Peabody Trust (202117348)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117348

Peabody Trust

19 September 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the complainant’s request to succeed to his late father’s tenancy.
2. The landlord continuing to collect rent payments from the late tenant’s bank account.
This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, Mr A’s complaint about the landlord continuing to collect rent payments from the late tenant’s bank account falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Mr A wrote to this service on 2 February 2022 to set out the details of his complaint. Within this he explained that he had written to the landlord on 7 December 2021 regarding rent payments which it had continued to collect via direct debit from his late father’s account. He said that he was awaiting its response.
While Mr A’s concerns about this matter are acknowledged, this element of his complaint had not been raised and considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure. Paragraph 42(a) of the scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
This service has seen no evidence that Mr A raised his concern around the landlord continuing to collect rental payments from his late father’s account in either his stage 1 complaint or his stage 2 escalation request. As such it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord was not aware of Mr A’s concerns when responding to the complaints which are being considered in this investigation. It is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate this aspect of the Mr A’s complaint.
Given the time that has elapsed since this matter was first raised with the landlord, it is unclear to this service if this remains an issue of concern to Mr A. If this has not been resolved satisfactorily, Mr A and the executors of his father’s estate should follow this up directly with the landlord and may now wish to raise a formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

As the complainant is not a tenant of the landlord he is referred to within this report as Mr A.
The property is a one bedroom first floor flat within a block of flats.
An assured tenancy of the property was held by the complainant’s father. This tenancy commenced on 5 June 1995.
This tenancy agreement contained a clause relating to succession. Under the heading “Tenant’s rights” at point 4 of the agreement it said:

“Succession to a spouse – on the death of a tenant (where the tenancy is held by one person) the tenancy will automatically vest in the tenant’s spouse under the provisions of the Housing Act 1988, provided that he or she was occupying the premises as his or her only or principal home immediately before the tenant’s death.”

Landlord’s obligations, policy, and procedures

Succession and assignment policy

Within the scoping section of the policy at point 1.4 it says that “the succession rights of a tenancy depend on the type of agreement and the date it was issued.”
The policy outlines the circumstances under which someone may succeed (take over) a tenancy when someone dies.
Only one statutory succession is permitted and who may succeed is dependent on the type of tenancy agreement that was in place. A further contractual succession may be permitted where this is contained within the tenancy agreement.
Point 4.22 states that “a potential successor must be in occupation of the tenancy address as their only or principal home at the time of the death and in some cases for a period of 12 months before the death.”
Appendix 1 of the policy provides a table setting out who has a statutory right to succeed to a tenancy. For tenancies entered into before 1 April 2012 there is a distinction as to who can succeed based on whether the tenancy was a secure tenancy or an assured tenancy. A family member can be considered as a statutory successor where a secure tenancy was in place, and where they can demonstrate they have continuously occupied the dwelling as their only or main home for 12 months prior to the tenant’s death. Family members do not have a statutory right to succeed to an assured tenancy which was entered into before 1 April 2012.
Point 4.3 of the policy sets out the basis on which the landlord will consider the award of a discretionary tenancy. This applies where a tenant has died and there is no statutory or contractual right to succeed to a tenancy. One of the conditions that must be satisfied for a discretionary tenancy to be granted is that the applicant must have lived with the tenant for the previous 12 months.
Point 4.44 confirms that where a discretionary tenancy is not granted, the applicant has the right of appeal, which will be considered by a head of service, assistant director, or director of the landlord.
Sitting beneath this policy is the landlord’s procedure which acts as a guide to officers on the steps to be taken on receiving an application to succeed to a tenancy. This establishes that “the process of granting successions [should be carried out] efficiently, to avoid the need for a use and occupation account …”
Under section 2 of the procedure document, under the heading “key terms” this provides the following definitions:
1. Statutory succession is a right set down in legislation. It gives certain people (statutory successors) the legal right to inherit a tenancy on the death of a tenant. In this event, the tenancy passes by law to the successor.
2. Contractual succession is a succession that takes place through an additional right to succession granted through the tenancy agreement, as opposed to a statutory right. In this event, the tenancy ends, and a new tenancy is created in the name of the successor.
3. Discretionary succession is when the landlord grants a succession where the applicant does not have a statutory or contractual right. These should only occur in exceptional circumstances.
This document sets out the roles and responsibilities of the landlord’s officers in progressing an application for succession. It provides a list of the documentation required to support an application to succeed to a tenancy and explains that all cases should be referred for a fraud investigation.
Where succession is not granted the procedure sets out the actions to be followed to recover possession of the property.

Complaints policy

The landlord’s complaints policy provides a definition of a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction about the provision of or failure to provide a service.”
The landlord operates a two stage complaint process. At stage 1 the complaint is investigated by a case manager from the relevant service area. An independent review is then undertaken at stage 2 by the landlord’s customer experience team.
The complaints policy in place at the time of Mr A’s complaint did not provide a timescale for responses at either stage.
A revised policy is available on the landlord’s website published in February 2023. This provides that a stage 1 complaint will be investigated and responded to within 10 working days. For a stage 2 complaint a response will be provided within 20 working days. This is compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Point 4.9 sets out the issues that will not be investigated by the landlord through its complaint’s procedure, this includes “matters that have been determined under another … policy appeal process.”

Summary of events

Mr A’s father passed away on 12 April 2020. Mr A notified the landlord via email on 21 May 2020 and informed it that he had been living with his father since 2016. He said that he was currently a student and had been living on campus ahead of the national lockdown introduced in March 2020, when he returned to live with his father.
The landlord wrote to Mr A on 28 May 2020. It provided him with an application form to apply to succeed to his late father’s tenancy and enclosed a notice to quit to bring his father’s tenancy to an end. This notice was addressed to the personal representatives of the tenant and dated 28 May 2020. It expired on 30 August 2020. A note was made on the landlord’s case file the same day, recording that it was still awaiting a copy of the tenant’s death certificate.
Mr A submitted the completed succession application form on 8 July 2020. Within this he confirmed that he had been living with his father since 21 November 2016 and that the address was his main and principal home.
The landlord’s case notes record that documents were received and uploaded to its system on 9 July 2020. This does not give a record of the individual documents provided.
Mr A contacted the landlord on 3 August 2020, seeking an update on his application. Further contact was made by Mr A on 14 August 2020, and a record of this contact was passed on internally by the landlord to be followed up.
Mr A’s brother called the landlord on 28 August 2020, seeking an update on behalf of his brother.
On 3 September 2020, Mr A sent an email to the landlord seeking an update on his application. He explained that he was now living solely at his late father’s address, having cancelled his accommodation at university. He went on to advise that he had provided relevant documents to the local officer who had advised that these had been passed on.
A note was made within the landlord’s case records on 11 September 2020 that the succession application had been submitted without supporting documents and that the officer would email Mr A to request the required information.
On 14 September 2020, Mr A completed an online complaint form through the landlord’s website. Within this he said that he had “submitted a succession application a few months ago and I am still yet to hear from anyone regarding my situation.” He explained that he had received no contact from the landlord regarding his application and asked it to contact him.
In reply, on 15 September 2020, the landlord wrote to advise that he would be contacted by its lettings team to request the supporting documents it required and encouraged him to respond.
On 30 September 2020, the landlord emailed Mr A. It confirmed that his application had been received, but no supporting documents were included. For it to finish processing his application, it requested that he provide the following information:
1. Details of his relationship to the tenant.
2. Proof of his identity (for example, copy of a passport, full birth certificate).
3. Proof of his income.
  1. If claiming benefits, one of the following:

(1) Written confirmation of income support or job seekers allowance;

(2) child benefit entitlement letter; or

(3) a working family tax credit or housing benefit letter.

If working, one of the following:

(1) Last 4 monthly payslips;

(2) Last 8 weekly payslips; or

(3) If self-employed, his accounts, an approved Inland Revenue self-assessment form or a P60.

Proof that he had been living at the property for the period of 12 months prior to the death of the tenant, (for example, driving license, utility bills, council tax, bank statements).

Mr A responded on 1 October 2020, providing supporting documents. In response the landlord requested additional bank statements, which Mr A provided by return email.
The landlord’s case notes record that Mr A contacted it on 13 November 2020 seeking an update on his application.
On 24 November 2020, Mr A emailed the landlord providing further bank statements. He explained that having checked through the documents previously supplied, he had identified that he had sent in the wrong bank statements. He now attached those that related to his father’s address.
On 18 December 2020, Mr A completed a second online complaint form. Within this he explained that he had “yet to hear back after a few months … I sent in a succession form months ago and have been emailing the case officer about my case, but I have not heard from her in a few weeks.” He asked for an update on his application. Further contact from Mr A was recorded within the landlord’s case notes on 21 December 2020.
The landlord emailed Mr A on 14 January 2021. It apologised for the delay, which it said was because of a backlog of cases. It advised that, as part of its process, a fraud check had been requested. It explained that it expected to receive the fraud report the following week, and it would then decide on his application.
The ‘tenancy fraud succession report’ provided as evidence to this service was completed on 5 January 2021. Receipt of this report was recorded on the landlord’s case notes on 18 February 2021.
This report detailed the documents reviewed and the checks it had carried out. It recorded that Mr A was linked to another address where he was registered on the electoral roll and where he held accounts. The report concluded that Mr A’s application to succeed should be declined as the evidence did not support his claim that he resided at the address.
On 29 July 2021, Mr A completed an online contact form in which he explained that he was still awaiting an update on his succession application. He further chased the landlord on 7 August 2021.
On 24 August 2021, the landlord wrote to Mr A refusing his application to succeed to his father’s tenancy. This letter advised that having considered the evidence provided he did not “qualify for an additional right [to the tenancy].” It said that:
1. He did not meet the 12 month criteria and was linked to another address from 2016 to April 2020. It quoted 4.22 of its policy as the basis for this decision.
2. A notice to quit had been served terminating the tenancy from 30 August 2020. It advised that he had 28 days to vacate the property and should return the keys to the landlord.
3. If the property was not vacated the landlord would take legal action to “seek possession.”
4. Costs incurred as a result of court action or dealing with items left in the premises “may be recharged to you.”
5. Mr A would continue to be charged a weekly use and occupation charge. This was effective from 31 August 2020.
6. “If you require legal advice you will need to contact your local Law Centre, CAB or Solicitor.”
In response Mr A emailed the landlord on 27 August 2021 to raise a formal complaint and stated his belief that its decision was wrong. He said that he believed he had a right to succeed and that while he had been away at university between September 2019 and March 2020, this remained his primary residence.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 1 September 2021. In its response it advised that:
1. His application to succeed to his father’s tenancy had been denied on the grounds that he had links to a property elsewhere. It specified that his bank statements and credit report were linked to his mother’s address.
2. As the supporting evidence provided did not show that he had been living at the property for 12 months or more, it was unable to agree to the succession.
3. This was its final response at stage 1. He could escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint procedure, where the case would be independently reviewed.
Mr A requested an escalation of his complaint on 10 September 2021. He said that:
1. He believed he had a right to succeed and that he found “the landlord’s decision incompatible with this.”
2. He had moved in permanently with his father when he was 18 following a breakdown in his relationship with his mother. He explained why he continued to have links with his mother address.
3. The documents from his employer demonstrated that he resided with his father.
4. He would be made homeless and that he was seeking legal advice.
5. He believed that he had a right to succeed under the Housing Act.
The landlord recorded Mr A’s request to escalate his complaint and responded at stage 2 of its complaints procedure on 26 October 2021. In its reply it advised that it understood that Mr A was unhappy with its decision to decline his request to succeed to his father’s tenancy. It explained that:
1. It had to adhere to its succession and assignment policy.
2. He had told the landlord that he had been living with his father since 2016, but he was not recorded on its tenancy records.
3. It had found that he was not registered on the electoral roll at his father’s address but was at his mother’s address.
4. The information provided did not confirm that he had resided at his father’s address for a period of 12 months and that its credit checks showed a link to his mother’s address.
5. His bank statements showed his father’s address until Oct 2019.
6. He did not meet the criteria for succession.
7. A use and occupation account had been created as he continued to reside at the property. This did not grant him a tenancy and should not be considered as rent.
8. His complaint was not upheld, and it could not grant him a tenancy.
9. It acknowledged that the application had taken an unreasonably long time to be assessed. It offered him £50 compensation for the unreasonable delay in managing the succession application process.
The landlord contacted Mr A on 11 November 2021 to confirm it had closed his complaint and that its decision not to grant his request to succeed to his late father’s tenancy had been upheld. It notified him that he should vacate the property within 28 days.
Mr A was unhappy with the landlord’s decision and brought his complaint to this service on 17 November 2021, providing a copy of the landlord’s stage 2 reply. This service advised that he should seek independent advice about the notice to vacate he had received and provided him with contact details for both Shelter and Citizen’s Advice.
The landlord emailed Mr A on 2 February 2022 to ask if he was still living at his late father’s property. By return Mr A confirmed that he was.
Mr A contacted this service on 2 February 2022 setting out the details of his complaint. He advised:
1. He was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to refuse his succession application.
2. He was also extremely unhappy with the time it had taken to respond to emails and its lack of communication with him.
3. He explained that he had contacted the landlord on 7 December 2021 regarding rent payments which it had continued to collect via direct debit from his late father’s account. He was awaiting its response.

Events post internal complaints procedure

On 27 July 2022, the landlord served a notice to quit. This expired on 28 August 2022. The notice was served both on the personal representatives of Mr A’s late father and the administrator of the estate. The cover letter sent with the notice to quit explained that the notice replaced the earlier notice dated 28 May 2020 which contained an error. The letter said that the landlord considered that there was no statutory or discretionary right to succeed to the tenancy. It explained that it intended to take court action to seek possession of the property and would rely on this notice.
The landlord wrote separately to Mr A on 27 July 2022. This letter set out the background to Mr A’s application to succeed to his late father’s tenancy and the basis on which the landlord had made its decision that he was not eligible to succeed. This included a copy of the notice to quit. It said that:
1. It considered that he was not eligible for a statutory succession to the tenancy.
2. It was also of the view that he was not eligible for a discretionary tenancy of the property, in line with its succession and assignment policy. He did not fulfil the conditions required to be considered for a discretionary tenancy, which included that he must have lived with the tenant for the 12 months leading up to the tenant’s death.
3. It had considered the evidence provided and the outcome of its own fraud checks. It set out the details of its findings and its conclusion that Mr A was linked to another address and had not resided at the property for the period required.
4. It intended to take court action based on the notice to quit served on 27 July 2022 to seek possession of the property.
5. Mr A should “make any representations in writing, in relation to your personal circumstances or any other matters you would like taken into account…”
The landlord wrote to Mr A again on 19 October 2022. In this letter it:
1. Confirmed its decision that he was not eligible for a statutory succession.
2. Further stated that he would not be considered for a discretionary tenancy.
3. Had reached this decision as he had not evidenced that he had resided at the property for the 12 months preceding his father’s death.
4. Further advised that it would now be instructing its legal services team to start legal proceedings to recover possession of the property.
5. Advised him to approach the local authority’s housing service for assistance.
6. Set out that he had a right to appeal this decision. This was to be submitted in writing within 7 days of the letter and would be reviewed by a senior member of the landlord’s staff.
Mr A responded to the landlord on 16 November 2022. He explained that the unresolved issue was causing him anxiety and stress and was affecting his mental health. He said that he had not been residing at the property. He explained that he had previously contacted the landlord seeking a refund of the rent payments that had been taken from his late father’s account. He was still awaiting a response. He further asked that he be notified of the court date when the landlord’s application for possession would be considered. This communication was referred to the landlord’s legal team to follow up.
Mr A advised this service on 21 June 2023 the landlord had taken legal action and been granted possession of the property on 31 January 2023. He had returned the keys for the flat. He said that he wished his complaint to still be investigated as he felt that the landlord’s response to his situation was unreasonable and that its “response time to my emails throughout the process was disgusting.”

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the complainant’s request to succeed to his late father’s tenancy

Mr A’s father held an assured tenancy with the landlord which was entered into in June 1995. This agreement contained a clause which set out that an automatic right to succeed to the tenancy existed for the tenant’s spouse. No additional clauses were contained within the tenancy agreement to provide additional grounds for succession.
The landlord’s assignment and succession policy set out that family members do not have a statutory right to succeed to an assured tenancy entered into before 1 April 2012.
In declining Mr A’s application to a succeed his father’s tenancy the landlord’s decision was correct, as there was no statutory right for him to succeed as a family member. There was also no contractual right for succession. The tenancy agreement held by his father restricted succession to the statutory right available to a spouse.
In considering the landlord’s communication with Mr A, it did not set out clearly the grounds for a statutory succession and the restriction contained within the tenancy agreement. It is unclear why the landlord did not refer in the first instance to the tenancy agreement held by Mr A’s late father in terms of the expressed succession rights. In failing to do so it raised an expectation for Mr A that his application for succession would be successful. This was compounded by the significant delays in the landlord’s handling of his application.
From the submission of the application to the landlord’s request for supporting evidence almost 3 months elapsed. A further 3 months elapsed before the landlord notified Mr A that the matter had been referred for a fraud check. This was despite Mr A responding in a timely manner to the landlord’s requests for information.
The landlord’s fraud check concluded that Mr A’s application should be rejected on the basis that he was linked to another address, and it could not be confirmed that the property had been his main and principal home for the 12 months prior to his father’s death. This decision appears to have been made on 5 January 2021, and was recorded on the landlord’s case notes system on 18 February 2021. The landlord did not write to Mr A until 24 August 2021 to notify him of its decision to decline his succession application. This was a full 13 months after he submitted his application.
The landlord’s letter offered no apology for the significant delay in reaching its decision or an explanation as to why it had taken over a year to conclude its investigations. There was no expression of sympathy within the letter and its tone was unempathetic. The letter set out that Mr A failed to provide sufficient evidence that he was living with his father for the 12 months preceding his father’s death. It did not specify whether it considered his application under the statutory or contractual right to succession, or if it considered his application under its discretionary succession process, advising only that he did not have an “additional right to a tenancy”.
In declining his succession request, the landlord told Mr A that he should vacate the property within 28 days. This was based on the notice to quit served in May 2020. It further advised that a use and occupation account had been set up and informed him of the amount he would be charged. It advised that this was effective from 31 August 2020. Based on the evidence presented, this was the first reference to the creation of a use and occupation account and the charges that were applied. Given the time that had elapsed this was likely to leave Mr A with a significant debt.
Finally, the letter advised that “If you require legal advice you will need to contact your local Law Centre, CAB or Solicitor.” It did not offer any additional advice or support from its own staff or advise of any possible route for appealing the landlord’s decision.
Considering the landlord’s assignment and succession policy, an appeal would only be considered where the request to succeed to a tenancy had been considered through its discretionary route. While there was a lack of clarity in its early communication as to the basis upon which it had considered his application, in its communication with him in July and October 2022 the landlord confirmed that it had rejected his application on both statutory and discretionary grounds. He should therefore have been offered the opportunity to submit an appeal in line with the landlord’s policy to be considered by a senior member of staff.
Having not been provided with a right to appeal, Mr A raised his wish to challenge the landlord’s decision through its complaints process.
The landlord did not manage Mr A’s succession application within an appropriate timescale and did not meet its stated aim to manage cases efficiently, “to avoid the need for a use and occupation account.” From the evidence presented this case was unnecessarily delayed. It should have been clear to officers from the outset, and certainly once it had undertaken a review of the tenancy agreement, that Mr A did not have a statutory or contractual right to succeed.
The landlord does appear to have considered his application in line with its discretionary succession policy, but this was not made clear in its communication with Mr A.
The landlord demonstrated a lack of empathy towards the situation within which Mr A found himself after the sudden and unexpected loss of his father. He was offered no support or guidance around his application, the raising of a use and occupation account and his future housing.
Taking this into account, while the landlord’s decision to decline the succession application was not wrong, there was maladministration in its handling of the application.
Compensation was offered to Mr A in the landlord’s response to his stage 2 complaint. The landlord noted that the application process had taken an “unreasonably long time”, as it dated back to 2020. It apologised that this was “so protracted at such a challenging time” and offered £50 compensation for the unreasonable delay.
The landlord took over a year to notify Mr A of its final decision to decline his request to succeed to his late father’s tenancy, numerous contacts were required from Mr A to get updates as to its progress and there was a lack of empathy shown through the process by the landlord. The offer of compensation made was not proportionate in these circumstances. Having considered the landlord’s compensation guidance and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, the Ombudsman has ordered a more fitting sum of compensation, aimed at putting things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Mr A completed 2 online complaint forms in September and December 2020, chasing contact with and updates from the landlord.
On 15 September 2020, the landlord wrote to advise that he would be contacted by its lettings team to request the supporting documents it required to progress his application and encouraged him to respond. No reference was made to the fact that his contact had been made through the landlord’s online complaint form, and a stage 1 complaint was not recorded.
On 18 December 2020, Mr A completed a further online complaint form. He expressed his dissatisfaction and explained that his case had been outstanding for some months and he was seeking an update on his application. No evidence has been provided that this contact was responded to, and no formal complaint was recorded at either stage 1 or stage 2 of the landlord’s process.
Following the landlord’s refusal to grant his succession request, Mr A submitted a further complaint on 27 August 2021. This was logged at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint’s process. In this he challenged the landlord’s decision, setting out his belief that he had a right to succeed.
The landlord’s response was timely, reconfirming its decision to decline his succession application based on the evidence around his occupation. The letter concluded by advising Mr A that he could escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. This was a missed opportunity to provide more detail around his succession rights, including its policy around discretionary succession or appropriately direct Mr A to obtain further advice and support.
Mr A requested an escalation of his complaint on 10 September 2021. The landlord’s response was provided after 32 working days. While this was not at odds with the landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time of Mr A’s complaint, this was not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code published in July 2020 which set a timeframe of 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
The landlord’s response, having reviewed documentation relating to Mr A’s application, once again upheld its decision to decline his succession application based on the lack of evidence that he had lived with his father, as his main home for the 12 months prior to his father’s death. Once again this was a missed opportunity to provide a wider explanation, or to consider its wider handling of his application.
The landlord’s handling of Mr A’s complaints was ineffective. His initial complaint contacts were not dealt with through its formal process, with no response being provided to his second complaint. A formal complaint was only recorded when this was raised in direct response to its decision to decline his succession request and appears to have been used in lieu of a formal appeal.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to consider the key principles of dispute resolution set out by this service: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In providing its formal complaint responses the landlord has inappropriately used its complaints process in lieu of an appeal forum. In addition to its review of its decision to decline Mr A succession request, this was an opportunity to provide greater clarity as to the reasons for its decision, and to consider the process followed in reaching it, alongside recognition of the poor communication and significant delay. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complainant’s request to succeed to his late father’s tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, the landlord continuing to collect rent payments from the late tenant’s bank account is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of Mr A’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took over 12 months to inform Mr A of its decision to decline his succession request. In doing so it failed to provide clarity around the full basis for its decision.
It allowed Mr A to use its complaints process as an appeal process and failed to effectively manage his expectations as to the likelihood of a positive outcome. It should have been clearer from the outset as to the basis for a statutory succession and expressed the detail contained within the tenancy agreement to which he was seeking to succeed.
The landlord failed to recognise early contacts from Mr A as formal complaints. Its response to his formal complaints were limited to a review of its decision to decline his succession application rather than considering the wider process and how it had managed its contact with Mr A.
There were significant delays in the process which were not fully explained by the landlord.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Provide a written apology to Mr A for the distress and inconvenience caused to him by its poor handling of his succession application and the significant delays in reaching its decision.
2. Pay Mr A, a total of £500 compensation calculated as follows:
  1. £250 in recognition of the adverse effect caused to him by the significant delays he experienced in the landlord providing a decision on his succession application.
  2. £250 in recognition of the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. The landlord’s offer of £50 compensation should be deducted from the above total, if already paid.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. To avoid the failings identified in this case from being repeated, undertake a review of its process for managing requests to succeed to a tenancy following the death of a tenant. The landlord should consider including guide timescales within its procedure for staff and ensuring that there is greater clarity within its communication to residents, setting out clearly the legislative framework within which its decisions are made. The landlord should then deliver training to its relevant staff in the application of its process and/or procedure.