Tuntum Housing Association Limited (202119295)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119295

Tuntum Housing Association Limited

16 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. voluntary right to buy (VRTB) purchase of her property, repairs and other matters relevant to the process;
2. associated complaints.

Background

The resident held an assured tenancy that began on 21 October 1991. The resident’s tenancy ended when she completed the purchase of her property under a VRTB regional pilot, on 23 April 2021.
The property is a three bedroom terrace house. The landlord is a housing association.
The VRTB regional pilot ran from 1 August 2018 to 31 March 2020.
The resident’s son dealt with the VRTB application, and made five complaints to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and her son are referred to as ‘the resident’.

Voluntary Right to Buy Policy

The policy explained that once an VRTB application had been accepted, the resident must pay a fee that would be deducted from the property purchase price on completion of the sale.
It said that no further non-statutory or planned improvement works would be undertaken by the landlord once the fee had been paid.
It stated that property valuation must be carried out by a Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) qualified valuer. It said that the landlord would provide the resident with a list of three valuers to choose from.
It said that the resident had the right to dispute the valuation. It stated that to do this, the resident would need to obtain a further valuation at their own cost, and be carried out by one of the remaining valuers on the list that they had provided.
It stated that the resident must confirm in writing that they wish to proceed with the sale, and that this must include details of their appointed solicitor and how the purchase was being funded.
It said that, “Timescales will be clearly outlined throughout the process and it is the tenant’s responsibility to ensure these are adhered to. Failure to adhere to the timescales will mean the application is automatically cancelled”.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s policy stated that it operated a two stage complaint process. It said that the landlord would send a written response to the resident within 10 working days at stage one, unless agreed otherwise.
It explained how a resident should escalate their complaint if they remained dissatisfied following the stage one response. It said that residents were expected to provide written or other evidence in support of their escalation request.
It described how the stage two complaint review would be undertaken. It said it would aim to do this within 20 working days, before issuing a written response to the resident.

Scope

The resident’s complaints to the landlord included, but were not restricted to, the following two matters:
1. The appropriateness of the landlord’s repairs and maintenance disclosures and documents, provided to the resident’s solicitor ahead of the completion of his property purchase.
2. The landlord’s liability for any potential impact of the chimney works that it undertook during the VRTB process, on the future value or saleability of the resident’s property.
These are both legal matters that would be more appropriately considered by the courts, as the Ombudsman’s orders are not legally binding. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice to this regard, or discuss the matter with his previous conveyance solicitor. Both matters are referred to in this report for the purpose of context only. The Ombudsman has however considered the remaining matters of the resident’s complaint, and the landlord’s handling of the VRTB process.

Summary of events

On 23 October 2018 the resident submitted a VRTB application to the landlord.
On 1 November 2018 the landlord’s letter to the resident explained the proof of funding information and documents that he was required to provide.
On 3 January 2019 the resident paid the VRTB application fee to the landlord.
On 12 March 2019 the resident made a complaint to the landlord that stated that he understood about work not being done to his property, but was concerned about outstanding issues that had been reported before the VRTB application. He asked that the landlord confirm what works would not be taking place.
On 14 March 2019 the landlord replied to the resident’s complaint. It said that its VRTB policy stated that no planned improvement works or non-statutory repairs would be undertaken once an VRTB application fee had been paid. It said that it had no record of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property. It asked that the resident provide details of any outstanding repairs that had been reported before 3 January 2019, or any outstanding statutory repairs.
On 14 June 2019 a RICS valuer completed a valuation inspection of the resident’s property, that had been arranged by the landlord.
On 23 June 2019 the resident asked the landlord how he could dispute the valuation. The landlord replied the following day and advised that the resident could choose from either of the two remaining valuers from the list it had provided to him, and proceed at his own cost. It asked that the resident confirm if he intended to do this.
Over June and July 2019 the resident and landlord exchanged emails regarding the appropriateness of the valuation that had been completed. On 30 July 2019, the landlord passed the resident the advice that it had sought from the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government. It stated that the original valuation had been completed in line with expectations, and to take into account the condition of the property at that time. It repeated its advice of how the resident could seek a second valuation, and asked that he advise within 10 working days whether he intended to do so.
On 4 September 2019 the landlord wrote to the local council to confirm that it would like to proceed with the council’s arrangement of a knotweed treatment programme in an area that included the resident’s property. The programme included a privately owned property, and the landlord’s letter also confirmed its agreement to pay its pro-rata cost of the programme.
The landlord emailed the resident in August and September to chase his intentions regarding a second valuation. On 20 September 2019 the resident provided the landlord a receipt that he said showed that he had paid for a second valuation.
In October 2019 the landlord twice asked the resident for a progress update regarding a second valuation. On 28 October 2019 the resident explained to the landlord that the valuer he had paid had said that they could not complete the valuation before 2020, and that the other valuer from the landlord’s list had said that they could not do one at all.
On 3 December 2019 the landlord gave the resident a final five working days to confirm that he wished to proceed with his VRTB application, and provide his solicitor’s details.
On 9 December 2019 the resident made a complaint to the landlord, that also confirmed his intention to buy the property. The resident stated that he had confirmed to the landlord that he had made payment to the valuer, and the delays to the valuer’s schedule. He said that it was not logical for him to appoint a solicitor until the second valuation had been completed. He said he felt that the pressure and deadlines being imposed by the landlord were unreasonable, and asked what it was willing to do. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and asked if there was a day it could arrange to meet the resident. The resident replied and said that his current work schedule would make a meeting difficult.
On 20 December 2019 the landlord sent its complaint response to the resident. It said that his VRTB application had been handled in line with its policy and procedure. It confirmed how the resident could dispute the original valuation. It said that it had contacted the RICS valuers, and both had confirmed that they were carrying out valuations. It agreed it would extend the deadline for the resident to provide the second valuation to 24 January 2020, but that no further extensions would be granted.
On 17 January 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and said that he, “would like to escalate this issue to stage 2 of the complaint procedure”. The key points of the resident’s email were as follows:
1. He stated that the limited choice of RICS valuers that the landlord had provided had created difficulties in him getting a second valuation.
2. He said that he felt pressured and under duress from the landlord’s frequent demands for him to complete actions towards the VRTB process with short notifications.
3. He described the stress and anxiety he was suffering following the murder of a family member, the related court case, and the support he was giving with instances of family illness.
4. He said that he was still interested in purchasing the property, and asked for the landlord’s advice and support with the process, and to extend the time periods for him to provide the necessary information.
On 7 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that the resident had previously advised that a second valuation had been arranged for 21 January 2020, and that it had set a 10 working day deadline for the resident to provide it. It stated that it had previously advised that no further extensions would be granted and as such, his VRTB application would now be closed.
On 8 February 2020 the resident expressed his disappointment to the landlord that his VRTB application had been closed. He said that he had had to chase the RICS valuer numerous times, and felt that he was being penalised for the valuer’s delays.
On 11 February 2020 the landlord confirmed its receipt of the second valuation report to the resident. It advised that the VRTB regional pilot would be coming to an end soon, and that the resident’s application must be seen to be progressing. It explained the proof of funding evidence that the resident was required to provide by 2 March 2020.
On 2 March 2020 the resident told the landlord that he was recovering from an operation and needed to avoid stress. He said that this meant he was unable to provide the information the landlord had asked for by that date, but that he still wished to proceed with the property purchase.
On 3 March 2020 the landlord replied to the resident. It said that it had spoken at length with his mother about the information needed to move her VRTB application forward. It said it would be happy to now discuss with the resident what timescales it could expect to receive the information.
On 2 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said that the eight week deadline it had given the resident to provide his proof of funding and solicitor’s details had passed. It stated that if the resident had not provided the information by 11 June 2020, his VRTB application would be cancelled.
On 11 June 2020 the resident emailed the landlord and reported concerns about the safety of his chimney that he attributed to the landlord’s negligence and poor maintenance. He asked that the landlord allow him an extension to the deadline for him to provide his proof of funding information.
On 16 June 2020 the landlord replied to the resident and explained the reasons from its VRTB policy why it would not undertake works to the resident’s chimney. It agreed that the resident could have a further four weeks to provide his proof of funding information.
On 15 July 2020 the resident raised his concerns to the landlord that his chimney presented a risk to passers-by, and that the landlord’s deadlines to provide his proof of funding were unreasonable during the pandemic. The landlord replied the same day and said that it would complete works to the resident’s chimney. The landlord said that it had first asked the resident to provide his proof of funding on 1 November 2018. It listed the deadlines that it had given him, and that had passed since that time. It agreed a further extension until 24 August 2020.
On 21 July 2020 the landlord’s roofing contractor provided the landlord with a quotation for the works to the resident’s chimney. The contractor stated that the most effective way to repair the chimney would be to replace the defective bricks, and then render the stack to a neat finish. The landlord asked the contractor to proceed with the works in line with its quotation.
On 22 September 2020 the landlord’s internal email confirmed that the works to the resident’s chimney had been completed, inspected with a drone, and signed off.
On 9 October 2020 the resident made a complaint to the landlord that stated that he did not feel the landlord had met its legal obligations to maintain his property. He highlighted damp issues, which he said that the landlord had previously unsuccessfully tried to address, and outstanding repairs that had been reported prior to the VRTB application.
On 14 October 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It stated that it would be instructing its damp contractor to assess the property. It said that its surveyor was attending that week to assess the walls, and would discuss the resident’s other repair issues at that time.
On 30 October 2020 the landlord thanked the resident for providing his proof of funding information.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord’s damp contractor sent the landlord the report from its inspection of the resident’s property completed on 9 November 2020. The report concluded that there were likely issues with the damp proof course (DPC) and described what these might be. It provided a quotation for its recommended work.
On 23 February 2021 the landlord’s solicitor passed the landlord an email from the resident that she had received from the resident’s solicitor. The email listed works to the resident’s boiler, damp issues, windows and Japanese knotweed, that the resident had said needed to be undertaken before completion of the sale. Over the following days the landlord exchanged internal emails with initial comments on each issue. It stated that the Japanese knotweed treatment was being undertaken by the council. It said that the windows had been confirmed as not presenting a health and safety risk, and that it would take no further action with them. It said it would rectify the other two issues if they presented health and safety risks, but that it was awaiting further information to fully respond.
On 17 March 2021 the landlord replied to its solicitor and said that it had investigated the issues raised with the resident’s boiler and outside pipe leaks. It stated that it had confirmed that it did not present a health and safety risk, and that no further action would be taken. It attached the report of its damp contractor. It advised that it could either complete the recommended works, or deduct the £1310.40 cost (including value added tax) from the sale price of the property.
On 22 March 2021 the landlord’s solicitor passed the landlord an email from the resident that she had received via the resident’s solicitor. The resident had raised various concerns with historical works completed by the landlord, and asked for more information and warranties. The landlord’s solicitor asked if the landlord could provide this.
On 31 March 2021 the landlord replied to its solicitor’s email and provided roof and window warranties, and a building regulation compliance certificate. It also attached a copy of the landlord’s letter to the council sent on 4 September 2019 concerning its knotweed treatment programme.
On 16 April 2021 the landlord’s damp contractor advised the landlord of the reasons that it could not begin any works at the resident’s property before June 2021.
On 23 April 2021 the resident completed the VRTB purchase of his property.
On 29 April 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord regarding maintenance and repairs issues with his property. The key points were as follows:
1. He stated that there were disrepair issues with the property that were due to the landlord’s negligence, defective workmanship, and failure to maintain property elements within their lifecycle spans.
2. He said that there were damp issues that had resulted from the landlord’s poor workmanship when it had previously attempted to resolve them.
3. He stated that the landlord had withheld critical information regarding the damp works from his solicitor. He said it had provided misleading window certificates.
4. He said that damp works had been agreed with the landlord’s contractor on 20 April 2021, that were to be completed in July 2021. He stated that the contractor had since advised him that the landlord had cancelled the works.
5. He said that the landlord’s maintenance manager had refused to provide him with inspection reports, contradicted previous advice given to him, and spoken to him in an insulting and distressing manner.
6. He stated that he believed that the landlord had, “intentionally withheld transparency with the issue” and had “manipulated the purchase of the property maliciously”.
On 5 May 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, and advised he should receive a written response within 10 working days of his complaint being received.
On 6 May 2021 the resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord to raise queries regarding the resident’s property concerning damp treatment, the condition of the windows, and the knotweed treatment programme.
On 10 May 2021 the landlord replied to the solicitor’s email. The key points were as follows:
1. It stated that it was happy to share a copy and cover the cost of the quotation from its damp contractor, but that it could not instruct the contractor to undertake the works as it no longer owned the resident’s property.
2. It said that its position regarding the windows remained unchanged. It said that they were not a health and safety hazard, and that their condition was reflected in the property valuation.
3. It said that the knotweed treatment programme in the area of the resident’s property was being undertaken by the local authority, who the resident should contact for an update and to notify that he was now the property owner.
On 11 May 2021 the resident told the landlord he had been advised by his solicitor to enquire about outstanding repairs to his property. He asked that the landlord to provide a list of all repair works done to the entire property, with dates, descriptions and warranties.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord sent its stage one complaint response to the resident. The landlord apologised for its delay in responding, and highlighted the contacts it had received from the resident and solicitor within a few days of each other. It appended the response that it had sent to the resident’s solicitor on 10 May 2021. The key points of the landlord’s stage one response were as follows:
1. It said that it disagreed that it had not maintained the resident’s windows within the defined lifecycle. It stated that regardless, the resident’s property had been subject to valuation since he made his VRTB application over two years earlier, and the condition of the windows was reflected in the valuation.
2. It said that it disagreed that any damp in the property had resulted from defective workmanship. It provided a copy of the damp contractor’s report, and highlighted its conclusion regarding the property’s DPC.
3. With regard to the resident’s point about it withholding information, it stated that his solicitor had raised related queries. It said that it had been in the process of compiling a response when the resident’s solicitor had suggested that the sale be completed, without the benefit of the landlord’s reply.
4. It referred to specific terms of the transfer, that it said made clear that it was not legally obliged to undertake any works to the windows or damp issues.
5. It said that it was however willing to honour the intended outcomes of the damp survey, and pay for the quoted works totalling £1310.40. It stated that the works had been suspended due to the imminent change of property ownership.
6. It advised that the instruction to the damp contractor to undertake the works had to come from the resident, as he was the property owner. It said that if the resident wished to get his own damp report done, it would pay an amount equivalent to its damp contractor’s quote directly to the resident.
7. It apologised for the way the resident’s discussion with its maintenance manager had made him feel. It said that it had been advised not to issue the resident any documents that were not a condition of the sale of the property.
8. It refuted the resident’s allegation of manipulation or acting maliciously. It said it had been extremely patient in waiting over two years for the resident to complete his purchase, and acted in good faith in offering to pay for works that it was not legally obliged to.
9. It suggested that the resident raise any other concerns with his solicitor, who would be able to advise him on the terms of his purchase documents.
10. It advised the resident of his right to request a review of his complaint, and of the role of this Service.
On 7 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to express his disappointment with its complaint response. He stated that he was in the process of compiling his response to it. He asked that his complaint be escalated to the next stage, and gave his reasons why. He asked why he had still not received a response to his previous requests for warranties and historic repairs details.
On 7 June 2021 the landlord replied to the resident and said that it would await his formal response.
On 31 August 2021 the resident told the landlord that he had still not received the information he had been requesting for over a year regarding the landlord’s historical damp works to his property.
On 23 September the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive officer (CEO) and stated that he had still not been provided the information he had requested. He said that he believed that this was being done maliciously to cover up the landlord’s substandard works.
On 22 October 2021 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the quality of repair work done to his property and, “intentional misleading of the property purchase etc.”. The resident’s key points were as follows:
1. He said he had received no response to his many requests for information regarding historical damp works to his property.
2. He stated that the landlord had undertaken works to his chimney without planning permission, and that did not fit in with conservation guidelines. He said that the council had confirmed that this needed to be addressed.
3. He said that there was evidence of Japanese knotweed being treated.
On 1 November 2021 the resident asked the landlord’s CEO to provide information regarding the landlord’s chimney and historic damp works that he said he needed for his solicitor. The CEO replied the same day and said that the information would be provided to the resident.
From 1 to 4 November 2021 the landlord’s CEO and the resident exchanged emails. The resident questioned why he had needed to request this information so many times, and why his complaint was still at stage one. He stated that he was considering taking legal action. The CEO assured the resident that he was getting the details of the chimney works.
On 11 February 2022 the landlord’s CEO sent a stage two complaint response letter to the resident. The key points of the landlord’s stage two response were as follows:
1. It stated that from the time the resident had paid the VRTB application fee on 3 January 2019, the landlord was not obligated to carry out planned improvement works or non-emergency repairs.
2. It said that despite this it had agreed to a range of works. It stated that of the 30 resultant appointments, only 10 would have been classed as emergency works.
3. It stated that the resident’s purchase of the property was completed on 23 April 2021, and it was after this time that he had raised his concerns regarding the chimney.
4. It confirmed that the chimney works had been completed without planning permission, as it had been unaware it was a conservation area.
5. It said it had since sought advice from the relevant council department. It stated that the council had advised that planning permission would not have been required for a repair of the chimney, but that it was required for it to be rendered as the landlord had done.
6. It stated that the council had further advised that it would not take any enforcement action, and had stated that the landlord could either remove the render, or apply for retrospective planning permission.
7. It confirmed that it had applied for retrospective planning permission, and paid the £234 cost. It said that it would provide the resident with the approved application
8. It said that its damp contractor had completed a survey of the resident’s property on 9 November 2020 in response to the resident’s concerns, and found likely issues with the DPC. It said it had provided the resident with a copy of the damp report at stage one of his complaint on 21 May 2021.
9. It stated that the valuation of the resident’s property reflected the condition of the property at the time of his VRTB application, which was why it did not complete additional works once a valuation had been agreed.
10. It said that at stage one of the resident’s complaint it had offered to pay for the works recommended by the damp contractor, which it was still happy to do.
11. It acknowledged that the resident had asked for his complaint to be escalated on 7 June 2021. It apologised that it had failed to do this, and offered the resident £200 compensation.
12. It referred the resident to this Service if he remained dissatisfied.

Summary of events after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process

On 24 March 2022 the resident replied to the landlord’s stage two complaint response, and stated that he was refusing its resolution offers. He stated that he wanted the chimney render removed and the brickwork restored. He cited his concerns regarding the impact of the render on the property’s valuation and future saleability.
On 25 March 2022 the landlord replied to the resident. It stated that it could not remove the chimney render, and that it had undertaken all required works agreed with the resident’s solicitor at the time of sale. It explained that it had rendered the chimney as it was the most efficient and cost effective way to strengthen it, without having to demolish and rebuild it.
Over the remainder of March and through April and May 2022 the resident and landlord exchanged several emails. The resident continued to express his dissatisfaction and requested full details and warranty information regarding various historical works carried out to his property by the landlord. The key points of the exchange were as follows:
1. The landlord provided the resident a list of what it said were all of the visits and repairs to his property. The resident replied and stated that he needed far more detail, but the landlord said that it had provided all that it had on file.
2. The resident raised several queries regarding the landlord’s processes and practices, that the landlord responded to. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s answers.
3. The landlord said that the retrospective planning permission for the chimney works had been received from the council, and sent to the resident on 10 May 2022.
4. On 17 May 2022 the landlord confirmed that it had given the resident its final position on his complaint, and had nothing further to add.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that its £200 compensation, and £1310.40 cost of damp works offers were not paid to the resident, as he declined them.
The landlord has stated that as a result of the resident’s complaint, its own surveyors now check if planning permission is required ahead of external works, rather than allowing its contractors to do this as was previously the case.

Assessment and findings

VRTB process and associated repairs handling

For the reasons explained in the ‘scope’ above, the Ombudsman has not assessed the two matters that would be more appropriately considered by the court. Aside from those matters, the resident raised his dissatisfaction with what he felt to be the unreasonable pressure and deadlines imposed on him by the landlord during the VRTB process, and with its handling of his reports of repairs and maintenance issues with his property over the same period.
The resident’s property purchase was completed two years and six months after he made his VRTB application. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there were mitigating factors that at times impacted the resident’s ability to progress his application. Nevertheless the landlord’s policy would have allowed it to cancel the resident’s application in the circumstances, and whilst it did warn the resident that it would do so, it was reasonable that it did not.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to immediately consider whether the resident’s report regarding his chimney on 11 June 2020, represented a statutory repair that it was responsible for, rather than it be necessary for the resident to further chase the matter. It would also have been reasonable to expect that the landlord would have confirmed whether planning permission was required for the chimney repair, rather than assuming that its contractor had done so, which left it needing to seek and gain retrospective permission.
Nevertheless the landlord did complete not only the statutory works, but also a number of repairs that were not its responsibility once the resident’s VRTB application fee had been paid. It also appropriately assessed other issues raised by the resident to establish if they presented a health and safety risk, and arranged a specialist damp survey. When it was unable to complete the recommended damp works prior to the resident’s purchase completion, it agreed to pay the resident the quoted cost.
The Ombudsman has therefore found no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s VRTB purchase of the property, repairs and other matters relevant to the process.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s points about the effect of the Covid 19 pandemic. The lockdown restrictions would have impacted his ability to physically visit his mother and to progress the required documents and other matters. However the pandemic did not begin until 13 months after the resident had made his VRTB application, and at about the same time that the VRTB regional pilot was due to end.
The resident also explained the significant health and family issues that he had to deal with during the VRTB process, and the Ombudsman again sympathises with the situation that the resident described. Nonetheless the landlord acted in line with its policy, both in terms of the essential documents and information it sought from the resident, and in its setting of deadlines for them to be provided.
As above, the landlord could have cancelled the resident’s VRTB application in line with its policy, but did not. The landlord also reset or extended deadlines at the resident’s request on multiple occasions. This demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to be flexible, and it also evidenced the support and advice it offered the resident regarding the VRTB process. The landlord’s actions were therefore in line with its policy and appropriate.
On 23 June 2019 the resident expressed his wish to dispute the valuation of his property, and it was appropriate for the landlord to promptly advise him how to do this, in line with the process explained in its policy. The resident raised queries around the type of valuation that had been undertaken, and it was reasonable for the landlord to seek and pass on to the resident, the advice of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
In February 2020 the resident obtained a valuation that was lower than the original. The VRTB regional pilot was close to ending by this time. It was appropriate for the landlord to explain the need for the resident’s application to progress, and to set a further deadline for him to provide the proof of funding information that it had first requested in November 2018.
Over the following months the landlord continued to emphasise the necessity of the resident’s proof of funding information, and to reset or extend its deadlines. This demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to be flexible with its policy and process, to the benefit of the resident. It received the proof of funding information at the end of October 2020. The landlord’s actions were therefore reasonable.
During and after the VRTB process, the resident raised concerns regarding the condition of several elements of his property, most notably his chimney, windows, the Japanese knotweed and damp issues. The landlord’s policy was clear that once a resident had paid their VRTB application fee, it would not complete further improvement or non-statutory works. This is standard practice in the sector, as the price that the resident pays for the property is based on its condition at the time that their application is made and could be altered by any subsequent works.
It was a shortcoming of the landlord that it initially declined to carry out works to the resident’s chimney under the terms of that policy, without first checking whether the work was statutory (presented a health and safety risk). Following the resident’s further report, the landlord did then undertake the necessary work in what was a timely manner given the operational limitations of the pandemic.
For the reasons explained above, the Ombudsman has not considered whether the rendered chimney will impact the future value or saleability of the property. The issue regarding the planning permission was raised by the resident six months after he had completed the purchase of his property. The landlord accepted that it was unaware that planning permission had been required. It was appropriate for the landlord to cover the cost of and obtain retrospective permission. The landlord has demonstrated its learning from this, by changing its process so that it no longer relies on its contractors to identify where planning permission is required.
The Ombudsman has also not considered whether the property documents that the landlord provided to the resident’s solicitor, prior to his solicitor proposing the completion of the sale, met the relevant legal requirements. The resident may wish to seek advice on these aspects of his complaint with his former solicitor, or another independent legal adviser. The landlord has however evidenced that it provided the resident’s solicitor with its letter to the local authority concerning the arrangements regarding the local authority’s Japanese knotweed treatment programme.
It was appropriate for the landlord to assess whether any works required to the resident’s windows would be classed as statutory in line with its policy. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the view of its qualified staff that any window works were not statutory, and as such would not be undertaken.
The resident raised his damp and other repairs concerns with the landlord in his complaint made on 9 October 2020, two years after his VRTB application. The resident linked the damp issue to historical repairs undertaken by the landlord prior to his VRTB application, that it appeared from its records took place in 2017. It was appropriate for the landlord to agree to send a surveyor to inspect the repairs, and its damp contractor to assess the damp issues.
The landlord received the damp contractors report one month later, but lockdown restrictions and the damp contractors resultant backlog of works, impacted the landlord’s ability to proceed with the work as it had intended. The damp contractor identified the likely primary issue as being with the property’s damp proof course.
By the time the contractor was in a position to carry out the work, the resident’s property purchase had completed. As such the landlord could not instruct it to proceed with the work, as it was no longer the property owner. The landlord offered a range of options to the resident to resolve this, all of which involved it covering the £1310.40 cost of the recommended works, either paid to the contractor, directly to the resident, or deducted from the property sale price. The landlord therefore acted reasonably.

Complaint handling

The resident made a total of five formal complaints to the landlord over the course of the VRTB process. On 7 June 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his fourth complaint to stage two of its process. The landlord did not issue a stage two response until 11 February 2022, and only after the intervention of this Service. The landlord’s response accepted and apologised for this failing, and offered compensation as a result.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether its subsequent actions and offer of redress were fair and proportionate in all of the circumstances of the case. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account our Remedies Guidance, and whether the landlord acted in line with its own policies and the Dispute Resolution Principles; Be fair, Put things right, and Learn from outcomes.
It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord did handle some of the resident’s complaints in line with its own policy and the Dispute Resolution Principles. However it did not acknowledge, or perhaps even realise, that its accepted failure to escalate the resident’s fourth complaint to stage two of its process, was the second occurrence of this complaint handling failure.
It is of concern to the Ombudsman that the resident’s first attempt to escalate a complaint appeared to go unacknowledged, and his second attempt was only actioned by the landlord after he had approached this Service. This would suggest a wider issue with the landlord’s complaint handling, and its ability or willingness to act in line with its own policy. The landlord did demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes, with regard to its failure to obtain planning permission for the resident’s chimney. However it has provided no evidence of learning from its complaint handling failures.
As such the Ombudsman has found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints, and has made an order to this regard.
The resident made his first complaint to the landlord on 14 March 2019, and queried the landlord’s position on repairs that he said had been reported prior to his VRTB application fee being paid. The landlord sent its response two days later, which was well within the timeframe of its policy. It was appropriate for it to advise that it had no record of any outstanding repairs at the resident’s property, and ask that the resident provide details if he believed otherwise.
The resident made his second complaint to the landlord on 9 December 2019. He raised many of the issues considered in the assessment above, regarding what he felt was the landlord’s undue pressure on him to obtain his second property valuation. The landlord’s response somewhat lacked in empathy, but it was appropriate that it had checked that both RICS valuers were available to complete valuations, and for it to extend its deadline for a further month.
On 17 January 2020 the resident made his first attempt to escalate a complaint, when he clearly stated that he, “would like to escalate this issue to stage 2 of the complaint procedure”. The landlord did write to the resident 15 working days later, but the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it acknowledged his escalation request, nor otherwise acted in line with its policy. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The resident made his third complaint to the landlord on 9 October 2020. His complaint concerned what the resident considered to be repairs that had been outstanding prior to his VRTB application, and the damp issues in his property. The landlord again responded well within the timeframe of its policy. As has been considered in the assessment above, it was appropriate for the landlord to advise that its surveyor and a specialist damp contractor would attend. This demonstrated a resolution focused approach, and the landlord’s efforts to be fair, and put things right.
The resident made his fourth complaint to the landlord on 29 April 2021, which was a few days after his VRTB property purchase had completed. A few further days later the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord, and raised queries related to those in the resident’s complaint. The landlord replied to the resident’s solicitor within four days, but failed to respond to the resident’s complaint within the timescales of its policy.
It was appropriate for the landlord to explain and apologise for this failing in its stage one complaint response, sent to the resident on 21 May 2021. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, but it was appropriate that it addressed the issues he had raised, and explained its position on each. As considered in the assessment above, it was reasonable for the landlord to state it would honour the intended outcome of the damp assessment of the resident’s property. It offered to pay for its contractor’s recommended works, or pay an equivalent amount direct to the resident. This again demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to be fair, and put things right.
On 11 May 2021 the resident requested that the landlord provide him a repairs history and associated documents for his property. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to either provide this information to the resident, or explain the reasons why it would not. This could have been done either in its stage one complaint response or separately. The landlord’s failure to do this, in part led to both the resident’s stage two escalation request, and his fifth complaint. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
The resident explained the reasons he wished his fourth complaint to be escalated to stage two, on 7 June 2021. The resident did state his intention to provide further information in support of his escalation request, which the landlord acknowledged. As such it was somewhat understandable that the landlord would wait for this information. Nevertheless, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the complaint in line with its policy, proactively request the information the resident had said he would provide, and, if this was not forthcoming, issue its stage two response based on the information it had. This was the failing that the landlord acknowledged on 11 February 2022.
The resident continued to request the property repairs information from the landlord over the following months. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord either provided the information, or explained why it would not. This would have been frustrating for the resident, and the landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
This led to the resident making his fifth complaint to the landlord on 22 October 2021. This could equally have been viewed as a further attempt to escalate his fourth complaint. Indeed on 1 November 2021, the resident understandably queried with the landlord’s CEO why his complaint was still at stage one. This would again have been frustrating for the resident, and meant he would have spent an undue amount of time and trouble pursuing the matter.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the resident on 11 February 2022, and apologised for its failure to escalate the resident’s complaint in line with its policy. As with its stage one response, the landlord did not uphold the substantive issues the resident had raised, but it did appropriately explain its position on each.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s combined offer of £200 compensation and to cover the cost of the £1310.40 of damp works, that it had said it was prevented from doing by the impact of the pandemic. It is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord’s combined offer was in line with the Remedies Guidance, and with the Dispute Resolution Principles to Be fair, and Put things right. The resident declined the landlord’s offer at the time of his complaint. As such, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to reoffer this combined amount to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s voluntary right to buy (VRTB) purchase of her property, repairs and other matters relevant to the process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints.

Reasons

The resident’s VRTB purchase of his property took two and a half years to complete, and the Ombudsman sympathises with the stressful personal circumstances that the resident had described. Nevertheless, the landlord responded promptly and in line with its policy throughout. It provided appropriate advice, and set deadlines for the resident to provide essential information, again in line with its policy. At the resident’s request, it repeatedly reset or extended those deadlines, and only deviated from its policy when it was to the resident’s advantage.
It should not have been necessary for the resident to need to further prompt the landlord to assess whether the work needed to his chimney was statutory. That aside, the landlord did appropriately respond to the resident’s reports of repairs issues, and completed works beyond its obligations. When factors associated with the pandemic prevented it from completing its intended damp works prior to the completion of the sale, it offered to pay the cost of the quoted works directly to the resident.
The landlord handled some of the resident’s complaints appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. However the resident tried to escalate two of his complaints, and both times the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to his requests in line with its policy. The landlord only appeared to be aware of one of those complaint handling failures, and also failed to evidence its learning from it.
Following the completion of the resident’s VRTB property purchase, the landlord also failed to appropriately respond to his many requests for repairs information. This would have added to the time, trouble and distress experienced by the resident.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks the landlord:
1. writes to the resident to apologise for the service failings identified in this report.
2. reoffers its combined £1510.40 award to the resident broken down as follows:
  1. £1,310.40 representing the quoted cost of the recommended damp works;
  2. £200 for the time, trouble and distress caused by the failings identified in its complaint handling.
3. reviews its staff training needs with regard to the handling of complaint escalation requests, and writes to this Service with its findings.
The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.