A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202016209)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016209

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

9 January 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s application for succession.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident’s mother had a sole assured tenancy with the landlord, that is a housing association. The tenancy started on 22 April 2002.
On 3 August 2020 the landlord was notified the resident’s mother had passed away and the resident was living in the property. The landlord sent a succession application form to the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 October 2020 asking for an update. No evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord replied. On 15 October 2020 the resident submitted a succession application form, identification documents, and a post redirection letter as proof of address.
On 29 October 2020 the resident chased the landlord for an update. No evidence was provided to this Service that the landlord replied.
On 6 November 2020 the landlord told the resident it had issued a notice to quit to end the tenancy. The Ombudsman was not provided a copy of this notice.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord contacted the resident stating the reasons for refusing his application to succeed to the property and told him how he could appeal this decision. We were not provided any evidence of what reasons the landlord gave.
On 23 November 2020 the landlord obtained information about the resident’s mothers housing benefit application. It said she was a sole claimant and no other individual was named on the household occupancy. On 4 December 2020 the landlord checked the National Anti-Fraud Network and noted the resident was not known at the address. On 11 December 2020 the landlord contacted its legal team.
The local authority’s homelessness team contacted the landlord on 23 December 2020 for information as the resident had approached them for assistance to find alternative accommodation.
On 8 February 2021 the landlord told the resident his succession application had been passed to its legal team. On 2 March 2021 the resident chased an update. The landlord responded the following day, it apologised for the delay and said it would chase a response. On 8 March 2021 the landlord contacted the resident and stated its legal team wanted to know what legal advice the resident had received before it would respond. The resident said he did not understand how the advice he received would impact its decision and expected a response as soon as possible.
On 12 March 2021 the landlord’s legal team contacted the resident. This Service has not been provided with a copy of this letter. The landlord’s legal team wrote to the resident on 22 March 2021 giving a final written warning to leave the property and said it would start procession proceedings if the keys were not returned by 24 March 2021.
On 24 and 25 March 2021 the resident asked the landlord if he could stay in the property until 16 April 2021. The landlord agreed to this date. On 9 April 2021 the landlord told the resident he could reside in the property after 16 April 2021 if he agreed to pay use and occupation charges. The resident agreed and said he would keep the landlord updated on the date he could move into his new property. On 10 May 2021 the resident told the landlord he was moving out on 17 May 2021. The landlord confirmed it would meet the resident at the property on that date to collect the keys.
The resident’s sister made a complaint to the landlord on the residents behalf on 14 July 2021. She stated the landlord agreed to the succession initially and then changed its mind. She stated the resident was living in the property for several years. She stated the landlord’s communication was poor and it offered no advice or support to the resident.
The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 August 2021. It did not uphold the complaint, stating the evidence provided indicated the resident was not living at the property before the tenants passing. It stated it had no knowledge the resident was living at the property until he submitted his application to succeed to the tenancy. It said it asked for documents on numerous occasions to evidence he was residing in the property for the 12 months prior, but these were never provided. It stated it was in constant contact with the resident. It apologised for the lack of empathy and it tried to assist as best it could but stated there cannot be a succession without supporting documents.
On 6 September 2021 the resident’s sister escalated the complaint, stating the communication from the landlord was minimal and no one dealt with the case seriously. She said the resident did have a GP and hospital letters and the landlord could have contacted the neighbours to verify he was living there. She stated the resident’s housing officer was aware he was living there as his mothers carer. Concerns were also raised that the landlord continued to take rent from the tenant after she had passed away.
The landlord responded on 10 September 2021 and said there is nothing more it could do and if the resident was unhappy with the resolution, he could take court action. On 4 March 2022 the landlord contacted the claimant’s sister and said as she was not a current tenant it was unable to escalate the complaint to stage 2.
In May and June 2022, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord several times to chase a stage 2 response.
On 18 July 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It upheld part of the complaint. It stated the resident to date had not provided any evidence he had resided at the property for 12 months prior to his mother passing away. It accepted it had not dealt with the complaint appropriately. It stated this was because the sister was not registered as a tenant which caused confusion. It apologised for the delay this caused, offered £100 compensation, and said it was retraining its staff to improve its communication.
The resident’s sister escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman as she felt the landlord failed to acknowledge its poor handling of the succession application. She raised concerns that it showed no empathy and did not provide the necessary support to the resident. She wants the landlord to return the resident to the property or provide another property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman understands this was a difficult time for the resident and the landlords refusal will have caused distress. However, it is not for this Service to determine if the resident had a right to succeed to the property, rather it is to consider if the landlord acted appropriately and reasonably when handling the request.
The resident’s sister has requested the landlord moves the resident back into the property or offer him an alternative property. The Ombudsman cannot order a landlord to offer a resident accommodation as part of our investigation. However, we can consider how the landlord handled the resident’s request, including if appropriate support had been provided.
A tenancy does not end on the death of a resident. The deceased resident’s estate is liable for the rent until the tenancy is formally ended or passed on to the beneficiary of the estate. However, it is not for the Ombudsman to determine when the tenancy was legally bought to an end and therefore, we cannot consider whether the landlord acted reasonably by continuing to take rent payments from the resident until February 2021. This part of the complaint will not form part of our investigation.
Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the resident’s claims that the landlord’s actions had an impact on his health. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s obligations

Section 17(1A) Housing Act 1988 states if there is no spouse, civil partner, or cohabitee (a couple who live together as if married or civil partners) who is entitled to succeed to an assured tenancy, another person might be entitled to succeed if there is a clause in the tenancy agreement that allows it.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that a family member can succeed to the tenancy if they meet certain requirements. The family member must have resided with the tenant for 12 months prior to the tenants death and the property must have been their only or principal home at the time of the tenants death.
The landlord’s allocations policy states when there is no one to succeed to a tenancy it may agree to a discretionary tenancy offer of the property or other accommodation to a family member or vulnerable household member.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it does not have to accept complaints from non-residents but will allow non-residents to complain up to stage 1 in the spirit of openness and goodwill. It states a person who has a landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord would not be considered a non-resident. This includes people who have a lease, tenancy, license to occupy, service agreement, or other arrangement to occupy premises owned or managed by the landlord.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. The complaint handling code (the Code) states a landlord must respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. And a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states for service failure it will pay compensation on a scale of; low £50, medium £100 and high £150. For the medium payment of £100 the service failure must have involved a number of errors, was significantly distressing, and had a long period of delay where the resident had to chase several times to get the issues resolved.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for succession

Due to the lack of evidence provided it is unclear if the resident was initially told he had the right to succeed to his mother’s tenancy. We cannot therefore make a robust finding on whether the landlord acted appropriately at this time.
It was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence from the resident to satisfy itself the criteria for a succession was met. Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the resident to provide supporting information to evidence he met the conditions. The landlord should consider any relevant evidence which confirms a person’s residence such as witness statements from neighbours and friends. After receiving little evidence from the resident, it was appropriate the landlord contacted the department for working pensions (DWP) to see if the resident’s mother had notified them the resident was living with her. It was reasonable for the landlord to use this evidence when deciding on whether the resident met the conditions to succeed to the tenancy.
The legal process of a tenancy succession is complex. It is therefore important a landlord communicates information accurately and clearly. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it gave the resident a written explanation of this complex process. Written explanations not only provide an opportunity to ensure a resident understands processes but gives them an opportunity to ask questions or ask for help if things remain unclear. Given the resident had recently been bereaved and had advised the landlord he was experiencing difficulties with his mental health, a letter would have provided him with such an opportunity. This would have also helped the landlord to set the resident’s expectations and allow him to seek advice and support at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 November 2020 stating the reasons it was refusing the succession and his right to appeal the decision. The landlord did not provide a copy of this letter to the Ombudsman. This was 3 months after the landlord was notified the resident’s mother had passed away. No evidence was provided to show the landlord explained what this meant for the resident in terms of how the mother’s tenancy could be bought to an end, what would happen to the rent payments, when he would have to leave the property, procession proceedings, potential court costs, and when he would be liable for use and occupation charges. We would have expected the landlord to communicate this information to the resident and set clear expectations. By not doing so this would have caused the resident significant distress.
The landlord’s allocation’s policy states it can use discretion to accept a succession, however, there is no evidence the landlord considered this, or explained to the resident why this was not an option. The resident told the landlord he had no alternative accommodation and was facing homelessness. There is no evidence the landlord signposted the resident to organisations who could offer advice and support to find alternative accommodation. The landlord acted inappropriately by not considering all the options available to it under its own policies and procedures, for failing to communicate these options to the resident, and for failing to signpost him to organisations for advice and support on his housing options.
There is evidence of poor communication from the landlord. Between November and February 2021 there is no evidence the landlord communicated with the resident about his appeal of its decision to refuse the succession. On 8 February 2021 the landlord told the resident it had passed his succession application to its legal team. On 2 March 2021 the resident chased an update. We would have expected to see the landlord be proactive in updating the resident, to explain any delays, give expected timescales for a response, and manage the resident’s expectations of the outcome. It was inappropriate the landlord did not do this as it would have caused unnecessary distress for the resident.
In March and April 2021, the resident asked the landlord for more time in the property. The landlord communicated well with the resident at this time and acted reasonably by allowing the resident to remain in the property until he had a date to move into alternative accommodation. The resident asked the landlord to meet him at the property so he could hand back the keys, the landlord agreed to this and changed the time of the meeting to suit the resident’s needs. This Service found the landlord acted reasonably as it considered the residents needs and treated him fairly.
In summary the landlord did act reasonably by allowing the resident the time he needed to find and move into alternative accommodation. However, there was significant delays, poor communication and poor record keeping in the way the landlord handled the resident’s succession application. The landlord failed to acknowledge these failings and made no attempt to put things right. These failings caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds service failure for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for succession.

Complaint handling

The resident’s sister made a complaint on his behalf on 14 July 2021. No evidence was provided that the landlord acknowledged it had received the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days. The resident was left not knowing when to expect a response from the landlord. It is noted neither the landlord’s complaints policy or procedure sets out its response timescales for stage 1 or 2 complaints. The landlord acted inappropriately as it failed to communicate effectively and manage the residents expectations.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 August 2021, this was 17 working days after the complaint was made. This is longer than the 10 working day response time outlined in the Code. We would have expected to see the landlord communicate any delays to the resident and set expectations on when a response would be received. The landlord acted inappropriately by not doing this.
The resident’s sister asked to escalate the complaint on 6 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged this but responded outside of its 2 working day response timescale. The landlord told the resident’s sister it would not take the complaint any further as she was not a tenant. The landlord failed to recognise the sister had made the complaint on behalf of the resident who had a landlord and tenant relationship with it. The landlord failed to act in line with its complaints policy. This caused the resident frustration and time and trouble chasing a response from the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2022, this was 218 working days after the resident’s sister escalated the complaint. This is significantly beyond the 20 working day response time outlined in the Code. It is noted the landlord only issued a response after the Ombudsman became involved. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint meant it missed an opportunity to address his concerns at the earliest opportunity and left the resident waiting for a resolution to his concerns.
A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of complaints, responses and communications. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. The landlord’s staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The landlord failed to accurately record that the complaint was made by a third party. The failures in its knowledge and information management caused frustration, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In this case the landlord acknowledged its communication was poor, it apologised and offered £100 compensation for the delay, and stated it was retraining its staff to improve its communication. However, the landlord only progressed the complaint through to stage 2 after the Ombudsman intervened. It failed to recognise its poor record keeping and did not state what steps it was taking to ensure non tenants and advocates have access to its complaints procedure. The redress offered by the landlord did not take into account the distress and inconvenience these failings caused the resident.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman finds maladministration for the landlord’s complaint handling.

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 application for succession.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation, which includes:
  1. £150 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of resident’s application for succession.
  2. £250 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling. This is to be paid in addition to the £100 compensation already offered by the landlord.

Recommendations

It is recommended the landlord reviews its staff guidance and training around complaints from non tenants and advocates and the recording of such in its systems.