Saxon Weald (201915048)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915048

Saxon Weald

20 January 2021


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 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 complainant 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 response to:

  • the complainant’s application for succession to the property
  • the complainant’s report of staff misconduct.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The complainant’s father was the tenant of the landlord who held an assured tenancy with it. The tenancy agreement states that, in the event of the tenant’s death, the tenancy will automatically pass onto the tenant’s partner if the partner resided at the property at the time of death.
  2. The landlord’s succession procedure provides for the granting of discretionary successions, but also states that “priority for succession is given to a married or civil partner… over other qualifying members of the tenant’s family”.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge all complaints. This policy allows for a two-stage process but confirms that it is not obliged to exhaust its procedure for complaints from people with whom it has no legal relationship with.

Summary of events

  1. The complainant’s father died in early October 2019.
  2. The landlord made enquiries with its solicitor on 18 October 2019 about the succession of the property as the complainant had contested this. He had raised concerns over whether his father’s wife (whom I shall refer to as Ms A) qualified for succeeding the property. The landlord noted that the complainant had since entered the property, changed the locks and required Ms A to be accompanied by police in order to remove her belongings.
  3. The landlord received confirmation from its solicitor on 24 October 2019 that the Ms A was now the legal tenant of the property by virtue of section 17 of the Housing Act 1988.
  4. The landlord’s correspondence on 19 November 2019 confirmed that it had carried out checks which satisfied it that Ms A had been resident at the property for the last 12 months.
  5. On 19 November 2019 the landlord’s solicitor replied to the complainant’s solicitor to advise that the tenancy was vested in Ms A and the landlord would not enter into correspondence on the matter.
  6. The complainant contacted the landlord on 21 November 2019 to ask to succeed his later father’s tenancy. It replied later that day to confirm that he was not the tenant for the property and directed him to Ms A to discuss any access to the property.
  7. On 22 January 2020 the complainant again requested that the landlord allow him to succeed his late father’s tenancy. He submitted evidence of his being resident in the property for 12 months prior to his father’s death and stated that Ms A had no legal right to reside in the UK.
  8. The landlord replied to the complainant on 23 January 2020 to confirm that it had carried out the necessary checks on Ms A’s eligibility. It reiterated that it could not discuss any tenancy–related matters with him as he was neither the tenant nor the successor to the tenancy.
  9. The complainant contacted this Service on 24 February 2020 to provide his account of events. He disputed the landlord’s decision to award succession to Ms A. He also said he had identified a member of the landlord’s staff who had assisted with Ms A’s succession application. He said this person had also assisted his late father in completing benefit applications “fraudulently”. The complainant enclosed copies of email headers with no content and some emails between this person and his father discussing meetings. He said he sought sought compensation for his “losses”, the deterioration of his health and being “forced” into taking up a tenancy elsewhere.
  10. On 6 March 2020 the landlord informed the complainant that it would be serving a TORT notice on the property and asked that he contact it by 17 March 2020 to collect an inventory of items in the property which may belong to him. After agreeing for this to take place on 24 March 2020, it emailed him that day to advise that it would no longer be possible due to movement restrictions imposed by the pandemic.
  11. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 2 April 2020 to ask that it consider the complainant’s complaint.
  12. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the complainant on 22 April 2020. It said that, upon reviewing the evidence, it did not discriminate against him in not considering his proof of residence at the property. It asserted that it had followed the correct procedure as Ms A was the “rightful successor” and, therefore, any access to the property would need to be arranged with her. It acknowledged that arrangements for the complainant to collect his belongings had been delayed due to the pandemic restrictions but advised it would contact him to arrange this once the restrictions had been lifted.
  13. The landlord confirmed that it had investigated the succession documentation and rejected the complainant’s statement that the member of staff he alleged to have been involved with fraudulent benefits claims had been involved in the process. It asserted that there was no evidence submitted by him to support his allegations of staff misconduct.
  14. The landlord outlined its succession procedure and explained why the complainant was not the rightful successor. It clarified that the right of succession was protected by law, occurred automatically at the point of death and priority was given to the tenant’s partner. The landlord explained that the complainant’s proof of residence at the property did not “supersede a married partner’s succession right”. It confirmed that this was its final response to the complaint. 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the complainant’s application for succession to the property

  1. The landlord’s tenancy agreement and its succession procedure both confirm that Ms A, as the spouse of the complainant’s late father, took priority as the successor to the property. Therefore, its decision to not consider the complainant’s request for succession was appropriate because it was made in accordance with its procedure and its tenancy agreement. There is no service failure by the landlord in respect of this matter.

The landlord’s response to the complainant’s report of staff misconduct

  1. Allegations of benefit fraud are not within the remit of this Service. The Department for Work and Pensions Fraud and Error Service consider such matters and allegations of fraud can be made to the National Benefit Fraud Helpline.
  2. The landlord rejected the complainant’s allegations of staff misconduct on the basis there was no evidence to support it. Evidence is instrumental in identifying any incidents of staff misconduct. Therefore, the landlord has responded reasonably in investigating whether or not this staff member was involved in the succession process and concluding that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate his claim. There is no evidence of a failure on the landlord’s part in responding to these issues.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complainant’s application for succession to the property.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complainant’s report of staff misconduct.

Reasons

The landlord proceeded appropriately in accordance with its tenancy agreement and succession policy in conferring the tenancy to Ms A.

The landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate whether a specific member of staff had influenced the succession process.