The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Aster Group Limited (202000764)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

REPORT

 

COMPLAINT 202000764

Aster Group Limited

3 December 2020

 


Our Approach

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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:

 

  1. Administration of the resident’s tenancy agreement following an assignment in January 2018 which ended the original joint tenancy
  2. Referral to social services following a discussion with the resident
  3. Complaint handling

 

  1. As part of her complaint to the landlord, as set out above, the resident raised concerns regarding the condition of the bathroom.  The landlord is currently responding to the resident’s concerns about the bathroom under a separate complaint.  The Ombudsman has corresponded with the resident regarding this complaint under reference 202008315.  Therefore, while the resident has referred to the condition of the bathroom within her complaint correspondence the Ombudsman will not reference this matter further within this report as it is being dealt with separately to this case.

 

Background and Summary of Events

 

Background

 

  1. The resident is a tenant of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns.  The landlord owns the property.

 

Summary of events

 

  1. On 24 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to make a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of her tenancy.  In summary the resident said:

 

  1. The landlord had failed to make her partner (Mr X) a joint tenant of the property despite Mr X attending its office in 2018 to be ‘signed onto the tenancy’.  The resident noted that Mr X presented the ‘relevant documents’ to the landlord during the appointment.
  2. She had raised concerns that Mr X was not on the tenancy in 2019. 
  3. The landlord had removed Mr X from the tenancy which was ‘fraud’.
  4. The landlord had incorrectly informed social services that Mr X had a daughter who died which resulted in an investigation and ‘lots of trauma and distress’.

 

  1. On 27 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response.  In summary the landlord said:

 

  1. It was due to discuss the complaint with the resident on 18 March 2020 however she was not available.
  2. It was sorry for the delay in providing its response.
  3. The resident was issued with a joint tenancy for the property on 11 April 2011 with her previous partner (Mr Y).
  4. The tenancy was transferred from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy on 15 January 2018 upon Mr Y agreeing to assign the tenancy.  The landlord confirmed that it had enclosed a copy of the deed assignment.
  5. Mr X was added as a household member following the resident’s request in August 2019.  The landlord explained that Mr X was not added to the tenancy as it no longer offered joint tenancies. 
  6. Following a meeting with the resident at the property in April 2019 it disclosed the death of a child to social services.  The landlord explained that social services identified following enquiries ‘there had been a misunderstanding’ and no death had occurred.  The landlord confirmed that it had acted appropriately reporting safeguarding concerns following the meeting.

 

  1. The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may request to escalate her complaint if she was not satisfied with its response. 

 

  1. On 4 May 2020 the resident contacted this Service.  The resident stated that she had not received a response to her complaint dated 24 February 2020.  In response to the resident’s contact, the Ombudsman made enquiries with the landlord and requested that, if it had not provided a response under its complaint procedure it now did so.

 

  1. On 5 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident regarding her complaint.  In summary the landlord said:

 

  1. It had responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one on 27 March 2020.  The landlord enclosed a copy of its response.  The landlord explained that, as it had not heard from the resident following its response, it had closed the complaint.
  2. It had re-opened the complaint following contact by the Ombudsman and would provide a ‘further response at stage two of [its] complaint procedure’.  The landlord asked the resident to confirm which aspects of its stage one response she was unhappy with.

 

  1. On the same day the resident responded.  In summary the resident said:

 

  1. She had not received the landlord’s stage one response in March 2020 and would like to see proof of postage.
  2. The landlord’s stage one response was ‘based on lies’. 
  3. The landlord had ignored that Mr X had attended its offices, with documentation, in January 2018 to be added as a joint tenant.
  4. She had never mentioned the death of a child to the landlord.

 

  1. On 6 May 2020 the landlord responded.  The landlord apologised that the resident had not received its stage one response in March 2020.  The landlord confirmed that as the response was sent by standard mail it had no proof of posting.  The landlord advised that it would consider the resident’s correspondence dated 5 May 2020 in responding to the complaint at stage two.

 

  1. On 8 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord providing a detailed response to its stage one response.  In summary the resident said:

 

  1. On Mr Y assigning the tenancy in January 2018 she made it ‘very clear’ that she was ‘sharing’ the property with Mr X.  The resident confirmed that Mr X provided papers to the landlord during the appointment on 15 January 2018 to be made a joint tenant.  The resident said that she was concerned that the landlord did not have a record of Mr X’s papers.
  2. She did not request for the landlord to add Mr X to the tenancy in August 2019 as the request was made in January 2018.  The resident said she asked the landlord to confirm in August 2019 if Mr X ‘remained on the tenancy’ but was told that he was not.
  3. She would like to know when the landlord stopped granting joint tenancies.
  4. The landlord had previously informed her that the death of a child was mentioned during a phone call rather than during a meeting at the property as stated in its stage one response.  The resident disputed that she had ever informed the landlord about the death of a child.

 

  1. On 21 May 2020 the landlord provided its stage two response.  In summary the landlord said:

 

  1. It was ‘regrettable’ that the resident did not receive its stage one response in March 2020.  The landlord explained that when it sends a letter it is franked with its address so if it cannot be delivered it is returned to it.  The landlord confirmed that its stage one response had not been returned to it.
  2. Mr Y assigned the tenancy to the resident in January 2018.  The landlord confirmed that the deed of assignment was signed by the resident and Mr Y on 12 January 2018.  The landlord explained that the deed saw the joint tenancy move to a sole tenancy in the resident’s name. 
  3. It had, in common with other social housing providers, stopped offering joint tenancies apart from in ‘exceptional circumstances’.  The landlord explained that this was to ensure that the allocation of social housing ‘was fair and equitable’ and to assist in resolving tenancy issues following a relationship breakdown.
  4. Mr X was ‘registered as part of [the resident’s] household on the deed of assignment’ in January 2018, however the update was not recorded on the housing management system.  The landlord confirmed that it added Mr X to the housing management system in August 2019 following contact by the resident. 
  5. It did not ask for proof of identification when adding a customer’s partner to their household as it has no reason to retain this information. 
  6. The change of tenancy was undertaken correctly however due to an administrative error the housing management system was not updated at the same time.  The landlord said that whilst the error was regrettable it had ‘not caused any material or detrimental effect to the terms and conditions of the tenancy’.  The landlord confirmed that the error was rectified on 20 August 2019.  The landlord offered £25 compensation in respect of the error.
  7. It visited the resident on 24 April 2019 regarding her rent payments to discuss ‘the circumstances which had seen [her] rent arrears increase’. The landlord advised that during the meeting the resident disclosed that she had been unable to maintain the terms of a court order as she had ‘used all available income to fund the funeral expenses following the death of [her] daughter’.  The landlord confirmed that it reported the death to social services who made enquiries with the resident directly.  The landlord confirmed that social services established that it was Mr X’s daughter who had died.  The landlord said that it had acted appropriately in reporting safeguarding concerns following the disclosure of a death.

 

  1. On 25 May 2020 the resident responded to the landlord as she was ‘dissatisfied’ with its stage two response.  In summary the resident said:

 

  1. She did not believe that the landlord had posted its stage one response in March 2020.
  2. She had made it clear in January 2018 she would ‘like to carry on [her] joint tenancy by adding [Mr X]’.  The resident said that she was informed by the landlord in order to do so Mr X would need to provide identification to show that he had been living at the property for a year.  The resident said that Mr X produced the documents to the landlord in January 2018.  The resident added that it was concerning that the landlord had no record of the documents despite taking photocopies.
  3. She had a recording from the landlord stating that Mr X was on the tenancy.  The resident therefore stated that it was not clear why he was not listed as a joint tenant.
  4. She had never requested assistance from the landlord in respect of any safeguarding issues.  The resident stated that the landlord had ‘made up a bundle of false information’ regarding the death of a child.
  5. She did not have any difficulty paying rent for the property.

 

  1. The resident concluded by confirming that she did not accept the landlord’s offer of compensation.

 

  1. On 27 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm safe receipt of her correspondence, explaining that it would consider if the matter should be escalated to stage three of its complaints procedure.  Within its response the landlord asked the resident if she could provide it with a copy of the recording she had referenced.

 

  1. On the same day the resident responded providing a copy of the recording.  Within her email the resident reiterated that she had not informed the landlord regarding the death of a child.  In response the landlord confirmed that it would escalate the complaint to stage three. 

 

  1. On 12 June 2020 the landlord provided its final response.  In summary the landlord said:

 

  1. When the resident completed the tenancy assignment in January 2018 she clearly identified that Mr X was a member of her household.  The landlord confirmed that this was evidenced on the deed of assignment paperwork.
  2. While Mr X was recorded as a member of the resident’s household on the deed of assignment paperwork, due to an administrative error he was not recorded on its housing management system.  The landlord apologised for the error.  The landlord confirmed that this error was rectified in August 2019, adding that the error ‘had no detrimental effect’ on the resident’s tenancy.
  3. It acknowledged that the language it had used in discussing the resident’s tenancy had ‘not been explicitly clear’ which lead the resident to believe that she had a joint tenancy with Mr X. 
  4. Its approach to tenancy management was based on not allocating joint tenancies, except in exceptional circumstances, ‘to protect the sole tenant and to minimise any possibility of tenancy fraud’.  The landlord explained that the decision to not allow a joint tenancy did ‘not generally affect any rights, such as succession or right to buy’.  The landlord confirmed that its approach to tenancy management had been in place since May 2017.
  5. It had already addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the referral to social services in respect of the death of a child and non-receipt of its stage one response.

 

  1. The landlord concluded by confirming that it would like to increase its offer of compensation to £50 ‘for confusion caused’.   The landlord confirmed that the resident may refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she was not satisfied with its response.

 

  1. As the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response she referred the complaint to this Service for adjudication.

 

  1. On receipt of the referral the Ombudsman asked the parties to participate in assisted resolution.  The resident confirmed that in order to resolve her complaint the landlord should provide the following remedies:

 

  1. Mr X to be named as a joint tenant for the property
  2. The landlord to award £5000 compensation

 

  1. In response the landlord said that it was willing to meet part of the resident’s suggested resolution.  The landlord confirmed that it was ‘prepared to offer [the resident] and [Mr X] a joint tenancy’ upon the successful repayment of the ‘mesne profits’ following an order by the court in May 2019.  The landlord confirmed that it was not able to increase its offer of compensation.

 

  1. The resident rejected the landlord’s proposal as she did not believe that she owed the landlord any money.  The Ombudsman therefore accepted the case for investigation.

 

Assessment and Findings

 

The landlord’s administration of the resident’s tenancy agreement following an assignment in January 2018 which ended the original joint tenancy

 

  1. On 11 April 2014 the resident and Mr Y signed a joint tenancy agreement for the property.

 

  1. On 12 January 2018 the deed of assignment was signed by the resident and Mr Y.  The deed set out that:

 

  1. Mr Y agreed to assign the tenancy to the resident with effect from 15 January 2018. 
  2. Once it was signed the resident would take on full responsibility for the tenancy.
  3. A new tenancy was not created on signing.
  4. Mr X and the resident’s daughter would ‘remain with [the resident]’ in the property.

 

  1. The landlord’s procedure on assignment sets out that ‘an assignment to create a joint tenancy will only be permitted where there are exceptional circumstances’.  The procedure confirms that ‘marriage or a new partner will not in itself attract [its] consent’ to create a new joint tenancy.  The procedure goes on to state that while marriage or a new partner does not amount to exceptional circumstances the ‘spouse or partner may commence or continue to share the home’[1].

 

  1. Taking into account the signed deed of assignment and the landlord’s procedure on assignment, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s position that a new joint tenancy, between the resident and Mr X, was not created in January 2018 was correct.  While the Ombudsman notes that the resident believed that on completion of the deed of assignment Mr X would become the new joint tenant the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which suggests that the landlord informed the resident that this would be the case.

 

  1. In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that while the deed of assignment was completed correctly, as it recorded Mr X as a member of the household, it did not update its housing management system until August 2019 to reflect this due to an administrative error.  The landlord also acknowledged that in discussing the tenancy with the resident its language was not always clear. Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider if it has provided the appropriate redress.  In this case the landlord apologised and awarded £50 compensation.  In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of redress was appropriate to the circumstances of the case.  This is because, despite the landlord’s administrative error and unclear language, it did not result in any adverse effect to the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy.

 

  1. As part of the Ombudsman’s assisted resolution process the landlord confirmed that it would be prepared to offer the resident and Mr X a joint tenancy, on repayment of the mesne profits, to resolve the complaint.  In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer was commendable as it was under no obligation to offer a joint tenancy in line with its assignment policy.  The Ombudsman also considers that it was reasonable for the landlord to make the offer conditional on the resident paying what it believed to be outstanding debt.  The Ombudsman notes that the resident disputes the debt.  The Ombudsman cannot comment on any debt as it does not form part of the complaint under investigation.

 

The landlord’s referral to social services following a discussion with the resident

 

  1. It is clear that there is a dispute between the landlord and resident regarding information provided by the resident regarding the death of a child.  As the Ombudsman was not party to any conversations or meetings between the landlord and the resident the Ombudsman cannot determine what was actually said. 

 

  1. However, while the Ombudsman cannot determine what information was given in relation to the death of a child – if any, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s referral to social services was reasonable.  While it is unclear what information was provided the landlord adequately explained its position to the resident and the reason it made the referral.  The Ombudsman understands that the referral would understandably have been upsetting for the resident however it was appropriate for the landlord to act on the information it believed it had received.  The Ombudsman notes that a landlord has a responsibility to report any safeguarding concerns. 

 

The landlord’s complaint handling

 

  1. The landlord’s fact sheet on complaints sets out that it will respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days from the date it was recorded.  The evidence shows that the landlord’s stage one response dated 27 March was not provided in line with this service standard.  The landlord apologised for its omission.  In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s apology amounts to reasonable redress to acknowledge its error and the impact on the resident.

 

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident reports that she did not receive the landlord’s stage one response in March 2020 until May 2020, following the Ombudsman’s intervention.  The Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that the landlord did not issue the response in March 2020.  It is however unfortunate that the resident did not receive the landlord’s stage one response in March 2020. 

 

  1. In response to the resident’s concerns regarding postage the landlord set out its process for posting letters.  This was appropriate.

 

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s stage two and final response were provided within 10 working days of the resident’s escalation requests and following the Ombudsman’s intervention in May 2020.

 

Determination (decision)

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which resolves the following aspects of the complaint:

 

  1. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s tenancy agreement following an assignment in January 2018 which ended the original joint tenancy
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling

 

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its referral to social services following a discussion with the resident.

 

Reasons

 

  1. The landlord’s position that a new joint tenancy, between the resident and Mr X, was not created in January 2018 was reasonable as:

 

  1. The deed of assignment documented that:
    1. The resident would take full responsibility for the tenancy once signed
    2. A new tenancy would not be created on signing
    3. Mr X would remain with the resident in the property
  2. The landlord’s procedure of assignment set out that marriage or a new partner would not in itself attract its consent to create a new joint tenancy.

 

  1. The landlord acknowledged that it did not update its housing management system following the deed of assignment in January 2018 until August 2019 due to an administrative error and therefore apologised and awarded a proportionate sum of compensation to put matters right.

 

  1. Following the end of the complaint procedure the landlord offered to grant the resident and Mr X a joint tenancy on the condition that the resident repaid the mesne profits to resolve the complaint.  The Ombudsman notes that the landlord is not obliged to make this offer in line with its procedure on assignment.

 

  1. While it is unclear what information was provided regarding the death of a child the landlord adequately explained its position to the resident and the reason it made the referral. 

 

  1. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage one complaint and provided reassurances regarding its process for mailing correspondence. 

 

Recommendations

 

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £50 compensation it awarded in consideration of the complaint if it has not already done so.

 

  1. The landlord should discuss its assisted resolution proposal – to offer the resident and Mr X a joint tenancy at the property – with the resident.  The Ombudsman considers that the conversation should include discussion on the mesne profits directed by the court.

 

[1] Tenancy Assignment Procedure, effective 10 May 2017, section 4