We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

London Borough of Hackney (202419509)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419509

London Borough of Hackney

28 August 2025


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:
    1. Assignment applications.
    2. Succession application.
  2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident succeeded his grandparent’s tenancy from 4 December 2023. The property is a 3 bedroom maisonette. His grandparent’s tenancy started in 1977.
  2. The resident’s grandparent applied for assignment of the property to their grandson in October 2022. The landlord refused the application on the grounds of under occupation. The resident applied again and included his sibling on the application form. The application was however unsuccessful, and the landlord explained he did not quality as the property was a 3 bed townhouse.
  3. The resident spoke to a housing officer on 4 October 2023, following his grandparent moving into a nursing home and expressed his interest in the tenancy. The resident completed an assignment application on 9 October 2023 and received an outcome on 9 November 2023 rejecting his application.
  4. The landlord emailed him on the same day confirming it did not approve his application due to under occupation. It however said it would put an application forward to the exceptional cases panel who would assess his housing needs. The resident then raised a complaint on 27 November 2023 due to concerns around procedural inconsistencies, poor communication, and other issues. He also told the landlord his mother visited often to support him and his sibling during difficult times.
  5. Following the passing of the resident’s grandparent in December 2023, he applied to succeed their tenancy at the property on 12 December 2023. The landlord notified the resident on 30 January 2024 that he had successfully succeeded the tenancy, however he was under occupying the home. It told him that he therefore needed to move to alternative accommodation that met his housing needs. It informed him it would serve a Ground 15A notice to downsize to a 1 bedroom property in 6 months’ time.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 response. it apologised for responding to the complaint out of time, and explained it needed to wait on the succession decision to allow it to respond fully. It told him it did not uphold his complaint as it had acted reasonably in assessing his various applications and using discretion to ensure that he did not become homeless. It advised that he sought legal advice if he believed it treated him unfairly.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and he provided a detailed escalation request on 29 April 2024. Within the request he expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s reasons for rejecting the assignment of the tenancy and the “unethical conduct” of a housing officer. He said that the landlord had disregarded his sibling’s need for shelter and his own need for her support which was a crucial aspect of his coping mechanism with his mental health. He raised further concerns with his mental health, discrepancies in the landlord’s approach, issues with the assignment process, and explained what the landlord should do around his concerns.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 3 July 2024. It said it found failings in the avoidable delay in responding to the resident’s assignment application in 2023 and the handling of the stage 1 complaint. It apologised for any frustration caused. It explained the steps it had taken to address his concerns around his ex-housing officer and confirmed another member of staff he complained of did not consider his application. It told him it had found no evidence that he reported any medical or vulnerability needs to it during either his previous or more recent succession application to indicate that his sibling was his support. It awarded the resident £160 broken down as:
    1. £80 for its delay in issuing the outcome of his application for assignment within 10 working days.
    2. £80 for its complaint handling failings.
  9. The resident approached us on 16 August 2024. He told us on 9 January 2025 that the landlord continued to pursue actions central to the complaint. He told us on 4 March 2025 that the landlord agreed to halt matters until our determination. While he wanted the landlord’s decision reversed, he was also unhappy with the processing of his application as the landlord did not follow its policy.
  10. The resident updated us on in June 2025 and said the landlord offered him a final property. He told us on 26 August 2025 that it had offered him other properties, despite agreeing to pause any action until our determination, but he had reminded them that they had agreeing not to act until the outcome of our investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident told us that his desired outcome was for the landlord to reverse its succession decision and allow him to remain in the property. Our scheme says that we may not consider an issue where it concerns matters where a resident is seeking an outcome which is not within our authority to provide. It also says we may not consider complaints which concern matters where we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts.
  2. We are unable to reverse the landlord’s decision around the assignment and succession of the property. This is because these issues are matters that would require a binding determination in relation to the relevant legislation and the tenancy terms and conditions. As such, any decisions around such issues requires a court determination. We will however consider whether the landlord followed correct policies and procedures around the resident’s applications.

Assignment

  1. An assignment can occur when a resident gives their tenancy to another person, transferring their rights and responsibilities to them, prior to death. The tenancy does not end, but the other person becomes the new resident of the property. The landlord’s assignment application form explains that for tenancies starting before 1 April 2012, family members who resided with the assigning resident for at least 12 months and lived in the property as their main home, it will consider their application. The application form lists reasons where the landlord may refuse an assignment but does not mention under occupancy as one.
  2. The Housing Act 1985 (HA 1985) grants a resident a legal right to assign their property in 3 situations and these are, by way of mutual exchange, following a court order, to a qualified successor. The legislation does not set out any circumstances in which a resident cannot assign their tenancy to a person who would be a qualified successor.
  3. The legislation also specifically says in relation to mutual exchange, that under occupation is a reason for refusal of an assignment under Ground 3, of Schedule 3 of the HA 1985, but provides no such reasons for qualified successors.
  4. When the resident applied for succession, the landlord completed a search on the resident which showed that he had links to the property in question since around 2017. The resident also told it that he had lived in the property for 10 years. This suggests that at the time of the assignment applications, the evidence showed that the resident had lived in the property for at least 12 months.
  5. It is important to note that the resident’s application for assignment was under the qualified successor category of the HA 1985 which does not grant the landlord any discretion around refusal of the application. There is also no requirement for an application to the landlord, what is needed is the tenant at the time, the resident’s grandfather, demonstrating his intention to assign the tenancy to his grandson. His grandparent could have executed a deed of assignment, therefore granting the tenancy to the resident, providing the potential assignee met all necessary legal requirements.
  6. After making the application in 2023, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident/ his grandparent to seek legal advice about the assignment to ensure that they fully understood the process, and what they needed to do to effect the assignment. It also did not advise the resident that it is the tenant (his grandfather) that needed to effect the assignment and an application from the resident may not be valid, regardless of whether an application was necessary in the first place. We cannot see that it did this and this was inappropriate.
  7. The resident then raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of his assignment applications. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that it considered its assignment procedure, and the procedure listed under occupation as a reason for declining an assignment. It explained that this occurred with each of the resident’s assignment applications. It however found fault with its handling of the application on 4 October 2023 due to a delay in acknowledging and responding.
  8. We asked the landlord to provide a copy of its assignment policy, but we did not receive a response. As such it is unclear whether it has such a policy, and if it does whether the policy does list under occupancy as a reason for refusing an assignment. However, considering the landlord’s actions against the HA 1985, we do not believe it acted in line with its statutory obligations. This is because, the HA 1985 does not provide any reasons in which a landlord can refuse a successorship assignment. The under occupation reason applies solely to mutual exchanges. As the resident’s application was not a mutual exchange, its explanation for its decision around the issue was unreasonable.
  9. We would expect the landlord to ensure it was appropriately aware of its statutory responsibilities. We would also expect it to ensure any advice it provided to the resident was correct especially around why it refused his application.
  10. In summary, the landlord has not shown that it properly considered its statutory obligations around the assignment request. In 2022 it decided the assignment could not be agreed due to underoccupancy despite this not being a ground for refusal in the legislation. It failed to tell the resident that he could not make an application for assignment on his own right as he was not the tenant. It asked him to apply for the assignment of the property following his grandparent going into care when this was not a requirement under the legislation. Again, the landlord refused the application on the grounds of under occupancy which is not a valid reason for refusal.
  11. It acknowledged the delay in its handling of the resident’s assignment application in October 2023 and offered the resident compensation of £80 around this. The landlord’s compensation policy says it uses the policy to reinforce its commitment to our dispute resolution principles of being fair, putting things right, and learning from outcomes.
  12. The policy says it will pay £50 to £100 where there is minimal impact on a resident, for a short duration of time, the impact did not significantly affect the overall outcome on the resident. The policy also says it will make such payments where there is a minor failure in service which it did not appropriately acknowledged or fully put right. This may include issues of distress and inconvenience.
  13. The landlord has not recognised that it had not considered its legal obligations properly. This led to a potential loss to the resident of his family home, as the landlord is also taking steps to move the resident to another property. This was a series of significant failures which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident and accumulated over a significant period of time. It has led to significant distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble in him trying to resolve the issue. Its responses worsened the situation as it failed to recognise its failing and further undermined its relationship with the resident.
  14. Based on this we do not believe the landlord’s compensation offer is adequate. We find that there was severe maladministration, and order that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Succession

  1. A succession is the right of a family member, or other specified person, to take over a tenancy on the death of a resident. As the resident’s tenancy started before 1 April 2012, family members including grandchildren also qualified for succession.
  2. The landlord’s succession policy explains that where a property will be under occupied following succession, the landlord can consider seeking possession of the property under Ground 15A of the Housing Act 1985. It will serve a Notice of Seeking Possession more than 6 months, but less than 12 months after the death of the original resident. There must be suitable alternative accommodation available for the resident when the order takes effect, and this is determined by the composition of the resident’s (applicant’s) family as at the date of the hearing for possession, rather than as at the date of succession.
  3. The policy also sets out the service standards around applications and says it will:
    1. It will send an application form to the applicant within 2 working days of a request. The officer speaking to the applicant should make clear that it will carry out an Experian credit check on all applicants as part of the assessment process.
    2. Acknowledge an application within 2 working days of receipt of a completed application form.
    3. Decide and inform the resident in writing within 10 working days of receipt of the completed application form, and all supporting documentation to allow it to assess the case.
    4. If an applicant does not qualify, it will provide a written explanation why.
  4. The evidence provided shows that the resident provided the landlord with his succession application form on 22 December 2023, as such its response was due by 10 January 2024. It contacted him on 3 January 2024 to inform him that there was a document missing from the application form, and it asked him to complete this. He responded 5 days later, and the landlord sent the document off for consideration on 9 January 2024. There were then further delays as the landlord had to request further evidence, in the form of a death certificate for the resident’s grandparent. He provided this on the day of the request, 12 January 2024.
  5. The landlord also confirmed that it had sent the document off for consideration on 15 January 2024. As the landlord did not receive all required documentation until 15 January 2024, in line with its policy, its response was due by 29 January 2024. It provided the resident with the outcome of his application 1 day outside of its policy, however there is no evidence of any significant detriment to the resident due to the delay.
  6. In line with its policy, it informed the resident he had successfully succeeded to the tenancy, however he would be under occupying the property. This is even though he listed his sibling on the application. If he occupied the property alone, there were 2 spare bedrooms. If he occupied it with his sibling, there was 1 spare bedroom. It told him in its complaint response that after completing the necessary searches (which the application form also informed the resident it would complete), it found that his sibling had significant financial ties to a different address as such it did not appear that the property was his sibling’s principal home.
  7. The landlord also served the necessary notices in line with its policy which required the resident to downsize from the 3 bedroom home to a 1 bedroom home. From the evidence provided, the landlord also offered the resident a property, which he declined. It has since offered him a second property. Based on this, we find that there was no maladministration with its handling of the succession application as its actions were in line with its policy.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 27 November 2023, and the landlord did not respond until 2 February 2024. In its response, it apologised for the delay in its response, and explained it delayed as it needed to wait for the outcome of his succession application. Its response was due on 18 December 2023, and it delayed its response by 46 days. This was inappropriate, and not in line with its policy.
  3. The resident then escalated his complaint on 29 April 2024, the landlord should have responded on 5 June 2024. The evidence shows that it told the resident on 30 May 2024 that it needed an extension to respond to the complaint. The case handler at the time then explained to the resident that they were leaving the landlord’s organisation, and it reassigned the response to a new case handler. It responded on 3 July 2024, over 1 month later than it should have. we can however see no other extension requests. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to explain the potential for additional unexpected delays. We cannot see that it did so and this was inappropriate.
  4. The landlord’s complaints compensation policy says that distress can include poor complaint handling. It says that it may find that it had demonstrated overall poor complaint handling as part of time and trouble considerations. It has agreed service standards in relation to timeframes for responding to complaints, and a set complaint handling process in line with our code. It says compensation may be appropriate for any significant breach of its corporate complaints policy, but specifically, if there were delays in responding at both stages of its process without proper communication, or agreement of an extension. It will pay £20 per week for any such failings.
  5. Having considered the landlord’s compensation offer of £80, this is in line with its complaints policy between 5 June 2024 and 3 July 2024. This also falls within the service failure finding within our remedies guidance. This is the finding we would make for such delays. Its actions were in line with its policy, and our dispute resolution principles of putting things right, and being fair. It recognised its failings and looked to address them. Based on this, we find that there was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s assignment application.
    2. No maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s succession application.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a senior manager about the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £880 for its handling of his assignment and assignment applications. This is inclusive of its previous offer of £80. If it has paid this to the resident it should subtract £80 from the above sum. This means that the outstanding amount payable is £800.
    3. Provide us with a copy of its assignment policy and procedure. It must also review them to ensure they reflect its obligations under the HA 1985 and provides appropriate steps in considering tenancy assignments based on the type of assignment.
    4. It must also review what went wrong in this case, produce a learning report on its findings, and how it aims to ensure such a situation does not occur in the future.
    5. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendation

  1. If it remains outstanding, the landlord should pay the resident the compensation of £80 offered in is stage 2 response.