London Borough of Newham (202412827)

Background

1. The resident applied to succeed her parents’ tenancy after her father died in August 2023. She complained that the landlord refused the succession, took too long to make its decision did not fully consider her circumstances, and continued to charge rent on both properties during the decision period. The landlord said it had applied its policies correctly and upheld its decision to refuse the succession.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the residents:
   1. Succession application.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s succession application.
   2. Reasonable redress in the landlords handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Succession application

4. The landlord acknowledged delays in responding to the succession application and identified shortcomings in its stage 1 response. However, the remedy it offered was not reasonable given the length of the delay.

Complaint

5. The landlord met the stage 1 policy timeframe, but its stage 2 response was delayed. It acknowledged this and provided compensation that represented a reasonable remedy.

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.

Recommendations

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

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

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.

6. The resident complained that the landlord refused her succession application in May 2024, even though she submitted it in August 2023. She said the landlord did not take her circumstances into account, communicated poorly, and issued notices inappropriately. She asked the landlord to explain the 9‑month delay in deciding and how it concluded that she did not qualify.
7. The landlord said it wrote to the resident on 1 May 2024 to confirm its intention to recover possession and to advise her that she needed to return to her secure tenancy. It said it continued to hold this position. However, it did not address her circumstances, including her request to be considered under exceptional circumstances for succession, or respond to her concerns about communication or delays.
8. Records confirm that the landlord sent the refusal on 1 May 2024. It explained that it had refused the succession because the resident already held a secure tenancy of her own. The landlord asked her to return the keys by 26 May 2024.
9. The resident escalated the complaint because she felt the landlord had not addressed all her concerns or the circumstances she raised. She said the landlord had not explained why it did not support succession, consider a transfer, or discuss other housing options. She also said communication during the process had been poor.
10. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 response did not include sufficient information. It apologised and offered £50 compensation. It also acknowledged that its communication had been insufficient and that it took 9 months to decide the succession application. It apologised but did not explain the delay.
11. The landlord confirmed that the resident did not meet the statutory criteria for succession. It said the property was not her principal home and she held a secure tenancy elsewhere, which she had not surrendered when she moved to her parents’ home. The landlord’s explanation accurately reflects its statutory succession policy, insofar as an applicant must “occupy the property as their principal home”.
12. The landlord also has a non-statutory succession policy which sets out that in some circumstances a person might have rights if they did not qualify for statutory succession. These criteria include if the occupant wants to remain, and the property could be offered in line with the landlord’s lettings policy, after considering its size and the occupant’s needs and circumstances. There is also the option for the landlord to offer alternative accommodation if the property cannot be let to the occupant within the lettings policy.
13. The landlord explained that the resident did not meet its non-statutory succession criteria either, essentially, for the same reason—she already had a tenancy elsewhere.
14. Given that social housing tenants must usually occupy their rented property as their only (or principal) home, and the resident already had an ongoing tenancy, that other property was legally her sole home. The landlord’s conclusions that she could not succeed, and that it had no obligation to offer her a new tenancy or alternative accommodation therefore appears in line with both succession policies and the resident’s circumstances.
15. The landlord issued a notice to quit the property in February 2024, with a deadline of 18 March. The rent liability over that period remained with the deceased tenant’s estate, in line with the statutory policy. As the resident had a tenancy elsewhere, the rent liability for that property remained with her.
16. In her complaints the resident raised several reasons why she felt the landlord should use its discretion to approve the succession, including suggesting that she would give up her existing tenancy. It responded to each of them, explaining in detail why her grounds did not change the situation, or were not relevant for other reasons.
17. However, the landlord’s statutory policy includes specific timescales for responding to a succession application. Decisions should be issued within 20 working days or within an additional 10 days if further enquiries are needed. In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged it had taken it 9 months to give its decision. This clearly exceeded the relevant timescales by an excessive amount of time. The resident complained about this and explained the extra distress and inconvenience it had caused. The landlord apologised but did not offer any other remedies. In the face of such an extensive delay, an apology alone was not reasonable.
18. It is not clear from the evidence what impact the delay had on the resident, besides the understandable distress and frustration. She told the landlord she was paying rent for both her own property and her father’s. However, the resident had continued living in the succession property, and rent was naturally payable for both, albeit the estate was liable for the succession property until such time as the landlord obtained possession. Not enough information has been provided about the resident’s circumstances and the status of her own property for this investigation to be able to identify if there was a greater impact from the delayed decision.
19. Overall, the landlord applied its succession policies correctly and followed its process for use and occupation charges. It acknowledged shortcomings in its stage 1 response and offered a remedy. However, while it acknowledged taking 9 months to reach a decision, it did not explain the reason for this delay or refer to its policy timescales or offer reasonable remedies.

20. The landlord operates a formal complaints process with 2 stages. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. The process is in line with our Complaint Handling Code.
21.  In this case, the resident raised her complaint on 13 May 2024, and the landlord responded on the same day. The resident then asked to escalate her complaint on 28 May 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 July 2024. This equates to a response after 28 working days, which was outside the timescale set out in its policy.
22. Overall, the landlord met the stage 1 timescale. Its stage 2 response was delayed, but it acknowledged the delay, apologised, and offered compensation of £50, which was a reasonable remedy given the length of the delay of 8 days.

Learning

Communication and record keeping

23. The Code highlights the need for prompt, regular, and specific updates during tenancy investigations, including succession decisions. The landlord should avoid extended periods without contact and ensure it keeps full and accurate records of all communications.
24. The landlord should also consider how it can improve the timeliness and accuracy of its complaint responses. Where service delays occur, any remedy offered should be proportionate and address both the delay and any practical impact on the resident