London Borough of Newham (202303385)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303385

London Borough of Newham

23 April 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

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

Background

The resident has informed this Service that he has lived at the property, a 1-bedroom flat, since October 2020. He lived with his grandfather who was the secure tenant. Following his grandfather’s passing in October 2021 he applied for succession of the tenancy. The landlord refused the application and he does not currently hold a tenancy, but he continues to reside at the property and pays for use and occupation. We note that the landlord disputes the date of occupation that the resident has provided.
On 10 October 2021 the resident submitted a succession request form to the landlord following the passing of his grandfather 3 days earlier. He said that he was the only occupant in the property and he had lived there for 1 year. The landlord issued a Notice to Quit on 11 November 2021 and reiterated that this was an administrative requirement, and the resident did not have to leave the property.
There is no record of any formal communication regarding this matter between 11 November 2021 and 3 February 2023 when the resident made his complaint. During this time, he had paid the landlord for use and occupation of the property at the same rate as the rent.
In his complaint he said that although he had provided the evidence that the landlord requested, he had not received a decision about his request to succeed. He was unhappy as he did not know why the process was taking so long. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 February 2023 and said it would respond within 10 working days.
It issued a stage 1 response on 9 March 2023 stating:
1. It apologised for the delay, inconvenience and upset caused by its service.
2. It upheld the complaint about the service the resident received after requesting succession and awarded £50 compensation.
3. It also awarded an additional £50 compensation for not responding to his complaint within the timescale in its complaints policy.
The resident asked the landlord to review the complaint on 15 March 2023, 23 March 2023 and 2 May 2023. The landlord responded accepting his request on 2 May 2023, and said it would respond to him by 24 May 2023. It wrote to him 3 times to extend the complaint response time, citing the complexity of the investigation.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 18 August 2023 which said:
1. The resident had been a “tenant” of the property since December 2021.
2. It acknowledged it had not complied with its complaint policy as it did not respond within the correct timescales.
3. The resident had not provided acceptable proof of:
  1. A relationship with the decedent.
  2. His residence at the address for 12 months before the former tenant passed away.
  3. Proof of identity, and proof of address.
4. It refused his application for succession and would contact him separately to advise on the next steps.
5. It acknowledged that there had been service failures in complaint handling and the succession request. It awarded compensation of:
  1. £50 for the delay in stage 2 response
  2. £200 for the delay in providing a clear outcome to the succession claim.
The resident responded to say that he had provided proof of his relationship with the decedent, by way of his and his mother’s birth certificates. He was not happy with the landlord’s decision, or its handling of his complaint and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. We note that on 10 April 2025 the landlord confirmed to us that the resident is still living at the address as an unauthorised occupant, and although it has received proof of identification, it has not received proof of relationship with the decedent.

Assessment and findings

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

The resident’s grandfather had a sole secured tenancy which began in 2002. The Housing Act 1988 states that a spouse or civil partner is entitled to succeed to a sole assured tenancy. In the absence of a spouse or civil partner, a cohabitee or other family member could succeed if they 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. While the Housing Act defines family members as siblings, cohabitees, parents and children, the tenancy agreement specifies that grandchildren are eligible to apply for succession as a family member.
The landlord’s succession policy states:
1. If a person applies to succeed to the tenancy and the landlord is not sure whether they are eligible it should:
  1. Send a housing benefit application to any applicant regardless of whether they are likely or unlikely to be entitled to succeed.
  2. Interview the applicant within 5 days of the potential successor identifying themselves.
  3. Request a copy of the decedent’s death certificate, identification for the applicant and proof of residence.
  4. Take a statement of the relationship between the decedent and the applicant.
  5. Take written authorisation to write to the applicant’s bank, employer, or benefit agency.
  6. If there is any doubt regarding the 12-month residency requirement the landlord should then write to the applicant’s bank, employer or benefits agency and ask how long they have known the resident to be at the address. It should also check with the housing benefit service, council tax department, electoral registration service, estate services staff, and neighbours. This process should take no longer than 10 days.
  7. If the applicant is not accepted to succeed the tenancy, the landlord must inform them and advise of their options for review.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it completed this process. Its internal records indicate that it considered wider housing records and ran a credit check. However, there is no evidence that it did any checks with the housing benefit or council tax departments, contacted the resident’s bank or employer, or spoke with neighbours. In internal communications it stated that it was aware that the resident moved in after his grandfather had passed, but did not record how it came upon this information.
The resident informed this Service that he was added to the council tax at the property for 2 years before the death of his grandfather. If the landlord had followed its policy, it would have been able to verify whether this was correct and make an informed decision about whether the resident was eligible for succession of the tenancy. There is no evidence that it did this.
The stage 2 response said that the resident had only provided 1 form of identification and not 2. However, it did not give any more information on what forms of identification it would accept, or give him the opportunity to send it in. Given he was still residing in the property it would have been reasonable to do so.
The landlord’s records relating to the resident’s proof of relationship with the decedent are inconsistent. In its complaint response it told the resident that it would not approve succession as he had not proven his relationship with the original tenant and had provided no evidence that he lived there for 12 months. The resident has stated in emails that he provided copies of his birth certificate and his mothers to establish a relationship. If this was not suitable evidence the landlord should have specified what information it needed, and there is no evidence that it did this, which is unreasonable.
We have also seen evidence provided by the landlord of an undated succession approval form which states that:
1. Credit checks found that the resident had no links to other addresses, and almost all credit accounts were linked to this property.
2. It had obtained proof of relationship.
3. As the original tenancy started prior to 2012 a family member was able to apply for succession of the property.
The approval form was undated, did not have a signature from the assessor or a manager, and did not have a final decision on succession. In an email to the landlord in response to its succession refusal, the resident stated that he had sent copies of his and his mother’s birth certificates. This warranted further investigation by the landlord, and it should have asked the resident to resubmit this evidence as the succession policy allows applicants to appeal a rejection by using the complaints process.
The policy states that when it writes to communicate its decision it will make residents aware that they can appeal it using the complaints process. In this case, the decision was communicated to the resident on 16 August 2023, and the landlord did not reiterate the resident’s options for appeal. He may not have been aware that he could raise a new complaint to appeal the decision, particularly as the complaint process was ongoing for the landlord’s handling of his application. Additionally, it did not mention this right to review in the stage 2 response issued 2 days later.
The landlord should have made it clear that the resident could make a new complaint to appeal the decision. This would have given him the option to provide more evidence. He expressed the desire to do so in his response to the stage 2 response.
It was appropriate that the landlord issued a Notice to Quit following the original tenant’s passing, as it would create a new tenancy for any succeeding tenants. The landlord allowed the resident to stay in the property by way of a use and occupation agreement. Such an agreement is appropriate where a person is occupying a property and is liable to make a payment to the landlord to occupy the property without a formal tenancy agreement being in place.
The use of such an agreement was a reasonable decision by the landlord at that point however, it should have been a temporary measure. In this case it remained in place for too long and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as he had no certainty regarding his right to continue living in the property.
While the Ombudsman empathises with the resident’s situation, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether a succession should have been agreed by the landlord. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response, whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures and acted in a manner that was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s application in line with its policy. While it completed some checks to see if the resident had another tenancy, it did not contact external departments or agencies. It did not investigate further when he informed it that he was listed on the council tax for 2 years, and did not ask for another copy of his proof of relationship evidence.
The landlord offered £50 compensation at stage 1 and £200 compensation at stage 2. It is not clear whether the stage 2 offer was inclusive of the £50 already offered. The landlord’s compensation policy suggests:
1. Awards of up to £150 for time and trouble where the issue has been ongoing for more than 4 months.
2. Awards of up to £400-500 for delays and distress where the issue has high impact, and in significant and exceptional cases.
The amount offered did not reflect the level of time, trouble, distress and inconvenience associated with its service failure. It was also not proportionate to the length of the time the matter had been ongoing, and the effect that having insecure tenure would have on the resident.
In total there were 465 days between the resident’s request and the landlord informing him of its decision. This is not acceptable and is not consistent with its policy which says it will confirm its decision within 10 days. Its communication was poor. In the complaint response and decision letter it told the resident what evidence he had not provided, but did not specify what evidence it needed. Its internal records did not match information it gave the resident and it did not acknowledge this. It also did not tell the resident how he could appeal the decision, and did not give him any additional opportunities to provide the information it required.
The resident waited for over a year for a decision and was not given the opportunity to provide more information or appeal the decision. The resident made it clear to the landlord that he was constantly worried that he would need to leave the property as he had no security of tenure. He expressed his frustration at providing evidence which he did not believe the landlord had considered, particularly as it had taken so long to make the decision. The landlord did not address this at any stage. The landlord has confirmed to us that the resident still resides in the property under the use and occupation agreement but has no tenancy rights.
For the reasons above, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed his grandfather’s tenancy.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints policy. It promises to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. It directs residents to the Ombudsman should they be dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint.
The resident originally made his complaint after waiting for a decision from the landlord for 332 working days. The landlord acknowledged the complaint within the policy timescales but sent the stage 1 response 23 working days after the acknowledgement. This is not consistent with the policy which says it will respond within 10 working days. The landlord accepted this as a service failure in its response and offered £50 compensation.
The stage 1 response itself was not detailed, and did not give the resident an update on the status of his application. It did not explain why the matter had been delayed, or what the next steps were. While it apologised, it did not demonstrate any learning from the situation or recognise the impact on the resident.
The resident asked the landlord to review his complaint on 15 March 2023. The landlord did not act until 2 May 2023 when it acknowledged this request. It contacted the resident twice to request extensions to allow it to complete its investigation. While it was reasonable for the landlord to inform the resident of an extension to allow more time to investigate, it still provided a response 45 days after the extension period ended.
It offered £50 compensation at stage 2 for its failure to respond within the policy timescales, bringing the total offered to £100 for complaint handling. Compensation at both stages of the complaint handling policy were consistent with the guidelines within its compensation policy.
The stage 2 response states that the resident had been a ‘tenant’ in the property since 20 December 2021. While this may have simply been poor word choice, it is important to note that the resident was not a tenant under the legal definition, and this could have led him to believe that he was.
In the timeline it provided in this same response, it referred only to the contact it had with the resident and did not say what it had done during this time. It apologised for any stress or inconvenience but did not acknowledge how the situation impacted the resident who was faced with the real possibility of homelessness if the succession was not approved.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. While it did offer compensation for its process delays, it did not acknowledge the impact on the resident. The offer of compensation would have been appropriate based on the delays however it was not reflective of its complaint handling overall and did not provide full redress. The complaint responses were not detailed enough to answer the resident’s questions, and it did not demonstrate any learning from the situation or recognise the impact on the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for succession.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failures in handling his application for succession. This includes the time taken to communicate its decision to the resident, its communication, and its evidence gathering failures. The apology should be written and sent by the resident’s preferred method of contact. A copy must be provided to the Ombudsman to demonstrate compliance.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £900, consisting as follows:
  1. £750 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for succession.
  2. £150 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience relating to the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. Any monies paid during the complaint process can be deducted from this amount.
  4. Proof of payment must be sent to the Ombudsman as proof of compliance.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must complete a case review which includes:
1. Determining why the original application was not handled within the policy timescale.
2. How it communicated its evidence requirements to the resident.
3. The succession approval form – including how much detail should have been included, how it should have been used and why it was not signed off by a manager.
4. How it can avoid similar issues in the future.
Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must reconsider the resident’s application for succession. It should follow the process in its policy and it must:
1. Contact the resident to gather any evidence he feels will support his application.
2. Clearly state what evidence has been considered, and how it has reached its decision.
3. Communicate the decision clearly to both the resident and this Service.
  1. If the landlord refuses the succession application it must inform the resident of his housing options. It must also provide a clear timeframe for when the property will no longer be available to him.
  2. If the landlord approves the succession application it must provide a clear timeframe for when it will grant a formal tenancy.
Within 12 weeks of this report the landlord must provide us with a training plan to provide refresher training for its staff regarding the succession process. The training should be completed within 6 months of this report. This includes:
1. Evidence gathering.
2. Interpreting and documenting the evidence.
3. Documenting its decisions.
4. Communicating its decision to the resident.
5. Ensuring all staff are aware of how residents may request a review of the decision.