Clarion Housing Association Limited (202404850)

Background

1. The resident held a joint tenancy but left the property because of domestic abuse. When she asked to be removed from the tenancy, the landlord refused due to rent arrears. It later agreed to use discretion, but the assignment could not proceed because the other tenant did not sign the deed of assignment. The tenancy then ended, leaving her jointly liable for the arrears. The resident told us the landlord acted unfairly during the assignment process and communicated poorly with her. She asked us to assess whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be removed from her joint tenancy and liability for the associated arrears.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found:
   1. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be removed from her joint tenancy and liability for the associated arrears.
   2. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s request to be removed from the tenancy and liability for the associated arrears

5. The landlord acknowledged its failings and put things right by apologising, offering compensation, and learning from the complaint.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord gave the resident incorrect information when it told her she was no longer liable for the rent arrears when her liability had not changed

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.

Things we cannot consider

7. The resident had to pay the rent under her tenancy agreement and was jointly responsible for any rent arrears during the tenancy. We recognise her personal circumstances, but we cannot remove contractual debts. She may wish to seek independent legal advice about this. Our investigation has assessed whether the landlord responded reasonably to her request to be removed from the joint tenancy.

What we have considered

8. When a resident asks to make a change to their tenancy agreement a landlord must follow a process with is determined by law. Landlords cannot amend tenancy agreements or remove tenants from them without the agreement of all tenants or a court order. The landlord only allows assignments in specific circumstances under its tenancy change and assignment procedure. It considers joint to sole tenancy requests, but both tenants must make the request in writing. It will only allow an assignment with rent arrears to proceed in exceptional cases, such as domestic abuse.
9. When the resident asked to be removed from the tenancy, the landlord told her to confirm this in writing. This was in line with its procedure. The landlord also gave reasonable advice that she could not be removed while rent arrears remained. When the landlord received the resident’s written request, it first said it could not complete an assignment because arrears were outstanding. In line with its procedure, it asked her to contact it again once the arrears were cleared so it could reconsider. The landlord reasonably told her this within 3 working days.
10. The resident then told the landlord that the other tenant agreed to take over the tenancy and arrears. She said they had confirmed this in writing. The landlord explained that the arrears still needed to be cleared before any assignment could proceed. It also explained that both tenants had to give written authority. The evidence shows the landlord did not have written authority from the other tenant at that time. The landlord reasonably explained its process and that it could not act further until the arrears were cleared, in line with its procedure.
11. In April 2024, the resident told the landlord she was a survivor of domestic abuse and was struggling with her mental health. She again asked to be removed from the tenancy. There is no evidence the landlord considered this in line with its policy, even though it could make exceptions in cases like this, despite arrears. Instead, it waited for both tenants to make the request in writing before starting the assignment process. This did not happen until May 2024. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 response. It apologised for not using its discretion to offer more support based on her circumstances. It offered a total of £500 and said it would use the case for learning. This was in line with our remedies guidance to remedy failings.
12. When the landlord received written confirmation from both tenants, it promptly sought senior management approval in line with its procedure. Approval was granted the same day. The landlord then drafted the Deed of Assignment and arranged for the resident to sign it. It also reasonably allowed her to sign this remotely due to her limited availability.
13. The landlord could not obtain the other tenant’s signature to execute the Deed of Assignment. The tenancy was then ended by the other tenant, leaving both tenants liable for the arrears. The landlord had to end the tenancy when presented with the Notice to Quit. We recognise this outcome would have been disappointing for the resident. However, we cannot say that earlier use of discretion would have changed the outcome. The landlord could not control whether the other tenant signed the document, as only the other tenant could provide their signature.

14. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), applicable from April 2024, was in use at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy appropriately adopted the definition of a complaint and the response timeframes set out in the Code.
15. The landlord did not progress the resident’s initial complaint at the earliest opportunity. It said that when it received the complaint in April 2024 it did not have enough information to log it. However, the resident’s concerns met the definition of a complaint, and any missing information could have been gathered through the complaints process. The landlord should therefore have logged the complaint. Its failure to do so caused the resident avoidable time and trouble in having to raise her concerns again. The landlord recognised this at stage 2, apologised, and offered appropriate compensation of £50.
16. When the resident complained again, the landlord initially said she could not complain about a statutory process. But the landlord was already aware that part of her complaint was about poor communication, which had caused delay and distress. It did eventually log the complaint, but ought to have done so straight away. The landlord should consider all aspects of a complaint when explaining how its complaints process applies.
17. The landlord appropriately apologised and offered compensation of £50 when it handled the complaint as follows:
    1. It acknowledged the complaint after 8 working days instead of the required 5 working days.
    2. It issued the stage 1 response after 12 working days instead of 10 working days.
18. In its stage 1 response, the landlord incorrectly told the resident she was no longer liable for the rent arrears. The deed of assignment had not yet been drafted or signed, so she remained liable. This mistake caused distress and unnecessary effort, as she believed she had not been responsible for the arrears and that the end of the tenancy had reversed this. However, her liability had never changed. This created an unfair expectation and a sense of missed opportunity.
19. At stage 2, the landlord acted appropriately. It acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days and issued its response within 16 working days. We note the resident told us she did not initially receive her stage 2 response. However, evidence shows the landlord emailed it to her on the date it was issued. We therefore found no failure relating to this.
20. Our remedies guidance sets out a range of suggested remedies where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident, and the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to address all the failings identified by our investigation. In this case an order has been made that the landlord pay £100 additional compensation to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord’s record keeping was adequate, as it was able to provide evidence of its communications and actions.

Communication

22. The landlord’s communication was poor because it gave the resident incorrect information about her rent arrears liability, creating confusion and distress.