London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202127252)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127252

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 December 2023

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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s application to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident lives at the property with her young child. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
3. The resident’s mother passed away on 21 December 2021. She applied for succession in early January 2022. The succession was refused on the grounds that the resident owned another property.
4. The resident raised an appeal against the refusal on 14 January 2022. The resident disputed that owning a property impacted on her rights under a secured tenancy. The property that the resident owned was a buy-to-let, and as a result she was unable to live there under the terms of her mortgage. The landlord later stated that the resident had not completed all the forms. It also said that the resident had not lived in the property for 12 months, which was a requirement of the succession. The landlord served a notice to quit on 2 February 2022.
5. The resident raised a complaint on 11 March 2022. She raised that she had not had a response to her appeal against the succession refusal. The landlord issued its response on 14 March 2022. It apologised that the resident felt the need to complain. It stated that social housing was only for people who could not rent or own their own property.
6. The resident requested that the complaint be escalated on 16 March 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 July 2022. It stated that the initial application was unsuccessful due to the form not being completed in full. It also stated that although the resident had not lived in the property for a full 12 months preceding the application, the time period was not far off. It also confirmed that owning a property did not prevent succession being granted. It partially upheld the complaint and granted succession on 1 July 2022.
7. The resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response. Although succession was granted, she does not feel she was treated in line with the landlord’s succession policy, particularly that the landlord did not show compassion and sensitivity. The resident would like compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to succeed to their mother’s tenancy.

8. The resident applied for succession within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord refused the request. Although the Service has not seen the letter refusing the succession request, we understand from the Stage 1 response that this was due to the resident owning another property. Owning a property does not stop a resident gaining succession under a secured tenancy. As such the landlord rejected the succession on an incorrect basis.
9. The resident appealed the succession refusal. A notice to quit was served on 2 February 2022. As the landlord had refused the succession, it had a right to serve a notice to quit. However, the landlord’s succession policy states that it will treat applicants with sensitivity and compassion. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to speak to the resident about the appeal and advise the resident why it was serving a notice to quit. In failing to do this, the landlord has caused stress and upset at what was already a difficult time for the resident.
10. The resident resubmitted the supporting documents and a succession form on 7 February 2022. The landlord spoke with the resident on 4 March 2022 to inform her that there was a notice to quit in place and that she needed to leave the property within 4 weeks. The landlord did not acknowledge or discuss the resubmission of the succession application.
11. The resident emailed on 8 March 2022 and 9 March 2022. The resident requested information as to why the succession had been refused. She provided the landlord with a paragraph from her mother’s tenancy, which she felt supported succession. The resident also made the landlord aware that the property which she owned was a buy-to-let and that moving back would break the terms of her mortgage. She confirmed the property she owned was a 1-bedroom flat which would not be suitable for her and her daughter. She also advised that leaving on 10 April 2022 would not give enough time to evict the tenants and would leave her homeless. The landlord sent the stage 1 response and an additional email on 14 March 2022. It confirmed that succession was not granted as the resident owned a home, and that social housing was for people who could not rent or own their own home. It also stated that the resident could contact the local authority homeless department, but they would also obtain a credit report. The response from the landlord was unsympathetic and did not fully address the resident’s concerns that the succession had been incorrectly refused.
12. The resident asked the landlord on 17 and 18 March 2023 and on 11 April 2023 for the relevant legislation as to why the succession had been refused. The landlord did not respond to this point, resulting in frustration building up for the resident.
13. The resident submitted new succession forms on a number of occasions between 7 February 2022 and 11 April 2022. The landlord initially stated that the succession form had not been completed in full which the resident acknowledged. Later succession forms where also refused by the landlord as it stated these were also not fully completed. The resident became increasingly frustrated as she felt that she was completing the forms. There is no evidence that the landlord offered support to the resident to ensure the forms were completed in full.
14. The resident was asked for the form again on 25 May 2022 and this was chased up by the landlord on 8 June 2022. The resident stated that she was unhappy with how her complaint was being handled, and that she wanted advice from the Ombudsman before sending another succession form. Whilst it was understandable that the resident was frustrated at this stage, the resident should have submitted the full form at the earliest opportunity.
15. The resident submitted the completed form again on 16 June 2022. The landlord reassessed this and granted succession. It stated that the resident would need to sign paperwork and that the landlord would be in touch when this was ready. At the time of approaching the Housing Ombudsman the resident had still not had paperwork from the landlord. The resident has since spoken with Shelter which has confirmed that as the succession is from a secured tenancy, she will not receive a new tenancy agreement. This is also confirmed in the landlord’s policy. It would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to communicate this to the resident, particularly as it initially stated there would be paperwork issued. The resident did say that this was confirmed by the landlord, however it was not until several months after succession had been granted. This caused the situation to continue longer than necessary, causing additional stress to the resident.
16. The landlord incorrectly refused succession in the initial instance. Although it did grant succession in the end, the landlord has not acted sensitively and compassionately in line with its own policies. The Service recognises that the landlord did not receive a fully completed succession form. It also recognises that the resident missed one opportunity to send this in a timely manner. However, the landlord did not do enough to support the resident in completing the form accurately prior to this. The landlord caused further distress by suggesting that paperwork would be issued, which was not required. The landlord did not update the resident in a timely manner, despite the resident chasing a response. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

17. The landlord’s policy states that all complaints at stage 1 should be responded to within 10 working days unless an extension is requested. The landlord responded within 3 working days. Although the landlord has responded quickly, the response was brief and did not address all the issues raised by the resident. The resident had been trying to get information regarding her appeal. The landlord failed to provide a detailed response.
18. The resident has made us aware that the landlord sent the stage 1 response to her late mother’s email address, with her late mother’s name on. Whilst the Service recognises that this is unlikely to have been intentional, this action understandably caused upset to the resident. In line with its succession policy, the landlord should have taken care to act sensitively and compassionately. The landlord should have taken extra precautions not to make an error that could cause more upset to the resident.
19. The stage 2 was responded to in 73 working days. It is unclear why the landlord delayed the response until then. The resident had raised her stage 2 complaint on more than one occasion. There was confusion caused to the resident, as she had been informed her second complaint needed to be handled as a second stage 1. The landlord did not advise why this was the case. The resident took advice from the Housing Ombudsman Service. She subsequently reiterated to the landlord that her complaint should be responded to at stage 2. The delay and lack of transparent information at stage 2 caused further distress and frustration to the resident.
20. The stage 2 response did grant succession, which was the resident’s preferred outcome. The landlord confirmed that the initial reason for refusing succession was incorrect. It apologised that the process had been stressful for the resident. Although the landlord has granted succession, the apology failed to address failings on the landlord’s part. The landlord rejected the succession on an incorrect basis and then later failed to provide the resident with the necessary information in a timely manner. There is no evidence that the landlord took any learning from the complaint.
21. Due to the delay at stage 2, and the failure to fully address the complaint, the Service considers there to be maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

23. The landlord is ordered to issue an apology which takes account of the landlord’s failings as identified in this report.
24. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £600 compensation. This is calculated as:
    1. £400 for the distress caused by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for succession.
    2. £200 for its complaint handling failures
25. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to evidence compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

26. It is recommended that the landlord review the complaints handling of this case and take learnings from it.
27. It is recommended that the landlord conduct staff training in relation to cases which involve a bereavement. This should have a focus on how to demonstrate empathy and sensitivity when dealing with a case.