London Borough of Waltham Forest (202347813)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202347813

London Borough of Waltham Forest

26 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of an application for tenancy succession.
    2. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident’s grandmother had an assured tenancy of a 2-bedroom flat. The grandmother succeeded (took over) the tenancy in March 1988. At the time of the complaint the resident lived at the property but has since moved. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. On 15 March 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her application to succeed to the tenancy. The resident said after the death of her grandmother in 2018 the landlord approved her application to take over the tenancy. However, in 2023 the landlord said it had not processed the application, and she needed to reapply.
  3. On 13 April 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised. It acknowledged the resident completed a discretionary succession application in 2018. It said the application was not considered by its social needs panel (SNP) and the officer dealing with the matter had left. The landlord said the resident would have to re-apply and should provide evidence to support her application by 20 April 2023.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 May 2023. She said the landlord told her the SNP would consider her application on 20 April 2023, but on 27 April 2023 it delivered a ‘notice to quit’.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. It said the officer who handled her application in 2018 had left. The landlord said it had checked with a member of the SNP, and they could not remember the resident’s application. The landlord said it was unable to investigate this aspect of the complaint any further. It said as it granted one ‘mandatory’ tenancy succession, the resident had to apply for discretionary succession.  The landlord said the SNP would decide the resident’s application on 27 June 2023 and legal action was suspended until then. It ‘partially’ upheld the resident’s complaint as its record keeping was inadequate, and it had given incorrect information about the SNP meeting. The landlord apologised and awarded £250 compensation.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to us in March 2024 as the SNP had not considered her application for discretionary succession. The resident said she wanted the landlord to communicate its decision on her application.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

  1. The resident said in 2018 the landlord agreed her application for discretionary succession but did not send written confirmation. We encourage residents to complain to their landlords in a timely manner. This is so the landlord can consider issues when they are ‘live’, and evidence is still available. We do not consider complaints that are not made within a reasonable period. This is usually 12 months before a complaint is made to the landlord. This assessment therefore does not consider the landlord’s actions in 2018. Instead, it considers events from January 2023, when the landlord realised the resident’s case was outstanding. Events before this period provide context but are not included in the assessment. The assessment considers the period up to the landlord’s final complaint response on 23 June 2023.

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

  1. For secure tenancies starting before 1 April 2012 the law allows one tenancy succession. A spouse, civil partner or eligible family member can succeed to the tenancy if they have been living with the tenant for 12 months before the tenant’s death. After one tenancy succession, there are no further statutory succession rights.
  2. The landlord’s succession procedure says the landlord may agree a non-statutory (discretionary) succession if the applicant was a carer for the tenant. It says the applicant would have to demonstrate they provided a “high level” of care and lived at the property for at least 5 years.
  3. In January 2023 the landlord realised the resident’s case was outstanding. The resident explained she was shocked to learn her tenancy succession application was not agreed in 2018. The landlord said after discussion with the resident it agreed to refer her case to the SNP. As there had been one tenancy succession already the resident had no statutory right to succeed. The landlord acted reasonably in agreeing to refer the resident’s case to the SNP to consider a discretionary succession.
  4. On 15 March 2023 the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of her application. She said she had lived at the property all her life and applied to succeed to the tenancy in 2018, after the death of her grandmother. The resident said she provided evidence in 2018 and no longer had these documents. She asked the landlord to find her original application.
  5. In its stage 1 response sent on 13 April 2023 the landlord said there was no right to statutory succession. It acknowledged the resident completed a discretionary succession application in 2018 but said this was not considered. The landlord said it had checked with an SNP member, and they did not recall the application. It said the resident would need to reapply. The landlord said the SNP would consider her application at the end of April 2023. It “urged” the resident to provide evidence to support her application by 20 April 2023.
  6. In addition to speaking with an SNP member it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have checked meeting agendas and minutes to confirm the application was not considered. There is no evidence the landlord did this.. As the resident said she no longer had the original documents, the landlord could have advised what information she needed to submit.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 9 May 2023. She said the landlord told her the SNP meeting was on 20 April 2023 but did not communicate the outcome. She said on 27 April 2023 without any explanation the landlord sent a ‘notice to quit’.
  8. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it referred the application to the SNP in May 2023, and it would be considered on 27 June 2023. It said legal action was suspended pending the decision. The landlord partially upheld the complaint as its record keeping was inadequate, and it got the SNP meeting date wrong. The landlord apologised and awarded £250 compensation.

Events after the landlord sent a final complaint response

  1. On 27 June 2024 the landlord told the resident its decision on her succession application. It offered the resident a new tenancy of an alternative one-bedroom property. The resident accepted the tenancy offer and moved to the new property in May 2025.
  2. Where the landlord admits failings, we consider whether its offer of redress put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so, we consider whether the redress was in accordance with the dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The landlord followed its succession procedure. After it realised the resident’s case was outstanding it advised there was no statutory succession right and said the resident should reapply to the SNP. The landlord acted reasonably in considering an application for discretionary succession. It acknowledged its record keeping was inadequate, and it had given incorrect information about the SNP meeting. The landlord awarded £250 compensation. This amount is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for failings that adversely effected a resident. This was appropriate for the failings identified in the landlord’s final complaint response.
  4. The landlord said it would decide the resident’s application in June 2023, however, it did not communicate its decision until June 2024. This suggests the landlord had not learnt from its previous failings. This delay caused the resident distress as she did not know if she would have somewhere to live. As a result of this additional delay, we have made a finding of maladministration.
  5. We have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident and to pay £450 compensation. This comprises £250 awarded at stage 2 and £200 for the failures set out above. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a failing that adversely

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says landlords must:
    1. Acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days.
    2. Acknowledge stage 2 complaints and respond within 20 working days of escalation.
  2. On 15 March 2023 the resident complained to the landlord.
  3. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 13 April 2023. This was 11 working days after the response time required by the Code.
  4. On 9 May 2023 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged her escalation request. The landlord sent a stage 2 response on 23 June 2023. This was 13 working days after the response time required by the Code.
  5. We found service failure in the landlords’ complaint handling. This is because the landlord did not follow the timelines set out in the Code. This delayed the resident’s complaint resolution. We order the landlord to apologise and pay £50 compensation. This is in accordance with our remedies guidance where there was a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided to a resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s application for tenancy succession.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £500 compensation. This comprises:
      1. £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for tenancy succession.
      2. £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord can deduct from this amount any compensation paid at stage 2. The compensation awarded by Ombudsman should be paid direct to the resident and not to a rent or service charge account.