London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202001024)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001024

London & Quadrant H T

22 December 2020

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 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 concerns how the landlord handled the resident’s request to amend her joint tenancy after her ex-partner left the home.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident wrote to this Service on 8 July 2020 and described the outstanding issues and desired outcome of her complaint. One of the elements that she wanted considered was that she had experienced problems making backdated claims for Universal Credit and a council tax reduction due to the actions of the landlord. She had raised these with the landlord through her complaints with it.
It is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider whether the resident has been properly paid her benefits, or her council tax has been accurately documented and charged. These would be matters she would need to raise with the benefit agency and/or the local authority directly, and pursue through their complaints process if not satisfied with the response.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association.
On 25 May 2018 the landlord received a tenancy change form from the resident’s ex-partner. The form was signed and dated 15 April 2018 by both the resident and her ex-partner. The ex-partner requested to be removed from the tenancy as he had moved out of the property on 20 April 2018.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2018 and informed her that it did not have the legal right to amend an existing joint tenancy unless ordered to do so by a court. The landlord advised the resident to seek independent legal advice.
On 25 June 2018, the resident informed the landlord that she was struggling to make a claim for housing benefit, as her ex-partner was still on the tenancy and his income was therefore part of her benefit assessment.
Between 25 June 2018 and 27 July, the landlord discussed the matter internally regarding what options it had to assist the resident with her benefits claim. An internal email on 26 July 2018 reaffirmed the landlord’s position that it could only amend a joint tenancy via a court order, and for the resident to become sole tenant of the property, a new tenancy would need to be created.
The resident called the landlord on 20 August 2018 and requested an update. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it confirmed it was unable to amend a joint tenancy unless by court order, but that it would be willing to contact housing benefits to advise them that the resident is the sole tenant of the property.
On 5 September 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord and stated her unhappiness that the situation remained unresolved. She said her ex-partner had moved out in April 2018, and that a transfer change request had been filled out, but she was still unable to claim housing benefit as her ex-partner was still on the tenancy.
The landlord replied on 6 September 2018 and apologised to the resident for the distress the situation had caused her. It accepted that it should have been able to change the tenancy when this was initially raised. It was arranging authorisation for a new tenancy agreement, and would arrange to visit her to sign the paperwork when this was approved.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 September 2018 and stated that her Universal Credit (UC) application was currently pending and she had been informed that the landlord had not been in contact regarding her backdating claim. The landlord replied on 12 September and informed the resident that it will pass on the matter to its revenue team, to see what support it can offer to help in her backdating request.
On 10 October 2018 the resident signed a new fixed term assured shorthold tenancy.
On 10 January 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and informed it that she was still having issues with backdated claims for UC and council tax, which had caused her to go into rent arrears. The resident and landlord continued to correspond regarding her difficulty in making a backdated claim for benefits.
On 11 April 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and asked if UC had confirmed in writing that it refused to backdate her claim because no information had been provided by the landlord. The resident replied on the same day and said she was informed of this during her UC interview, and told to contact the landlord.
On 17 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord and informed it that she still had issues with arrears and that this was due to mistakes by the landlord. She asked the landlord to resolve the matter otherwise she would look to escalate her complaint. She also informed the landlord that she had taken legal advice over the matter.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 December 2019. It accepted that there had been issues and delay with its handling of matters. It calculated the length of the delay as from 25 June 2018 (when the resident first explained the problems the joint tenancy was causing) until 11 September 2018 (when it informed UC of the resident’s tenancy status). It offered her £1,316.81 compensation for this period, broken down as £119.71 rent per week for 11 weeks.
The resident replied to the landlord and 31 December 2019 and disputed its offer and version of events. She noted that she first informed the landlord of the situation on 20 April 2018, not in June, and that it should have used this date in its calculation. The resident also stated that she thinks the landlord should have also considered her council tax arrears when calculating their compensation award.
The resident wrote again on 3 February 2020 and restated her position that the landlord’s compensation calculation should have been for a longer period and also taken into account her council tax arears. The resident also stated her unhappiness that the compensation award had not considered the time it had taken to change her landlord account details and that the delay was the fault of the landlord.
The landlord replied to the resident on 6 February 2020. It confirmed its position on the matter. It said that it had informed UC on 12 September 2018 that it had changed the tenancy into the sole name of the resident and that “this information was verified with universal credit”. It further informed her its decision to offer her a discretionary payment of 11 weeks as a full and final settlement remained and advised that this would not prevent her from pursuing a backdated claim with UC.
On 16 April 2020 the resident wrote an email to the landlord’s CEO and requested for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaints process. The resident gave a summary of events up to that point and described her unhappiness with the service she had experienced. She said that she felt the compensation award should have recognised the time and inconvenience the matter had caused her, and also queried the type of tenancy agreement she had been given.
The landlord replied on 17 April 2020 and informed the resident it had opened a formal complaint. It aimed to send a full response within 10 working days.
The complaint response was sent to the resident on 13 May 2020. The landlord explained that:
1. It had received a tenancy change form from the resident on 25 May 2018, seeking to have the tenancy amended to a single name. The landlord’s policy at the time would not have allowed this as it was a fixed-term tenancy.
2. She called on 31 May 2018 and asked for an update. It then sent a letter on 1 June 2018 explaining that it could not change the tenancy and advised her to seek legal advice.
3. On 15 June 2018 it called her and confirmed that it was unable to change the tenancy without a court order, but that this was been queried internally to see what support could be offered to the resident. A landlord welfare reform officer corresponded with her in July and August 2018 and recommended applying for housing benefit.
4. On 6 September 2018 it informed the resident that it had changed its policy and it would now be able to amend the tenancy. The tenancy was amended on 12 September and the resident signed the new tenancy agreement on 10 October.
5. After reviewing the level of compensation it had offered, it is “satisfied that the offer of £1316.81 (11 weeks rent) is generous, proportional and will not be increased”.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the resident that she had now exhausted its internal complaints process and advised her on the steps to take to bring her case to this Service should she remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement do not state any circumstances when it would allow the type of tenancy to change other than to describe the legal process involved in the succession of a tenancy or when someone “becomes the tenant after a court order transferring the tenancy”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 June 2018 and informed her that it could not amend the tenancy, and that this could only be done if ordered by a court. This position is line with the terms and conditions of the tenancy. The landlord’s internal correspondence confirms that its decision was also in line with its own policies on the issue. The original decision was therefore reasonable, and the advice it gave to the resident about seeking legal advice was appropriate in that light.
Following further correspondence between the resident and the landlord relating to the difficulties the resident was experiencing, the landlord made the decision to change its policy, to allow it to create a new tenancy agreement for the resident. This would also assist other tenants who find themselves in the same situation as the resident. The specific changes the landlord made to its policies are not clear. Nonetheless, the action it took in light of the circumstances the resident’s experience created, was pragmatic, flexible, and reasonable.
In its letter to the resident on 30 December 2019, the landlord accepted that it could have done more to resolve the tenancy issue when informed by the resident in June 2018 that she was experiencing difficulty in making a benefit claim. The landlord apologised to her, and offered compensation based on the rent from 25 June 2018 until 11 September 2018, which is when the landlord informed UC that the resident was now sole tenant of the property. The period used by the landlord in its calculation was reasonable, because before the resident informed it, the landlord was not aware of the impact its policy was having on her benefit claim.
The landlord remained in contact with the resident throughout the process of changing the tenancy. The landlord has provided internal correspondence which discussed the issue. This correspondence highlighted the issues that prevented the landlord from amending the existing tenancy, but raised the option of creating a new tenancy as a solution.
The landlord subsequently made the decision to create a new tenancy agreement. It also recognised the delay in making and implementing this decision. As remedy for this, the landlord awarded compensation which covered rent payments from when the issue was first brought to its attention to when the matter was resolved.
This was appropriate action by the landlord as it both recognised the time taken to resolve the issue, and covered the period of rent where the resident was having difficulty making a backdated UC claim. The landlord’s internal correspondence shows that it endeavoured to find a resolution to the issue, and it ultimately changed its policy going forward following its decision to create a new tenancy. Where it identified service failure it provided adequate redress to the resident, providing rent payments for the period when the resident had difficulty making a benefit claim due to her former partner still being on the tenancy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord accurately informed the resident that it would be unable to amend the original tenancy agreement unless ordered to by a court.
The landlord then made the decision to create a new tenancy agreement to resolve the issues the resident had experienced in claiming benefits. It also changed its policy going forward to use this method to help other residents who may find themselves in a similar situation. However, it acknowledged that the time it took to do this was longer than it could have been.
The landlord then apologised, offered reasonable compensation, and amended its policies.