Red Kite Community Housing Limited (202011737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011737

Red Kite Community Housing Limited

2 February 2022

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 concerns the landlord’s response to:
1. The applicant’s request to succeed the tenancy.
2. The applicant’s reports of poor staff conduct.
3. The time given to collect possessions from the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The complainant is an applicant for succession of his late mother’s (the resident) property. Herein the complainant will be referred to as the applicant.
The applicant is noted as a recovering alcoholic with additional emotional and relational difficulties and was supported by the local authority in seeking to secure housing for when his residency in supported accommodation was due to end.
The resident’s tenancy was updated in May 2013 and notes following death it will normally only allow one succession. People entitled to succeed are joint tenants, or a member of the family who has lived with the resident as their principal or only home for at least 12 months prior to the death of the resident.
The tenancy conditions also note that where the property is larger than the needs of the person seeking to succeed; should succession be possible, a more suitable alternative accommodation will be offered.
The Housing Act 1985 notes a person is qualified to succeed the tenant under a secure tenancy if he occupies the dwelling-house as his only or principal home at the time of the tenant’s death.

Summary of events

On 10 December, the applicant informed the landlord of the resident’s death and queried whether he could succeed the tenancy.
On 14 December 2020, following a telephone discussion, the applicant advised he had left the property in December 2018 but wanted to now return. He was advised that he could not succeed the resident’s tenancy and relevant documentation was provided noting the tenancy would end on 10 January 2021. Instructions were given on vacating and clearing the property and the landlord informed him that he could contact its garage service if he had no place to keep the belongings.
The landlord sent a further letter offering its condolences and guidance on what support was available to the applicant.
On 17 and 29 December and 4 January 2021, the applicant sent further emails requesting that he be allowed to succeed the tenancy. He noted that he had lived in the property for 20 years and it was his family home. He advised he was supported by his doctor, family and friends and would discuss the matter further with his local MP/Councillor. He advised the resident had been paying the bedroom tax and he would be willing to do the same. He noted in future he wanted to have a family and the property would aide this.
On 31 December, the applicants doctor provided a supporting statement to the landlord noting he had lived at the property until 2018 due to abuse, but it was in his best interest due to his mental wellbeing to succeed the tenancy.
On 11 January, the landlord considered the applicant’s initial appeal relating to its decision on the succession of the property. It noted he had been served a section 21 notice at his current premises and he was at risk of homelessness. It referred to the tenancy agreement noting the applicant needed to have resided in the property for 12 months prior to the death of the resident and he had not. It explained the property was also too big for his needs so he still could not reside there as there were other people who had a greater need. It explained it had correctly advised him that if it were to grant succession, it would be to a 1 bed property. It noted there was no basis which he could succeed the tenancy and its earlier decision was correct. It noted that there were possessions which the applicant wanted but had no space for and that it could help store these in local garages at a weekly charge to the applicant.
The applicant remained dissatisfied and reiterated his wish to succeed the tenancy. The landlord sought legal advice and it was confirmed there were no rights for succession but that it could use its discretion to make a direct offer of a suitable property.
On 29 January the applicant contacted the landlord, and it acknowledged the applicant’s request for the succession application to be considered further.
On 11 February, the landlord responded to the applicant’s succession request, again reiterating that he could not succeed for the reasons previously given.
On 19 February, the applicant queried why he had been sent a notice to quit given he was awaiting a decision to reside at the property. The landlord responded noting the charges which had accrued on the property and that it would contact him the following week to discuss the notice to quit.
On 22 February the landlord discussed the applicant’s succession application again, noting he did not meet the requirements to succeed the tenancy.
On 23 February 2021, the landlord reviewed its decision again relating to the succession. It noted it had considered additional information presented to it regarding the state of his mental health and why he had moved out. It noted it had also considered its policies, and the law governing succession and the tenancy agreements contractual terms and whether they had been applied correctly. It confirmed that as the applicant had not resided in the property for the 12 months prior to the resident’s death he could not succeed the tenancy. It explained in addition as a single adult he was not entitled to a 2-bedroom property, so it could still not offer the property to him.
It noted it would work with the local authority to offer a 1- bed property. It apologised if the applicant was led to believe he could succeed the tenancy, but at no times had this been stated. It noted both the legal and contractual basis on succession had been correctly applied. It advised the applicant to collect the possessions from the property by 15 March and if he did not it would store this in a garage for up to 6 months at a cost to him. It noted that if the applicant provided evidence showing that the estate had no funds available, it would look to write-off rent accrued. It noted this was its final decision.
On 23 February, the applicant made a complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s staff member who he had spoken with, in that they were aggressive, and he had felt threatened. The landlord acknowledged this and noted the outcome of the succession appeal would not be changed or considered further.
On 24 February, the landlord provided its initial response relating to the conduct of its staff member. It noted the staff member had not been aggressive or threatening but that she had had to explain the legal process on succession. The applicant responded noting that the staff member had initially been sympathetic and noted he should obtain the tenancy. However, later she advised he could not and would be offered alternative accommodation. The applicant reiterated his request to succeed the tenancy.
On 3 March, the landlord offered the applicant a 1 bed property under a direct offer effective until the end of 10 March.
On 11 March, the applicant noted that before he could accept the property, he needed to view it, know when it would be available and that the resident’s possessions would need to be held until he could move into the new property.
On 12 March, the landlord emailed the applicant noting he had not been in contact to arrange collection of his belongings including the resident’s ashes and he would need to do so within three days, or it would commence disposal. It added that its offer of alternative accommodation would be open until the end of the day, but that he could arrange to view it. It noted whilst it could dispose of the property, it had decided to hold the possessions in the storage garage for a further 8 weeks. It noted the applicant would then need to agree to licence and pay for the garage for these 8 weeks or until he moved into the property offered. It noted that whilst it had offered to store the possessions for 6 months, this was prior to it offering suitable accommodation and he would be given 2 weeks’ notice before having to remove items from the garage.
Also, on 12 March the landlord reiterated that the applicant could not succeed the tenancy as he had not lived in the home for the past two years and therefore, there was no statutory or contractual right for him to succeed. It noted it would not be considering the matter further.
On 15 March communication was had between the applicant and landlord about him removing items from the property. The landlord noted whilst he believed the decision relating to succession could be overturned it would not and he had to collect his belongings. The applicant noted he would not be doing so. The applicant’s MP also noted that he had no right to succeed the property and the offer made for alternative accommodation was above what was expected of the landlord.
On 16 March, it was noted that the applicant had declined the offer of rehousing by the landlord.
On 17 March, the landlord noted that the applicant had cleared some items from the property and that it had stored others. It queried when the applicant would collect these, but that if it had not heard from him by 19 March, it would dispose of the remaining items. The applicant responded noting he still wanted to reside at the property, and he had been advised he could, but the locks had been changed. He queried the landlord’s morals given his mother had passed, his aunt was dying, and it was seeking to dispose of his items, even after telling him his items would be stored for 2 months.
The landlord queried on 17 March how the applicant wanted to proceed, and that the belongings were currently stored safely for collection or awaiting his request to dispose. It noted it would consider his complaint about how he had been treated at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
The landlord responded to the complaint about the staff conduct, noting that there was no evidence of any unprofessionalism or wrongdoing during the telephone conversation and neither was there evidence of misleading advice or aggressive behaviour. The complaint was not upheld.
On 18 March, the landlord reiterated its position in relation to the offer of the garage noting that following this offer, the applicant was offered permanent housing and the landlord noted he would therefore have space to store the items he wished to keep. The landlord noted it would allow storage in the garage for 8 weeks until the property was ready to move in. It clarified that as the applicant had refused the permanent offer it was happy to offer the garage to rent for 8 weeks and contractual arrangements were explained.
On 26 March, the landlord queried if the applicant sought to collect the belongings and would need to do so by 31 March or it would discard of the items from the garage. The applicant responded, noting that he had lived in the area all his life and had not chosen to move out of the property, rather he fled abuse from his mother. He noted all his post and personal belongings were in the property and it was his main home, although he was staying in the hostel. He explained he had changed his polling information in order to qualify for housing benefit at the hostel. He queried where the landlord had stored his items.
The applicant requested that the landlord formally consider his complaint, stating it had been inconsistent with the information provided to him in regard to succeeding the tenancy and removing items from the resident’s property.
On 1 April 2021, the landlord responded noting upon review of all communications it could not accept the applicant’s assertion that he had been led to believe he could return to the property, given the clear statutory and contractual position relating to succession and the constant reiteration that he would not be able to succeed the tenancy. It explained that whilst its offer of storage may have varied as his position changed, it had been clear and fair in its communications surrounding the collection/storage of belongings.

Assessment and findings

The right to succession is governed by legal legislation and/or by the terms of a tenancy agreement. Both require that the individual seeking to succeed, be living in the property as their main or principal home prior to the death of the resident. It is accepted by the applicant that he had not resided in the property for 2 years prior to the resident’s death, as such with regards to the legal position, the tenancy and policy application process, he had no right to any succession.
The landlord has clearly considered his request and several appeals relating to the matter and even went as far as seeking legal advice, although it was clear in legislation, policy, and contractual terms that the applicant had no right to succeed. The landlord’s consideration of the matter was over and above what would have been considered reasonable.
In any event, had the applicant been able to succeed the tenancy, the policy and contractual terms also noted that if the property was bigger than was required, an alternative suitable property would have been offered. Given the property had 2 bedrooms, this was greater than the need of the applicant and as such he would have been unable to stay in the property.
Additionally, whilst the applicant had no succession rights, the landlord extensively considered his position both in terms of housing and wellbeing and made a direct offer. This was again over and above its obligations, given that any risk of homelessness is the responsibility of the local authority. This offer saw the landlord use its discretion and this was more than reasonable in the circumstance.
It is clear that the situation was distressing for the applicant, but the landlord is bound by legislation and policies governing such matters. Its consideration of the request was vast and there was no maladministration in it doing so.
In relation to the staff conduct, the Ombudsman has been unable to find any evidence which referred to the possibility of the applicant retaining the property. Email communication between all parties at all times made clear that the applicant would not be able to succeed the tenancy. Whilst the applicant states the staff member had made him feel threatened, the records note that information relating to the succession had been relayed.
The landlord reasonably considered the applicant’s allegations and empathised that it was a difficult situation for him given his hope to succeed, but that the staff member had relayed the landlord’s position and the Ombudsman cannot find any evidence to refute this.
In relation to removal of items from the property, the landlord clearly advised the applicant that the property needed to be vacated on 10 January 2021, information was provided in relation to how the applicant could store the belongings. Following this the landlord reasonably noted that as the applicant did not have space in his current property it could store these for him for a period of 6 months. However, at all times the applicant was made aware this would be at a cost to himself.
Following the landlord making the direct offer, it was reasonable that it noted it would hold the belongings for 8 weeks for which again, he was liable for the costs. This was the time within which the applicant would have been able to move into the new property and there was adequate space for his belongings. Whilst this was shorter than the initial 6 months offered, given that the applicant’s housing position had changed, it was reasonable. The applicant’s decision to reject the direct offer was his alone and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to inform him that he would need to arrange collection of his belongings at the end of the 8-week term.
Taken all together, whilst the landlord’s position changed in relation to the duration the applicant had to collect his belongings, this was reasonable given that it had gone over and above to support the applicant, by offering a direct let.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the:
1. Applicant’s request to succeed the tenancy.
2. Applicant’s reports of poor staff conduct
3. Time given to collect possessions from the property

Reasons

The landlord considered the applicant’s succession application and correctly applied legislation, policy, and contractual terms in reaching a decision. The landlord also then used its discretion to provide a direct offer.
The landlord considered the applicant’s allegations of poor staff conduct and there was no evidence to support this.
The landlord provided several opportunities for the applicant to collect possessions and following the direct offer, reasonably reduced the timeframe for which it would hold the possessions as the applicant had been offered suitable accommodation which would accommodate the possessions.