Lambeth Council (202112413)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112413

Lambeth Council

29 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s succession to his late mother’s tenancy.

Background and summary of events

The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the ground floor. The applicant lived with his mother from 2018, she had been a resident since 1984. On 27 December 2020, the applicant’s mother passed away. For the purpose of this report, the applicant will be referred to as the resident.
The landlord’s succession and assignment policy says:
1. Tenancies granted before 1 April 2012 can pass on automatically to the spouse or civil partner of the deceased. In the case of a family member, they have the right to succession if the person has resided with the deceased tenant throughout the period of 12 months ending with the tenant’s death
2. If the person who succeeded to the tenancy is anyone but the spouse of the deceased, the landlord will normally ask the person to move to a smaller property if the property is larger than they need. This is because of the limited supply of accommodation for families and the need to alleviate overcrowding
3. A notice of seeking possession should be served no earlier than 6 months after the death of the tenant and no later than 12 months after the death. When the successor takes the tenancy, it is not a new tenancy because the successor is taking over the original.
On 17 January 2021 the resident applied to succeed the tenancy, and provided evidence to show that he had been living at the address since 2018.
On 14 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident, and hand delivered the letter to the address. It said that:
1. It wanted to offer condolences for the resident’s loss
2. Based on the evidence he had provided, he was able to succeed the tenancy and it had been vested to him with effect from 28 December 2020
3. Although it had been agreed that he was the successor of the tenancy, there was a requirement for him to downsize. The property was a 2 bedroom property suitable for 4 people, and the single make up of his household meant he needed to move to a 1 bedroom property
4. It had registered him for a transfer and he was invited to place bids online
5. If he had not managed to find a suitable property, or he was not engaging with the process, then it would serve him with a notice of seeking possession. It would do this no earlier than 6 months after the passing of his mother, and no later than 12 months
6. If he required further assistance or guidance he could seek independent legal advice.
It followed up the letter the same day via email to the resident. It said that:
1. The resident had succeeded the tenancy only, not the property. He would not be eligible to purchase it
2. As he was not the spouse of the deceased, he had to downsize to a property which met his assessed needs. This was because of a large volume of residents awaiting more suitable accommodation due to overcrowding
3. Downsizing had advantages:
  1. A new secure tenancy at a new address would be capable of further assignment or succession
  2. He could apply to purchase the new property under the right to buy scheme, subject to him confirming eligibility.
On 12 May 2021 the landlord recorded that:
1. The resident had made contact and said that his friend was living with him and he wanted him added to the household details. It agreed to add him as a household member, but told the resident it would not make any difference to his requirement to downsize and he should call the housing options team to assist his friend
2. He said the situation was causing him mental distress. He was advised that he could speak to his GP and if he had the relevant documentation, a medical panel could consider if his needs supported that he should keep the additional room in the property.
On 26 August 2021 the landlord sent the resident a copy of its succession approval letter and suggested that he read the contents thoroughly again before he was due to meet with it to discuss the terms.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident in response to his request for a paper copy of his new tenancy agreement. It said that:
1. As he had succeeded the tenancy from his late mother, a new tenancy agreement would not be generated. The succession letter he had sent to him on 14 April 2021 was proof alone of the status and type of tenancy he had
2. It wanted to reiterate that he had succeeded the tenancy, but needed to downsize to another property. It was attaching a copy of the landlord’s succession and assignment policy.
A conference call took place between members of the landlord’s staff and the resident on 3 September 2021 to discuss the succession of the tenancy. No formal minutes were taken,.
On 7 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident. It said:
1. No notes were taken from the conference call, however he was aware that his succession had been approved on 14 April 2021 and it had forwarded him the same letter 3 times. From April, he should have been bidding for a 1 bedroom property. This would be assessed at the 6 month mark, in October 2021
2. He still had time to make bids, which it recommended he did weekly. If he did not make any bids, then it would consider providing him with a direct offer
3. It recognised that during the call, he expressed he did not want to move to an area with a high crime rate but there were few problematic areas available. It suggested he bid and survey the area in which the property was located before making a decision
4. He was actively registered on the housing list. He could bid for studio or 1 bedroom properties, but larger sizes would not be considered. He had until April 2022 to have acquired another property.
The resident responded and said he had been given false information. He wanted the lack of communication to be taken into account as part of his review.
On 14 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and said it was treating his communication as a formal complaint at stage 1 of its process. It said that:
1. Succession was granted on 14 April 2021 and the resident was informed by letter that he would need to downsize in accordance with its policy or was at risk of being serviced with a notice of seeking possession. The letter provided details of the online portal he would need to use to bid on appropriate properties. The letter was later sent to the resident on 3 further occasions
2. Further to his request on 12 May 2021, the landlord agreed to add his friend who was homeless, to the household details. It was confirmed that this would not make a difference to his requirement to downsize, and he was encouraged to refer his friend to the housing options team for assistance
3. He had not provided medical evidence which showed that he required a 2 bedroom property and therefore a need to stay in his late mother’s home
4. On 23 August 2021 he was reminded of the terms of his succession and that he would need to bid on properties. If he did not, the landlord would make a direct offer of a 1 bedroom property. If he refused this, it would commence legal action. It could not permit him to remain at the property indefinitely
5. He was provided with a copy of the succession and assignment policy on 2 September 2021. A conference call took place to discuss the requirements of the succession and a summary of the call was provided on 7 September 2021. It found no evidence that staff had acted inappropriately or provided incorrect advice
6. His bidding activity would be reassessed in October 2021, and in the meantime, he had the right to have his complaint reviewed.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 15 September 2021 and advised that:
1. The landlord was refusing to acknowledge that it had done anything wrong
2. He had provided the landlord with information about his medical condition during the conference call. He was asthmatic but it was “not serious” enough to manage it with medication
3. The landlord had caused him stress and under-occupancy was being treated as more important than his wellbeing.
The resident responded to the landlord on 8 October 2021 and included screenshots showing how often he had logged into the online bidding portal. He said this was proof that he was bidding on properties. He wanted the landlord to explain why he had been given wrong and misleading information.
On 2 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with a stage 2 complaint response. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the resident’s loss and appreciated that it had been a difficult time for him
2. It could not see that he had been provided wrong or misleading information. He had not provided evidence which suggested otherwise. The advice he had been provided by his housing officer was clear, accurate and professional. It could see that the same information had been provided to him a number of times
3. Although no notes of the conference call were taken, when requested the housing officer followed up with a summary of the conversation on 7 September 2021
4. It could see when his succession was granted in April 2021, he was advised to bid on properties suitable to his needs. He was reminded of this again when he was in communication with the landlord in September 2021
5. To provide the resident with every chance in being successful in bidding on a new home, he had been given the highest bidding priority band. To date, it could see the resident had logged into the system 40 times but had only placed 1 bid. He was shortlisted for the property he had bid on, but did not attend the viewing
6. Despite having his friend live with him, he was still under-occupying a 2 bedroom property
7. If he remained unhappy with the response, he could refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman.
The resident commenced a new tenancy with the landlord on 25 January 2022. The new property is in close proximity to what was his mother’s address. In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said:
1. He had been an only child and cared for his mother for the last 6 years of her life. One day shortly after Christmas, he returned home to find that she had passed away. This had a significant impact on him
2. He contacted the landlord shortly afterwards and it made it “perfectly clear” that he had succeeded the tenancy but not the property. Shortly after, his son’s friend moved in with him as he was homeless. The landlord knew about the situation, but was insistent he was under occupying. He did not believe that he was, and felt forced to move
3. He logged into the website to look at properties, but never bid on them as he did not want to move and was concerned about crime rates. He felt the landlord wanted him to “hurry up and get out”
4. About 4 weeks before the end of the 12 month timeframe he had been given to find a property, the landlord offered him a 1 bedroom flat on the same estate. Over a year later, he is surrounded by people he knows in the place he grew up and he is happy there
5. He is willing to accept the landlord may have followed its policy, but wants it to be held account for the misinformation it gave him during the succession process and the heavy handed manner in which he felt it dealt with him. He said its attitude towards him was “aggressive, lacked empathy and felt like bullying”.

Assessment and findings

With secure tenancies which began before 1 April 2012, as it was in this case, a person can only succeed to a secure tenancy if they were occupying it as their only or principle home at the time of the tenant’s death. One statutory succession is allowed to a surviving spouse of a member of the deceased tenant’s family. The landlord’s succession and assignment policy reflects this, and notes that succession can pass to a family member if the person has resided with the deceased tenant throughout the period of 12 months ending with the tenant’s death.
The resident was able to provide evidence that he lived with his mother for over 12 months before she passed away. The landlord appropriately reviewed the information he had provided and granted the resident succession. Its correspondence dated 14 April 2021 was sympathetic to his situation. The succession approval letter was clear and explained that because the resident was not the spouse of the deceased, he would need to move to a smaller property that was suited to his housing need. It provided the resident with appropriate information as to how to bid online for alternative properties and advised he could also seek his own independent legal advice.
Prior to the resident bringing his complaint, the landlord noted that it had given advice on 12 May 2021 with regards to his friend who had come to live with him. The advice it gave was appropriate and empathetic to both the resident, and his friend. Having a friend live with him did not impact his housing need, and it was not the responsibility of the landlord to find his friend appropriate alternative accommodation. However it still offered support by explaining that his friend could approach its housing options team for advice.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident found the requirement to move distressing. It advised he would need to seek appropriate evidence which showed he had a medical condition that meant he had to stay in the property as it was 2 bedroom. Any evidence he supplied would need to be considered by a medical panel. Whilst the resident has said he suffers from asthma, no evidence has been provided by a medical professional which has supported the requirement for him to have a 2 bedroom property.
The landlord reiterated that the resident needed to downsize from the property and provided him with a copy of its succession and assignment policy on 2 September 2021. A conference call took place the next day with the resident, and whilst no formal minutes were taken, a summary of the discussion was sent to the resident on 7 September 2021. The landlord’s communication was consistent and clear, and the stage 1 complaint response was an accurate summary of the actions the landlord had taken.
The stage 2 response was sympathetic to the resident’s situation. It reviewed the landlord’s previous correspondence and was fair in its assessment that the landlord had not acted unreasonably. It explained that he needed to be proactive in bidding for appropriate smaller properties because he was under occupying. It explained to the resident that if he remained dissatisfied then he could contact the Local Government Ombudsman, as opposed to the Housing Ombudsman. It is noted that the resident was already in contact with this Service, however a recommendation has been made in regards to this.
Since the stage 2 response it is noted that the resident has moved to another 1 bedroom property of the landlord and been granted a new tenancy agreement. It is encouraging that the resident has stated he is happy in his new property as he has been able to remain on the same estate that he grew up. Overall, it is understood that the situation was distressing for the resident during a very difficult time. However there is no evidence that the landlord provided misleading or incorrect information. From evidence seen, its responses were empathetic and consistent throughout its communication with the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration of the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s succession to his late mother’s tenancy.

Reasons

The landlord acted in accordance with its succession and assignment policy. It’s communication was clear and consistent throughout its interactions with the resident. It was empathetic to the resident’s personal situation, and offered to provide further support to his friend who was previously homeless.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its stage 2 complaint responses to ensure they accurately reflect where a resident needs to contact the Housing Ombudsman or Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.