Westminster City Council (202000679)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000679

Westminster City Council

28 January 2021

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 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 complainant 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 response to the complainant’s concerns about the administration of his father’s (the resident’s) rent account.
2. The landlord’s refusal to provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement to the complainant.
3. The level of customer service received by the complainant.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (The 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, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s refusal to provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement to the complainant. Paragraph 39 of the Scheme says:

The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

(m) fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body.

The landlord informed the complainant in its stage one complaint response that, due to General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), it was not able to provide him with the tenancy agreements signed by the resident in 1971 and 1979. This position was disputed by the complainant when requesting an escalation of the complaint.
Matters relating to data protection and freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and it is recommended the complainant contact the ICO for further information regarding data protection issues.

Background and summary of events

The complainant’s father was a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. He lived at the property with his partner.
The landlord’s correspondence logs state that it was contacted by the complainant on 23 December 2019 and informed that the resident had passed away.
The complainant and the resident’s partner visited the landlord’s housing office on 31 December 2019 and provided it with a copy of the resident’s death certificate as well as other documentation to support the resident’s partner’s request to succeed the tenancy. The landlord’s notes of the meeting state that the resident’s partner expressed her confusion that the tenancy agreement for the property was a joint tenancy with her named as a joint tenant, as the tenancy agreement was signed in 1979 but she did not migrate to the UK until 1989.
On 5 January 2020 the complainant wrote to the landlord and requested to raise a complaint. The complainant described the elements of his complaint as how the landlord handled the rent account, the lack of support offered to his father by the landlord and the details of the tenancy agreement.
The complainant informed the landlord that when his father took on the tenancy in 1979, he was single and that he did not meet his partner until 1989. However, when visiting the neighbourhood office, he was informed that his father was in a joint tenancy with another individual. The landlord informed him that this individual was not his father’s partner and refused to discuss the matter further.
The complainant then addressed his father’s rent account. He said that his father’s housing benefit had been suspended on 9 September 2019 as the benefit team had been unable to make contact.
The complainant noted that the landlord would have been aware of the suspension and of his father’s vulnerabilities and poor health. He further stated that the landlord should have done more to offer support to his father rather than allow his rent account to go into arrears. The complainant also described his distress on receiving a letter from the landlord addressed to his father asking to meet him on 3 January 2020 despite being aware that he had passed away.
As a resolution to the complaint, the complainant requested, among other things:
1. A copy of the 1979 tenancy agreement.
2. That the landlord waive the rent arrears and conduct an investigation into the reasons why housing benefit payments were suspended.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 6 January 2020 and on 20 January 2020 it sent a stage one complaint response. The landlord informed the complainant that:
1. It apologised for the letter it sent out on 31 December 2019 requesting to meet the resident. It accepted that the letter should not have been sent and apologised for the distress that it had caused. It further informed the complainant that it “will review this process to ensure we learn from this mistake”.
2. It was unable to provide him with a copy of the 1979 tenancy agreement as it would first need the consent of the other joint tenant.
3. Due to GDPR, it was unable to provide any further information relating to the rent account as that would also require the consent from the other joint tenant.
4. Home visits by the landlord to the resident occurred following the suspension of his housing benefit. As a result of these visits, a payment plan was agreed and no further action was considered necessary.
5. It apologised to the complainant for the distress caused by being informed it was unable to discuss the detail of the rent account and tenancy.
On 22 January 2020 the complainant wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of the complaint to stage two on the grounds that:
1. Despite issues surrounding GDPR, the service he received when corresponding with the landlord about the rent account was “rude and abrupt”.
2. The apologises given in the stage one response had not recognised the lack of compassion that was shown to him by the landlord.
3. He disputed that the tenancy agreement signed in 1979 was a joint tenancy and wanted the landlord to investigate circumstances surrounding the tenancy.
4. The landlord did not address his concerns regarding the lack of support it had provided to his father.
The landlord replied to the complainant on 31 January 2020 and confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to stage two. It wrote two further emails on 14 and 21 February 2020 to inform the complainant that it required further time to complete its investigations. The stage two complaint response was then sent on 27 February 2020. The landlord informed the complainant that:
1. It confirmed that it is unable to share documentation relating to the tenancy signed in 1979, or for the tenancy for the previous property where the resident lived which was signed in 1971. However, it could confirm that the “history of events regarding the allocation of these tenancies is correct”.
2. It apologised for the confusion during his visit to the neighbourhood office on 31 December 2019 where it was suggested that the resident’s partner was named on the tenancy. It confirmed that it has located the signed documents from 1971 and 1979 and that the name signed was not the resident’s partner but that it was unable to provide any further information.
3. Its investigation of the tenancy confirmed that there was a joint tenant and that it had an obligation to locate the tenant, which it was in the process of doing. It apologised for not being able to provide any further information. It informed the complainant that it was “legally bound to protect the details and confidentiality of our residents”.
4. It sincerely apologised to the complainant for the service he had experienced during his visit to the neighbourhood office and for the subsequent correspondence. It informed him that its senior management team had spoken to the staff member highlighted by the complainant and was undertaking a review of its internal processes.
The landlord concluded the response by informing the complainant that he had exhausted its internal complaint process and advised him on the steps to take to bring his case to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

The administration of the rent account

Page 7 of the landlord’s tenant handbook describes the different types of tenancies it offers, and in relation to joint tenancies it states as follows:

“A joint tenancy gives equal rights and responsibilities to each of you signing the tenancy agreement. You are both responsible for keeping to the tenancy conditions. You should always tell your housing manager if you are a joint tenant and you or the other joint tenant has moved out”

Section 2.1e of the landlord’s tenancy terms and conditions concerns the payment of rent on a joint tenancy and states as follows:

“If you have a joint tenancy, each joint tenant is responsible for paying the rent, other charges and any rent owed. Even if one joint tenant leaves, both tenants will still be responsible for the full weekly charges for the property and any rent already owed”

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the signed tenancy agreement from 1979. This document has two signatures and is a joint tenancy. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord not to discuss the detail of the rent account with the complainant, as on the death of the resident this became the sole responsibility of the other joint tenant.
Similarly, the landlord would not be able to discuss matters relating to succession. This is in line with Section 88(1)(b) of the Housing Act 1985, which states that when a joint tenant dies, the surviving joint tenant(s) will succeed to the secure tenancy under the common law rules of survivorship.
That decision would have understandably been very frustrating and distressing for the complainant and the resident’s partner. However, once the landlord had established that this was a joint tenancy agreement, it was legally obligated to locate the joint tenant. It would also not be able to discuss these issues in detail with the complainant unless consent had been given by the joint tenant. The landlord’s response to the concerns raised by the complainant were appropriate; there is no evidence of any service failure in the landlord’s responses to the complainant with regard to its administration of his father’s rent account.

Customer service

The complainant had stated his unhappiness with his treatment by the landlord and the poor level of customer service he received when notifying it of the death of his father and when discussing matters relating to the rent account and the succession of the tenancy. The complainant particularly highlighted a letter sent to his father by the landlord asking to meet after it was made aware that he had died, and the conduct of a staff member during his visit to the neighbourhood office.
In its two complaint responses the landlord recognised the service failure experienced by the complainant. It apologised and informed him on the steps it would take to improve its service. The Ombudsman recognises the upset that this letter caused; however, this was an appropriate and proportionate response by the landlord to take steps to resolve this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its responses to the complainant with regard to its administration of his father’s rent account.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the complainant which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to the poor level of customer service he received.

Reasons

The landlord correctly followed its policies and procedures regarding what action to take when one tenant of a joint tenancy dies.
The landlord clearly explained to the complainant the action it was taking and the reasons why it could not provide him with detailed information at that stage.
The landlord apologised to the complainant for the poor level of customer service he had received and informed him on the steps it would take in improve its performance in the future. This was proportionate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused.