Haringey London Borough Council (202124512)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124512

Haringey Council

9 March 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:

a. resident’s request to succeed to the tenancy of the property;

b. mutual exchange;

c. administration of the occupancy charge.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is classified as an authorised occupant of the property since 4 November 2018.
It is noted that at the time of the complaint, the property was managed by the Council’s arms- length management organisation (ALMO). On 25 May 2022, the housing service returned to the management of the Council.
The property is described as a four-bedroom house.
The resident has medical conditions such as agoraphobia, severe depression social anxiety disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The landlord’s succession policy sets out who can succeed to a property on the death of a tenant. It sets out when an alternative property will be offered and the reasons why an application for succession will be declined. It advises that once succession has taken place following the death of a joint tenant, it can agree for an applicant to move to alternative accommodation and join the Housing Register for a direct offer of accommodation to be made.
The succession policy explains that if the deceased tenant was a successor to the tenancy, the landlord will not allow another succession.
The landlord’s housing decisions panel policy grants tenancies in exceptional circumstances. It sets out the factors to be considered when making its decision.
The landlord’s mutual exchange policy explains that a mutual exchange is an assignment of tenancy between two tenants. Before the transfer takes place, each tenant is required to obtain written consent from each landlord. The process can be used to find suitable alternative accommodation for households who are under-occupying, overcrowded or in need of an adapted property.
The landlord’s corporate complaints policy available online states that complaints will be answered within 10 working days at the first stage and within 25 working days at its final stage.

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s application of its succession policy in part refers to the landlord’s decision that the resident was entitled to a direct offer of alternative accommodation. The offer of accommodation would be made through the Council’s Choice Based Lettings. At the time of the complaint the ALMO had delegated authority to manage the allocation of council properties on behalf of the Council. Paragraph 42 (k) of the Ombudsman’s scheme says that we will not consider complaints that fall within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman. The allocation of council housing is the responsibility of the Council and is not part of the landlord’s housing management function. As such the allocation of council properties falls within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and cannot be considered by the Housing Ombudsman.
The resident has informed this Service that he has a number of medical conditions such as agoraphobia, severe depression and social anxiety disorder. The resident has advised that the actions of the landlord has impacted on this and his ability to continue his treatment for his mental health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Neither can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Summary of events

On 27 July 2018, the resident made a request to the landlord that he and his father succeed to the tenancy of the property. In response, the landlord informed the resident on 27 September 2018 that it could not agree to the resident succeeding to the tenancy as when a joint tenant passes away, the surviving joint tenant is entitled to succeed to the tenancy. The landlord’s records note on 12 December 2018 that it was notified by the resident of his father’s death and that the landlord sent out a grant of tenancy form for the resident to complete and return. On 30 December 2018, the resident applied for a grant of tenancy.
The records show that the resident’s father passed away on 4 November 2018. On 11 January 2019, the landlord’s internal records show it had assessed that the resident was an unauthorised occupant from 5 November 2018. The landlord’s records noted that the original tenancy for the property started on 17 May 1975 and the tenancy agreement was not available. The resident’s mother had passed away on 2 June 2001 and the resident’s father had made an application to succeed to the tenancy on 7 October 2018. There were no supporting documentation to confirm whether the succession to the father had taken place and that the resident had provided a letter of support from his GP regarding his request to succeed to the tenancy.
On 30 January 2019, the Council’s housing benefit service wrote to the resident to advise that he should contact the Universal Credit Service (UC) to apply for help with his housing costs.
The landlord’s housing decision panel met on 31 January 2019 to consider among other things the resident’s request to succeed to the tenancy. The housing decision panel requested further information regarding the resident’s support needs, medical and financial information.
On 14 March 2019, the housing decision panel agreed to award the resident a discretionary tenancy for an alternative property as his father had already succeeded to the tenancy. The housing decision panel recommended that the resident be referred to other providers who could give him support. Also, the resident’s GP to be made aware of the panel decision so that it could provide support, if necessary, as the resident would have to move to alternative accommodation.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 March 2019 giving the outcome of the housing decision panel. It advised that his housing application was placed in Band A. The landlord advised that the resident was required to bid for accommodation through the Choice Based Lettings Scheme and the council’s housing needs team would provide a unique number to enable him to bid for a council property.
In addition, an offer of alternative accommodation would be made within six months and the use and occupation charge for the property was £144.09 per week.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 April 2019 and on 7 June 2019 regarding the housing register application. He advised that he had been unable to bid for a property as he had not received a pin number. In response, the landlord apologised for the lack of contact and chased the council’s lettings team. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 June 2019 to confirm that his rehousing application had been processed and that the application was placed in Band A. In addition, it advised that he was eligible for a one-bedroom property and that if he did not receive an offer within six months, the council may make a direct offer.
On 17 June 2019 and 2 July 2019, the resident advised that he was worried about the use and occupation charge for the property and that he had not received a response to his emails about this. In addition, the resident confirmed that he had received the pin and user ID to enable him to bid on Choice Based Lettings.
On 27 June 2019, the Housing Register Team wrote to the resident advising that he had been placed on the Housing Register and his application had been placed in Band A.
On 18 July 2019, the resident’s Member of Parliament (MP), sent an enquiry to the landlord after it received an email from the resident’s niece. The MP informed the landlord that the resident is “an imminent suicide risk” and requested rehousing to a property with a garden if he cannot remain in the property.
The landlord responded to the MP on 31 July 2019. It confirmed that the resident could not succeed to the tenancy and that a grant of tenancy for alternative accommodation had been agreed. In addition, it had arranged an appointment for a vulnerability review to take place at the resident’s home on 6 August 2019 and for a referral to be made to support services.
On 16 August 2019, the resident informed the landlord that he could not bid for rehousing as his account had been suspended. In response, the landlord apologised and explained that as an error had been made as those granted a tenancy of alternative accommodation could not bid for properties. It advised that a direct offer would be made and confirmed that his medical letters had been passed to the lettings team.
The landlord’s records noted that the resident was nominated for a property on 19 August 2019. The resident had advised that he did not like the area that the property was situated in and would not be attending the viewing. It was noted that there were no restrictions on the area that could be offered or special requirements for the resident. The offer was considered suitable and reasonable, therefore no further offers would be made to the resident.
The landlord discussed the resident’s decision not to view the property. It considered that a medical letter had been provided regarding his suicidal thoughts and a referral was to be made to the crisis team. It considered that it needed to carry out an assessment of the resident’s medical needs.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 22 August 2019 informing him that a medical assessment was being sent for him to complete and return. The resident advised that he could be a possible suicide risk and the landlord responded that he would contact the crisis team to provide support. The resident responded that he had sufficient support from his GP and a referral to crisis was not required.
On 25 June 2020, the landlord chased the lettings team for an update regarding the resident’s move to alternative accommodation.
The landlord’s records do not show any further contact until the landlord contacted the resident on 13 May 2021 to request a suitable time to discuss his under occupation of the property. The landlord discussed the possibility of the resident undertaking a mutual exchange.
On the same day, the landlord chased the lettings team for an update on the direct offer for the resident.
The landlord arranged for the resident to visit the mutual exchange property on 17 May 2021 and advised that the property required a lot of work to bring it up to standard before he could move in. He advised that he was willing to accept the property if the landlord carried out the repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 May 2021 regarding the rental charge for the property. The resident advised that he had been informed that the use and occupation arrears had been resolved. In response, the landlord advised that the use and occupation charge was £138.27 and the account had arrears of £2148.19.
On 1 June 2021, the resident informed the landlord that he had spent over two years living with uncertainty regarding his housing situation. Consequently, he was ready to undertake the mutual exchange. The discretionary payments team had contacted him and resolved the arrears of the use and occupation charge.
The landlord communicated with the resident in June 2021 regarding the mutual exchange. It explained that:

a. The mutual exchange could not go ahead as the other property had outstanding repairs.

b. Senior management approval was required to agree to the exchange as the resident was not a tenant of the landlord.

c. It was obtaining a legal opinion.

On 10 June 2021, the landlord’s records note that the tenancy officer contacted the Head of Lettings to obtain advice regarding the possibility of the mutual exchange for the resident. The tenancy officer gave his reasons for requesting permission for the mutual exchange to go ahead. These were:

a. The resident had not left the property for the past 18 months.

b. The prospective mutual exchange property was near to the resident’s property.

c. His siblings live nearby and provide support.

d. The prospective mutual exchange property would benefit the resident as it did not have any noise interference.

e. The property met the resident’s needs as it had a garden which would enable him to walk his dog without leaving the property.

The landlord considered the possibilities of both parties terminating their tenancies to facilitate the move.
The landlord received its legal opinion on 1 July 2021 regarding the landlord agreeing to the mutual exchange between the resident and the other party. The advice stated that the housing decision panel would have to minute their deliberations as there may be another family with a greater housing need for the four-bedroom property. It concluded that the circumstances are such that the panel should be able to justify its decision.
The resident informed the landlord that he had received his pin and user ID which allowed him to bid on the housing register. He went on to say that he wanted to move as soon as possible and that he had sent an email regarding the arrears on the use and occupation account but he had not received a response.
The landlord informed the resident that the case was being referred to the housing decision panel on 29 July 2021. If the housing decisions panel did not approve the mutual exchange, the lettings team would find the resident a suitable property.
On the same day, 29 July 2021, the resident contacted the MP and a Councillor explaining his circumstances. He explained that the landlord had said that “it was thinking outside the box” when it contacted him to make the offer of the mutual exchange. The housing decisions panel was deciding if the mutual exchange could go ahead and that he suffered from a number of mental health conditions such as agoraphobia, depression and panic attacks.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord’s records show that it decided that the mutual exchange could not be approved as the resident was occupying a desirable four-bedroom property and the resident required a one-bedroom property. The landlord also considered that it had approved a grant of tenancy to alternative accommodation for the resident. The resident was to be informed of its decision.
The landlord responded to the MP on 13 August 2021. It explained that:

a. Succession by survivorship had already taken place from the resident’s mother to the resident’s father.

b. A discretionary grant of tenancy had been agreed to an alternative property for the resident. The application was in Band A and an offer of an one-bedroom property would be made once it became available.

c. It could not progress a mutual exchange as the resident was not a tenant of the landlord. However, he could remain at the property until a suitable property became available.

d. Apologised that it could not progress the mutual exchange.

e. Provided its information on succession.

On the same day (13 August 2021), the landlord wrote to the resident regarding the mutual exchange. It provided its sincerest apologies for pursuing the mutual exchange, acknowledged that it had raised the resident’s expectations regarding the possibility of the mutual exchange being a solution to his housing situation. It explained that before receiving confirmation that a mutual exchange was possible, it had explored the option with the resident as it was aware of the resident’s circumstances and wanted to find a resolution to the resident’s housing situation.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 August 2021 to ask whether he would be interested in supported housing. The resident informed the landlord that he was not interested in supported housing and requested an update on his housing application.
The landlord’s records show that between 2 September 2021 to 9 September 2021:

a. The leader of the Council held a meeting with the landlord regarding the resident’s situation.

b. The resident was prioritised to receive the next ground floor one bedroom property in the resident’s area of choice.

c. The landlord reiterated that it did not have the discretion to agree to the mutual exchange as the resident did not have a tenancy that could be legally assigned.

On 21 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord regarding his rent payments being taken from his UC without any warning. He advised that for the past three years he had paid the rent regularly. This had caused a severe panic attack which his niece had witnessed.
The resident’s niece contacted the Leader of the Council on 27 September 2021. She advised that as the landlord had informed UC that he was in arrears of the use and occupation charge, UC had taken £82.40 for his arrears and £444.38 for his rent. This has left the resident without money to purchase food. Also, the landlord was deliberately harassing her uncle who had mental health problems and that her uncle wanted to remain in the property. In addition, she asked a series of questions regarding her uncle’s right to succession, disclosure of her uncle’s information to the medical team without his consent and that her uncle had been treated differently to other residents who had received consent for more than one succession. In addition, she questioned why a rent statement was not sent to her uncle and provided a letter regarding her uncle’s mental health.
The landlord responded to the Leader of the Council on 8 October 2021. It explained that:

a. The original tenancy agreement dated back to 1975 and was missing in its archives. It offered its apologies for this.

b. It had no record of a joint tenancy being granted between the resident and his father. The records show that the resident’s parents were joint tenants. On the death of the resident’s mother, the tenancy was automatically succeeded to by the resident’s father.

c. The Housing Act 1985 did not allow for more than one person to succeed to a tenancy.

d. It could not comment on other cases’ qualification for succession. It had granted the resident a tenancy to an alternative property.

e. Rent statements are not sent to people classified as unauthorised occupants. The use and occupation charge was £105.63.

f. Referral was being made for a director’s review following the request for the resident to remain in the property and it was obtaining independent medical information to assist in its decision making.

g. Following its yearly verification checks of its accounts that received UC it requested direct payments for all accounts that was over two months in arrears. In May 2021, the use and occupation account had an arrears balance of £1885.31 therefore, a request was made to UC for direct payments. It confirmed that it had requested that UC stop making direct payments but could not comment on the length of time that it took UC to approve the claim and make the payment.

The independent medical adviser recommended on 11 October 2021 that the resident required a self-contained accommodation/ one bedroom flat in the same area as the property. Garden access or a nearby park. He considered that it was reasonable to relocate the resident to a more appropriately sized property.
The resident’s niece contacted the Leader of the Council on 2 November 2021 requesting:

a. Clarification of the occupancy charge that her uncle should be paying.

b. Explanation for the resident’s files being sent for medical assessment without obtaining his permission.

c. That the loss of his parent’s tenancy file had impacted on his claim for succession.

The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2021 regarding the amount of the use and occupancy charge. He advised that the landlord’s communication advised that the charge was £105.67 per week. He had been paying £138.27. He had been overpaying the use and occupation charge since 2 January 2020; therefore, the landlord owed him £3,361.92. In addition, he had increased his UC housing payment to £160 per month to cover his use and occupation charge. As the landlord did not send statements showing the occupancy charge and he was on a limited budget, the landlord should advise how the overpayment would be refunded to him.
On 12 November 2021, the landlord decided to treat the concerns raised by the resident’s niece as a Stage 2 complaint.
In response to the resident’s query regarding the amount of the occupancy charge, it sent the resident a statement of the use and occupation charge on 15 November 2021 and 19 November 2021 and confirmed the use and occupancy charge as £138.27 per week or £599.17 per month. The landlord apologised for the error in its previous correspondence and for any anxiety or concern it had caused.
The landlord contacted the resident on 3 December 2021 to acknowledge the complaint and to request supporting information to show that the resident had held a joint tenancy with his father. It advised that it had intended to respond to the complaint by 6 December 2021 however, it had not received all the information and had leave commitments. It advised, it intended to respond by 10 December 2021.
The landlord provided its final stage response on 13 December 2021. It acknowledged that the resident’s niece had made the complaint on behalf of her uncle and apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint. The key findings can be summarised as:

a. The use and occupancy weekly charge was £138.27. The charge was payable until the resident moved out of the property and apologised that he received communication which showed an incorrect amount.

b. It had no evidence that the resident held a joint tenancy with his father and confirmed that succession could not occur more than once. It provided the link to its succession and housing decisions panel policies.

c. It had the discretion to grant a new tenancy and had approved the grant of a tenancy to alternative property for the resident.

d. The resident had given consent on 2 September 2019 for his information to be shared with other agencies. The medical assessment had been carried out by an independent medical adviser and a suitable home – a one bedroom property with a garden was being sought for the resident.

e. Acknowledged the unhappiness with the management of the mutual exchange and distress caused to the resident. However, a mutual exchange can only occur when both parties hold a tenancy and the resident did not.

f. It would consider whether it needed to take action regarding its officer’s action regarding the mutual exchange.

g. Confirmed that the resident cannot remain in the property as it was too large for his needs and that he had not made overpayments regarding the use and occupation charge.

After the complaint process was exhausted, the resident contacted the landlord regarding a void property that had become available. The landlord checked and the resident was informed that the property was too large for his needs.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint to this Service.
The landlord provided to this Service a statement of the resident’s occupancy charges from 10 November 2018. A credit of £15552.67 was applied to the account on that date and the balance on the account was £1552.67 in debit. The statement showed the occupation charge was £138.27 at that time. The statement shows the resident made regular payments roughly every four weeks and a lump sum payment was made on 18 June 2021 for £2143.12 which bought the account into £154.23 credit. At the time of the landlord’s final complaint response on 13 December 2021, the use and occupation account was in arrears of £129.44 which is equivalent to less than one week’s use and occupation charge.

Assessment and findings

resident’s request to succeed to the tenancy of the property.

The landlord’s policy on succession reflects Section 87 of Part VI Housing Act 1985 which states that on the death of a joint tenant, the tenancy will automatically transfer to the surviving joint tenant. The landlord’s submission shows that on the death of the resident’s mother, the resident’s father achieved survivorship of the tenancy and the tenancy was automatically succeeded by him.
Looking at the available information, the landlord missed an opportunity in September 2018 to correctly set out its position regarding the resident’s likelihood of succeeding the tenancy. It advised the resident that only a tenant could apply to succeed the tenancy. This was not correct as his parents’ tenancy commenced before April 2012, therefore the resident could apply for succession and it was for the landlord to assess whether he met the qualifying criteria. As his father had already succeeded to the tenancy through survivorship, the landlord should have clearly explained this to the resident and delayed in doing so until the resident contacted his Member of Parliament in July 2019.
From the landlord’s submission, the resident applied to succeed to the tenancy on 30 December 2018. The landlord acted in accordance with its succession policy when it decided that the resident did not qualify to succeed to the tenancy. This was an appropriate decision to make as the landlord had evidence that the succession by survivorship had already occurred between the resident’s parents and the resident has not supplied evidence that he had held a joint tenancy with his father.
The resident’s parents tenancy started before April 2012 and Part VI of Housing Act 1985 gives a provision for another succession to take place if the tenancy agreement provides for this. The landlord has advised that the resident’s parent tenancy agreement is not available, therefore it is not possible to assess whether the agreement provided for a further succession. Notwithstanding, the property is a four-bedroom house and the resident has been assessed as requiring a one bedroom property, therefore even if the tenancy agreement allowed for a further succession, the landlord was entitled to decide he was under occupying the property and offer an alternative property more suitable to his needs.
The housing decisions panel considered the resident’s personal circumstances such as his previous caring role, medical conditions and support needs when it agreed to award a discretionary tenancy to alternative accommodation. This showed that the landlord considered relevant criteria when assessing whether to award him a grant of tenancy to alternative accommodation.
In accordance with its succession policy, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 March 2019 to inform him of the outcome of the housing decisions panel. Some of the letter included incorrect information regarding his application for accommodation through the Choice Based Lettings System. As the resident had been awarded a grant of tenancy to alternative accommodation, he was entitled to receive a direct offer of accommodation.
For a five-month period, from 14 March 2019 to 16 August 2019, the resident received misinformation regarding the offer of alternative accommodation. When it recognised its mistake in its communication to the resident, the landlord apologised. It is noted that during this period that the landlord chased the council on behalf of the resident regarding the offer of alternative accommodation and that from the available information the council did not realise that it should not supply the resident with a bidding number but make the resident a direct offer. In addition, the council made the resident an offer of accommodation around four days after the mistake was identified on 19 August 2019. This determination cannot consider the delays experienced by the resident which relate to the responsibility of the Council’s lettings team, finding him a suitable offer of alternative accommodation as this is outside the scope of this report.
Looking at the service failure in this particular case, the landlord has recognised and apologised to the resident for the error in its communication that he could bid for accommodation, when the Council would make a direct offer instead. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of significant service failure, however, in its complaint responses, the landlord did not review or identify this error in its communication with the resident regarding how he would receive an offer of accommodation.
Furthermore, in its complaint review, the landlord did not consider whether an award for compensation for the inconvenience and distress was due to the resident. From the available evidence, the resident was chasing the landlord when he did not receive the bidding number to enable him to bid for accommodation. In light of the facts of this case, the landlord’s apology does not fully take into account the distress and anxiety caused to the resident.
The landlord’s role in relation to the communication regarding the offer of accommodation was restricted to acting as liaison between the resident and the Rehousing Team. In carrying out that role it did not provide accurate information to the resident which gave the impression that he had to bid for accommodation. The landlord apologised for the delay in the communication from the rehousing team and for not providing the resident with the correct information each time it responded to communication regarding the resident’s move to alternative accommodation. It’s apology did not reflect that its communication with the resident was inaccurate for a five-month period.

mutual exchange

Section 92 of the Housing Act 1985 states that a mutual exchange can occur between two secure tenants. Looking at the available evidence, the landlord did not consider whether the resident met the qualifying criteria for a mutual exchange before it contacted him about the possibility of exchanging with a tenant that lived locally.
The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations when it informed him on 13 May 2021 of the possibility of the exchange and arranged for him to visit the prospective property on 17 May 2021. The landlord’s action gave the impression that the mutual exchange could go ahead as long as both parties agreed to the exchange. The landlord did not inform the resident that he had not obtained the necessary approvals for the mutual exchange to take place. This was inappropriate as the landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities namely his agoraphobia which meant that it was difficult for him to leave the property and arranging to visit the prospective property would cause difficulty for the resident.
The landlord acted reasonably in obtaining a legal opinion on the success of a mutual exchange. In looking at the legal advice that was obtained, this did not address the substantive issue of whether the resident was a qualifying person that could undertake an exchange. Therefore, it was appropriate for the Housing Decisions Panel to come to its own decision after relying on the facts of the case that was presented to it.
Following the visit to the prospective property on 17 May 2021, the resident experienced an unacceptable delay until 1 July 2021 in obtaining information on whether the mutual exchange could go ahead. A decision on a mutual exchange should be made within 40 days and the landlord was aware before this that the resident did not satisfy the criteria for the mutual exchange to take place. From the available information, there is no evidence that it communicated this to the resident though he was chasing for updates and indicating that he was prepared to accept the property in its existing condition.
The landlord apologised for the upset that it had caused the resident by raising his expectations which was reaffirmed in its complaints’ responses. This was reasonable as it acknowledged the impact on the resident when trying to find a solution to his housing situation. The landlord’s apology was genuine and gave reasons for its actions, advising that it tried to match two households to find a solution.
Looking at all the evidence, it is clear that the landlord did not intend to treat the resident in an unsympathetic manner and that it had regard to the resident’s medical conditions. The evidence shows that the landlord believed when it contacted the resident regarding the possibility of a mutual exchange that it had found the resident a suitable property that met the resident’s needs. The landlord took into account that the property was close to his family and had a garden, which would assist with the resident’s agoraphobia.
However, the landlord’s actions were not reasonable as it started exploring with the resident the possibility of undertaking the mutual exchange, without checking that the resident qualified for such a move. If the landlord had taken the time to research the steps it wanted to take, this would have prevented the distress and misunderstanding caused to the resident. The landlord has acknowledged that it acted prematurely in inviting the resident to visit the property and provided a detailed and honest explanation of its actions. The openness of the communication from the landlord demonstrates that it had listened to the points raised by the resident, considered the resident’s particular circumstances and that had influenced his actions.

amount of the occupancy charge.

The landlord can charge a use and occupation charge when it allows someone to remain in occupation of a property on a temporary basis. The landlord’s submission to this Service confirms that it informed the resident that a charge was payable for use of the property until the resident obtained alternative accommodation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 June 2019 and 2 July 2019 regarding the use and occupation charge. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s communication to discuss the resident’s concerns. This was not appropriate as at that time, the resident was in arrears with the use and occupation charge and the landlord was aware of the vulnerability of the resident. Therefore, it had a responsibility to take action to ensure that all payments due were made and to signpost the resident to relevant services if he was experiencing difficulty in making payments for the use and occupation charge.
There is limited information regarding the landlord’s communication with the resident to show its management of the use and occupation charge account. However, in June 2021 the resident received a discretionary housing payment (DHP) of £2143.12 to reduce the arrears on the account. The landlord in its submission has not provided evidence to say whether it had any involvement in the resident receiving the DHP. Furthermore, it has not provided any evidence of its communication to show that it informed the resident in advance of its intention to request direct payments of the housing elements from his UC. The lack of notification of the decision to request direct payments was not reasonable as the resident had a limited income. Furthermore, the direct impact of this decision affected the resident’s ability to manage the finances available to him as this gave him no time to plan or prepare for the changes in his income.
In its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed that the weekly use and occupation charge for the property was £138.27. The landlord also explained that the statement provided to the resident showed the account type REN as its system did not contain a code to identify households who were occupying their property without authorisation. This was important to clarify to the resident his status within the property as the code could misrepresent the resident status in the property and the landlord had a responsibility to ensure that it clarified the management information it provided to residents.
The landlord in its final complaint response reiterated the apology offered by the tenancy manager for the confusion that had occurred on 15 November 2021, when he had written to the resident and provided an incorrect amount for the resident’s occupancy charge. This was a short coming from the landlord as within four days it had recognised its mistake in providing the resident with the incorrect charge, explained and apologised for the error that it has made. This is appropriate as the immediacy of its response resulted in the resident receiving reassurance that he was paying the correct amount. In addition, it also sent the resident a statement of account showing that he was paying the correct amount.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to succeed to the tenancy of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the mutual exchange.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the amount of the occupancy charge.

Reasons

The landlord acted in accordance with its Housing Decisions policy and awarded the resident a grant of tenancy to alternative accommodation. However, when providing the outcome of the banding decision, the resident was provided with inaccurate information about being provided with a direct offer which was not resolved for five months.
The landlord raised the resident’s expectations by informing him of the prospect of a mutual exchange and arranging for the resident to view the prospective property. The landlord has acknowledged that it took this action before checking whether the resident qualified for a mutual exchange as the resident did not have a secure tenancy.
The landlord has accepted that it incorrectly informed the resident of the incorrect amount of the use and occupancy charge. The landlord has apologised for this and rectified this error in a timely manner. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s communication regarding the amount of the use and occupation charge and there is no evidence that it informed the resident before requesting the housing element from his UC.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in the report.
The landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation broken down as:

a. £100 for the inaccuracy in its communication with the resident regarding the outcome of the housing decision panel regarding his entitlement to a direct offer of alternative accommodation.

b. £300 for its failure to check whether the resident qualified for a mutual exchange before engaging in communication with the resident about participating in the scheme.

c. £100 for its failure to respond to the resident’s communication regarding the use and occupation charges and to inform the resident that it had requested payment from UC for the use and occupation account.

The landlord to review its procedures regarding the management of the use and occupation account charges. The review should look at its processes for communicating with unauthorised occupants regarding the balance on the use and occupation account and include the referral to the UC.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

The landlord to review the resident’s application for rehousing to ensure that he receives an offer of suitable accommodation.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within six weeks of the date of this report.