Peabody Trust (202320788)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202320788

Peabody Trust

5 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s management of the resident’s succession request.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident’s mother was the sole secure tenant of the landlord. The resident notified the landlord of her mother’s death on 8 June 2020 and claimed succession to the tenancy. The property is a 3-bedroom flat.
The landlord sent a succession application form to the resident’s brother on 2 July 2020. This was not returned to the landlord. It then issued a Notice to Quit to the personal representative of the deceased tenant on 6 November 2020.
The landlord took no further action until 24 August 2022. It sent the resident a succession application form, which she completed on 24 August 2022. She supplied evidence of her residency at the address. She included her brother on the application as a member of the household.
The landlord conducted fraud checks and found the resident’s brother to have a mortgage at another address. It wrote to the resident on 31 October 2022. It stated:
1. The resident would not statutorily succeed to the tenancy. It would offer her a discretionary right to the tenancy.
2. The property was unsuitable for her needs because it was too large for her single household. The landlord would offer her a 1-bedroom property instead.
Between 31 October 2022 and 10 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident 3 times. It told her it had approved the succession on the condition she must move to a 1 bedroom property. It offered her a 1-bedroom flat, which the resident did not accept. It issued a 2nd Notice to Quit on 10 May 2023, addressed to the personal representative of the deceased tenant.
The landlord sought legal advice on 10 May 2023 after the resident did not accept the 1-bedroom flat. On 22 May 2023 it received advice that:
1. the resident had succeeded as the secure tenant of the property.
2. it could not attach conditions to the succession, even though the property was too large for the resident’s needs.
3. it could have taken court action on grounds of under-occupation, but the time limits for doing so had passed and it was too late.
4. it therefore could not force the resident to move to a smaller property.
5. it should amend its records to reflect that the resident was the secure tenant since 16 May 2020.
The resident also sought advice. Her adviser wrote to the landlord on 31 May 2023 and emailed on 3 July 2023. The adviser stated that the resident had succeeded to the tenancy, and the landlord could not force her to move to a smaller property. The email stated that the resident had received a call from the landlord asking when she would move. It also stated the resident could not access her online rent account. It asked the landlord to confirm its next steps.
The landlord responded to the housing adviser on 31 May and 3 July. It said:
1. a key element of the resident’s application to succeed was fraudulent because her brother had a property elsewhere.
2. it must assess all applicants for succession and applicants must provide supporting documents. Succession is not automatic.
3. It had not stopped access to her rent account.
4. The resident had declined an offer of 1 bedroom accommodation and would be remaining in the 3 bedroom property.
On 30 July 2023, the resident submitted a stage 1 complaint. She said:
1. the landlord had refused to accept her succession and had tried to force her out of her home.
2. she had been unable to access her online rent account since 3 July 2023.
3. she had spoken to the landlord 6 times between 3 July and 28 July to gain access to her online rent account.
4. She wanted written evidence from the landlord that she was the secure tenant.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint on 9 August 2023. It did not uphold her complaint. It said:
1. It had approved her succession.
2. it was standard practice to make tenancy fraud checks for succession applications and that it had sought legal advice.
3. it had asked her to move to a smaller property to meet her current housing needs. It was standard practice for it to register her on its internal choice based lettings website.
4. it had advised the resident that she could remain at the property and was liable for the rent.
5. it would send her a document to sign, which would amend the tenancy and confirm that she had become the secure tenant.
On 31 August 2023, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She asked the landlord to provide:
1. written confirmation on letter headed paper that her succession had been approved.
2. written confirmation of her rent account reference number so that she could pay her rent.
3. details of how to access the online rent account.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 September. She stated that she believed the landlord had closed her complaint and had ignored her requests to escalate the complaint to stage 2. She asked this Service to assist her to obtain a response from the landlord to her stage 2 complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 request by email to the resident on 26 September 2023. It said it would respond within 15 working days, by 17 October 2023.
On 17 October, the landlord emailed the resident to extend the response deadline a further 10 working days to 31 October 2023.
On 23 October, after receiving further contact from the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord and instructed it to reply to the resident’s stage 2 complaint by 13 November 2023.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 23 January 2024. It found that it had correctly followed the process and policy for the succession. It apologised for some delays on its part. It did not uphold the complaint about staff conduct. It said it found no record of poor service. It offered £300 compensation for time, trouble, and inconvenience and £400 for complaint handling. It confirmed that the resident was the successor, and her name was recorded on the secure tenancy.
The resident asked this Service to investigate her complaint on 14 February 2024. She stated that she wanted the landlord to acknowledge it had made mistakes and be accountable.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident submitted an additional stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 12 May 2023. This complaint was about a disrepair and gas safety matter and has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 23 January 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has informed the landlord and this Service that the landlord’s actions had directly impacted her wellbeing. It is beyond the authority of this Service to decide whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that any action or lack of action by the landlord has adversely affected her wellbeing. While we cannot consider the effect on health, this Service has considered any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that she experienced.
The entitlement to succession is set out in civil law. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether a succession should have been agreed by the landlord. As such, this Service will focus on the landlord’s response to the request to succeed, whether it acted in accordance with relevant policies and procedures, and acted in a manner that was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. By necessity, this report refers to the legal position in the consideration of the landlord’s management of the succession request.

Policies, procedures, and occupancy agreement

The tenancy agreement sets out that under the provisions of the Housing Act 1985, 1 succession to the tenancy can take place automatically. It would pass to the surviving spouse in the 1st instance. If there was no spouse, the tenancy would pass to a member of the tenant’s family. To succeed, the family member must live in the property as their main home at the time of the death and for the 12 months before the death.
The landlord’s Succession and Assignment Policy (April 2018), states that the policy does not supersede the tenancy agreement.
The policy states that family members who qualify for succession to an unsuitable property will be offered suitable accommodation. If they do not accept the offer, the landlord will begin possession proceedings by serving a Notice of Seeking Possession between 6 and 12 months after the death of the original tenant. If the landlord does not serve the Notice of Seeking Possession, the tenant will succeed to a tenancy of the property.
The policy states if the potential successor fails to provide evidence that they meet the criteria for a succession, it will serve a Notice to Quit and send a pre-action protocol letter to any occupants.

The landlord’s management of the resident’s succession request

It is not in dispute that the resident notified the landlord of the tenant’s death on 8 June 2020. The landlord’s records indicate that it recorded an email address for the resident and referred to her as the successor on 9 June 2020. Its records show that it sent a letter and succession application form to the resident’s brother on 2 July 2020. It did not receive a response.
On 6 November 2020, the landlord issued a Notice to Quit. This action was in accordance with its policy. It had not received evidence that the resident or her brother met the criteria for statutory succession.
The landlord took no further action until 9 August 2022, when it established that it had not received the returned succession application form it had sent in August 2020. This was a significant failure in its housing management because it later adversely affected the measures that were available to it.
This Service acknowledges that at the time the landlord was notified of the tenant’s death, the coronavirus pandemic had impacted the provision of services. It is understandable that in the initial months after the tenant’s death, the landlord may have found it more difficult to fully perform its functions effectively. However, this does not explain why it took the landlord over 2 years to follow up on the succession matter with the resident. It delayed unreasonably in dealing with the succession claim.
When contacted by the landlord in August 2022, the resident completed a succession application form. She supplied documents to prove she met the requirements to succeed to the tenancy. She included her brother as a member of her household.
A landlord is required to ensure that its properties are let in accordance with the law. The landlord’s Lodgers, Subletting and Unauthorised Occupants Policy sets out the actions it will take to identify and deter tenancy fraud. The landlord conducted tenancy fraud checks and found that the resident’s brother had a property elsewhere from January 2021. In checking the information supplied by the resident, it acted in accordance with this policy and its wider responsibilities. This was a reasonable course of action for it to take.
The landlord decided that the resident was a single person, who it would normally expect to occupy a 1 bedroom property. This was a rational position for the landlord to take, because it had established that her brother had accommodation elsewhere.
The landlord’s internal records on 27 October 2022 show that it accepted that the resident succeeded to the tenancy. However, it wrote to the resident on 31 October 2022 and told the resident that she would not qualify to statutorily succeed. This was later found to be an incorrect position.
The landlord said in its letter of 31 October 2022 to the resident that it would grant her a discretionary right to the tenancy, but that she would have to downsize to a smaller property. However, this was outside the rights enshrined in law. The landlord’s position did not comply with its policy statement in the Succession and Assignment policy, which said that the policy did not supersede the rights enshrined in the tenancy agreement.
This Service is aware that social landlords manage a scarce public resource and must allocate and manage their housing stock appropriately. There are long waiting lists for family-sized accommodation. The resident was a single person occupying a 3-bedroom flat. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to seek to allocate the property to a larger household, who needed a 3-bedroom property.
In initially making a condition that the resident move to a smaller property, it acted outside the terms of the tenancy agreement, the Housing Act 1985, and its policy. This evidences the landlord’s lack of understanding of the resident’s legal position and the options available to it. This was a failing.
The landlord sought legal advice after the resident declined its offer of a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord’s legal team advised it on 22 May 2023 that its actions in respect of the succession and downsizing were incorrect. The landlord was advised it had missed its window of opportunity to serve a Notice of Seeking Possession on grounds that the property was too large for the successor’s needs.
This Service recognises that secure tenancies for residents of Housing Associations are now uncommon. However, this Service expects the landlord to have adequate knowledge, capacity and guidance in place, or immediately available, for staff who are responsible for the consideration of succession applications. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it understands the differences in tenure and apply its policies and the law correctly.
It was not until 3 July 2023, when the landlord wrote to the resident’s adviser, that it accepted that the resident could stay in the property. This was over 11 months after the resident completed and submitted her succession application. This was an unacceptable delay that cannot but have promoted significant distress, time and trouble and prolonged the resident’s uncertainty about her future security.
The resident states that she contacted the landlord 13 times between 3 July 2023 and 1 November 2023 about access to her rent account and to confirm her tenancy status. It is not possible for this Service to comment on why the resident was unable to access her rent account. However, this Service would expect the landlord to make effort to ensure its systems are amended to reflect the resident’s agreed succession status in a timely manner.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord ultimately accepted the resident had succeeded to the tenancy on her mother’s death. While due processes in determining any entitlement to succession would have taken a reasonable period, the extent of time in this case following the resident’s submission of the formal application on 24 August 2022 was excessive.
During this extended timeframe, the landlord’s failings and delays caused undisputed and avoidable time and trouble, alongside obvious concern and distress to the resident. Cumulatively, because of the failings identified in this investigation and undisputed detriment caused, the landlord’s management of the resident’s succession amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in operation as at 1 April 2022 set out standards for landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively. If it required more time, this should not have exceeded a further 10 working days without good reason. It should also agree any extension with the resident in advance. The landlord’s Complaints Policy complied with the Code.
The landlord’s Compensation and Remedies Policy (21 September 2023) states that it may pay compensation of up to £650 for time, trouble and inconvenience. It may pay compensation of up to £300 for failures in complaint handling. It may pay compensation above these maximum limits where it considers it fair and necessary to do so.
The resident submitted a stage 1 complaint online to the landlord on 30 July 2023. The landlord responded to the complaint on 9 August 2023. The complaint response confirmed to the resident that it accepted that she could stay at the property, and she was the secure tenant who had succeeded to the tenancy. It did not accept that its standards of customer care had fallen short. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 August 2023 with a detailed response to each of its points in the stage 1 complaint response. The resident’s increasing frustration is apparent throughout her communication with the landlord. The resident clearly informed the landlord that she did not consider her complaint resolved. Therefore, the landlord should have treated this as an escalation request, but it did not.
The resident emailed the landlord again and submitted a stage 2 complaint on 31 August 2023. Despite this Service’s intervention, the landlord did not provide its stage 2 response until 23 January 2024. This was 101 working days after the resident submitted the stage 2 complaint. This was an excessive amount of time for the resident to have to wait for the landlord’s final response.
When failings are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord adequately put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. This Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was compliant with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered a total of £700 compensation for its failings. This was proportionate and within the range of awards this Services’ guidance would recommend. As such, this aspect of the investigation is determined to be reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

There was maladministration in the landlord’s management of the resident’s succession request.
There was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. a senior member of the landlord’s management team must formally apologise to the resident in writing for the failures identified in this report
2. If it has not already done so, the landlord must directly pay the resident compensation of £300.
Within 6 weeks the landlord must:
1. provide training to ensure relevant staff understand the succession and assignment policy provisions and understand the succession rights of all tenures.
2. provide evidence of compliance to this Service.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is recommended to directly pay the resident £400 for its failure in complaints handling, if it has not already done so. The finding of reasonable redress is contingent upon this payment.