Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202220405)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220405

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

27 August 2024

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request to assign her tenancy.
2. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy that began on 13 January 2000.
The landlord is a housing association.
On 8 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord if she could assign her tenancy to her son. The landlord responded to the resident the same day and said it did not offer ‘sole to sole tenancies’ and therefore could not assign her tenancy. It said the tenancy could only be passed to her son through his rights to succeed to the tenancy on her death.
On 13 December 2022 the resident asked the landlord to accept a review of its refusal to assign the tenancy.
On 25 January 2023 the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said her tenancy agreement at paragraph 10 states that she can assign the tenancy to a person who would legally be entitled to the tenancy if she died. The landlord had said her son meets that criteria. She said she had sought advice from Citizens Advice, and they said the landlord should assign the tenancy to her son.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2023. It upheld her complaint. In its response it:
1. Apologised it had not given her the correct information about her rights to assign the tenancy.
2. Said she could assign her tenancy on the condition the person had been residing in the property for the last 12 months. It said she would need to provide evidence of this.
3. Offered her £30 compensation for the time and trouble caused due to the misinformation she was given, and the inconvenience of chasing an update.
On 13 and 16 February 2023 the resident sent the landlord evidence that her son had been living in the property for 12 months.
The resident chased an update from the landlord on 2 and 7 March 2023.
On 10 March 2023 the resident told the landlord it was unacceptable that it would not give her a timescale for when it would assign the tenancy. She told the landlord she would pursue her complaint with the Housing Ombudsman if it failed to start the process within 14 days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 June 2023. It upheld the complaint. In its response it:
1. Apologised for its lack of communication and said this was due to a change in how it manages assignments and a change in staff.
2. Said she did not have a right to assign her tenancy. This was because her son only had a contractual right to succeed to the tenancy.
3. Apologised for the incorrect information given in its stage 1 response. It said it did not manage her expectations appropriately or respond in a timely manner.
4. Increased its offer of compensation to £300. This was broken down as:
  1. £100 for time and trouble.
  2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
  3. £50 for its service failure.
On 31 July 2023 the resident approached the Housing Ombudsman.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure

The landlord reviewed this complaint in February 2024. It sought advice from its legal team who said the resident had the right to assign her tenancy to her son. The landlord advised the resident of this on 29 February 2024 and increased its offer of compensation to £610. The further £310 was broken down as:
1. £150 for the inconvenience caused by it giving incorrect information.
2. £160 for its service failure. This was £20 for each month the assignment had been delayed since June 2023, when the resident was informed her application could not be considered.
In April 2024 the landlord carried out an unplanned visit to the resident’s partner’s property and arranged a meeting with the resident to discuss her assured tenancy status.
The tenancy was assigned to the resident’s son on 10 June 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. Therefore, this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to assign her tenancy from November 2022 to its final complaint response in June 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction prior to the involvement of the Ombudsman. The issues the resident raised with the Ombudsman that occurred after the landlord’s formal complaint procedure should be addressed directly with the landlord and either escalated to stage 2 or progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
While the Ombudsman is an alternative to the courts; it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health or wellbeing. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s handling of her request to assign the tenancy had a negative impact on her health and wellbeing. These matters are better suited to be considered by a court or via a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

The landlord’s obligations

Paragraph 10 of the resident’s tenancy agreement allows the resident to assign the tenancy to someone who would be legally entitled to succeed to the tenancy with the landlord’s permission. Paragraph 35 of the tenancy agreement allows a family member to succeed to the tenancy if they had lived in the property as their only or principal home for 12 months immediately before the tenant’s death.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its complaint’s policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure states the landlord will pay:
1. Up to £150 for poor complaint handling.
2. Up to £350 for failure of service, time, and trouble. The amount depending on whether there was a low, medium, or high impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to assign her tenancy

The resident asked the landlord to assign her tenancy to her son on 8 November 2022. The landlord assigned the tenancy on 10 June 2024, which was 19 months later. This was a significant delay.
There was evidence of poor communication from the landlord. For example it failed to respond to the resident when she challenged the landlord’s decision to refuse her request to assign the tenancy in November 2022, and in February 2022 it told her it would respond within 2 working days but there is no evidence it provided a response. The lack of communication from the landlord left the resident in a position where she did not know if or when the issue was going to be resolved. This led to her to chasing updates. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations.
In November 2022 the landlord told the resident it did not offer ‘sole to sole tenancies’ and therefore would not assign the tenancy. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to consider its own polices and procedures and the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement before making this decision. It was not until the resident made a formal complaint in January 2023 that the landlord discussed her request to assign the tenancy with its housing and lettings team. The resident was given conflicting information. This was not customer focused.
Due to the conflicting information given to the tenant about her right to assign her tenancy, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to seek advice from its legal team. The landlord told the resident on 16 March 2023 that it was seeking advice from its legal team, however, the evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows this did not happen until 2 February 2024. The landlord acted unreasonably by failing to fully investigate the resident’s tenancy rights for over 2 years.
The resident made the landlord aware that her son’s family had moved into the property, and she wanted to move out of the property to live with her partner once the tenancy had been assigned. The resident told the Ombudsman she was concerned this was why the landlord did not want her to assign the tenancy. The Ombudsman is unable to comment on the intensions of the landlord. However, it is recognised that the landlord’s actions prevented the resident from moving out of the property for over a year, and the distress and inconvenience this caused her.
The landlord carried out a review of the resident’s complaint in February 2024. It is unclear what prompted the landlord to review the resident’s complaint, although it was aware that the case was due to be investigated by the Ombudsman at that time. It remains unclear if the landlord would have taken steps to acknowledge its failures, agree to assign the tenancy, or offer additional compensation had the complaint not been referred to the Ombudsman.
In its review it acknowledged the above failures and increased the compensation amount to £610. While the level of compensation is at a level that the Ombudsman would suggest, it is a concern this was only recently offered and appears to have been because of the resident bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman. Given the landlord did not use its complaints process to offer this redress, and there was no evidence of learning as it took a further 4 months to assign the tenancy, a finding of service failure is appropriate.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to assign her tenancy.

The landlord’s handling of resident’s associated complaint

On 13 December 2022 the resident made a clear expression of dissatisfaction to the landlord following its refusal of her request to assign her tenancy. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to accept a complaint from the resident at this time.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 25 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged this the same day, which was within its target response timescale of 5 working days. The landlord acted appropriately by contacting the resident on 1 February 2023 to ask if she wanted to discuss the complaint.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2023, this was within its target response timescale of 10 working days.
On 10 March 2023 the resident told the landlord she remained dissatisfied with the way it was handling the assignment of her tenancy. The landlord acted appropriately by accepting this as an escalation of the complaint. It acknowledged the escalation on the same day.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 6 June 2023, this was outside its 20-working day target response timescale. Although the landlord contacted the resident on 24 April 2023 to extend its response timescale, this was after the 20 working days. It also failed to provide its stage 2 response by the extended timescale it gave of 10 May 2023, and failed to notify the resident of any further extensions. Its response was also not in line with its policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord acted inappropriately by failing to communicate effectively with the resident and manage her expectations.
Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes, and build good relationships with residents. In this case there was a delay in the landlord accepting the resident’s complaint and issuing its stage 2 complaint response. There was evidence of a lack of communication, and it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This was the maximum amount of compensation the landlord’s compensation policy stated it would offer and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Determination

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 request to assign her tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident. A member of the senior leadership team must provide the apology to the resident.
2. Pay the resident the £610 compensation it offered in its stage 2 complaint response dated 6 June 2023, if it has not already done so.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must carry out a case review of its practices in relation to responding to requests from residents to assign their tenancy. The landlord must provide a copy of this case review to the Ombudsman. The review must consider (but is not limited to):
1. How it provided conflicting information to the resident on several occasions in relation to her right to assign her tenancy.
2. Why it did not seek advice from its legal team until after the expiry of its complaints procedure.
3. Its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant officers respond to assignment requests appropriately, understand resident’s rights to assign their tenancies, and act in accordance with legislation and its relevant policies and procedures.
4. Its record keeping practices to ensure that all staff are accurately recording tenant’s requests and rights to assign their tenancy. If it has not done so already, consider implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.