Vivid Housing Limited (202225825)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225825

Vivid Housing Limited

6 February 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 for succession to his mother’s tenancy.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident’s late mother held an assured tenancy with the landlord of a 3-bedroomed house. The resident has a child who stays with him every other weekend.
  2. On 6 December 2021, the resident completed an application to be added to his mother’s tenancy. He was unable to submit this application as his mother’s illness progressed unexpectedly rapidly.
  3. The resident’s mother passed away on 17 December 2021. On 10 February 2022, the landlord issued a Notice to Quit (NTQ) to the resident in relation to his mother’s property.
  4. In February 2022, the resident applied to succeed to his mother’s tenancy. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 February 2022, to ask him to provide council tax bills and electoral roll information to show how long he had lived at his mother’s address.
  5. On 14 February 2022, the local authority informed the landlord that the resident had been liable for council tax for a separate tenancy, between 28 January 2015 and 30 July 2021.
  6. The landlord contacted the resident on 23 February 2022, to say that as he had not lived at his mother’s property for more than 12 months preceding her death, he was not eligible to succeed to her tenancy.
  7. On 1 March 2022, a member of the landlord’s staff visited the resident. They informed him they had not been able to confirm that his mother’s property had been his main and principal home for the relevant 12-month period prior to her death, as he had had private rented accommodation elsewhere during that time. The landlord said it was aware that the resident had a child who stayed with him every other weekend. They said that if the landlord were to grant the resident discretionary succession, his mother’s property would still be too big for his needs. The landlord said it would grant the resident Use and Occupation of the property to allow him time to look for alternative accommodation. The landlord advised the resident to apply to the local authority’s housing register and to contact Citizen’s Advice or Shelter for advice. The resident’s partner said she was not happy that the staff member had approached the resident without warning prior to this visit. The staff member said they had done so as they had been struggling to get hold of the resident and had wanted to introduce themselves before coming to visit. The resident’s partner said she did not want the staff member to visit again.
  8. Citizen’s Advice submitted a complaint to the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 8 March 2022. It said:
    1. The resident wanted to exercise the special succession rights under the terms and conditions of his mother’s tenancy. It said he did so as a member of his mother’s family who had occupied the premises as his primary home for the 12 months preceding his mother’s death.
    2. His mother’s property had been the resident’s primary home since late 2020 as her care needs had increased. The resident had provided medical letters to demonstrate this.
    3. It had enclosed correspondence addressed to the resident at his mother’s property. It also provided bank statements showing payments the resident had made in relation to utility bills at the property and for his mother’s medical transport. His mother’s property was his registered address with government departments such as the DVLA and the DWP. It enclosed supporting letters from his mother’s neighbours confirming that he had been living at his mother’s address.
    4. It asked the landlord to reconsider his succession application and not to take any enforcement action to seek possession of his mother’s property until it had reconsidered his application.
  9. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 13 April 2022. It said:
    1. It had not been able to confirm that the resident had been living at his mother’s property for the 12 months preceding his mother’s death. The resident had a tenancy at another address which had ended in June 2021. It was the landlord’s understanding that the resident had moved into his mother’s property in November 2021.
    2. It would like to offer the resident discretionary succession to a one-bedroom tenancy. This was because, although the resident had a child who visited fortnightly, he did not have sole custody, and therefore it had matched its offer to his housing need. It said it had to make the best use of its housing stock.
    3. It understood that when a member of its staff had explained to the resident that his application for succession had not been successful, he had become upset. It apologised that this had happened and said it would follow-up with the staff member involved.
    4. It had not found service failure as it had followed its succession process. However, it was sorry if this process had caused any upset to the resident. It said this was not intended and it would feedback to its teams that a sensitive approach was needed when handling succession applications.
  10. On 11 May 2022, the landlord contacted the resident. It said it had not heard from him as to whether he wished to accept its discretionary succession offer of a tenancy of a one-bed property. If it did not hear from him by 20 May 2022, it would assume he had declined the offer and would end the Use and Occupation of his mother’s property and take steps to seek possession.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord on 20 May 2022 and asked it to extend the deadline it had given him to accept its offer as he was seeking further advice. The landlord said it could not extend this deadline as he had had since March 2022 to accept its offer. The resident accepted the offer of a one-bed tenancy on 20 May 2022. The landlord said it would send the resident paperwork in relation to a management move for him to complete.
  12. On 28 June 2022 and 6 July 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. He said he was unhappy about the way its staff member had spoken to him in relation to his succession request. He said he wanted the landlord to give its staff training on how to speak to people sensitively. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint on 7 July 2022. It said it had investigated the resident’s complaint and had asked its staff member to be more mindful in future and they had taken this on board. It would remind staff to deal with succession requests and bereavements sensitively. It said it had not found service failure as its processes had been followed but offered the resident £50 in recognition of the fact that he had felt his succession request had been handled badly.
  13. On 24 August 2022, the landlord forwarded a copy of the stage 1 complaint response it had issued on 13 April 2022, to the resident as it had been told he had not received a copy. The landlord said it had provided a copy to Citizen’s Advice as it had raised a stage 1 complaint on his behalf.
  14. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint procedure, on 9 September 2022. He said he did not want the staff member who had upset him to contact him again. He wished to remain in his mother’s property as his child needed a bedroom when he visited. He said he had a dog and needed a garden for it.
  15. On the 27 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It said its decision to offer the resident discretionary succession to a tenancy of a one-bed property, was fair and reasonable. It said that although his child stayed with him every fortnight, he did not meet the criteria for a 3-bedroomed house. As a social landlord it had a responsibility to allocate its homes according to need and there was a shortage of 3-bedroomed homes for overcrowded families.
  16. The landlord issued a further Notice to Quit on 20 January 2023 which expired on 19 February 2023.
  17. The resident complained to the Ombudsman on 24 January 2023 about the landlord declining his application for succession.
  18. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 January 2023 to say that its offer of a one-bed tenancy still stood. On 31 January 2023, it clarified that the resident needed to apply to the local authority housing register and complete the management move paperwork, it had sent him in May 2022.
  19. On 23 February 2023, the landlord confirmed to the local authority that it would not enforce the Notice to Quit it had served on the resident, unless he were to decline any one-bedroom property offered to him.
  20. The landlord offered the resident a one-bedroom property on 16 June 2023. The resident has confirmed to the Service that he has accepted this property as he felt he had no choice but to do so.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of events after the resident accepted its offer of discretionary succession to a one-bed tenancy. As this offer was made as part of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response to the resident, the Service considers it to be a continuation of the complaint raised and therefore appropriate to consider as part of this assessment.
  2. The resident has mentioned in his complaint that his health was affected by the landlord’s handling of his succession request. The Service does not doubt the resident’s comments about his health. However, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced due to any errors by the landlord as well as the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about his health.

Policies and procedures

  1. Under the standard terms and conditions associated with the resident’s mother’s tenancy, the landlord can grant special succession rights to a member of the tenant’s family who has lawfully occupied the property as their only and principal home at the time of the tenant’s death, and for the 12-month period prior to the tenant’s death.
  2. The landlord’s death and succession procedure states that the tenancy does not end on the death of the sole tenant, it must be ended by service of a Notice to Quit (NTQ), even if a succession application has been submitted for assessment. The policy also states that a Use and Occupation charge must be created during the succession application, or where an occupant remains past the NTQ end date.
  3. A Use and Occupation agreement is used where a person is occupying a property and is liable to make a payment to the landlord, in order to occupy the property without a formal tenancy agreement being in place. These agreements are often used to allow someone living in the property after the end of a tenancy, time to seek alternative accommodation.
  4. The landlord’s complaint process has 2 stages. At stage 1, a response will be provided within 10 working days. At stage 2, a response will be provided within 20 working days. If an extension of time is needed at either stage, the procedure states that the landlord will contact the resident to advise them when it will respond.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for succession

  1. The landlord acted appropriately in issuing a Notice to Quit to the resident as his mother’s representative on 10 February 2022. In doing so, the landlord acted in accordance with its death and succession policy, set out above, which states that an NTQ should be issued on the death of a tenant, even in cases where an application for succession has been submitted.
  2. The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to consider the resident’s application to succeed to his mother’s tenancy if he could show that he had been living in his mother’s property as his only and principal home, for a period of 12 months, prior to her death. In doing so it acted in accordance with its tenancy terms and conditions, set out above, which state that it can grant special succession rights where a close family member can demonstrate that they have been living at the property for a period of 12 months prior to the death of the tenant.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it had not been able to confirm that the resident had been living at his mother’s property as his principal and only home for the 12-month period preceding her death. However, it had decided to offer the resident discretionary succession of a one-bed tenancy. It acted appropriately in considering the evidence the resident had provided to support his case that he had been living at his mother’s property for the required period. Having considered the evidence, the landlord was entitled to reach the conclusion that it could not confirm that the resident had been living at the property as his only and principal home, for the required 12 months prior to his mother’s death.
  4. The resident had provided evidence that he was living at his mother’s property for the required period but there is also evidence that he had another tenancy until November 2021. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider that his mother’s property was not his principal and only home.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably in deciding to offer the resident discretionary succession to a one-bed tenancy. It is understandable that this will have been disappointing for the resident as his child stayed with him every other weekend and he wanted his child to have his own bedroom. However, where the primary care of a child lies with another person, landlords are not obligated to ensure there is a bedroom for a child who does not live at the property as their primary home. Landlords are entitled to recover possession of under-occupied properties to ensure the best use of their stock particularly in areas of high housing demand. The landlord’s decision to offer the resident a tenancy of a one-bed property was fair in the circumstances as it addressed the resident’s housing need.
  6. The landlord acted appropriately in addressing the resident’s concern about the way in which a member of the landlord’s staff had dealt with him in the aftermath of his mother’s death. It was right to advise that its processes had been followed correctly, however, its service to its residents encompasses more than just whether or not, it follows its processes. The way in which the landlord’s staff interact and deal with residents, also forms part of its service. However, it has recognised the need for a sensitive approach and demonstrated a willingness to learn by committing to feedback to relevant teams the importance of handling applications for succession with sensitivity.
  7. It is accepted that the resident would have preferred to have no further dealings with the staff member in question, however this is not always possible where a tenancy falls within the remit of a particular staff member. Landlords do not always have sufficient staff resources to allow them to substitute a member of staff for another. It was reasonable therefore for the landlord to advise the resident that it would seek to minimise contact between him and the staff member, however it could not prevent them from interacting with him entirely when carrying out their job role.
  8. The resident told the landlord that the way in which it dealt with his succession request had affected his health. The landlord responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint and apologised to him. It acted appropriately in advising the resident to contact Citizen’s Advice and Shelter for advice. It also advised him to consider contacting the charity Cruse, for bereavement support.
  9. The landlord acted appropriately in issuing a Use and Occupation charge after the expiry of the Notice to Quit on 13 March 2022. This was in line with its death and succession policy which states that Use and Occupation agreements should be used where an occupant remains in a property past the NTQ end date. This gave the resident time to either seek his own alternative accommodation or to accept the landlord’s offer of a one-bed tenancy. The landlord also acted appropriately in suspending any possession action once the Notice to Quit issued on 20 January 2023, expired on 19 February 2023, to give the resident time to complete the necessary paperwork required to accept its offer of a one-bed tenancy. This also allowed time for the resident to apply to the local authority housing register, as this formed part of the process of the landlord offering him a one-bedroom property.
  10. This was understandably a distressing situation for the resident and his family. However, the landlord followed its processes correctly and its handling of the resident’s request to succeed to his mother’s tenancy was reasonable. Therefore, the Service has not found any maladministration in relation to this aspect of the complaint and the landlord does not need to do anything further in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. Citizen’s Advice submitted a stage 1 complaint on 8 March 2022 on the resident’s behalf. The landlord issued its written stage 1 complaint response on 13 April 2022. The landlord’s complaints policy, set out above, states that the landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, however it sent its response 15 working days outside of its timeframe for doing so. This was a failing which will have caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience as he was kept waiting for a response to his complaint for longer than he should have been.
  2. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to Citizen’s Advice, as the resident’s representatives, it appears that the resident may not have been sent a copy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to send a stage 1 complaint response to the resident as well, unless it had been explicitly asked by the resident or his representative not to do so. However, the impact on the resident would not have been significant as he could have asked Citizen’s Advice to provide him with a copy. It is recommended however that where complaints are brought on behalf of a resident, the landlord ensures that it sends a copy of its complaint responses to the resident, unless the resident has explicitly asked it not to do so.
  3. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, published on our website, sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The guidance states that where service failure has been identified which has not been fully put right, £50-£100 compensation should be considered. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its failures in its handling of the associated complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s succession request.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 for its failures in its handling of the associated complaint within 4 weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that it provides the Service with evidence of compliance by the same date.

Recommendations:

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Ensure that it sends a copy of its complaint responses to residents as well as to residents’ representatives unless a resident has explicitly asked it not to do so.
    2. Pay the resident the £50 it offered him via its complaints process if it has not done so already.