Southern Housing Group Limited (202218710)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218710

Southern Housing Group Limited

6 September 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to end his joint tenancy and be transferred to alternative accommodation.

Background

2. The resident held an assured joint tenancy with the landlord for a two bedroom house.
3. On 24 August 2020, the resident told the landlord that he had moved out of the property after breaking up with his partner. The landlord explained that as joint tenants both the resident and his partner were liable for the rent at the property.
4. In July and August 2022, both the resident’s social worker and his local MP contacted the landlord on his behalf, to get the issue resolved, and enquire about getting him a priority move. The resident’s MP passed on the resident’s concerns, including allegations that he had been the victim of domestic abuse prior to leaving the property. The landlord said it had previously explained to the resident the criteria that needed to be met for a priority move, and that it had asked him to submit supporting evidence, which to date it had not received.
5. Additionally, the landlord reiterated that as a housing provider, it was not authorised to make a decision on who should keep the tenancy ,and it could not remove a name. It explained that in these situations it would always recommend that residents seek legal advice. It also confirmed that there were three options available to the resident for changing the tenancy. These were by mutual agreement of both residents, changing the name on the tenancy by a process of assignment, or obtaining a court order. The landlord also suggested the MP signpost the resident to citizens advice, and confirmed it would also contact the resident to see if further support was needed.
6. On 10 October 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint to the landlord. He stated that repeated attempts to negotiate with the landlord through his MP and other services, in order to transfer him or his ex-partner to alternative accommodation, were unsuccessful.  He also stated that the landlord wanted to force him to withdraw his name from the tenancy to solve the problem, but that doing this would make it difficult for him to get help with housing moving forward.
7. On 14 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. It said it had not previously been told about domestic abuse, so it had not had the opportunity to investigate, to see if any tenancy enforcement action could be taken against his ex-partner, or if it could split the tenancy. It told the resident it had opened a domestic abuse case on 14 October 2022, with a completion date of 1 November 2022. Once completed, the landlord said it would confirm the outcome and next steps. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
8. On 18 November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident by telephone to check his circumstances, and discuss his concerns. It explained that without additional information, it would be unable to take things any further. On the same day, the resident requested his complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process.
9. On 7 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord via the Ombudsman, to request his complaint be escalated to stage 2. The landlord subsequently issued its final response on 10 January 2023. It explained that it was not allowed to split a tenancy held by two parties, as a new tenancy agreement would need to be created for one of the residents, which it was unable to do without instruction from the local council. It reiterated that there were three options available for the resident – he could terminate the tenancy, pursue legal action through court, or speak to the council to request a priority move. It also explained that it could not investigate domestic abuse allegations retrospectively, but would support him as much as possible.
10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, as he wanted it to split his joint tenancy into two different sole tenancies. Subsequently, he brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

 Assessment and findings

11. The landlord’s assignment policy states that “assured short hold tenants do not have the right to assign” and that its policy is to “refuse these requests.” In this case, assignment is where the tenancy of an existing property transfers from one person to another. The policy goes on to explain that the landlord will grant residents the right to assign when “exchanging their property with another tenant” or when “ a court orders it”.
12. The landlord’s assignment policy also states that when there has been a “relationship breakdown”, it may use its discretion to allow an assignment of a joint tenancy to a “sole remaining tenant.” However, it goes on to explain that what the landlord can do depends on a number of issues, including the “type of tenancy”, what “each tenant wants to happen”, and whether an “outcome has been decided by the court”.
13. The resident told the landlord in August 2020 that he had left the property, and the landlord subsequently explained that he would remain liable for the rent as a joint tenant, unless both he and his ex-partner signed off on ending the tenancy, or provided a court order. This was appropriate, and in line with its assignment policy as the resident held an assured shorthold joint tenancy.
14. In July 2022, when the resident’s social worker asked the landlord about securing a priority move for the resident, the landlord explained the eligibility criteria for a priority move, and that it would need proof of his circumstances. Urgent moves can be granted, but a resident needs to provide information that shows they qualify for such a move. The landlord was therefore correct in communicating this to the resident.
15. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord in July and August 2022, to see what could be done to resolve the resident’s situation. The landlord explained that it had previously told the resident about the criteria he would need to meet for a priority move, and had explained to him that it needed evidence to show he met it, which it had not received.
16. Additionally, the landlord explained that its policy for joint tenants when there was a relationship breakdown was that it would remain impartial, provide both parties with tenancy guidance, and recommend they seek legal advice. It reiterated that as per its assignment policy, it would not split tenancies by granting a second separate tenancy to either party, so both parties would need to agree on who would hold the tenancy, or gain a court order. The landlord explained that three options available to the resident for changing the tenancy were getting a mutual agreement with the other resident, assigning the tenancy over to another resident, or by obtaining a court order. Both the resident and his ex-partner would also be advised that one of them could end the tenancy. Again, the landlord was correct in explaining this, as it was in line with its policy.
17. The landlord also recommended the resident contact citizens advice, and told his MP that it would reach out to him to see if further support was needed. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
18. The landlord reiterated this information to the resident in its response to his stage 1 complaint in October 2022. It also confirmed with him that he had not made it aware he was the victim of domestic abuse previously, and so it had not had the chance to investigate his claims, to see if it could take tenancy enforcement action against his ex-partner, or split the tenancy. It subsequently opened up an investigation in October 2022.
19. The tenancy agreement states under domestic abuse that residents are not to “carry out or threaten violence against anyone who lives with [them].” It is reasonable that the landlord would need proof or evidence of this occurring before being able to take any action in line with the tenancy agreement.
20. In November 2022, the landlord explained this to the resident over the telephone. It asked the resident if it could contact the police on his behalf, to get any relevant police reports or information to support his claim, but the resident refused. Subsequently, the landlord explained that without any supporting evidence, it would not be able to take any further action. The Ombudsman understands this would be a difficult subject for the resident, but the landlord was not unreasonable in asking him for further information, or by offering to help obtain it on the resident’s behalf, in order to support him.
21. In January 2023, the landlord reiterated that the resident could request to terminate his tenancy, pursue action through court, or speak to the local council to request a priority move. The resident raised concerns that by terminating the tenancy, he would be making himself “intentionally homeless”, making it harder for him to get support with housing in future. This was correct, but the landlord was not acting unfairly by explaining this option to the resident, as it had a responsibility to make him aware of all options available to him as per his tenancy agreement.
22. The resident has told the Ombudsman that he feels there must be something the landlord can do to change his joint tenancy agreement. From the evidence available, the landlord has explained the options available to the resident, in line with its own policies and the tenancy agreement itself. If the resident wishes to end the tenancy, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to help and support him with this, given his concerns about obtaining future housing, and the difficult situation he is currently facing.
23. In summary, while the Ombudsman recognises this is a difficult situation for the resident, the landlord acted appropriately by opening an investigation into the resident’s reports of domestic abuse, and by seeking to obtain more information to see if it could take any tenancy enforcement action against his ex-partner. It also gave the resident correct information in regards to the options available to him as per its assignment policy, and his joint tenancy agreement.

Determination

24. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to end his joint tenancy and be transferred to alternative accommodation.