London Borough of Tower Hamlets (202423465)

Decision
Case ID	202423465
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Applicant
Date	19 December 2025

Background

The resident’s mother was a tenant of the landlord. Following the death of his mother, the resident applied to succeed the tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom ground–floor flat in a 4-storey block. The landlord is aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, which include attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We have found there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy

The landlord failed to provide the resident with adequate support following his initial request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy. It did not confirm to the resident the basis on which it was considering his application. It also provided unclear information following his appeal to its housing management panel.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 in accordance with the timescales in its policy. It then failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 when requested to do so by both the resident and his representative. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the housing officer.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 23 January 2026
	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 made up as follows: £350 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of his request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 23 January 2026
	Order to take specific action The landlord should contact the resident and provide him with the opportunity to provide it with any supporting evidence he wishes it to consider for a succession application. It should then reconsider his application for a discretionary succession within the next 28 working days based on this evidence.	No later than 23 January 2026
	Order to take specific action Following the consideration of the resident’s succession application, the landlord should write to both the resident and to us within 10 working days setting out its decision and the reasons for this. If it does not accept the application to succeed the tenancy, it should set out the steps it will take to support the resident going forwards.	No later than 06 March 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
8 August 2024	The resident raised a complaint online with the landlord. He said: He had sent his late mother’s death certificate to the landlord via the housing officer in December 2023 and informed it of his intention to succeed the tenancy. He had received no support or the application form until he pursued it on 1 February 2024, at which point he was told he needed to provide the form and evidence within 7 days. He had raised a complaint about the housing officer to the landlord, which it did not respond to. He was informed the matter had been discussed at a panel meeting, to which he escalated the matter, and his application was still rejected. He was informed by the housing officer the matter had proceeded to court, which he did not want to happen. Instead, he had proposed handing back the property if the landlord could assist him to find an alternative property. However, it had failed to give him any support.
18 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It said: The housing officer had provided the resident with information on the succession process in December 2023, and again in February 2024 after returning from leave. A request for a discretionary tenancy had been refused as the resident had not been living with his mother for 12 months prior to her death. It noted the resident wanted assistance to move into private accommodation. However, this was not something it could assist with. It did, however, agree the resident could remain in the property without further charges until 4 October 2024. If the resident was unable to secure private accommodation, he should approach the council’s homeless team for advice and to be considered for re-housing. It had provided training to the housing officer over the succession process and the correct channels to be used for the application. It accepted that the housing officer had been absent for a period of time, but maintained this did not impact its decision.
19 September 2024	The resident requested the matter be escalated. He said: A subject access request had highlighted serious concerns about the landlord’s version of events. There was evidence his case had not been presented to the panel for a review, which was contrary to the information he was previously provided.
3 December 2024	The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It said: The housing officer had put the case forward to the panel for consideration, but as there were insufficient grounds to proceed, the case was considered outside of the panel. This was then communicated to the resident. The resident had requested to stay in the property until the end of October 2024. It had proposed a 6-week waiver of property charges from 23 August 2024 to 4 October 2024. This was not accepted by the resident, who it noted had continued to stay at the property past this date without paying the occupation charges.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident brought his complaint to us and said: He was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. It had not answered his questions, including what information was presented to the housing management panel. He had requested that the review was carried out outside of the housing team. He had discovered the landlord had not done this.
24 July 2025 and 31 October 2025	The landlord wrote to the resident to inform him that it was commencing possession proceedings. It said that there had already been a statutory succession from the resident’s father to his mother in 1993, so there was no statutory right to succeed the tenancy. It added that his discretionary application had not been accepted as he did not meet the criteria.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The resident’s request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

We understand the resident would like the landlord to approve his succession application. It is not for us 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.
The resident has continued to communicate with the landlord since the end of the formal complaint process. This relates to a number of issues including with the council tax team, the homelessness team, concerns over communication still addressed to his late mother, and concerning its letters informing him the matter will be proceeding to court (sent in July and October 2025). In the interests of fairness, this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint in August 2024. The landlord should be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to our involvement. Any new issues can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The resident may refer any new complaints to us for separate investigation if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response on those matters.
The resident told us the situation has had an impact on his health and wellbeing, and that he was vulnerable and had thoughts of ending his own life. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute, as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We have therefore not investigated this further. However, we can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.

What we did investigate

The resident informed the landlord in December 2023 that his mother had passed away. The landlord requested a copy of her death certificate, which was provided to it by the resident. The housing officer who was the point of contact with the resident emailed him on 19 December 2023, in which they noted the resident had expressed an interest in succeeding the tenancy. The email followed on from an earlier telephone conversation with the resident. However, the landlord has not been able to provide us with either a copy of the call or evidence of clear notes on what was discussed with the resident at the time.
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. This is in accordance with Section 87 of the Housing Act 1985. However, this does not apply if the tenant was themselves 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.
There is no indication that the landlord informed the resident in writing what evidence would need to be provided by him for the process of the succession application. This was a missed opportunity by it, especially as it was aware of the resident’s ADHD (and, therefore, the need to follow things up in writing to ensure he clearly understood them).
The landlord has accepted that the housing officer was off work for a considerable period of time. It referred to this being 2 months, but the time from the initial contact to when the application was eventually submitted amounted to around 7 weeks. This is evidence that the landlord’s record keeping was not robust as it should have been.
The landlord’s internal notes show that, due to the housing officer being unavailable, it asked another housing officer to contact the resident at the beginning of January 2024 concerning the succession application. Its notes show that contact was not made but a voicemail was left by the second housing officer. There is no evidence to show that the landlord followed this up at the time with an email to him. This was a missed opportunity for the second housing officer to introduce themselves and explain the reason they had been in touch.
The landlord’s internal notes show that, on 23 January 2024, it enquired as to whether the succession application had been received from the resident. It noted that if it had not, then a notice to quit needed to be issued to him. This was an opportunity for the landlord to contact the resident to explain the need for him to provide the application and to explain the consequences if it was not received. However, the evidence from the time shows that the landlord did not contact the resident until 1 February 2024, 7 working days later. The notes show that the resident was requesting assistance with the completion of the form from the housing officer.
The landlord’s notes from the time show that it informed the resident on 2 February 2024 that he needed to contact its contact centre for the succession form, as it was not able to provide it to him. While it did inform the resident it would provide him a deadline of 4 working days to return the form, this was unreasonable, as it could not provide him the form which he was requesting. It would have been appropriate for the housing officer to locate and send the resident the succession form, especially if there were prior discussions over the matter. The landlord should also have considered extending the time needed for him to provide the supporting evidence it needed. Instead of taking ownership of this, it instead directed the resident elsewhere, knowing the impending deadline and that he had yet to receive the form. This was a failing by it.
The landlord said that the housing officer sent the resident the application form on 6 February 2024. While the resident did receive it at that time, it was not clear whether this was directly down to the housing officer’s interaction, or whether it was due to the contact team, as the date would be 48 working hours since he had requested the form from the contact centre (which matched the time it needed).
The landlord informed the resident on 8 March 2024 that his application to succeed the tenancy had not been successful. It is not clear from the landlord’s correspondence whether it had been considering the resident’s application for a statutory succession or whether it was looking at it on a discretionary succession basis. Its correspondence said the refusal was because there was insufficient evidence that he had been living at the property for 12 months prior to his mother’s death. This was based on the evidence from the application form, which noted that he had been “sofa surfing” and had only officially moved into his mother’s property in August 2023. The resident has said he had been living there prior to this time, and he has provided us with evidence going back to 2022 that his address was noted to be that of the property, and not elsewhere.
The landlord’s correspondence to the resident of 8 March 2024 informed him that it would be taking the matter to its housing management panel, which met monthly. This approach was in keeping with its succession procedure when it was looking at a discretionary new tenancy. This would be followed where a resident was unable to succeed the tenancy on a statutory basis (as there had already been a previous statutory succession). Again, the landlord’s communication to the resident did not set out that this was the reason it would escalate the matter to its housing management panel. This was a failing by the landlord to be clear in its communication with him.
The landlord’s internal notes show that while it did initially escalate the matter to its housing management panel, and the resident provided it with additional supporting information including from his consultant psychiatrist, the matter was not discussed at the management meeting. Instead, the chair of the panel made enquiries with the housing officer about the case. The landlord determined on 30 May 2024 that the application would not be discussed at the panel meeting as there was no justification for it. While the landlord said that the individual making the decision acted in their capacity as the chair of the panel, it did not accurately communicate this to the resident.
The landlord informed the resident on more than one occasion that the case had been reviewed by the housing management panel, which had maintained the decision not to grant the succession of the tenancy. It also took 19 working days to communicate the decision to the resident. This was despite the resident chasing it up over the issue on a number of occasions. The landlord has provided no explanation as to why it took this length of time to relay its decision to the resident. This was unreasonable, and it neglected to provide the resident with a clear explanation of the actions that it had taken. It was only following the resident making a subject access request and writing to the landlord that it admitted the matter had not proceeded to review. Given this, it is unclear whether any of the supporting evidence provided by the resident was considered by the landlord – and, if so, how much.
Overall, the landlord has not provided evidence that it provided adequate support to the resident in relation to his succession application. It did not set out or inform him whether it was considering a statutory or discretionary succession. The initial reference to there being no statutory right to succeed his late mother’s tenancy was not disclosed until July 2025, more than 16 months after his initial application had been declined. The landlord also provided him with unclear information as to whether the application (and supporting evidence) was considered and reviewed by its housing management panel in line with its succession policy. In addition, there was evidence of poor record keeping.
Our dispute resolution principles include being fair and putting things right. Given this, the landlord is ordered to ensure that it takes steps to put things right. These include reconsidering the resident’s application for a discretionary succession and considering providing him with further support once it has carried out the review. The resident should be provided with the opportunity to supply all supporting evidence which he wishes the landlord to consider as part of the review. In addition, to the landlord should also pay compensation of £350. This amount is in accordance with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a failing which the landlord failed to acknowledge or put right.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

Our statutory Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), effective from 1 April 2024, requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint or escalation request within 5 working days. Landlords must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint. They must also issue a stage 2 final response within 20 working days of an escalation acknowledgement. The landlord acknowledges these expectations within its complaints policy.
The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 19 August 2024, after 7 working days. This was 2 days outside of the timescale in its policy. It then did not provide its stage 1 response until 21 working days from its acknowledgement email, again outside of the timescale in its complaints policy. There was no evidence it had spoken to or agreed an extension with the resident at that time.
The resident initially contacted the landlord on 17 September 2024 to request the matter was escalated to stage 2. The landlord acted appropriately in not doing this at that time, as it had yet to issue the stage 1 response. Following the resident’s further request on 19 September 2024 to escalate the complaint to stage 2, it did not send the acknowledgement until 11 November 2024. This was after 37 working days, significantly outside of the timescale in its policy.
We understand that following the resident requesting an escalation of his complaint, a solicitor representing the resident also contacted the landlord over the matter. They requested compensation for the landlord’s errors. While the landlord was communicating with the third party who had also requested an escalation on 14 October 2024, its acknowledgement was also outside of the timescales based on that communication, as well as the resident’s original request.
The landlord did not issue its stage 2 response until 3 December 2024. While this was within 20 days of its acknowledgment email, it was more than 10 weeks after the resident’s request, and more than 7 weeks after the request by the resident’s solicitor. Both of these were in excess of the timescales noted in its policy.
The resident raised a complaint about the housing officer at the time that he made his succession application. The landlord inappropriately failed to acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction or to respond to him over the matter.
We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 to put things right. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

The landlord should improve its record keeping practices by ensuring that clear and accurate documentation is maintained. While it has said that outgoing calls made by its housing officer were not recorded, notes from the calls were apparently not made. Therefore, it is not clear what was and was not discussed at the time. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management can assist with this.

Communication

The landlord’s overall communication with the resident was poor. There were gaps during which it failed to provide him with updates to his questions and concerns. It also failed to respond to his concerns about the housing officer who had been the initial point of contact with him. While it appears the landlord has now informed the resident and those assisting him that it has appointed a designated point of contact for him, there still seem to be issues with its communication. Good communication plays a key role in an effective repairs system as well as fostering transparency and trust, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.