Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council (202125040)
This complaint is about the landlord’s decision to end, and not regrant, the resident’s tenancy. The landlord became aware that the spouse was seeking housing in April 2020 and that the relationship had broken down. At the time, the landlord placed the spouse on the lowest banding for rehousing. According to their notes the spouse had “no need” and could continue to reside in the matrimonial home. Specifically, the landlord said that the spouse and resident did not qualify under its separation criteria as there were no children in the property. As the spouse had been in prison since 2015, this seems like an unreasonable approach from the landlord. It would have been reasonable to consider what was in the interests of all parties in such a situation and whether exceptional circumstances applied. The landlord then gave 2 sets of conflicting advice in June 2020. It told the resident and spouse that the tenancy would need to be terminated, but then it advised the spouse they could relinquish half of the tenancy. The landlord does not seem to have considered this contradiction at any point during its internal process and how this may have affected the resident and spouse’s choices. The resident has maintained that they always intended to remain in the property. They had lived on their own for nearly 5 years so it seemed unreasonable to them that they could now be evicted. It is quite clear that at this stage there was a dispute over the tenancy and a matrimonial breakdown. The landlord should have advised both parties to seek professional legal advice and, if necessary, apply to the Family Court. Based on the evidence provided by the landlord, there is no indication that this option was ever considered. There is no further evidence of consultation with the resident or spouse until the landlord offered the property to the spouse in December 2020. According to its own records, it said that it expected the tenancy to be ended at the point of such an offer. That did not happen and the spouse was allowed to sign a new tenancy. This is despite the landlord’s policy stating that, on moving from a joint tenancy, both parties should sign a notice to quit. It is clearly preferable for a tenant to hold a single tenancy, and it is normally expected that a resident has a primary home for the purpose of the tenancy agreement. However, the landlord allowed a situation where this was not the case. While it could have decided to seek possession of the resident’s home on this basis, which would have been in line with its policy, instead it decided to advise the spouse to submit a notice to quit. If it had followed its policy, the resident would have received warnings prior to the tenancy being ended. The resident suggested that the notice to quit was obtained by the landlord “bullying” the spouse. There is no evidence to support this statement, and so we make no judgement on this. However, the briefing paper makes it clear that landlords should avoid such a perception by not providing advice on submitting a notice to quit. The landlord’s actions may have created a reasonable perception of bias because no advice was being offered to the other party to the tenancy. Had the landlord followed its own policy, it is likely that both parties would have been able to access advice and potentially avoid the situation that resulted. The landlord determined under its policy that it could not allow the resident to remain in the property once the tenancy ended. We have no evidence as to how this decision was communicated, but based on the other evidence available it is likely that this was done over the phone. The subsequent appeal was heard in a meeting. The decision letter says that the landlord only considered the resident’s support network, the fact that the tenancy was terminated legally, and the landlord’s need for 3-bedroom houses. The landlord’s policy says that it should have considered exceptional circumstances in such a case. There is no evidence that it considered the circumstances that led to the tenancy being ended. The landlord declined to consider the stage 2 appeal request on the basis that it did not meet its criteria. It is clear there is a dispute over what evidence the landlord’s occupational therapist considered. In the evidence we have received, we can see that an occupational health assessment was made which recommended a 1-bedroom adapted or non-adapted property. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider why the resident was receiving housing benefit for a 2-bed property in this case. While the 2 organisations may not necessarily agree on any such decision, we think the landlord should have been curious about this. Instead, it simply told the resident that they should query this with the housing benefit team. From the point at which the spouse was released from prison, we can find very little evidence that the landlord has followed its own policies and good practice: It offered contradicting advice on avenues to find a new tenancy for the spouse. It failed to offer appropriate advice to either the resident or the spouse, in respect of legal options. It failed to follow its own process for moving tenancies. It circumvented its own policy for situations where a joint tenant left the property. It did not consider exceptional circumstances in respect of regranting a tenancy. Taking these failures into consideration, alongside the impact of the resident losing their tenancy, we determined that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this complaint. It then comes to how the situation can be resolved. While we have determined there to be a significant failure in how the resident’s situation was handled, we do recognise that remaining in a 3-bedroom un-adapted property may not be appropriate for the resident. We also must consider that, if the landlord had followed the correct process, it is possible that the tenancy would still have been ended. With this in mind, we wrote to the landlord to ask what it intended to do moving forward. We asked it to consider whether it could regrant a tenancy to the resident considering the failings identified. The landlord then wrote to the resident to offer: 3 direct offers of housing, with moving costs to be paid. £1,000 in compensation. We have considered the landlord’s offer and determined that it was a reasonable one. With this in mind, we agree that it has offered a suitable remedy for the failings identified, following our intervention. The landlord should ensure it carries out these actions after considering the resident’s support needs, housing preferences, and any other evidence it has available. It would not be appropriate for the Ombudsman to make orders as to what kind of offers the landlord should make, as this would be within the landlord’s expertise and knowledge.