London Borough of Wandsworth (202417200)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202417200

London Borough of Wandsworth

18 August 2025

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy.

Background

The resident’s late mother was a secure tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. Her tenancy for the property started on 24 April 2000. She passed away on 5 October 2023. After she passed away, the resident applied to take over her tenancy through succession.
The legal status of the relationship between the resident and the landlord is not agreed by the parties to this complaint. The landlord says the resident is an unauthorised occupier. The resident believes he is entitled to succeed his late mother’s tenancy. The terms ‘the landlord’ and ‘the resident’ are used in this report in line with our standard reporting style. They are not intended to represent any finding connected to the legal meaning of the words.
The resident applied to succeed his late mother’s tenancy in late 2023. He made a complaint on 14 May 2024. He said he had submitted his application the previous year, and was unhappy with how the landlord handled the request. He was also unhappy the landlord had served a notice to quit. He said he was not aware of it until he went to the landlord’s offices and saw a copy the day before it expired. He said he wanted proof the landlord had served it, as well as full and detailed reasons for the decision to refuse his succession application.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 28 May 2024. It said:
1. He did not meet the criteria to succeed on the tenancy as he had not lived in the property for 12 months prior to his mother’s death. This conclusion was based on his confirmation on 21 March 2023 that he would be moving in that day (his having cancelled his temporary accommodation on 23 March 2023), confirmation in May 2023 (from his mother) and June 2023 (from an occupancy check) that he did not live in the property, his confirmation in October 2023 that he had moved into the property in March 2023, and the results of its background checks.
2. It would consider any further evidence he could provide to show he met the criteria for succession.
3. It accepted it had not informed him of the outcome at the time it made its decision, and apologised for that.
4. While it had made a decision on the succession application, it had not yet served the notice to quit. It would do so now that the succession application had been unsuccessful.
The resident escalated his complaint on 17 June 2024. He said 5 months was an unreasonable length of time to make a decision. He said he had lived in the property for the necessary time, and even if there was insufficient proof of residency, the landlord should let him succeed anyway. He said he had been given a copy of the notice to quit at the landlord’s offices, and wanted to be compensated.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 July 2024. It said:
1. It had told him there was no previous succession. However, it was now aware of a previous succession in 1990. As such, there was no statutory right of succession. It apologised for giving the incorrect information previously.
2. He had the right to apply for a discretionary succession. He would need to complete various paperwork to apply. He could collect this, or it would post copies.
3. He would also need to show he had lived at the property for 12 months prior to his mother’s death for discretionary succession. It was not satisfied this was the case, based on the evidence available. It urged him to provide any additional information he could in support of the application.
4. The newly served notice to quit remained valid and it had registered him as an unauthorised occupier on its systems.
5. It accepted there had been delays in this case. It said that once it had the information it needed for his discretionary succession application, it would process the application within 10 working days.
6. It offered £300 compensation for its delays and lack of updates at what was already a difficult time. It said it would also arrange staff training and feedback.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so he referred his complaint to us. He said he did not feel the compensation was sufficient, and he wanted to be able to succeed on his mother’s tenancy.

Events after the complaint

After the stage 2 response, the resident submitted an application for discretionary succession on 21 August 2024. The landlord refused the application on 27 November 2024. It said it was not satisfied based on the evidence that the resident had been living in the property for the 12 months before his mother passed away. It rejected his appeal of that decision on 5 December 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says that, to be able to bring a complaint to the Ombudsman, a person must have either been in a landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord, or been an applicant for property owned or managed by the landlord, during the events the complaint is about.
The resident has raised concerns about discussions the landlord had with his mother, and staff conduct during that time. The resident was not in a landlord/tenant relationship with the landlord at that time, as the tenancy belonged to his mother. And he only became an applicant from the point at which he applied to succeed the tenancy, not before. As such, we cannot consider any events prior to the resident’s succession application as part of this investigation.
The Scheme also says we may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. Any events after the stage 2 response (including how the landlord handled the resident’s discretionary succession application) had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process at the point the resident referred his complaint to us. As such, while we may refer to events after the stage 2 response for context, we cannot investigate the landlord’s actions after the stage 2 response as part of this investigation.
We understand the resident would like the landlord to approve his succession application to resolve the complaint. It is not for this Service to determine whether he was entitled to succeed his late mother’s tenancy. That would be a legal determination for a court. Our role in this type of complaint is to consider whether the landlord handled the application reasonably in the circumstances of the case, based on the available evidence.

Handling of the succession request

For secure tenancies granted before 1 April 2012, a member of a secure tenant’s family may be eligible to succeed the tenancy if the property has been their only or principal home for the 12 months prior to the tenant’s death (s.87 Housing Act 1985). However, this does not apply if the tenant was a successor. Section 88 Housing Act 1985 explains that a secure tenant is a successor if they were a joint tenant and became a sole tenant. There is no statutory right to a second succession in these circumstances. Where there is no statutory right to succession, it is for the landlord to decide whether or not to grant a discretionary succession application.
The evidence provided shows that the resident initially applied for a statutory succession. It is unclear from the evidence when he submitted the application. However, he met with the landlord to discuss succession on 27 October 2023, and his signature on the application is dated November 2023. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 27 November 2023 also refers to having received the resident’s application and evidence. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident submitted his application between 27 October and 27 November 2023.
The landlord declined the application in April 2024. This was because it concluded that the resident had not lived in the property for 12 months prior to his mother’s death. It did not give the resident the outcome at the time. It told him on an unknown date around 14 May 2024.
The landlord has accepted there were failings in its handling of the application. Those are as follows:
1. It had incorrectly told the resident he could apply for statutory succession. Its records showed his mother was a successor, so he would need to apply for a discretionary succession rather than statutory succession.
2. It did not tell him the outcome of the application at the time it made the decision.
3. It had given incorrect information about a notice to quit. While its staff told the resident it had served a notice, this had not yet been served.
4. Its communication needed improvement, and it did not give sufficient updates.
5. There were unreasonable delays in processing the application.
The landlord apologised for its failings, explained what the resident would need to do for a discretionary succession application, and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. We have therefore considered whether the landlord has done enough to put things right.
There is no set timescale for the landlord to assess a succession application. This is because the length of time needed will vary significantly depending on the circumstances of the case. The landlord’s records confirm it identified on 27 November 2023 that it needed to refer the application to its audit team. This was in line with its standard processes, which require it to refer every application to that team. However, its records show it did not send the referral until 18 January 2024.
The audit team provided various information around the background checks it completed on 26 January 2024. It confirmed the evidence suggested that the resident had not been living at the property. This was based on a number of different searches. The landlord asked the team to complete further checks on the same day. The evidence provided shows they responded on 8 March 2024 with the requested information. However, the landlord did not make a decision on the application until April 2024, and did not tell the resident the outcome until May 2024.
Around 6 months passed between the resident’s request to succeed the tenancy in October 2023 and the landlord giving the resident its decision. However, that does not mean there were avoidable delays of 6 months. In this case, the landlord made various appropriate attempts to gather evidence. This included its background checks. There was also conflicting evidence, which the landlord would need to carefully assess. Based on the evidence provided, around 3 months of delays were caused by failings on the landlord’s part.
The evidence provided shows the landlord did appropriately consider the application, though not within a reasonable time. It requested evidence and made appropriate enquiries, and its decision was based on evidence. That evidence included:
1. Its system notes of a meeting on 21 March 2023 in which the resident’s mother confirmed he would be moving in with her, but did not know when.
2. A hand-written letter from the resident’s mother, with her signature witnessed, confirming that the resident would be moving into the property from 21 March 2023.
3. A letter dated 22 March 2023 from the landlord to the resident’s mother, summarising the meeting the day before.
4. System call notes from 25 May 2023 which said the resident’s mother contacted the landlord to confirm the resident had moved out of the property.
5. A copy of its occupancy check from 12 June 2023, signed by the resident’s mother, confirming she was living alone at that time.
6. An email from the resident on 6 October 2023, in which he confirmed he moved into the property on 23 March 2023.
7. The reports from the audit team who complete checks on all of the landlord’s succession applications. The audit team concluded that, based on a number of searches of various different sources, the resident had not lived at the property for 12 months prior to his mother’s passing.
8. The information the resident provided.
The landlord assessed the above evidence, and concluded that the resident did not meet the criteria for succession. We note the resident disagrees with the landlord’s conclusion. However, the evidence provided shows that the landlord carried out relevant and appropriate investigations when assessing the application, and made an evidence-based decision. As such, we have seen no evidence to show the landlord did not appropriately consider the succession application. Any dispute as to the outcome would be a matter for the courts, not this Service, to determine.
The landlord also reached the same conclusion on the resident’s discretionary succession application. This was after it encouraged him to provide any additional evidence he could to support his application, and explained its reasoning for its decision. As such, we have seen no evidence which suggests the overall outcome would have been different had the landlord processed the application sooner. It is also part of the landlord’s standard process (and standard industry practice) to serve a notice to quit when it concludes there is no right to succession, so it still would have served a notice to quit and registered the resident as an unauthorised occupier even if it had reviewed the application sooner.
This means the only failings in the landlord’s handling of the application relate to its communication and delays. It correctly identified its failings in its stage 2 response. It apologised to the resident, and confirmed it would provide additional training to its staff about the difference between statutory and discretionary succession. It also offered the resident £300 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings at what it recognised was already a difficult time.
The compensation offered is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which have adversely affected a resident, but which have not significantly affected the overall outcome. As such, the landlord has offered an appropriate level of compensation. However, it has not done enough to put things right. This is because, after promising in its stage 2 response that it would process the resident’s discretionary succession application within 10 working days of having all the relevant information, it then did not do so. As such, it has not shown that it has taken the necessary learning from this complaint. Had it done so, there would likely have been a finding of reasonable redress for this complaint. As it did not, we find there has been a service failure.
As set out above, we will not be investigating the cause of any delays following the stage 2 response. As such, we will not assess whether or not the landlord needs to offer further compensation for any delays in handling that application. We have, however, made a recommendation in this regard.
The landlord must, however, arrange for a management review of this case to identify the underlying causes of the delays in processing the resident’s initial application. This is so it can take steps to prevent those failings recurring in future. An order to that effect is set out below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident the £300 offered in its stage 2 response, if it has not already done so.
2. Carry out a management-level review of this complaint. The review must identify the underlying causes of the failings identified in this report, and create an action plan for preventing those failings in future.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

If it has not already so, the landlord should assess whether or not it should pay the resident any compensation as a result of avoidable delays (if any) following the stage 2 response for this complaint. It should do so within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord should let us know its intentions with regard to the above recommendation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.