Halton Housing (202502287)

Decision
Case ID	202502287
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Halton Housing
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Applicant
Date	27 January 2026

Background

1. The applicant’s mother occupied a 3-bedroom house. She died in August 2024. The applicant later asked to succeed to the tenancy. The landlord refused because she had not lived in the property for the past 12 months and only needed 2 bedrooms.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a succession application.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a succession application.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made an order for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Succession application

6. The landlord followed its policy and explained its position clearly in its responses.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not handle the complaint at stage 2 in line with its policy or our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £50 to recognise the distress caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 24 February 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
10 September 2024	The applicant complained that the landlord had not told her or her mother about the 12-month rule. Because of this, they could not make an informed choice when the applicant moved out. She explained that she only left her mother’s home to help her recover from cancer. She asked to appeal the landlord’s decision to deny her succession to the tenancy.
24 September 2024	The landlord issued its stage 1 response. It did not uphold the complaint because the decision followed its policy. It explained that when her mother contacted them on 20 August 2024, it added the applicant as an occupier in the system. However, this was far short of the 12 months needed to have a legal right to succeed the tenancy. The landlord apologised that she felt she had not been given enough information and said it would take this feedback on board.
8 October 2024	The landlord wrote to the applicant’s MP and repeated points from its stage 1 response. It explained that while it could exercise discretion when someone who does not qualify for succession remains in the property after a tenant’s death, it must review all circumstances, including the length of occupation. It noted that the applicant had only lived in the property for a few weeks and there had been a break in occupation. The landlord confirmed that the applicant only needed 2 bedrooms and highlighted that hundreds of people on the housing register required a 3-bedroom home. It said this response concluded its formal complaint process.
18 October 2024	The applicant asked to escalate the complaint. She said that she and her daughter first moved into her mother’s home more than 10 years ago. She explained that she temporarily moved out just over a year ago but continued caring for her mother and returned to the property in May 2024. She felt the landlord had not considered the wider context or her unique circumstances, which would leave her and her daughter without a home. She also felt the landlord’s decision was insensitive.
21 October 2024	The landlord told the resident that her MP had already asked for the decision to be reviewed after her initial complaint, and the decision remained the same. It gave her a copy of this letter and confirmed that she had reached the end of its complaints process.
Referral to the Ombudsman	–       The applicant felt it was unfair that the landlord did not acknowledge her escalation response, which included new information for consideration. She was unhappy that the landlord chose not to use its discretion. She also explained that she had been listed as eligible for 3-bedroom homes on the landlord’s own site, which made her believe she could apply for her late mother’s property. On 17 November 2025, the landlord granted the applicant a tenancy to reside in her late mother’s property.

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.

Complaint	Handling of a succession application
Finding	No maladministration

8. The landlord handled the succession application in line with its policy. Its responses were sympathetic in tone, and it clearly explained its position in line with its succession policy and the relevant legislation. We understand that the applicant felt the landlord should have used its discretion because of her circumstances. Although the landlord may use its discretion, it is not required to do so under its policy.
9. The landlord also clearly explained to the applicant’s MP why it would not use its discretion in this case. It shared the same response and reasoning with her. This was in line with its policy, which states that an applicant must show a housing need and must have lived in the property as their only home for 12 months before the tenant’s death. As the applicant did not meet this criterion, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
10. In her referral to us, the applicant said she had been listed as eligible for 3‑bedroom properties, which she found contradictory and hurtful. We have seen no evidence to support this. However, this does not change the fact that the landlord’s response to her succession application, at the time of her complaint, was in line with its policy.
11. We recognise that in November 2025 the landlord granted the applicant a new tenancy, allowing her to remain in her late mother’s property. Although it is unclear why the landlord changed its position, it was entitled to do so.
12. Overall, the landlord responded to the applicant in a timely and sensitive way. It offered advice and support by liaising with the council to explore alternative housing options. While this was underway, the landlord allowed the applicant to remain in the property under a temporary licence agreement in her name. This approach was fair and in line with its policy.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

13. The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 within its 10-working-day complaints policy timescale.
14. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that the applicant’s MP had asked for a review of the decision made on 24 September 2024. We have not seen any evidence of this request. Because of this, it is unclear what the MP asked the landlord to review, or whether the applicant knew about it. The landlord also did not give us a copy of its stage 2 response. This suggests issues with the landlord’s record‑keeping which we have highlighted as a learning point below.
15. The landlord’s stage 2 response also did not confirm the complaint stage, and we have seen no evidence that it provided this response to the applicant until she asked to escalate to the complaint. The landlord failed to ensure that all elements of the complaint were agreed with the applicant, and it did not contact her to confirm its understanding of the issues before responding at stage 2. This was contrary to its policy and the Code.
16. This is important because the applicant asked to escalate the complaint 10 days later, but the landlord told her it had already issued its final response to her MP and that its decision remained unchanged.
17. Although this was unlikely to change the overall outcome for the resident, it caused her distress because she felt the landlord had not considered all her circumstances when making its decision. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £50 in compensation to put right the distress caused.

Learning

18. The landlord should contact complainants at each stage of the complaints process to agree on the scope and ensure it has a clear understanding of all issues raised.
19. When a third party raises a complaint, it should provide a copy of its response to the complainant.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord should keep full and accurate records of all contact, decisions, and correspondence, including any requests from third parties such as MPs. Good record keeping will allow it to evidence its key actions and adherence to policies.

Communication

21. Overall, the landlord’s communication was good.