Haringey London Borough Council (202127394)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127394

Haringey Council

18 January 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application to succeed the tenancy of their late father.

Background

2. The resident is an applicant of the landlord. He has applied to succeed to his late father’s secure tenancy.
3. On 19 July 2021, the resident’s father passed away. The resident applied to succeed his late father’s tenancy on 30 November 2021. He stated that he had been living with his father permanently for two years. The landlord responded to the resident on 21 January 2022, denying his application. It stated that this was due to a lack of evidence showing the property as his main residence. It explained that the information available indicated that the resident had been residing at another address within the last 12 months, which would make him ineligible to succeed the property. The landlord gave the resident until 7 February 2022 to vacate the premises.
4. The resident registered a complaint on 18 February 2022. He explained that he had been living at the address permanently for the last two years, but had neglected to change his address on his driving licence and universal credit claim, as well as with the department of work and pensions and the council. He also supplied written testimonies in support of his application.
5. The landlord responded with its final response on 26 May 2022. It explained that on obtaining advice, its legal team had stated that it should undertake further investigations. It advised that it would do so, and that the legal team would contact him in due course. On reviewing its complaint handling, the landlord concluded that it had reviewed his case fairly and acted reasonably in denying his application in the first instance. The resident had not explained how he had neglected to change his address and so it had assessed the information available to it at the time. He had also provided the written testimonies after his initial application.
6. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 June 2022, and 1 July 2022. It apologised for the delay in contacting him, but stated that it had been undertaking further checks. The landlord visited the resident’s neighbours, and those who had written the testimonies supporting his application. It did not find the testimonies reliable, as several of the witnesses were the resident’s family members, and others were not actually living in neighbouring properties. On the complaint being brought to this Service, the landlord has stated that it has paused its investigation.
7. In his complaint to this Service, the resident stated that the landlord has acted unfairly by refusing his application, explaining that he has resided at the property for over the required 12 months. He would like the landlord to reassess its decision, and allow him to remain at the property.

Assessment

8. The Ombudsman’s role is to examine the reasonableness of a landlord’s actions and decisions in the circumstances of a complaint. We cannot make a decision on the resident’s suitability for succession, but can assess if the landlord acted appropriately in reaching its decision.
9. The landlord has stated to this Service that it is taking legal action against the resident, in order to regain possession of the property. This has implications for the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in this matter, as under paragraph 41 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we cannot consider complaints which concerns matters that are subject to court proceedings or have been the subject of court proceedings where a judgment has been given. However, in this case, as the landlord has confirmed that, whilst a referral has been made to its legal team, legal proceedings have not yet started, this complaint can be considered by this service.
10. Succession is a legal term used to describe the passing of a secure tenancy to another person on the death of a resident. The landlord’s succession policy sets out who can apply to succeed a secure tenancy on the death of an existing resident and reasons why a succession application may be declined. It is possible for a resident spouse, civil partner or family member to apply for the right to succeed (as set out in former s87 and in s113 of the Housing Act 1985). If a family member, the applicant must also have resided with the deceased secure tenant at the premises throughout the 12 months prior to their death.
11. The same policy states that succession will not be allowed if the family member asking for succession is unable to prove their permanent residence at the address at the date of death or throughout the 12 months prior.
12. The landlord is responsible for implementing its succession policy and will assess each application against the above criteria. All applications are referred to the landlord’s fraud team to confirm the identity and residency of the applicant. If the applicant does not meet the criteria the application will be refused. The landlord will seek to recover the property in order to make it available for those on the council waiting list. There is no right of appeal.
13. Where a resident is not satisfied with a decision made in relation to their succession request or with the level of service they receive in relation to the implementation to its policy, the complaints procedure should be adhered to.
14. The landlord’s succession policy states that the resident needs to prove that they have resided at the address for 12 months prior to the death of the first tenant. It acted appropriately by referring his application to its fraud team, who undertook extensive searches to verify the resident’s identity and address. The landlord found that the resident was (at the time of his father’s death), registered at several addresses, predominantly at his mother’s property, rather than his late father’s home, which is where he would like to succeed the tenancy.
15. Although the resident has stated that he started living permanently with his father in March 2020, he was registered with the DWP at his mother’s address until 26 July, which was after his father’s passing. His father was also in receipt of the single occupancy discount on his council tax until his death on 19 July 2021. As the resident’s father paid the utility bills at the property, the resident has also not able to use those as evidence of residence. The resident has stated that his finances remained registered at his mother’s address for ease, as undertaking administration was difficult during the Covid-19 pandemic. While there was a delay during the pandemic on various services, the resident has stated that he lived at his father’s home for two years. This would have allowed enough time to update his details, which is his responsibility to keep in order.
16. The landlord acted appropriately by examining testimonies submitted by the resident. It explained that the statements provided little evidence that could be relied upon to prove that the resident had lived permanently at the property. Many of the statements were written by the resident’s family members or friends, while several of those writing did not live within an appropriate proximity to the property itself. After the resident escalated his complaint in April 2022, the landlord acted reasonably by undertaking legal advice from its legal department. On their suggestion, it interviewed the resident’s neighbours. It has stated that it could not gain sufficient evidence to support the resident’s claim.
17. The landlord is required by its policy to base its decision on evidence supplied by the resident, which needs to definitively show that he resided at the property for the 12 months prior to his father’s passing. The landlord acted appropriately in its conclusion that there was not enough evidence to support the resident’s application, as it had undertaken thorough checks, and had carefully considered the evidence available, but had been unable to say for sure if the resident had resided at the property for necessary amount of time.

Determination (decision)

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s application to succeed the tenancy of their late father.