Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

London Borough of Lambeth (202316526)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316526

Lambeth Council

28 February 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to assign his tenancy to his daughter.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of a 1-bedroom flat. The landlord is a local council. The (introductory) tenancy started in March 2010. This stated an introductory tenant will automatically become a secure tenant after 12 months unless possession proceedings brought the tenancy to an end.
  2. The resident has a mental health condition which the landlord has recorded on its system. The resident’s former partner and mother of his daughter is his nominated representative. During the timeframe investigated both the resident and his daughter were in communication with the landlord regarding his assignment application. Hereinafter, any reference to contact from the ‘resident’ may include contact from his daughter.
  3. The resident first enquired with the landlord about how to assign his tenancy to his daughter in February 2021 and confirmed he wished to proceed with this on 1 March 2021. Further, in April 2021, the landlord told the resident that he could not assign his tenancy to his daughter as she was not on the tenancy agreement. It sent him a link to its webpage to apply to add his daughter to his tenancy. It subsequently apologised for providing incorrect information.
  4. On 5 July 2021 the resident applied to have the tenancy assigned to his daughter. He supplied supporting documents to the landlord within the next few days. The resident re-submitted his application and documents in September 2021 after the landlord told him it could not locate his application. The landlord told the resident during a call in December 2021 that it had refused his assignment application.
  5. The landlord confirmed its decision in its letter to the resident on 17 January 2022. This explained that its checks had shown his daughter had an assured shorthold tenancy (AST) at another address, and that there was insufficient evidence to establish she had lived with him for the last 12 months. In reply, the resident disputed this and told the landlord that his daughter had been living at his property for the previous 12 months. The landlord reiterated its refusal of his application on 16 February 2022. At this time, it told the resident that the searches carried out by the local council’s investigation team also highlighted that the resident had been in receipt of single person discount for council tax since 27 February 2019.
  6. On 2 March 2022, the resident provided evidence of his daughter having surrendered her AST. He contacted the landlord on 8 March 2022 and on 11 April 2022 asking for an update on the status of his application in view of the surrender document he had provided. Following further contact from the resident on 31 October 2022, the landlord provided its review decision on 31 January 2023. This refused the application citing that the resident’s daughter had not lived with him at the property address for at least 12 months prior to his application. It acknowledged the ‘relinquishment of the tenancy’ document had been provided in relation to the AST but stated this was signed on 15 July 2021 to take effect on 16 July 2021.
  7. In his formal complaint dated 29 March 2023, the resident set out events since February 2021. He complained about errors and delays by the landlord in processing his application and when responding to his communications. The resident said he had provided evidence of his daughter living with him during the 12 months prior to his application and of his daughter’s AST being surrendered.
  8. On 3 May 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. Within this it acknowledged there were delays in processing his application for which it apologised. The landlord gave reasons including that its staff were working remotely due to various lockdown rules in place at the time. It also stated:
    1. It had reviewed his application and concluded that on the balance of probabilities, his daughter had not been living with him as her sole or main residence for the whole of the 12 months before he made his application.
    2. Its records show that on 16 April 2019 the resident reported that his daughter moved out on 27 February 2019. He had been receiving a single persons discount on his council tax based on this declaration.
    3. Therefore, assignment was not possible under the conditions specified by the Housing Act 1985 (the Act).
  9. In his 20 June 2023 escalation request the resident stated:
    1. It had not explained the incorrect advice given in 2021 to add his daughter to the tenancy which would have thwarted his assignment application.
    2. His daughter had moved out in 2019, but this was temporary. The landlord had not cited this as reason to decline his assignment application.
    3. At the time of the assignment application in 2021, he was not in receipt of the council tax single persons’ discount nor was he currently.
    4. If a proper and full review had been carried out, it would have transpired that his daughter had not moved to another flat. There was no evidence that the landlord had contacted the relevant estate agent.
    5. He had provided “ample” evidence to show his daughter lived with him.
  10. On 25 July 2023 the landlord provided its stage 2 response. In its response, it explained the requirement to evidence that his daughter lived with him at the time of the assignment application and for the previous 12 months. The landlord reiterated that there was insufficient documentary evidence of this and stated:
    1. Its request for the local council to investigate if the potential assignee was linked to any other properties, and to review the evidence provided was in line with its policy and procedures.
    2. The investigation team recommended that his application was declined on the basis his daughter held a tenancy at an address elsewhere.
    3. The evidence produced by the resident to show his daughter lived with him for the previous 12 months was insufficient.
    4. Payslips were produced from February 2021 onwards and some letters from the bank addressed to his daughter at the address which do not show evidence of residency.
    5. It explained it was keen to see evidence of salary or benefits being received from his address. It listed other documents that would strengthen the case.
    6. The resident claimed to have sent in 12 months bank statements and 6 hospital letters on 5 December 2022 however it could not locate this.
    7. It agreed to reconsider his application for assignment if he could produce evidence that his daughter had lived with him for the previous 12 months as described. This would be as from July 2022 to July 2023.
  11. On 4 August 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to us as he was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to approve his assignment application.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. Under the Act, the resident has a right to assign his tenancy in certain circumstances. This right is set out in the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s succession and assignment policy (policy). This also make clear the right to assign a tenancy can only be exercised if the resident has not succeeded the tenancy himself.
  2. There is no suggestion the resident had succeeded the tenancy himself. Therefore, the resident can assign his tenancy to a family member provided they would have qualified to succeed to the tenancy if he had died immediately before the assignment. The landlord’s policy says that to qualify for succession, the family member must have resided with the deceased tenant throughout the period of 12 months ending with the tenant’s death.
  3. The resident applied to assign his tenancy to his daughter on 5 July 2021. The landlord asked him to provide documents to support his application including to prove her residency at the address for the prior 12 months. The landlord’s request was in line with its policy which requires the same. The landlord provided the resident with a list of acceptable documents and the resident provided documents including bank statements and payslips.
  4. The landlord subsequently refused the resident’s assignment application. In its decision letter to the resident dated 17 January 2022 the landlord gave the following reasons:
    1. Its checks had shown the resident’s daughter had lived with the resident in the past but no longer lived with him and had an AST at another address.
    2. There was insufficient evidence to establish his daughter had lived with him for the previous 12 months.
  5. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service which shows it asked the local council’s investigation team to carry out searches and review the information the resident had provided in support of his application. This was to establish if his daughter was linked to any other properties and to consider if there was sufficient evidence to show occupation at the property for the previous 12 months. This shows the landlord took steps to thoroughly investigate if the criteria to assign a tenancy had been met. This is common practice amongst landlords and is done for the purpose of protecting their housing stock. Therefore, in taking this action, the landlord acted reasonably.
  6. The report dated 23 November 2021 included information indicating that the resident’s daughter held an AST at another address that commenced on 29 June 2021.
  7. The report also stated that:
    1. In her housing application dated 23 October 2020, the resident’s daughter had given her mother’s address (this date was during the 12 months prior to the assignment application).
    2. On 21 September 2018 the resident told the local council that his daughter moved into the property. On 16 April 2019 he advised she had moved out on 27 February 2019.
    3. The resident thereafter received single persons discount for council tax.
    4. The resident’s daughter completed an online web application to register on the local council’s electoral register 21 August 2021 when she confirmed her home address to be the resident’s property.
    5. On 6 July 2021, the resident provided banks statements for the period August 2020 to January 2021 addressed to his daughter at the property address as well as payslips from February 2021 to June 2021.
    6. It recommended that the resident’s assignment application was declined.
  8. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on information in the report. It is recognised that some of the information did not evidence the resident’s daughter’s residency at the address for the 12 months prior to 5 July 2021. As such the landlord’s decision to refuse the resident’s application was reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. The resident subsequently explained to the landlord the circumstances surrounding his daughter’s AST at another address, stating that she had never moved into this address. In March 2022, the resident also provided an AST surrender document. However, in its review decision dated 31 January 2023, the landlord again refused the resident’s application on the same grounds. It referenced the ‘relinquishment of the tenancy’ document, pointing out that this was signed on 14 July 2021 to take effect on 16 July 2021.
  10. The tenancy surrender document showed that the resident’s daughter had relinquished the AST at the other address on 16 July 2021. We acknowledge therefore that this evidence did not prove the resident’s daughter’s residency at the property for the 12 months prior to 5 July 2021. The landlord had a right to evaluate if this issue and the other information in the report which brought into question her residency at the address, meant the conditions for assignment had not been met.
  11. However, we are mindful the date of the landlord’s review decision was 31 January 2023. This was approximately 18 months after the date of AST surrender document and at least 15 months since it received the report from its investigations team. Furthermore, it was more than a year after its original decision.
  12. Due to the extended timeframe between the resident’s assignment application and the landlord’s review decision, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have also considered the 12-months prior to this decision. There is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with an opportunity to prove his daughter’s residency in relation to this more recent timeframe. It had asked the resident on 2 December 2022 to provide further evidence relating to his daughter’s income however it is evident this related to 12 months prior to 5 July 2021. The resident provided further documents at this time as per its request. This included payslips over a 12-month period (although this was from February 2021 to February 2022).
  13. Therefore, due to the prolonged delay in confirming its review decision, the information on which it based its decision, was out of date. Also, in view of its refusal on 31 January 2023, its 2 December 2022 request for further documents from the resident seems unnecessary. As such the landlord acted unreasonably in this regard.
  14. Based on the parties’ communications from February 2021 seen by this Service, there were further failings by the landlord while handling the resident’s assignment application including:
    1. Incorrectly advising the resident to apply to have his daughter added to his tenancy when he had requested to assign his tenancy to her.
    2. Requiring the resident to re-submit his assignment application in September 2021 after it told him it could not locate his application made on 5 July 2021.
    3. Delays in processing his assignment application and failing to provide the resident with expected timescales while dealing with his application and related communications.
    4. At times, the landlord was unduly harsh in its choice of wording to explain its decision to refuse the resident’s assignment application. In particular its references to his application being “fraudulent”.
  15. In its final complaint response issued on 25 July 2023 (approximately 6 months after its review decision), the landlord gave reasons behind its decision to refuse the resident’s assignment application. It confirmed this was based on the findings in the report dated November 2021 which indicated his daughter had not resided at the property for the 12 months prior to 5 July 2021. However, it failed to explain the delay in reviewing its decision after the resident produced the AST surrender document on 2 March 2022. As mentioned above it was unreasonable to base its review decision on information that was out of date and not give the resident another opportunity to prove his daughter’s residency at this time.
  16. In its final response the landlord acknowledged some failings and agreed to reconsider the resident’s application for assignment. It requested evidence that his daughter had lived with him for the previous 12 months from July 2022 to July 2023.
  17. We acknowledge that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s proposal for him to re-apply for assignment of his tenancy at this time. However, we recognise that the landlord must satisfy itself that the conditions for assignment as required under the Act and in its policies, have been met. Therefore, its position as stated in its final response was reasonable and it would be inappropriate for us to require the landlord to bypass these conditions.
  18. In summary, based on information in the investigation report dated November 2021, the landlord’s decision to refuse the resident’s assignment application was reasonable. However, the landlord delayed in reviewing the AST surrender document provided by the resident and in providing its review decision. This meant at the time it provided its review decision, the information on which it relied was out of date. It did not provide the resident with an opportunity to prove his daughter’s residency in relation to a more recent timeframe at this stage. This was unreasonable.
  19. In its final complaint response, the landlord did invite the resident to re-apply. However, its delay in doing so and further failings while handling the resident’s assignment request is indicative of maladministration by the landlord while handling his request. It did not offer the resident appropriate redress for these failings.
  20. In the circumstances, the landlord will pay the resident £400 in compensation, for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failings. This is in line with the level recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance whereby there has been a significant impact on the resident which is appropriate here.
  21. In response to our recent information request, the landlord confirmed it would re-consider a further application from the resident. It is evident that it wrote to the resident and his daughter on 14 February 2025 inviting him to re-apply to have his tenancy assigned to her. It explained the resident would need to complete the online form and provide documentary evidence to show that she had been living with him at the address, for the previous 12 months.  It provided examples of required documents. It also stated it would expect the resident not to be in receipt of single persons discount for council tax and for the resident to be declared as living at the property in any claims for housing benefit. 
  22. As the landlord has not included an expected timeframe for processing any further application submitted by the resident, it is reasonable in the circumstances to include an order below for the landlord to confirm an appropriate timescale to the resident to manage expectations.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request to assign his tenancy to his daughter.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
    1. Provides a written apology to the resident for failings identified in this investigation.
    2. Pays the resident compensation of £400 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s request to assign his tenancy.
    3. Write to the resident and his daughter to follow up on its 14 February 2025 email to confirm an appropriate timescale for providing its decision on any assignment application submitted by the resident (from the date he notifies the landlord of his completed online application).
    4. Provide us with evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord produces a factsheet or information for residents, regarding how it processes an assignment application including how long it will take and its practice of carrying out checks.