Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202015885)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015885

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

31 March 2022

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 concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to succeed the tenancy.

Background and summary of events

2. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The resident’s late partner was the sole assured tenant of the property. Her tenancy started on 20 July 2015.
3. The resident is vulnerable and has mental health conditions.
4. Following the tenant’s death on 21 July 2020, the resident requested to succeed the tenancy advising the landlord that he was the late tenant’s partner had been living at the property for four years.
5. The landlord asked the resident to provide proof of identity, his relationship with the late tenant and residency, sending him succession forms to him to complete in December 2020. The forms stated that for proof of residency, it required any three of the following:
   1. Council Tax registration
   2. Electoral role
   3. Housing benefit registration
   4. Driving license
   5. Utility bill
   6. Bank or credit card statement
   7. Letter from DSS or other statutory agency
6. For proof of relationship, it required any one of the following:
   1. Birth certificate
   2. Marriage certificate
   3. Civil partnership certificate OR at least two of the following:
   4. Joint bank account
   5. Doctor’s letter
7. The resident completed and returned the forms, providing information to support his application to succeed the tenancy. This included his birth certification, national insurance number and expired passport.
8. The landlord subsequently refused his succession request however this service has not seen evidence of the communication from the landlord advising the resident of this.
9. On 11 February 2021, the resident’s sister wrote to the landlord on his behalf advising that the resident lost his fiancé in July 2020 and had to prove he lived at the property. She said banks statements were on their way, various letters received from the hospital relating to her passing, a letter from the doctor and an EDF energy bill from 2017 which she said was key (not provided to this service). She said the resident was at risk of self-harm as he was grieving the loss of his partner and had depression and anxiety.
10. The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 12 February 2021 asking that it reconsider the resident’s succession application. They said that the evidence provided by the resident including his birth certification, national insurance number and expired passport, was sufficient to prove he lived at the property with his fiancé.
11. The landlord advised in its response to the resident’s MP dated 18 February 2021 that since being sent the succession forms in December 2020, the resident had failed to provide evidence that he:
    1. Occupied the property at the time of the tenant’s death on 21 July 2020 and:
    2. He was the partner of the late tenant.
12. It said in addition Housing Benefit had confirmed the late tenant did not declare him as living at the property whilst her claim was live. It was of the belief that the resident was neither a partner of the tenant or living at the property at the time of the tenant’s death. On this basis it would not be granting a succession of the tenant at that time. It advised however that the home office had advised the expired passport was proof the resident had settlement rights in the UK so he did have the right to rent another property by following the appropriate channels.
13. On 3 March and 5 March 2021, the resident’s sister sent further communications to the landlord explaining her brother had supplied bank statements and other letters including a letter from the doctor who dealt with the late tenant’s organ transfer. She said all of the neighbours knew her brother had been with the late tenant for a long time. She said the late tenant had not told the council or the landlord that the resident was living at the property as she was scared of losing her home. She said that her brother was being discriminated against because of his mental health.
14. On 5 March 2020, the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord again referring to a letter the resident had received advising he needed to provide more proof of his residency. He asked that the landlord advise what further evidence the resident needed to provide to meet its tenancy succession requirements. He said the resident was a suicide risk and that he was suffering from severe depression and was worried he would be made homeless.
15. On 11 March 2021, the landlord replied advising that following an independent review completed by a third party on its behalf, it did not believe the resident had a succession right. It said it had written to the resident to advise what information it required from him to support his application. He had not subsequently provided sufficient evidence that he was living at the address prior to the resident’s death and to date had only provided information that dated following her death. It would send the resident a letter outlining the reasons for refusing his application at which point he could approach the council to advise he was homeless and use its letter in support of his application to Housing. The council could then work towards providing him with accommodation.
16. On 16 March 2021 the resident’s sister asked to raise a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of her brother’s succession request. She said they had provided bank statements a year prior to the tenant’s passing however they were waiting from evidence from Talk Talk whom the resident had an account with.
17. On 17 March 2021 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord advising the resident had provided more evidence – receipts from his Talk Talk telecom/broadband account for the property. It asked that the landlord take this into consideration and its decision reversed.
18. On 17 March 2021, the landlord provided a stage one response acknowledging the complaint raised. It advised its Housing Team had explained to the resident’s MP that following an independent review completed by a third party on its behalf it did not believe the resident had a right to succession. It said that it had written to the resident advising what information it would require to support him to progress his succession application. It said that unfortunately the resident had not been able to provide sufficient evidence that he was living at the address prior to his partner’s death in July 2020 and to date, had only provided information that dated following her death. In view of this, the landlord advised it was unable to grant tenancy succession to the resident. It reiterated that he could approach the council with its letter which outlined the reasons for declining his succession application. On the same date it sent a letter to the resident advising it had completed the necessary checks that and he had no right to take over the tenancy.
19. On 18 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP advising its position in relation to his succession application had not altered. It reiterated that it did not consider the information provided as sufficient evidence to support his request and it was unable to reconsider his application. It said from its internal and independent investigations into this matter, it did not believe the resident was a partner of the late tenant.
20. The landlord has supplied notes of an internal call with its Housing Manager  dated 24 March 2021 which referred to evidence provided being an expired passport, a bill from Talk Talk (from prior to the tenant passing), a council tax bill (from prior to the tenant passing) and other items that were not sufficient, such as a copy of love poems from the late tenant’s funeral.
21. In its final response dated 26 March 2021, the landlord reiterated its position that it would not be granting the resident tenancy succession. It referred to a bill from Talk Talk (from prior to the late tenant’s passing) and said that other items provided were not acceptable as proof of residency. It also said the internal and independent investigations did not evidence that he was on the electoral roll at the property and Housing Benefit had confirmed that the late tenant had not declared the resident was living at the property which led it to believe he was not residing there It said it took all the necessary steps to guide the resident through the process but that the required proof of occupancy was not provided therefore it was unable to grant tenancy succession on this basis.

Assessment and findings

22. The late tenant’s tenancy agreement states under ‘Succession rights’ that if she was the only tenant of the property, in the event of death, the tenancy would pass on to her spouse as long as they lived in the property as their only or main home at the time of the tenant’s death and the tenant did not receive the tenancy because someone died. It said ‘spouse’ means a partner who lives with the tenant as husband or wife if they are not married, including same sex partners. This term of the tenancy corresponds with the information provided in the landlord’s succession policy regarding rights of statutory succession for assured tenancies.
23. The circumstance surrounding the complaint raised by the resident is very sad and understandably the tenant’s death and the landlord’s subsequent refusal to grant the resident succession has caused him great distress. However, it is not for this service to determine if the resident has a succession right to the property,  rather it is to consider if the landlord acted appropriately and reasonably when handling his request.
24. The tenancy agreement is in the late tenant’s sole name and makes clear that tenancy succession by a spouse can only occur where they are occupying the dwelling as their only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death. The landlord had not been made aware by the late tenant that the resident was her spouse or that he was living at the property. The late tenant had named the resident as next of kin on her 2015 housing application for the property however she also stated that he was a friend and gave a different address for him.
25. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to request evidence from the resident to satisfy itself that he met the criteria to succeed the tenancy in accordance with the tenancy agreement, as well proof of identity to show he was who he said he was.
26. The succession forms which were sent to the resident for completion in December 2020, did ask for three items of documentation for proof of residency and also one or two documents for proof of relationship depending on the type of documentation. A list of acceptable documents was included in the form. The lists for both residency and relationship included ‘other’ indicating there may be some scope for discretion if documents not on the list were provided.  The resident supplied supporting evidence including his birth certification, national insurance number and expired passport. The landlord subsequently told him he had not provided sufficient supporting evidence however it is unclear from the available evidence how the landlord initially communicated this decision to the resident.  
27. Following communication from the resident’s MP on his behalf in February 2021, the landlord confirmed that it required proof to show he was living at the property at the time of the resident’s death and of his relationship with the resident as it still did not have proof of this.
28. As part of the landlord’s internal investigation, it had contacted the home office who confirmed the resident had a residency right in the UK. It appears from this and other forms of identification provided by the resident that the landlord was satisfied that proof of identify had been shown at this stage.
29. Following on from this, the resident provided evidence of bank statements (Card -One-Money account) and a Talk Talk telecom/broadband account at the property address. Both of these predated the resident’s death. The resident also provided a GP letter which stated his late partner had registered him as her next of kin.
30. The landlord has provided evidence to this service which shows it engaged a third party investigator to carry out further checks on its behalf to identify if the resident was residing at the property address at the time of the tenant’s death and to confirm the status of the resident’s relationship with the tenant.  The checks undertaken included evaluating entries on the electoral register for the property address and also information held by credit reference agencies. This shows the landlord took steps to thoroughly investigate if the resident had a right to succession.
31. The independent investigation confirmed the Talk Talk telecom/broadband account linked the resident to the address since 2017 and the Card-One-Money account from 30 June 2020. This evidence therefore pre-dated the late tenant’s death. The independent investigation did not yield any further evidence to support the resident’s succession application. However, neither did it establish any evidence to suggest the resident was living at any alternative address during the four year period he said he had been living at the property.
32. In its stage two final response the landlord advised it had taken all the necessary steps to guide the resident through the process but that he was not able to provide sufficient evidence to support his claim. In reference to proof of residency, the landlord referred to a bill from Talk Talk (from prior to the late tenant’s passing) and said that other items provided were not acceptable as proof of residency. It also said the internal and independent investigations did not evidence that he was on the electoral roll at the property and Housing Benefit had confirmed that the late tenant had not declared the resident was living at the property which led it to believe he was not residing there.
33. However, there is some evidence to show the resident was residing at the property at the time of the late tenant’s death and also evidence from the late tenant’s GP which names the resident as next of kin. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have provided a convincing argument as to why it did not consider each piece of evidence –including the Talk Talk telecom/broadband account, the bank account and the GP’s letter, to be sufficiently compelling to show residency at the address and that he was the late tenant’s spouse.
34. Therefore, on balance, the landlord has not provided a convincing argument and has not sufficiently explained its decision-making process when refusing the resident’s tenancy succession application.

Determination (decision)

35. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s request to succeed the tenancy.

Reasons

36. The resident requested to succeed the tenancy following the late tenant’s death. The landlord asked for proof of identity, residency and relationship with the late tenant which was reasonable as the tenant had not advised the landlord that the resident was living at the property. The resident provided evidence however the landlord advised it did not show the resident occupied the property at the time of the tenant’s death or that he was her spouse. The resident provided evidence of a Talk Talk telecom account and a bank account at the property which pre-dated the tenant’s death. He also provided a GP letter confirming the late tenant had registered him as her next of kin. The landlord has not provided a sufficiently compelling argument as to why these pieces of evidence are not sufficient proof of his residency and relationship such that it established his right to succeed the tenancy.

Orders and Recommendations.

37. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. revisit its decision made in relation to the resident’s application to succeed the tenancy, seeking legal advice if required.
    2. advise the resident and this service of the outcome.
    3. comply with the order within four weeks.