Citizen Housing (202228236)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228236

Citizen Housing

30 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the applicant’s application to succeed her deceased grandmother’s property and whether it should have advised her of her rights earlier.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The applicant lived with her grandmother (who was the resident) until her grandmother passed away on 9 October 2021.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy and licence management policy states that if the resident did not have a partner, then a tenancy may be passed to a close family member which included grandchildren. It goes on to state that a family member does have the right to succeed a tenancy, but does not have the automatic right to remain in the same property as a person who has passed away. It may make other offers of accommodation, taking into account whether the property is an appropriate size for the person and the needs of vulnerable household members.
  3. On 14 October 2021, it was reported to the landlord by the applicant’s mother (who was the next of kin) that the resident had passed away. On 19 October 2021, the applicant’s mother’s care coordinator contacted the landlord, where it was noted that the applicant’s mother could not succeed the tenancy as she had not resided at the property for the last 12 months. The landlord’s file notes show that they had a discussion around succession and it was noted that it would likely be the applicant that was most suitable to succeed the tenancy. The landlord said it would need to determine the future household composition.
  4. The applicant’s mother quit the tenancy on 28 October 2021 and said she would be returning the keys as she had alternative accommodation and could re-house her children. The applicant’s advocate contacted the landlord at the end of October 2021, to say that the applicant was homeless and that the landlord had a duty to rehouse her. The landlord’s notes state that the applicant had left the property after her relationship broke down with her mother, however, the landlord was unaware the applicant was no longer living at the property until the end of October 2021. The advocate said she would get the applicant to raise a complaint about how the landlord had treated her and they reported that this was done on 29 October 2021. The landlord said it did not receive the complaint.
  5. The applicant made a succession application on 3 November 2021. She was upset that the landlord had not informed her she could do so earlier, as she said she asked the landlord about the opportunity to succeed before her grandmother passed away. The landlord’s contact notes show that it knew the applicant’s grandmother was ill, but there was no record that the applicant had asked it about what would happen to the property.
  6. The applicant visited the property with an officer from the landlord in November 2021, where she collected some of her things. The property was in a poor condition and was not secure. The landlord said that it discussed with, and that the applicant agreed, that she could be provided with a smaller property, as she was not seeking guardianship of her siblings.
  7. Throughout November 2022, the notes show that the applicant and her advocate were often in contact with the landlord and the applicant had informed the landlord she was living in temporary accommodation and did not feel safe. The landlord told her to complain about her living conditions to the local authority who provided the accommodation. It approved the applicant’s succession application and by 2 December 2021, it had found her a new property that suited a single occupant and fitted the criteria she had requested.
  8. On 13 December 2021, the applicant’s MP contacted the landlord and said that the applicant had complained about how she was treated and had not received a response. A formal complaint was not raised by the landlord until 17 March 2022 and it provided its stage 1 response on 19 April 2022. The response said that it had followed the correct procedure upon being notified of the resident’s death, and contacted the next of kin. It expressed its condolences for the applicant’s loss and said it had tried to contact the applicant’s advocate, but had not always been able to get hold of them.
  9. The applicant responded in July 2022 to ask for the complaint to be escalated. She was unhappy that her complaint had not been investigated when she initially raised it. She also wanted to know why the landlord had contacted her mother who did not reside at the property, but had not informed her of her rights when she was the only adult occupant of the property following her grandmother’s death.
  10. The landlord responded with its stage 2 response on 10 August 2022. It said that the applicant’s mother had tried to see if any other siblings could take on the tenancy, as she could not. The landlord said that there had been no mention of any other adults in the property, only the children (the applicant’s younger siblings) who would be rehoused with their mother. It accepted that not all the information had been provided in the stage 1 response and there had been a delay in providing a response after the complaint was raised in March 2022. The landlord offered £60 compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the applicant’s application to succeed her deceased grandmother’s property and whether it should have advised her of her rights earlier.

  1. The applicant said that she had enquired with the landlord prior to her grandmother’s death about what would happen to her grandmother’s property/tenancy. The landlord’s contact notes show that it knew of the late resident’s illness as it had corresponded with them, but there was nothing to suggest that it had a conversation with the applicant regarding the future of the property. Once the resident had passed away, the landlord’s actions were reasonable by discussing the matter with the next of kin.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy and licence management policy allows a family member (such as a grandchild) to succeed the tenancy on the death of the tenant. When the applicant’s mother’s care coordinator called the landlord on 19 October 2021, they specifically asked if any siblings could succeed the tenancy, as the applicant’s mother could not. The landlord’s notes show that it discussed that the late resident’s eldest granddaughter (the applicant) would be a possible option as she was 19 years old.
  3. Given that the next of kin’s care coordinator had specifically mentioned the prospect of an adult grandchild obtaining succession, it was reasonable to conclude the applicant had a legitimate claim to succeed the tenancy. Therefore the landlord could have done more at this point to try and contact the applicant and inform her of her rights of succession. Instead, it said it was unaware that there was another adult living at the property when the resident passed away; however, there was evidence within its record which showed it had discussed the possibility of the applicant succeeding the tenancy.
  4. There was a service failure here by the landlord as it was inappropriate that it did not correctly identify the applicant’s right to succession given she was residing at the property at the time of her grandmothers death, and instead, focussed all its enquiries around the next of kin, the applicant’s mother. The landlord could have done more to inform the applicant of her rights from 19 October 2021. This failure may have caused a slight delay in the subsequent application for succession that was made, which occurred two weeks later.
  5. The landlord said it did not receive a succession application until 3 November 2021 and it was corresponding with the next of kin and her care coordinator. However, it is reasonable to assume that if it had tried to contact the applicant, visit the property, or made it clear that succession was a possibility, then the applicant would have applied earlier. An order for compensation of £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused has been made below. An order has also been made below regarding the extra steps the landlord should consider in similar situations going forwards.
  6. The landlord’s records indicate that the applicant moved out of the property  due to a relationship breakdown with her mother and it only realised this when it received a call to say she was homeless and seeking temporary accommodation at the end of October 2021. During this time, the applicant’s mother had issued a notice to quit the property and said they were handing back the keys. She also said that she would rehouse her children. It is not clear exactly what date the applicant left the property, but the evidence suggests that the landlord did not know that she had moved out until after the notice to quit the tenancy had been served.
  7. Based on the circumstances that existed after the applicant had moved away from the property, it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to have allowed the applicant to move back in to the property. There was no tenancy agreement between the applicant and the landlord at that point. Furthermore, the property was in a poor condition, as there was a considerable amount of damage and it was not secure. It would not have been appropriate for the landlord to have allowed the applicant to move back in given the state of the property without sufficient repairs, and the applicant was already in alternative accommodation. It was also reasonable to allow the landlord the time to complete the necessary checks as part of the tenancy application process. Therefore, by not allowing the applicant to move back into the property, the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  8. The landlord’s policy states that a family member does have the right to succeed the tenancy, but does not have the automatic right to remain in the same property as the person who has passed away. The landlord said that the applicant could succeed the tenancy, but in an alternative property, as she was not taking on guardianship of her siblings. As the property was a 3-bedroomed, and the applicant was only looking to live by herself, the landlord acted appropriately by seeking an alternative property to be found for the applicant and complied with its policy in doing so.
  9. Once the landlord received an application to succeed, it handled the application quickly and efficiently, taking a month to complete the application process and find a suitable property. However, from the point it knew there was an adult relative of the resident who occupied the property and was a potential candidate to succeed the tenancy on 19 October 2021, it was inappropriate that it did not do more to establish contact and seek to explain the process or let them know that they could apply. There was a service failure here and the landlord should pay £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord said that the resident raised a formal complaint in March 2022, which it responded to in April 2022 after a short delay. The landlord offered £60 compensation in part recognition of this delay. The resident, however, said the date of her complaint was actually 29 October 2021. Correspondence from the applicant’s advocate to the landlord said that on the same date that they would get the applicant to complain, but the landlord said it did not receive the complaint.
  2. On 13 December 2021, the advocate’s MP wrote to the landlord and told it that the applicant had made a complaint previously, but did not get a response. At this stage it was inappropriate that the landlord did not raise a formal complaint on the basis of this notice, and the applicant had to wait for around a further four months to get a stage one response after raising a complaint again in March 2022. This was a complaint handling failure by the landlord as it failed to act in an expeditious manner when it was clear that the applicant was trying to raise a complaint.
  3. The landlord should have been proactive in dealing with or finding out what the complaint was about given there was sufficient information from credible stakeholders to indicate the applicant was dissatisfied, and it was reasonable to assume the landlord should have been acting upon that information. The landlord’s previous compensation offer of £60 does not reflect the distress and inconvenience that occurred as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures, and therefore is ordered to pay a further £100 compensation to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the unnecessary delay.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds service failure with regards to how it handled the applicant’s succession application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman Service finds service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this report to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £260 compensation (including £60 previously offered if it has not already paid this) within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her with regards to how it handled her application to succeed her deceased grandmother’s property and whether it should have advised her of her rights to succeed earlier.
    2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the failure in its handling of her complaint and the time and trouble caused.
  3. The landlord is ordered to write to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to explain the lessons it has learnt from this case and specifically to set out any process improvements it identifies in regard to identifying potential applicants to succeed a tenancy at the earliest opportunity.
  4. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.