Accord Housing Association Limited — case 202006726

REPORT COMPLAINT 202006726 Accord Housing Association Limited 12 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 The complaint is about the landlord’s response to information provided by the resident about her right to buy request.

Background and summary of events The resident has explained that in November 1993 she completed a mutual exchange. She moved from a council property, where she held a secure tenancy with the right to buy, to a secure tenancy with the landlord. She said that the tenant she exchanged with had also had a right to buy with the landlord, and that she was told at the time that that right would also be hers. The landlord is a charitable housing association. The resident contacted this Service in February 2019 and asked for assistance with a complaint in relation to her application to purchase her property under the right to buy scheme, which she had first attempted in 2013.

The resident explained that she had complained to her landlord, but it had not provided a response. During February and March 2019 this Service had several conversations with the resident and the landlord. The landlord agreed to provide a final response to the resident’s complaints. On 11 March, the landlord wrote to the resident and responded to the complaint about whether the resident had the right to buy her property. In this, it referred the resident to a letter it sent her in July 2017, advising her of her non eligibility to purchase her home through the right to buy process.

The landlord confirmed that the Government had since launched a voluntary right to buy pilot in the summer of 2018, which the resident had applied for, and was progressing with an application to purchase her home. In response to further enquiries by the resident in 2020 the landlord wrote to her on 10 June 2020. It said that, as per legal advice it had sought, the view taken in its letter in 2017 was correct. It acknowledged that the resident had since produced a copy of the landlord’s “Your Rights” booklet, which contained a statement that secure tenants had the right to buy.

The landlord explained that this was an error, and its secure tenants never had the statutory right to buy. It apologised for the mistake, but explained that it did not alter its decision on her eligibility. The landlord confirmed that the resident was offered the opportunity to buy her home under a Voluntary Right to Buy scheme in 2017/2018. The resident initially took up that offer and proceeded as far as accepting an offer of purchase from the landlord. However, in June 2019 the resident said that she was withdrawing and not going ahead with the purchase.

In July 2020 the resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint about the landlord’s decisions. We found that the complaint was not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because of the time that had passed since landlord’s final response, dated 11 March 2019, to her complaint. The resident wrote to this Service on 4 August 2020 and explained she had only recently located her tenancy agreement and documents which she believed confirmed her right to buy. The decision not to investigate the complaint was reviewed, but upheld.

However, we started a new investigation into the landlord’s response to the further evidence the resident provided about her right to buy. Assessment and findings The resident had the right to buy with her previous landlord, which was a council. If she had moved to a different home with the council, she would presumably have kept that right. She would also usually have kept that right, called ‘preserved right to buy’, if a housing association bought her home from the council.

However, these rules do not apply when a mutual exchange occurs with a resident moving from a council to a housing association. In its response of 10 June 2020, further to the resident providing the “Your Rights” booklet, the landlord clearly explained the grounds for its decisions, and acknowledged and apologised for the original mistake. As the error in the “Your Rights” booklet could not convey on the resident any rights that she did not already legally possess, the landlord’s explanation was accurate.

The legal right to buy is a legislative rule, but charitable housing associations are exempt from it. The landlord’s explanations to the resident were accurate regarding her right to buy eligibility, acknowledged and apologised for the previous mistake, and confirmed that a potential resolution (that she had been offered the voluntary right to buy) had been available and partially acted on by the resident. In that light, the landlord’s response to the resident’s information was reasonable.

Determination (decision) In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to information provided by the resident about her right to buy request.