Soho Housing Association Limited (202311656)

Background

1. The resident succeeded the tenancy in September 2017 after the death of his civil partner, whose tenancy began in 1987. The landlord initially issued assured tenancy paperwork but later confirmed in October 2017 that the resident had succeeded to a secure tenancy. In 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again after it gave conflicting advice about his tenancy status, which led him to raise a formal complaint.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s concerns about the error in the tenancy‑type record following succession
   2. the resident’s request to add a household member
   3. the associated complaint

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. reasonable redress in its handling of resident’s concerns about the error in the tenancy‑type record following succession
   2. reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s request to add a household member
   3. service failure in its handling of the associated complaint

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

Summary of reasons

The handling of the resident’s concerns about the error in the tenancy‑type record following succession

4. The landlord recognised its failings, apologised and offered redress which we consider reasonable.

The handling of the resident’s request to add a household member

5. The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused.

The associated complaint

6. The landlord delayed in issuing both complaint responses and went some ways to put things right but the compensation it offered did not reflect the extent of these delays.

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.

9. Where a secure tenancy began before 1 April 2012, the law allows a qualifying family member to succeed the tenancy if the property was their only or main home for the 12 months before the tenant’s death. Section 87 of the Housing Act 1985 sets out this right.
10. The original tenancy for the property began in 1987. However, the tenancy agreement the landlord provided from that period was incomplete and did not clearly show the tenancy’s status.
11. The resident succeeded to the tenancy in September 2017 after the previous resident passed away. Where a secure tenancy exists and the conditions apply, the successor takes over that same tenancy. Despite this, the landlord issued paperwork in 2017 that wrongly described the tenancy as assured.
12. On 17 October 2017 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had taken further advice and now accepted that he succeeded to the original secure tenancy. It told him to destroy the assured tenancy agreement and confirmed it had done the same itself.
13. Between May and June 2023, the resident and the landlord exchanged several emails about the tenancy status. The resident consistently said he held a secure tenancy and relied on the landlord’s 2017 correspondence and legal advice. He asked the landlord either to issue the secure tenancy agreement or to explain clearly why it would not do so.
14. During this period, the landlord repeatedly referred the resident back to its email of 12 May 2023. It continued to describe the tenancy as assured or fixed term and suggested meetings instead of addressing the key issue. It did not properly review or respond to the evidence the resident had already provided. This led the resident to make a formal complaint on 26 June 2023.
15. The landlord failed to keep accurate tenancy records and to provide correct information. It had already identified and corrected the tenancy status with the resident in an email in October 2017 but made the same mistake again in 2023. Its stage 1 complaint response did not show that it reviewed its own records or earlier advice. This caused avoidable confusion and forced the resident to spend time and effort repeatedly explaining his tenancy position.
16. Poor record keeping played a central role in this case. The landlord did not retain or refer to key correspondence, which led it to give inconsistent and incorrect information.
17. However, at stage 2 the landlord took more appropriate action. It carried out a thorough review, accepted that the tenancy was secure, corrected the information, apologised, and offered £50 compensation. It also confirmed that a statutory succession does not require a new agreement, because the successor takes over the original secure tenancy.
18. The redress it offered aligns with our compensation guidance for cases where service failures had a clear impact. We consider the apology and the compensation to be reasonable redress for the delay and its impact on the resident.

19. The landlord’s succession policy says there may be only 1 statutory succession. There can be no statutory succession if the deceased resident was already a successor. Succession can also not take place if there has already been an assignment to someone who was qualified to succeed.
20. The landlord has not provided any previous correspondence about the resident’s request to add his wife to the tenancy. In the absence of this information, we are unable to clarify how the landlord considered the request at the time or what advice it gave to the resident.
21. At stage 1, the landlord said the resident would need to surrender his tenancy to add his wife as a joint tenant, after which it would offer a new 5‑year fixed‑term tenancy. It also said it could add the resident’s wife as a household member but that any future succession would be at its discretion. While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain its policy on joint tenancies and household members, this advice relied on an incorrect understanding of the resident’s tenancy type. This made the advice unclear and not fully reasonable in the circumstances.
22. At stage 2, the landlord accepted that it had given unclear and incorrect advice at stage 1. It corrected its position, explained that the resident could add his wife as a household member but not as a joint tenant, and confirmed there is no statutory right to assign a secure tenancy where a succession has already taken place. This was in line with its succession policy.
23. The landlord apologised for the earlier confusion, upheld this part of the complaint, and offered compensation. These actions show that the landlord accepted responsibility and took steps to put matters right.
24. The apology and compensation offered were reasonable and align with our compensation guidance for cases where a landlord has acknowledged its failings and made proportionate efforts to resolve the issue.

25. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. The relevant code in this case was the 2022 edition. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s policy was compliant with the Code.
26. At stage 1, the complaint policy says the landlord would acknowledge within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. If this could not be met, it should have agreed an extension of up to a further 10 working days with the resident.
27. At stage 2, the policy says the landlord would respond within 20 working days. If this could not be met, it should have agreed an extension of up to a further 10 working days with the resident.
28. The resident contacted the landlord on 26 June 2023 to complain. He later contacted us because the landlord did not respond.
29. As explained above, we contacted the landlord 3 times to request the stage 1 response and set clear deadlines for it to reply.
30. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 October 2023, 79 working days after receiving the complaint. This was not in line with the Code or its policy. The landlord did not provide evidence it acknowledged the complaint.
31. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 22 November 2023, which was 2 days later than the date we asked it to and therefore not in line with the Code.
32. While the landlord offered compensation for the delay in providing its staged 1 response, we do not consider the amount proportionate. It only responded after we intervened several times and warned that a CHFO might be issued. The landlord did not follow its own policy or the Code and gave no reason for the long delay.
33. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation to reflect the time and trouble it caused the resident in pursuing a reply. This is in line with our compensation guidance for where it has acknowledged its complaint handling, made some attempts to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.

Learning

34. The landlord should consider how it shares information so that its understand the full history and give accurate advice from the start. A more joined‑up approach would help prevent repeated errors, reduce unnecessary escalation, and give residents greater confidence in how their enquiries is handled.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

35. The landlord should ensure it records key decisions and correspondence accurately and makes this information easy to access. Better record keeping would help it give consistent advice, avoid repeat mistakes, and reduce unnecessary distress and effort for residents in future cases.

Communication

36. As with the record keeping, the landlord’s poor communication in this case likely led to a loss of confidence by the resident. A key issue in this case appeared to be the internal communication and inconsistencies in following the succession process. Given the importance of succession decisions to an applicant’s housing status and security, it is vital these are communicated clearly, in an accessible manner and well-reasoned.