Clarion Housing Association Limited (202108787)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108787

Clarion Housing Association Limited

9 November 2022


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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for succession to the tenancy at the property.

Background

  1. The resident’s late mother held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. She lived in a four-bedroom property with her three children. The youngest two children have brought this complaint against the landlord, and both have vulnerabilities. After the resident’s mother passed away, the eldest sibling (‘the eldest sibling’) made enquiries with the landlord (May 2019) about a succession to the tenancy for him and his two younger siblings.
  2. In September 2019, the middle sibling (‘the resident’) called the landlord for its assistance. He asked for some advice on his available options and wanted to find out if he could get a tenancy on a discretionary basis, or be rehoused. The landlord was informed that the resident was vulnerable. The landlord attempted to call the resident back, and also sent him a letter but could not reach him. The landlord therefore carried out an unannounced visit to the property and spoke to the eldest sibling who advised the landlord that a live succession application was ongoing. 
  3. The landlord later offered the eldest sibling a three-bedroom property under its discretionary succession policy, on the basis that he could demonstrate that he had guardianship over the youngest sibling (‘the youngest sibling’), who was a minor. The eldest sibling refused this offer and said he wanted to be rehoused in a one-bedroom property alone, as his two siblings would be making other arrangements. This request was refused by the landlord and the eldest sibling was served a Notice to Quit (NTQ) in December 2019.
  4. The landlord visited the property in January 2020, during which the youngest sibling confirmed that she and the resident were not on speaking terms with the eldest sibling and that they were unaware of the need for them to vacate the property. A representative for the resident and the youngest sibling then submitted a complaint on their behalf relating to the landlord’s handling of the succession to the property and the overall lack of support provided.
  5. The landlord outlined the support it was providing to the two younger children in its stage one response and confirmed that the Local Authority would be contacted regarding re-housing options. The complaint was escalated however as the two younger children were dissatisfied about the lack of consultation with them prior to the landlord’s tenancy offer to the eldest sibling. They outlined their respective health concerns and requested a two-bedroom property.
  6. The landlord issued its stage two response in March 2021. It said it was under no obligation to offer a family member a tenancy of a deceased’s property if they had no statutory or contractual right to succeed. It also confirmed that only one person can succeed a tenancy, and if more than one person claimed a right of succession, then the landlord would require them to resolve this themselves. The landlord said its handling of the succession had been in line with its policy, though it did accept that earlier involvement of its housing services team would have been advantageous, given the younger siblings’ vulnerabilities. Finally, the landlord said that when it becomes aware of a minor living in a property who is at risk of homelessness, it will refer this to the local authority. It confirmed that after receiving the complaint, it had made a safeguarding referral to the local council.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s succession policy says:
    1. Succession occurs when a sole tenant dies and an eligible partner or qualifying member of his or her family takes over the tenancy.
    2. Shorthold tenancies will allow one statutory succession to a surviving spouse or civil partner, and that other family members do not have a statutory right to succeed, but may have a contractual right under the tenancy agreement.
    3. Where a household member is particularly vulnerable, the landlord will give special consideration to the circumstances of the case. However, as a rule, vulnerability will not be a passport to override the succession policy.
    4. Where a property is too large for the occupiers, if the landlord considers an offer of tenancy at another property, this would be what it considers to be suitable alternative accommodation.
  2. The residents’ late mother’s tenancy agreement confirms that the tenancy may pass to a spouse, civil partner or partner, but no other household member will have the right to succeed. The landlord was therefore correct to say that none of the children had a statutory or contractual right to succeed the tenancy. Succession in this case therefore fell within the discretionary process outlined in the landlord’s policy.
  3. The landlord offered the eldest sibling a three-bedroom property. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to make this offer, as the landlord was not aware at the time that the siblings did not wish to all live together. The information the landlord initially received from the eldest sibling indicated that the three siblings were going to remain living together. The landlord therefore complied with its discretionary succession policy at this stage. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer a three-bedroom property rather than allow the three siblings to remain in their existing property, as this was larger than they required and the succession policy specifically requires an alternative accommodation offer in these circumstances.
  4. Although the residents want the landlord to give them succession to the tenancy under its discretionary policy, the eldest sibling also desires an offer of a tenancy. The landlord’s succession policy makes it clear that for all types of succession, only one person can succeed. It also explains that where more than one person claims a right of succession, the landlord will require them to resolve it between themselves who will succeed the tenancy. If this cannot be decided, it would need to be determined by a court. This decision would not therefore be made by the landlord.
  5. It is also the case that the landlord’s succession policy sets out the minimum criteria which must be met in order for succession to be offered. One of these says that the applicant agrees to pay any arrears that have accrued since the tenant’s death. It was noted during the landlord’s complaints process that the current property has over £20,000 of rent arrears. It is not known if the resident or the youngest sibling would be able to repay this, even if they were able to resolve the succession issue between themselves and the eldest sibling. It is reasonable to conclude however, given the high level of these arrears, that this issue alone would amount to a significant obstacle to the ability of any of the current residents to succeed to the tenancy.
  6. The residents’ representative expressed concern that the landlord had not provided appropriate support to the residents after the death of their mother, despite one of the residents being a minor and given their respective vulnerability.
  7. It is noted that the resident contacted the landlord in 2019 for assistance regarding his housing options, with the youngest sibling incorporated into his request. The landlord attempted to call him back on two occasions, but noted that his phone was not connecting. It therefore wrote to him, and also carried out a home visit, but he was not home at the time, though the landlord was reassured by the eldest sibling during this visit that a succession application had been started. The landlord took reasonable action here, and made a number of attempts to reach the resident after he asked for support. It is unfortunate that the landlord was not able to speak with the resident directly when it carried out the home visit, but it is also the case that the resident did not contact the landlord again for support. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude that it did not need to continue to make attempts to speak with the resident because, at the time it acted in good faith based upon the evidence it had available.
  8. The landlord only became aware after receiving the complaint from the resident’s representative that there was conflict between the three siblings, which meant they were not prepared to live together. At the time of the final response, the landlord did not have authority to discuss the case with the representative and therefore limited the detail provided in its response. In the circumstances, it would have been beneficial to all parties had the landlord taken steps to obtain this permission prior to completing its final response as this would have enabled a more thorough response and therefore more effective progression of the case.
  9. That said, the final response clarified the landlord’s position regarding succession, confirming that its actions had been in accordance with its policy. The Ombudsman appreciates the difficult and complex circumstances surrounding this case but acknowledges that the landlord had acted in accordance with both the statutory and discretionary aspects of its policy when it refused the succession to the resident and youngest sibling.
  10. The landlord confirmed to the residents’ representative that, when it became aware that one of the residents was a minor and could potentially be made homeless, a safeguarding referral was made. This was an appropriate response, and in line with the landlord’s safeguarding policy which says that where the landlord has concerns about a child, they should alert statutory services to investigate fully. The landlord also made the Local Authority aware, so that assistance could be given from a housing needs perspective. This was reasonable, as a Local Authority has responsibility for the local housing register and would be in a position to advise the residents about their options from this perspective.
  11. The Ombudsman is not aware of developments since the completion of the complaints process, with the last contact from the representative dating back to February 2022, at which point the NTQ appeared to still be in place. Whilst no maladministration has been found on this case, it is strongly recommended that the landlord write, as a matter of urgency, to all parties involved on the case, to provide an update. In respect of the resident and the youngest sibling, it is also recommended that this update confirm the status of any liaison it has ongoing with the Local Authority in their respective attempts to source suitable alternative accommodation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for succession to a tenancy.

Orders and Recommendations

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to write to all parties, including the eldest sibling, the resident and the youngest sibling, providing an update on the case since the completion of the complaints process. This update to ensure that the resident and the youngest sibling are provided with an update on the landlord’s attempts to assist in securing suitable alternative accommodation through its liaison with the Local Authority.