London Borough of Hounslow (202413509)

Decision
Case ID	202413509
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	London Borough of Hounslow
Landlord type	Local Authority / ALMO or TMO
Occupancy	Secure Tenancy
Date	22 January 2026

Background

The landlord agreed to assign the resident her mother’s tenancy. It said the assignment was approved on the condition that she downsized from a 2‑bedroom to a 1‑bedroom property. She complained when it said it would take possession of her home if she refused its final offer of accommodation. She also said its officer was uncooperative and had not supported her.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents:
1. Concerns about the tenancy assignment conditions.
2. Reports of staff conduct.
3. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We have found:

Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s tenancy assignment conditions.
No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct.
Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about tenancy assignment conditions

The landlord did not demonstrate that it directly communicated the conditions of assignment with the resident during the assignment process. It delayed in explaining the process, conditions and urgency of the downsizing process. When it did it explain, it delayed further in acting on it. It did not manage her expectations.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct

The landlord explained staff complaints were not within the remit of its complaints policy. It advised the resident of the process the complaint would take and implemented its staff complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord delayed in responding at both stages of its complaint process. It did not recognise these failings, apologise or consider any redress.

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 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 27 February 2026
2	Action order The landlord must set out in writing its current position to the resident in respect of its requirement for her to downsize. This should include expectations, timescales, any assistance it can offer her and any actions it may take should she not move.	No later than 27 February 2026
3	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £225 made up as follows: £200 for the likely distress and inconvenience caused by failings in directly communicating the conditions of assignment to the resident. £25 for its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
We recommend the landlord considers writing directly to both parties during its assignment process.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 December 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She was not satisfied with the offers of accommodation it made. She was unhappy that it would not authorise a mutual exchange she applied for. She wanted it to assist her to move out of the area. She was worried about its threats to evict her if she did not take its final offer of accommodation.
29 January 2024	The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. It said it did not have any housing stock outside of the borough. It had already told her she needed to find a mutual exchange property to move outside of the area. Alternatively, she could approach other boroughs. It had assisted her with mutual exchange contacts. It acknowledged it had refused a mutual exchange because the incoming resident would be under-occupying, which was not allowed under the scheme. Her mutual exchange attempts were not considered offers under the downsizing process. It said having refused 1 offer it would only offer 1 final property. If she refused it, she would have to make her own arrangement and hand her property back.
1 February 2024	The resident escalated her complaint. She said the landlord had not dealt with her concern that if she refused the next offer she would be evicted. She was unhappy it treated a mutual exchange property as one of her offers. She said she was trying to move through mutual exchange but she needed more time. She complained her housing officer (HO) did not help or listen to her. She said they just repeated the information about not accepting the final offer and being evicted, which she found intimidating. She also claimed the HO had liaised with her mother about her tenancy issues.
28 February 2024	The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response. It explained the assignment process and that the resident had been assessed as having a 1-bedroom need. This meant when the assignment was approved and signed, she was required to downsize. It said it had accepted her refusal of its first offer and would make 1 other suitable offer. It repeated the mutual exchange properties were not considered formal offers. As such they were not classed as a refusal for downsizing. It said her complaint about her HO would be dealt with by their line manager under staff related policies and procedures. It was not within the scope of its complaints policy.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate. She wanted it to stop its threats of homelessness, allow her the opportunity to source her own property, and respond to her queries.

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 concerns about tenancy assignment conditions
Finding	Maladministration

What we did not investigate

The resident has told us that when the tenancy was assigned to her there were a lot of repairs needed. She believed the landlord should have ensured the property was in good repair before assigning her the tenancy. Repairs did not form part of her complaint and we are unable to consider matters which the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to through its 2-stage complaint process. We have not, therefore, considered this further. She may wish to raise a new complaint to the landlord and if she remains unhappy with its final response, she can bring the matter to us to investigate.

What we did investigate

The resident was assigned the tenancy in November 2021. The landlord said it made the assignment conditional on her later downsizing to a 1‑bedroom property. We note she signed an “implications of assigning a tenancy” form with her mother in June 2021. This said assignment may not be approved if the property had more bedrooms than the assignee needed. However, it approved the assignment but addressed all communication to her mother. There was no evidence that it directly informed her of the conditions at the time of assignment.
As the resident lived with her mother, the landlord appears to have assumed they shared information within the household. This was not necessarily unreasonable, but it remained an assumption and may not always reflect how information is shared in practice.
That said, the resident did not dispute the need to downsize. However, her position appeared to be based on her financial difficulties with the bedroom tax rather than knowledge that downsizing was a condition of her assignment. The landlord should have considered giving vital information about assignment, such as downsizing requirements, to both parties during the assignment process.
The resident complained about being unaware of the conditions and process for downsizing after the assignment, rather than the downsizing requirement itself. Consequently, when the landlord began to enforce the process and she felt its approach was unreasonable and lacked empathy.
The landlord’s information on assignment associated its process with tenancy succession. It had a clear succession policy which set out conditions and processes. This included downsizing requirements, timescales, the offer process, and the consequences of refusing an offer or a move. It did not provide comparable guidance for tenancy assignment. As a result, it was not evident that the resident received clear information about the assignment process or what the landlord expected once she held the tenancy. It would be appropriate for the landlord to introduce an assignment policy or revise its succession policy to include assignment, ensuring it is for all involved parties.
The resident told the landlord she wanted to downsize outside the borough. It explained it did not hold stock outside the borough and could not help with a direct move. It gave her information about the mutual exchange scheme so she could explore options herself.
The landlord also raised the resident’s case with staff who managed properties in other areas. This led to potential mutual exchange matches. Its actions were reasonable and showed it took proactive steps to support her. However, it did not make clear that these efforts did not replace the need to downsize, or that any direct offer process would continue alongside the mutual exchange process.
The landlord’s active involvement in supporting the resident with a mutual exchange, while well‑intentioned, also contributed to confusion. The resident said she had been told she would receive 3 offers of accommodation, although this was not the process. She believed the connections it initiated were part of its direct offer process. This led to frustration when these were not approved due to the conditions of the mutual exchange process.
The landlord made the resident a direct offer in July 2023, some 18 months after the assignment. It accepted her refusal based on the property’s location and her preference to pursue a mutual exchange. This acceptance was inconsistent with its later position in its final response that only 1 offer applied. In doing so, it gave mixed messages and raised her expectations.
It was not evident the landlord set out its full conditions of assignment until its final response in February 2024, over 2 years after assignment. While the conditions it set out are usual sector practice for assignees under-occupying, it provided no evidence to show how it communicated these to her or its policy to support them. Furthermore, it delayed in implementing its processes. It gave no timescales for accepting a direct offer or completing a mutual exchange. As a result, it did not make her obligation to move clear or manage her expectations.
In summary, the landlord’s failure to act consistently on the conditions it relied on contributed to confusion, and indecision about her housing situation. The resident has told us that she is expecting a baby. We have made an order for the landlord to consider and confirm its position and pay compensation for the likely distress and inconvenience.

Complaint	Reports of staff conduct
Finding	No maladministration

The resident complained to the landlord that her housing officer had been uncooperative, unsupportive and had communicated with her mother about her tenancy.
In its response the landlord explained that complaints about staff did not fall within the scope of its complaints policy. It had a separate process for staff complaints which involved referral to a line manager and internal processes taken in accordance with staff related policies and procedures.
Evidence provided by the landlord showed it acted in accordance with its policy and processes on staff complaints.

Complaint	The complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord had a 2‑stage complaint process at the time of the complaint. It did not specify acknowledgement times. It said it would respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 15 and 20 working days from receipt. These timescales did not align with the recommended response times in the Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The resident raised her complaint on 23 December 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 8 January 2024. Although its policy had no acknowledgement target, this was 3 working days after the 5 working days recommended by the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 29 January 2024, within 22 working days. This exceeded the Code’s 10 working day recommendation and its own 15 working day target.
The resident sent her escalation request on 30 January 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 1 February 2024 and issued its stage 2 response on 22 February 2024. These actions aligned with its policy and were within the Code’s recommended timescales of 5 and 20 working days.
While the Code was not mandatory at the time, the landlord’s policy did not align with the recommendations. Although the delays in meeting its complaint timescales were minor, they were consistent and it did not acknowledge these shortcomings. Subsequently it did not apologise or consider offering redress.

Learning

There was a lack of clarity in the landlord’s communication during and after the assignment process, it would be appropriate for it review this and make improvements. Communicating with the assignor and the assignee directly throughout the process would go some way to achieving this.
The landlord needs to clarify whether it is using its success policy as its assignment process or update its policy to reflect its expectations and processes in the event of an assignment.
The landlord needs to ensure consistency in decision‑making about direct offers. In doing this it would be advised to apply offer conditions consistently. Any refusal should be assessed against documented criteria, and decisions should be recorded and communicated clearly.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

The landlord’s complaint response said it had several conversations with the resident about downsizing and moving out of the borough. It did not provide records to support this.

Communication

Overall, the landlord’s communication was poor. It did not set out the assignment conditions directly to the resident until its final response. It was not clear why it accepted her refusal of the accommodation offer. It lacked guidance and policy on tenancy assignment. It also did not give clear timescales for the direct offer or mutual exchange processes.