Salix Homes Limited (202214658)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214658

Salix Homes Limited

13 February 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s decision not to allow the resident to continue living in the property upon succeeding the tenancy. 

Background

2. The resident is an applicant for the succession of the tenancy. This was in the name of her late mother who was a sole tenant and held an assured non-shorthold tenancy. The property is a three-bedroomed house.
3. The resident informed the landlord on 31 May 2022 of her mother’s death and requested to take over her mother’s tenancy. After considering her application, it confirmed to her on 13 July 2022 it would not allow her to remain in the property. The landlord said its checks had found that the property would be unaffordable for the resident and that she would be under-occupying the property. It acknowledged that she had said that her nephew would stay with her to contribute to the costs but asserted that the property needed to be affordable for her as the named tenant. The landlord said its next step would be to find a property for the resident which matched her housing need.
4. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 15 July 2022 to contest the decision, highlighting that the property was her family home and she had continuous opportunity for overtime. It responded on 26 July 2022 to confirm that she would be succeeding the tenancy but would find an alternative property for her. The resident disagreed with this decision and escalated her complaint on 28 July 2022, reiterating that her nephew, who currently lived out of the area, would stay with her.
5. The landlord issued its final response to the resident on 18 August 2022 to explain that, as there was no proof of her nephew living at the property, she was presently under-occupying the property by two bedrooms. It said that its policy required it to let properties based on housing need and repeated that the evidence showed that the property was unaffordable for her. The landlord said that it did not intend to make her homeless and it would allow to her to remain in the property, so long as rent was paid, until a more suitable property was found for her.
6. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 27 October 2022 that she continued to be dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision. She questioned why the property was considered under-occupied when her nephew would be staying with her and why it was not found to be under-occupied when her mother lived there alone. The resident also highlighted that her financial circumstances would be different and the property would be affordable if she were to occupy the property with her nephew.

Assessment and findings

7. The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that, on the death of a sole tenant who is not a successor themselves and has no surviving spouse, the tenancy may be passed on to a family member who occupied the home as their only home and lived with the tenant throughout the 12 months preceding the tenant’s death.
8. This tenancy agreement also confirms that if a family member succeeds the tenancy and this results in the property being under-occupied, the landlord will offer alternative accommodation and may apply for a court order to facilitate this.
9. The landlord’s succession and assignment procedure states that if a successor who is not a surviving spouse or partner will under-occupy the property it would normally rehouse them to a suitable property. This procedure provides for discretion to be exercised when seeking to move a tenant into alternative accommodation by considering the tenant’s age, how long they have occupied the property as their principal home, and any financial support they gave to the previous tenant.
10. The landlord acted reasonably in its decision not to allow the resident to remain in the property. It acted in accordance with the tenancy agreement and succession and assignment procedure in seeking to move the resident to a more suitably sized property. A landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it makes the best use of its limited housing stock and, while it is appreciated that being asked to move out of her family home would be a distressing experience for the resident, it did not act unreasonably in doing so. While the resident has said that if she were allowed to remain in the property, her nephew would stay with her, this would still result in under-occupation of the three-bedroomed house.
11. While the succession and assignment procedure provides for other considerations when deciding on whether to move a tenant into alternative accommodation, it was reasonable for the landlord to focus on the affordability of the property for the resident.
12. There was evidence on 14 June 2022 that the landlord found, after examining the resident’s financial records, that there was “not enough income to maintain the outgoings listed”. While it is noted that she said that her nephew would move in and contribute to the costs, it remains that the resident would be the sole named tenant on the tenancy agreement and would bear the full liability for any rent due. It would not have been responsible for the landlord to allow the resident to take over the property while it was likely that doing so would put her into financial hardship. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to explain, in its responses to the resident, that this was one of the factors in its decision to not allow her to remain in the property.
13. The landlord acted reasonably in opening a use and occupation account for the resident to allow her to pay the rent on the property and continue to live there while it sought a suitable new property for her. This was a reasonable action which prevented the resident from being rendered homeless while a suitable property was being sought. The landlord’s complaint responses also confirmed that it would source a property for her from its available housing stock, outside of the local authority’s choice-based lettings system.
14. Ultimately, while it is appreciated that the resident may have experienced distress at being informed she would not be able to remain in the property after suffering a bereavement, there was no evidence of failure on the part of the landlord, nor evidence of it acting unreasonably. The landlord acted in compliance with the tenancy agreement and its succession and assignment policy. It responded reasonably by not allowing the resident to take over the property based on the likely financial hardship she may experience, and it permitted her to stay in the property while it worked with her to find a property more suitable for her.

Determination

15. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its decision to not allow the resident to continue living in the property upon succeeding the tenancy.

Recommendations

16. The landlord should ensure that it continues to engage with the resident to find a property suitable for her needs from within its housing stock, as stated in its complaint responses.