North West Leicestershire District Council (202205460)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205460

North West Leicestershire District Council

23 January 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 resident’s request to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.

Background

2. The resident lived in a 3 bedroomed house with her mother, who had been a secure tenant of the landlord since August 1980.
3. The resident advised the Ombudsman she lost her job because of all the stress she has been under. The Ombudsman has seen evidence the resident has Meniere’s disease. The vertigo like symptoms are exacerbated by stress.
4. In December 2018 the landlord had corresponded with residents to propose changes to their tenancy agreements. Residents did not need to sign the new agreement, which became effective on 1 July 2019. The new tenancy agreement did not give any preserved succession rights for existing secure tenancies. It stated that only a partner or a spouse had a statutory right to succeed the tenancy.
5. When the resident became aware her mother was terminally ill, she contacted the landlord to ask what would happen. There are differing accounts as to what happened. The landlord stated it informed the resident she would not be able to succeed to the tenancy, the resident stated the landlord told her to look after her mum and she will be fine.
6. Sadly, the resident’s mother died in February 2022. The resident and her representative contacted the landlord to enquire again what would happen with the tenancy. Again, there are differing accounts as to what happened. It is not disputed that the landlord informed the resident she could not succeed the tenancy on 4 March 2022. The resident and her representative contacted a Councillor and Citizens Advice to appeal this decision. The resident reported the landlord said there had been a previous succession when her mother succeeded the tenancy from her father. The resident appealed this as this happened prior to 3 October 1980 when security of tenure came into force.  The resident also informed the Ombudsman the landlord said the property was too big for her and so she could not succeed. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this except when the landlord offered the resident a property suitable for a single person.
7. On 18 March 2022 the resident received a ‘welcome to your new tenancy’ letter and a leaflet on ‘how to pay your rent’ from the landlord. The resident told the Ombudsman she believed her efforts to appeal the decision had paid off and she was able to succeed. The resident called the landlord, and it told her this was not correct, and she still had no rights to succession.
8. The resident’s representative contacted the landlord to make a complaint about its handling of the succession application. Through the complaints process, the landlord maintained its stance that the resident was not entitled to succeed and offered the resident alternative accommodation. As the resident was not satisfied with this, the complaint was brought to the Ombudsman.
9. In February 2023 when the landlord was deciding its next steps it sought legal advice. The advice informed the landlord its interpretation of the act was incorrect. The mother did not succeed to her husband’s tenancy and the 2019 tenancy should not be deemed a new secure tenancy. Therefore, the resident had preserved succession rights. After receiving the advice, the landlord recognised the resident was able to succeed to the tenancy and also remain in the property. The landlord wrote to the resident apologising and offered £250 as compensation. It also planned to review its position so this situation would not reoccur.
10. The resident states she has experienced employment difficulties, felt suicidal, and has had her Meniere’s disease exacerbated due to this situation. The resident would like this to be acknowledged as a resolution.

Assessment and findings

11. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
    2. put things right
    3. learn from outcomes.
12. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

13. The Ombudsman does not have the expertise to determine any causal link between the landlord’s actions or inactions and any reported physical and mental health conditions or any employment problems. It is the role of the Ombudsman to assess whether the landlord’s response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman can also review whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, the law and industry best practice.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed to her mother’s tenancy

14. The landlord’s tenancy policy states the Localism Act 2011 (the act) changed succession rights for all new secure tenancies. This means only a spouse or partner have a statutory right of succession. Family members who lived with the deceased tenant prior to their death had no right to succeed.
15. The resident’s tenancy agreement dated 1 July 2019 confirmed that only a spouse or a partner had a statutory right of succession.
16. The landlord viewed the mother’s 2019 tenancy as being a new secure tenancy. When the resident informed the landlord she wished to succeed, it acted in line with the tenancy agreement and policy and advised the resident, as a family member, she did not have the right.
17. It was appropriate for the landlord to correspond with residents’ regarding the changes to the tenancy agreement during 2018/2019. This was good practice and gave an opportunity for residents to discuss implications of any changes.
18. The landlord’s staff are obliged to follow its policies and they appropriately acted in line with these. This complaint arose because the fair processes as discussed in the Dispute Resolution Principles were not in place.
19. Once the landlord learnt it was incorrect, it appropriately contacted the resident to advise of this. To put things right it advised the resident she could succeed to the tenancy and remain in the property and offered £250 in recognition of the distress caused. The landlord also exhibited a desire to learn from outcomes and resolved to review its guidance so this situation would not reoccur.
20. The landlord took just over a year after the tenant died to conclude its policy was incorrect. This delay caused the resident a considerable amount of distress. The landlord’s actions put the resident in the position she would have been in had the policy been correct, but it does not negate the impact the delay and uncertainty has had on her.
21. The resident told the Ombudsman she felt the landlord kept coming up with different “excuses” why she could not succeed. One of these was that it viewed her mother as having used the one right to succeed when her father died. The resident argued this happened prior to 3 October 1980 when the succession rules came into place.
22. The resident and her representative were correct this did not constitute a succession, the landlord now acknowledges this. The landlord should not have relied on this point as it confused the issue for both parties and did not allow the resident to have confidence in the landlord’s decision making.
23. The resident also told the Ombudsman the landlord gave a different reason why she could not remain: because the property was too big for her. As previously cited the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of this, except for the alternative accommodation offered in the final resolution letter. However, there are situations when residents can succeed to the tenancy, but not to the property. Social landlords have limited resources and must make best use of their stock. They are obliged to be fair to all residents, balancing demands of existing tenants and applicants. At the point when it believed the resident had no right to succeed, the landlord behaved appropriately when it offered her alternative accommodation in the locality.
24. The landlord sent the resident letters welcoming her to her new tenancy and how to pay the rent. The landlord sought legal advice on 22 April 2022, which confirmed its position a tenancy had not been implied. Regardless of whether a tenancy had been implied, the resident was understandably upset by this and told the Ombudsman she felt like she had been lied to and had been on a roller-coaster. The handling of this caused the resident serious upset. This will form part of the order, to ensure this is addressed to prevent a reoccurrence.
25. The resident raised concerns with the Ombudsman that prior to her mum dying she was advised by 2 different landlord representatives to just take care of her mum and she would be fine. While the landlord did not provide evidence of this, these situations do arise. Front-line staff cannot be expected to decide on complex succession policy in one phone call prior to someone’s death. Training should be provided so the landlord can be confident on the advice given. This will form a recommendation of this report.
26. The landlord was responsible for this situation arising and as such the Ombudsman was minded to make a finding of maladministration. As the Ombudsman acknowledges the landlord has taken steps to address the failure in line with the dispute resolution principles, the determination is of service failure.
27. The landlord’s offer of £250 compensation is the maximum permitted under its policy for this situation. The Ombudsman considers it proportionate to increase the compensation. This is due to the sensitivity of the situation and the lengthy delay for the landlord to recognise it was wrong. The landlord has issued a full apology and as such this will not form part of this determination. The Ombudsman was encouraged to see in its apology letter the landlord’s commitment to update guidance to prevent this situation reoccurring.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed to her mother’s tenancy.

Orders

29. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation totalling £500 for the distress and inconvenience she experienced. This is inclusive of the previously offered £250.
30. The landlord is to arrange to meet with the resident at a convenient time to complete any relevant paperwork. If no paperwork is needed the landlord is to confirm this with the Ombudsman.
31. The landlord is to provide training to front line staff regarding implied tenancies.
32. The landlord is to provide the Ombudsman a copy of the updated guidance it has produced to ensure this does not recur.
33. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

34. The landlord should change the Customer Feedback Policy to remove the reference to the 8-week qualifying period prior to coming to the Housing Ombudsman. This stipulation was removed in October 2022 and the landlord is recommended to review the policy to reflect this.
35. The landlord is to consider providing training to front line staff regarding issues around handling bereavement with a focus on how to manage calls both before and after a tenant dies.