the steps it took to make tenants aware of the scheme.
    3. How the landlord handled the complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in respect of a three–bedroom house (the property). 
  2. In August 2018, the Government (in partnership with the National Housing Federation) launched a two-year Voluntary Right to Buy (VRTB) pilot scheme in the Midlands. Tenants of participating housing associations needed to apply via a ballot. The scheme has since closed.
  3. On 14 February 2019, the resident submitted a Notice of Intention in relation to the Right to Acquire (RTA) in respect of the property.
  4. On 22 February 2019, the landlord responded to this in writing. The landlord said that the property did not meet the RTA criteria and therefore the resident was not eligible for the RTA. It provided a completed form RTA2 which states that the application was denied as the property was acquired in 1993 and the “Right to Acquire does not apply to properties funded before 1 April 1997, as they were not developed with Social Housing Grant or social Housing Allowance”.
  5. On 9 March 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord in relation to two issues. First, the resident said that when she submitted the RTA form in February 2019, the landlord refused this on the basis that the property was acquired in 1993. The resident complained that she had since sought legal advice and was told that she had the right to request the landlord provide the property deeds to prove that the date given was correct and she requested this. 
  6. The resident also complained that the landlord had not publicised the Voluntary Right to Buy pilot scheme that was launched in Autumn 2018. The resident complained that she had informed the landlord several times in the past that she would be interested in buying the property but when the opportunity arose, the landlord did not make her aware of the scheme. The resident added that when she had accrued rent arrears, the landlord had “bombarded” her with letters and phone calls, but when there was something she could benefit from, there was a lack of communication by the landlord.
  7. On 10 March 2020, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and said that it would respond within ten working days from receipt of the complaint.
  8. On 23 March 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it would not be able to respond by 24 March 2020 because it was awaiting information required for the response, but it would issue a response by 1 April 2020. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused.
  9. On 1 April 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint. It enclosed the Land Registry title documents to the property. The landlord said that it had promoted the VRTB pilot in line with the Government guidance at the time and the pilot had since closed to new applicants. The landlord recommended the resident check the Government’s website for the latest information in relation to the Right to Buy (RTB) and said that it also updates its own website with new information when it is released.  The landlord also said that while the pilot was no longer available, there might be other low–cost home ownership options that the resident could benefit from and referred to its website for information about help to buy and shared ownership.
  10. On 15 April 2020, the resident set out her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response. The resident complained that the landlord had not “correctly addressed” the issues she had raised in her complaint. She said that she had informed the landlord several times that she would be interested in buying the property if the opportunity arose; she was promised that she would be informed, and she asked why this was not done. She felt the landlord had “shifted responsibility” onto her to check the website for updates. She said she checked the website the previous week and the pilot scheme from 2018 was still advertised but no year was included. She had previously been told this page would be removed.
  11. The resident complained that the landlord did not inform tenants of the scheme. She considered the landlord had a duty to inform all tenants of the opportunity by letter, email or phone call because the website was not kept up to date. She also asked how many tenants applied for the scheme. The resident said she felt that she had unfairly missed the opportunity because of the way the landlord communicated about this. She requested the landlord reconsider the complaint and give her the opportunity to purchase the property.
  12. There is evidence that in response to this complaint, the landlord requested a particular member of staff remove the VRTB pilot scheme information section and review all sections of the website to ensure they were up to date.
  13. On 29 April 2020, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s disappointment that she was unable to purchase the property but said it did not consider there had been any service failures in the way it promoted the pilot scheme. The landlord said that landlords who took part in the pilot were advised that “it is up to each association as to whether they write to tenants with this information- you are under no obligation to do this, in keeping with the voluntary rather than statutory nature of the scheme”.
  14. The landlord acknowledged that the information on its website was out of date and apologised for any confusion caused. It said this page had now been removed and that it would ensure the website was checked on a regular basis to ensure information was kept up to date. The landlord confirmed that it received a list of 15 applications who were issued a unique reference number (URN) by the Government (it did not have the details of how many applied for a URN but were unsuccessful).
  15. The landlord said it could not reconsider the resident’s request and give her the opportunity to purchase the property under the RTA as this was a Government scheme with strict criteria that it could not change and the property did not meet the criteria. The landlord concluded that the complaint would not be escalated to stage two of its complaints process as it had not found a service failure and it did not consider that escalating the complaint would change the outcome or meet the resident’s expectations.
  16. In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident asked why the same staff member had addressed all stages of the complaint and noted on 7 July 2020 that the landlord’s website had not yet been updated with the correct information in relation to the VRTB. It referred to the scheme being due to “commence this summer”, with no specific dates. She has said that she feels she missed out on the opportunity to purchase the property through the VRTB scheme due to the landlord’s failure to communicate this option, and that the landlord did not provide specific information in relation to the RTA criteria.
  17. The landlord’s website as at 19 January 2021 includes a page entitled “Right to Buy” which states that it does not own any houses that are eligible for the current RTB scheme. However, the news section of the website includes an old page which is undated, which states, in summary that the Government will be running a VRTB pilot for housing association tenants in the Midlands and that it would be taking part and it expected this to commence in the summer. It states that for the launch date, customers should visit the Government’s Right to Buy website which includes a link. For more information, customers were directed to the Government or National Housing Federation website.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has provided its own Voluntary Right to Buy policy and procedure which states that it will ensure that customers receive accurate information in a timely fashion in relation to the overarching VRTB pilot.
  2. The landlord has also provided a VRTB procedure which states that the first step for resident to follow to apply is to apply for an URN through the Government’s RTB website.
  3. The Ombudsman has also considered a document entitled “Guidance for housing associations” produced by the National Housing Federation (NHF). It states that landlords participating in the VRTB regional pilot are expected to publish and publicise the details of the scheme to ensure that all their tenants are aware of the scheme and their sales and portability policies. The guidance states that landlords must publish a local policy setting out the circumstances under which it intends to operate its discretion not to sell a particular property. The guidance states further that tenants will be able access information about the scheme on the Government’s Right to Buy website and that Government funded Right to Buy Agents can also help tenants as they go through the process.
  4. The landlord has also provided a copy of correspondence from the NHF from July 2018 which states that until 16 August 2018, the landlord could publicise its participation in the VRTB pilot on its website without mentioning a launch date and advise tenants to check the Government’s RTB website. It advised further that it was up to each landlord as to whether they write to tenants with this information, they were under no obligation to do so, in keeping with the voluntary rather than statutory nature of the scheme.
  5. The Government guidance in relation to the Right to Acquire states that the Right to Acquire allows most housing association tenants to buy their home at a discount. The guidance states that to be eligible, the property must either have been “built or bought by a housing association after 31 March 1997 (and funded through a social housing grant provided by the Housing Corporation or local council)” or “transferred from a local council to a housing association after 31 March 1997”. In addition, the landlord must be registered with the Regulator of Social Housing, and the property must be “a self contained property” and the applicant’s “only or main home”. The website contains further guidance as to tenants who do not qualify, the relevant discounts, and the application process.

 

 

Assessment: The information provided by the landlord in response to her Right to Acquire application.

  1. The resident complained since making the RTA application, she had sought legal advice and was told that she had the right to request the landlord provide the property deeds to prove that the date given was correct. She also complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord did not provide specific information in relation to the RTA criteria.
  2. In response to the complaint, the landlord provided the title documents to the freehold land which includes the property. The document evidences that the landlord became the owner of the property on 3 February 1993. In providing this evidence, the landlord has provided a reasonable response to this aspect of the complaint since it provided the evidence requested by the resident to support the reasoning for its decision in respect of the RTA application.
  3. The landlord’s response letter of 22 February 2019 and the attached form set out the reason for the refusal of the application and the criteria which the property did not meet, including the year that the property was acquired by the landlord. While this response was disappointing for the resident, there is evidence of the landlord appropriately responded to the application and providing reasons for its decision. The reasons given were in accordance with the Government guidance (paragraph 23 above). Overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the information provided by the landlord in response to the RTA application was appropriate and there is no evidence of the landlord failing to act fairly or reasonably in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Assessment: The landlord’s communication in relation to a Voluntary Right to Buy scheme, specifically, the steps it took to make tenants aware of the scheme.

  1. The resident complained that the landlord had not made her aware of the VRTB scheme and that she had missed this opportunity as a result. In response, the landlord concluded that it had acted appropriately by referring to the pilot scheme on its website and that it had not been required to write to individual residents.
  2. The landlord has evidenced that it was advised by the NHF that it was up to each landlord as to whether they write to tenants with this information and they were under no obligation to do so. Therefore, the landlord’s complaint response was fair since it was based on the NHF guidance from the time of the launch and the landlord appropriately explained this when responding to the complaint.
  3. The guidance provided by the NHF also states that the landlord should publicise the scheme. While it is acknowledged that not all residents would necessarily have access to the website, it was an appropriate way to publicise the scheme given the number of residents it had potential to reach this way. The landlord acted in accordance with the relevant guidance and there is no evidence that the landlord was failing to do so by not contacting each resident individually. The information on the landlord’s website also referred residents to the Government’s RTB website, which was in accordance with the NHF guidance to the landlord and therefore appropriate.
  4. When escalating her complaint, the resident also complained that she had previously informed the landlord that she wished to purchase the property and it had agreed to inform of her this. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to this specific assertion, which it should have done to ensure it had addressed all aspects of the complaint. The Ombudsman asked the landlord if it had any evidence of communications between itself and resident in relation to the resident’s desire to purchase the property relevant to this, but the landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it has no record of this.
  5. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s complaint response would have been more complete if it had addressed this specific assertion. However, the Ombudsman has not been provided any evidence of the landlord specifically agreeing to contact the resident directly about the VRTB scheme, therefore there is no evidence of the landlord failing to do something it agreed to do or acting unfairly in any other way.
  6. The resident also complained that the landlord had not updated the information on its website in relation to the VRTB. There was a shortcoming in the landlord’s communication given the length of time it took to remove the information about the VRTB from its website. However, the landlord responded appropriately this aspect of the complaint by apologising for the delay and requesting its staff remove the out of date information and ensure the other information on its website was up to date. This was in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles:
    1. Be fair
    2. Put things right
    3. Learn from outcomes
  7. However, it is of concern that it was still on the landlord’s website approximately four months after the landlord’s complaint response stated that the information had already been removed. While it has now been removed, there was a delay in it doing so. In addition, it is noted that the item remains as an historic news item on the website but has not been updated to clarify that the scheme has since closed. The Ombudsman has therefore made a Recommendation in relation to this specific issue.
  8. In conclusion, the landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint was fair as it was in accordance with the relevant guidance. The Ombudsman has made a Recommendation to address any outstanding concerns about the information available on its website in relation to the VRTB.

 

 

Complaints handling

  1. The resident raised concerns with the Ombudsman that both complaint responses had been written by the same staff member.
  2. The landlord’s Complaints policy which was in place at the time of the complaint states that its procedure has three stages:
    1. Stage zero. It the landlord can resolve the issue within one working day, it will log the issue as a “quick fix”. It will write to the resident with the outcome and if the resident is not satisfied, they can move onto the formal complaints process within five working days.
    2. Stage one. In the first instance, complaints should be made to the person responsible for the alleged service failure. It will acknowledge the complaint within three working days and write to the resident within ten working days with the outcome. If more time its needed, it will telephone the resident to agree when a response will be sent.
    3. Stage two. If the resident is not satisfied with the response received a Stage one, the resident can let the landlord know within 20 working days why they are unsatisfied. A Head of Service, who was not previously involved with the complaint, will investigate the complaint and confirm whether it will be escalated to Stage two.
  3. The policy also states that if the reason for escalation is not a failure in service or service standards, or it cannot meet the outcome the resident is asking for, it may decline the request for escalation. If this is the case, it will write to the resident to confirm this.
  4. The resident raised a complaint on 9 March 2020. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day in accordance with its policy. While it did not respond within ten working days, it wrote to the resident to apologise and explain why more time was needed. The landlord also met the adjusted time frame to respond. Overall, the landlord responded to the first complaint fairly and in accordance with its Complaints policy.
  5. The resident requested the complaint be escalated and the landlord provided a further response within ten working days. This was a timely response. The resident has raised concerns about the independence of the staff member responding to the complaint at this stage. It is acknowledged that the same member of staff has signed both complaint responses of 1 and 29 April 2020. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s Complaints policy which provides for a Head of Service to confirm whether a complaint will be escalated to Stage two.
  6. However, the landlord has also provided evidence that Head of Service was involved in the discussions around the response, approved and contributed to it. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the complaint response was handled fairly and there is no evidence of bias. However, it is understandable that the resident had concerns about this given the name on the letters and therefore the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation to address this.
  7. When refusing to escalate the complaint, the landlord relied on the terms of its policy since it had not found a service failure and it could not provide the outcome sought by the resident. This was appropriate since there is no evidence of a service failure and the landlord did not have the authority to allow the resident to purchase the property under either the RTA or VRTB schemes since she did not meet the criteria set out in legislation in relation to the RTA and the VRTB scheme had since closed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the information provided by the landlord in response to the resident’s Right to Acquire application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s communication in relation to a Voluntary Right to Buy scheme.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of how the landlord handled the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord responded appropriately to the complaint about the response to the resident’s Right to Acquire application by providing the Land Registry title documents requested. There is also evidence that it set out the reason for the rejection of the application in writing at the time the application was made.
  2. The landlord acted in accordance with the relevant guidance when it decided to advertise the VRTB pilot on its website rather than write to individual tenants about it. While there was a delay in updating its website that the scheme had closed, the landlord appropriately acknowledged this and apologised. The Ombudsman has made a Recommendation to address the further delay following the complaint response.
  3. The landlord responded to the complaint in accordance with the timescales and process set out in its policy. The Ombudsman has made a Recommendation to address the lack of clarity and concern caused to the resident in respect of which member of staff made the decision not to escalate the complaint.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to review why the information about the VRTB was still on its website some time after it advised it had been removed. The landlord to consider whether it needs to take any further steps in relation to this particular news item on its website, or to ensure that its website provides up–to–date information in respect of tenants’ rights and opportunities more generally.
  2. The landlord to take steps to ensure its complaints staff are responding to complaints in accordance with its current policy in terms of which member of staff responds to a complaint at Stage two and that this is transparent to residents in its response.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.