London Borough of Lambeth (202343837)

Background

1. The resident became a tenant of the landlord on 18 April 2022, through a mutual exchange. She is elderly, has physical disabilities and suffered a stroke, which the landlord knew about. She later moved into her daughter’s home, who is her full‑time carer, and slept in her granddaughter’s bedroom. She asked to assign her tenancy to her granddaughter, but the landlord refused and she made a complaint. The granddaughter assisted the resident throughout the complaint process and acted as her representative. For clarity, this report refers to both as “the resident” unless otherwise stated.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s requests to assign her tenancy to her granddaughter.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s requests to assign her tenancy to her granddaughter.
4. There was service failure by the landlord in its response to the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. The landlord correctly explained its decision to refuse the tenancy assignment. However, it did not adequately manage the resident’s expectations or keep her informed of delays, causing inconvenience. The landlord’s failings were short in duration and did not affect the overall outcome or cause significant detriment to the resident.
6. The landlord’s complaint handling fell short in some respects, but these shortcomings were minor and did not cause the resident significant detriment. However, the landlord did not recognise or address these issues during the complaint process.

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.

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.

7. On 18 April 2022 the resident became a tenant of the landlord following a mutual exchange. She signed a deed of assignment accepting the same terms and conditions as the original tenant, whose tenancy began in 2019.
8. We understand the resident would like the landlord to assign her tenancy to her granddaughter. In its February 2024 stage 2 response, the landlord explained its reasons for refusing her request andthat her granddaughter had no right to succeed the tenancy. It is not our role to decide assignment or succession rights, as only a court can make legal determinations.Our role is to assess whether the landlord handled the request reasonably, based on the available evidence.
9. In September 2022 the resident notified the landlord of her intention to assign the tenancy to her granddaughter. It signposted her to its website information on passing on a tenancy. It also explained that the granddaughter had to have lived at the property for 12 months and provide evidence of familial relationship. It is evident that, following this explanation, the resident believed that meeting these requirements would allow assignment.
10. However, the landlord’s website says that residents cannot assign a tenancy to grandchildren where the tenancy commenced after April 2012. While the landlord appropriately signposted to relevant information, it should have clearly explained this restriction, particularly given the tenancy arose from a mutual exchange. This failing led the resident to hold unrealistic expectations about assignment, and the landlord did not manage her expectations effectively.
11. The resident said she submitted an assignment application on 13 September 2022, but the landlord could not locate it and requested a new one. There is no evidence the resident submitted another application before 7June 2023. On receipt of this new application, the landlord sought legal advice before refusing the request and provided a reasonable explanation for its decision 27 days later. While seeking legal advice was appropriate, the landlord should have done so earlier, when the resident first expressed her intention. This would have been helpful given the added complication of the mutual exchange.
12. The resident requested a copy of her tenancy agreement. In September 2023 the landlord provided the deed of assignment signed in 2022. In its stage 2 response, it correctly explained that it did not hold records of the resident’s previous tenancy, as this was with a different landlord. It also reasonably explained that it could not provide the former tenant’s agreement, as it did not hold this document.
13. The resident explained that she wrote again in October 2023, requesting a copy of her tenancy agreement and repeating her assignment request but received no response. In its stage 1 complaint response, issued 2 months later, the landlord acknowledged receipt of her letter and said it had needed to make tenancy enquiries and seek legal advice before responding. While this may have taken time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain the delay to the resident, so she knew the matter was in hand. The landlord has not provided us with evidence of the enquiries it made between October 2023 and February 2024. The lack of communication and delay caused the resident inconvenience, as she had to raise a complaint to obtain a response.
14. In its complaint responses, the landlord appropriately explained its reasons for refusing the tenancy assignment and for not providing the agreements. This was in line with the legal advice it had obtained. However, it failed to recognise or acknowledge the service failure in its handling of the matter, particularly in relation to managing expectations and updating the resident on delays. As a result, it did not offer appropriate redress. While these failings did not affect the ultimate decision, they caused the resident inconvenience.
15. In accordance with our compensation guidance, we order the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident. This reflects the landlord’s failures in communication and managing the resident’s expectations, as well as the inconvenience caused. This also reflects that the failings did not affect the overall outcome. We also considered that the landlord had signposted the resident to relevant information and clarified its position within a reasonable timeframe in July 2023.

16. The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process, and its complaint policy is in line with the Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should then receive formal responses to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint acknowledgement. If it needs longer to respond to a complaint, it will inform the resident and agree a new timeframe. In such cases, it would explain the reasons for the delay.
17. The landlord did not provide evidence that it acknowledged receipt of the complaints. It should have promptly acknowledged themand confirmed their nature with the resident. Although this did not appear to adversely affect the resident, the landlord did not handle the complaints in line with its policy.
18. The landlord did not issue its complaint responses within its published timeframes. It issued its stage 1 compliant 11 working days late and its stage 2 response 6 working days late. It did not show that it explained the delays or agreed a new timeframe with the resident.While the delays were short and did not affect the overall outcome, the resident said that she contacted the landlord in January 2024 to chase a response.
19. There were minor complaint handling failingswhich did not cause significant detriment to the resident and were short in duration. However, the landlord did not acknowledge or remedy these. In line with our compensation guidance, we order the landlord to apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord did not provide us with a copy of its complaint logs and should ensure these are available for future complaints. It should ensure that its complaint logs include acknowledgements, planned extensions, and resident agreements to demonstrate compliance with the Code.

Communication

21. The landlord should introduce processes to proactively inform residents of delays, including clear reasons and expected next steps.
22. The landlord should strengthen expectationmanagement by providing clear, consistent explanations of processes, limitations, and timescales at an early stage. In this case, it should have explained the restrictions on tenancy assignment when the resident first raised her intention to assign the tenancy to her granddaughter.