London Borough of Croydon (202117164)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117164

Croydon Council

7 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s succession to her late mother’s tenancy.
   2. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

2. In January 2018, the resident’s mother passed away. The resident applied to succeed the tenancy to the home that she had shared with her mother. This was denied by the landlord. The landlord undertook court proceedings against the resident, to regain the property. On 10 August 2021, the court concluded that the resident was entitled to the succession of her mother’s tenancy. It ordered that her application be allowed, and that the landlord should pay the resident’s legal fees.
3. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 September 2021. She requested that the landlord update her tenancy agreement following her succession. The landlord responded on 6 September 2021, where it promised to send her a succession memo or letter to confirm the outcome of her application and would update its system accordingly.
4. The resident submitted a complaint in October 2021. She complained about how the landlord had handled her succession case. She wanted to know how it proposed to handle similar cases differently in the future, and wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused her in pursuing its claim to court. The resident contacted this Service on 29 November 2021. She explained that the landlord had not responded to her complaint. Additionally, it had still not amended her tenancy agreement, or updated its records following her succession.
5. In response to intervention from this Service, the landlord responded to the resident on 1 December 2021. It sent her the documentation necessary to effect her succession and promised to update its records. However, it did not provide her with a formal complaint response. After further intervention, the landlord responded formally on 12 April 2022. It apologised for the distress it had caused the resident and stated that it had undertaken an internal review to learn from its mistakes. It did not consider the resident’s compensation request, but signposted her to its legal team.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She queried what tangible steps the landlord had taken to prevent a recurrence of the same issues that had led to them pursuing the case to court. She remained dissatisfied with how the landlord was handling her succession following the court order, and continued to ask for compensation. The landlord responded on 10 June 2022, apologising for the delay in updating its records, and in sending out the succession documents. It confirmed that the resident was the sole legal tenant at the property. It also apologised that the resident had not been updated on its internal review, and detailed the steps it had taken to learn from its mistakes. It again did not review her request for compensation.
7. In her complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that despite assurances from the landlord that it has updated her details, she is still receiving calls asking to speak to her late mother. She is unhappy that the landlord was slow to send her the new tenancy details. The resident would like compensation for the distress she felt during the legal dispute over her succession to the tenancy.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

8. The resident previously brought the matter of the landlord’s handling of her succession case to this Service in 2020. After considering this, the Ombudsman found the matter to be out of our jurisdiction, as the issue had already been filed at court. The Ombudsman stated in its report at that time that; ‘the court will decide on the issue of succession and this decision will be binding on the parties. Any concerns the complainant has about the information the landlord has submitted in relation to the court claim can be raised as part of the proceedings.’ Under paragraph 42 (m) of the scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which seek to raise again matters on which it has already decided.
9. Furthermore, under paragraph 41 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, it cannot consider complaints which were the subject of court proceedings where judgment on the merits was given. Additionally, under paragraph 42 (f) it may not consider complaints which concern matters where a complainant had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. The resident’s succession case has been assessed by the court, which decided the appropriate outcome, and the resident had the opportunity to raise any matters related to this at that time.
10. To conclude, this investigation does not consider the resident’s complaints about the landlord’s handling of the succession application prior to the court’s decision, or request for compensation relating to the distress she felt during the dispute. Therefore, this report focuses on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s succession following the court order made on 10 August 2021, to when the resident brought her complaint to this Service on 29 July 2022.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s succession to her late mother’s tenancy, following a court order.

11. The court ordered the landlord to accept the resident’s application to succeed her mother’s tenancy. As such it was obligated to undertake the administrative aspects that would give effect to the succession. The landlord has stated that when a resident succeeds an existing tenancy, its procedure is to make a tenancy amendment rather than to supply tenants with new tenancy agreements. It would however send them an ‘effecting succession’ document, and update its records.
12. The resident emailed the landlord in September 2021, asking for guidance on making her succession legitimate, following the court hearing. The landlord promised to send the correct documents and to update its records. However, it did not explain to the resident that it would be sending an effecting succession document, rather than a new tenancy agreement. The resident continued to chase the landlord for a new tenancy agreement throughout the end of 2021. The landlord finally supplied the correct documentation in December 2021. There is no clear reason for the landlord’s delay in processing the succession documents. Therefore, this was unreasonable and a failing in the circumstances, which led to time, trouble and frustration for the resident in pursuing the matter. It would also have been beneficial for the landlord to have communicated clearly to the resident in the first instance that she would not receive a new tenancy agreement.
13. Further, it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep up-to-date records. Due to its system not being updated, the resident continued to receive calls and correspondence from the landlord addressed to her deceased mother. She was also unable to book a repair to her home, as she was not the named resident on the tenancy. Whilst the landlord did process the succession paperwork in December 2021, the resident continued to receive calls for her mother and struggled to book the repair throughout 2022. This caused distress to the resident and indicates that the issue with the landlord’s record keeping was ongoing, despite its assertion that it had rectified this. This was a further failing.
14. Overall, the landlord did not handle the administration of the succession following the court order appropriately. Given the history of the matter, the resident’s bereavement, and the efforts that the resident had already gone to secure the tenancy, the failings detailed above would have particularly frustrating and distressing.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling

15. The landlord’s policy states that it has a two-stage complaint procedure. After a resident’s initial complaint, the landlord should respond within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. The landlord should again respond within 20 working days. In the event that a complaint takes longer than the 20 working days, the landlord will set and agree a reasonable and appropriate revised timescale and regularly keep the resident up to date on its progress.
16. The landlord’s complaint’s policy also states that certain types of complaints fall outside of the policy’s remit, as other processes are more suitable to deal with them. This includes matters of law or central government policy. Complaints that have already been decided by a court or independent tribunal cannot be accepted but complaints about the implementation of a court or tribunal’s decision should be investigated.
17. According to its policy above, the landlord was obligated to assess complaints that revolve around the implementation of a court’s decision. After the resident raised a complaint in October 2021, it neglected to respond to her using its formal complaints procedure until 12 April 2022. The resident escalated her complaint on the same day, with the landlord responding on 10 June 2022. The landlord did not act in-line with its own timeframes and failed to update the resident effectively while she was waiting for a response. Its complaint handling was therefore a failure in the circumstances, and led to time and trouble to the resident in pursuing her concerns.
18.  In her first complaint, the resident stated that she wanted compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of her succession to her mother’s tenancy. As this related to the case that had been considered by the courts, it was reasonable and in-line with the above policy that the landlord did not assess this. However, in-line with general good customer service, the landlord should have highlighted in its complaint response what it could and could not consider.
19. While the landlord was reasonable in its decision to not assess aspects of the resident’s complaint that had already been considered at court, its policy states that it can consider complaints regarding how it implemented the court’s decision. In its final complaint response on 10 June 2022, the landlord recognised that it had delayed in issuing the correct succession documentation and updating its records. It apologised for the distress caused to the resident, and acknowledged that she had experienced difficulties in booking a repair due to this issue as recently as May 2022. It reassured her that she was now the named tenant on the account. It is positive that the landlord identified the issue, acknowledged it and tried to put it right with an apology. However, it would have also been proportionate to have offered some compensation in view of the distress it has caused her, and the length of time this had taken to resolve.

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s succession to her late mother’s tenancy.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

22. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a)     Pay the resident a total of £400 compensation (£250 compensation in recognition of the failures in the handling of the succession following the court’s decision, and £150 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling).

b)     Review its handling of the succession following the court decision, to determine why the delays with this occurred, and what actions the landlord has/will now take to prevent a recurrence of this in the future.

c)     Review its systems, to ensure that the resident is the sole named tenant on these. This should include any systems linked to third party organisations which carry out works on the landlord’s behalf.