Southwark Council (202315882)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315882

Southwark Council

24 February 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:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a second succession of the tenancy.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the garden was for his sole use.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been considered.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, which is a local authority. The resident was a joint tenant with his mother until late 2022, when his mother passed away. Following his mother’s passing, the resident became the sole tenant of the property. The property is a 2-bedroom maisonette within a block.
  2. On 20 December 2022, the resident asked that the tenancy be changed to his sole name because his mother had passed away. The resident also asked if his partner could be added to the tenancy and if she could remain in the house if he were to die. The resident also asked if he could put a wicker cover over the garden gate and grow crops in the garden.
  3. The landlord responded that the resident had succeeded the tenancy and was now the sole tenant. The landlord outlined that its succession policy only allowed for a property to be succeeded once, so the resident’s partner would not be able to take over the tenancy in the event of the resident’s death. The landlord stated that the resident could not put a wicker cover on the gate as it was a communal gate, and the wicker would be a fire hazard.
  4. The resident complained on 8 May 2023. The resident stated that he had been tending to the garden since he moved in with his mother and he disagreed with the landlord’s assertion that it was a communal garden. The resident also noted that he had previously been told that succession of the tenancy could happen twice.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 11 May 2023 and responded on 25 May 2023. It stated the garden was communal, and this had been referenced several times in previous letters sent to the resident and his late mother. The landlord stated that the resident had taken over the tenancy via survivorship and that there were no further succession rights. The landlord referenced its tenancy handbook which states succession can only happen once.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 21 June 2023. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 July 2023. It reiterated that the garden was communal and the resident and his late mother had been informed of this previously. It also confirmed its position that the resident’s partner could not succeed him because succession can only happen once.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a second succession of the tenancy

  1. The resident has requested that the landlord allow his partner to succeed him in the tenancy in the event of his death. The resident previously succeeded his mother when she passed away.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy handbook which accompanies the tenancy agreement states that the tenancy for the property can only be succeeded once. This is standard across the housing sector. It is noted that the resident asserts that he had previously been told that there could be 2 successions. This is not reflected in the relevant policies and no evidence is available to support the resident’s assertion.
  3. The landlord informed the resident that the tenancy could only be succeeded once. The resident’s partner may request a discretionary second succession in the event of the resident’s death, but it could not determine the outcome of this at the present time. The landlord was clear with the resident regarding its position on the succession and provided its explanation in good time, which was appropriate.
  4. The landlord correctly applied the relevant policies and procedures in relation to succession and made a decision it was entitled to make. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a second succession of the tenancy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the garden was for his sole use.

  1. This Service acknowledges that the resident feels the garden should be classified as for his sole use. The Ombudsman cannot make decisions regarding the status of the garden, this matter would be better considered by a court, who can make a binding decision on the ownership of the land and how this pertains to the terms of the resident’s lease. This Service can only consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s requests for the garden to be considered for his sole use.
  2. The tenancy agreement states that communal space must only be used for access, rest, and quiet enjoyment.
  3. The resident asserts that the garden is not communal and is for his sole use because he has tended to it since he moved into the property. The resident noted that other properties in the block had sectioned off parts of the garden with flowers and plants for their own use.
  4. The landlord was clear with the resident regarding its position that the garden was communal and responded in good time. It outlined previous correspondence it had sent to the resident and his late mother which stated the garden was communal. The landlord provided contact details for the residents’ association which had a fruit growing club, if the resident wanted to make use of this to grow crops elsewhere.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the garden was for his sole use was appropriate. The landlord was clear in its position and offered the resident alternative options for him to grow crops. The landlord acted in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in this element of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with residents.
  2. The landlord’s complaint policy that was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint states that it will acknowledge complaints within 3 working days. Initial complaints will be responded to within 15 working days, if the resident remains unhappy they can request a review of the complaint and a response will be provided within 25 working days.
  3. The resident initially complained on 8 May 2023 and the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 11 May 2023. It responded on 25 May 2023. These actions were within the landlord’s policy response times.
  4. The resident requested his complaint be escalated on 21 June 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint which was a shortcoming. The landlord responded to the complaint on 11 July 2023 which is 14 working days after the escalation and within the landlord time frames. While it would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the complaint on time, this did not cause a delay in the resident receiving their complaint response.
  5. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for a second succession of the tenancy
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the garden was for his sole use.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.