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

Amplius Living (202305793)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305793

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

6 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the residents’ request to assign her tenancy to her son.

Background

  1. The resident and her husband were joint assured tenants of the landlord. The property was a 3–bedroom house. The tenancy began on 15 October 2012 and ended on 9 July 2023. They lived with their adult son. There were no recorded vulnerabilities.
  2. On 20 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask about the process to assign the tenancy to her son. She and her husband were considering moving to a new property and there would not be room for their son.
  3. The landlord replied on the same day to say her son would not be allowed to take over the tenancy unless it was a sole tenancy, and the sole tenant died. On 9 May 2023, the landlord told the resident that her son would also not be allowed to take over the tenancy as he would be under-occupying by 2 bedrooms. It advised her son to apply to the local authority housing register. It said that if he was eligible, it would work with the local authority to help him find suitable alternative accommodation.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord on 18 May 2023. She said the landlord had not adhered to the terms of her tenancy as it would not let her assign the tenancy to her son. She said this was causing them stress and upset, as her son would be homeless when she and her husband moved. She wanted the landlord to allow her to assign the tenancy, or allow her son to stay at the property until he was rehoused.
  5. On 23 May 2023, the landlord’s solicitor advised it that the resident and her husband did not have a right to assign the tenancy to their son. The tenancy could only be assigned to someone legally entitled to succeed the tenancy on the death of the tenant. The resident’s son was not legally entitled to succeed because joint tenancies always pass to the surviving joint tenant. Another person cannot succeed to a joint tenancy, even if they would qualify to succeed to a sole tenancy (as per the case of Solihull v Hickin [2012] UKSC 39).
  6. The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident on 24 May 2023. It reiterated that she did not have a right to assign the tenancy to her son because:
    1. She and her husband had a joint tenancy. If either tenant died, then the tenancy would vest in the surviving tenant by way of survivorship. This would use up the succession right, and succession can only happen once.
    2. Therefore, their son did not have the right to succeed to the tenancy, and so was not a person to whom the tenancy could be assigned.
    3. It had received legal advice that this was the correct approach, as per the case of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council – Hickin [2012] UKSC 39.
    4. It advised her son to apply for social housing through the local authority housing register.
  7. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response and requested escalation to stage 2 on 24 May 2023.
  8. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 1 June 2023. It reiterated its position at stage 1, and clarified that the section of the tenancy agreement the resident had quoted only allowed for assignment “to a person who is legally entitled to it.” It further clarified that, in this case, the resident’s son did not have the legal right to succeed to the tenancy as, upon the death of one joint tenant, it would pass to the other by way of survivorship, using up the succession right. It expressed sympathy for the son’s housing situation and advised that he apply for the housing register.

Assessment and findings

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement contained the following relevant terms:
    1. “If you die, your tenancy will pass to your husband or wife or civil partner, as long as they lived with you before you died. If they are already a joint tenant, they will become the only tenant.
    2. “If you are not married or a joint tenant, another member of your family can become the tenant, as long as they have lived with you for the last 12 months before you died….
    3. “In some cases, you may be allowed to hand over your tenancy to a member of your family. This is called assigning your tenancy.
    4. “You should confirm with us whether the person you want to assign your tenancy to is eligible to become the new tenant.
    5. “You can pass on (assign) the tenancy to a person who would be legally entitled to succeed to the tenancy with our prior written permission.”
  2. The landlord’s succession policy contained the following, “if the deceased was a joint tenant the tenancy automatically transfers to the surviving joint tenant if they occupied the property at the time of the death… This change from joint to sole tenancy on death may count as one succession and the right to succeed cannot be transferred to another family member (see Solihull Metropolitan v Hickin 2012).”
  3. The landlord’s Tenancy Changes Procedure Guide said it would ensure requests for changes to tenancies were replied to within 5 working days, with a fuller response, where necessary, within 10 working days.
  4. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s initial enquiry about assigning her tenancy. This was appropriate, as was its advice that her son apply for the housing register, and its offer to work with the local authority to assist him. The landlord was entitled to tell the resident she did not have the right to assign the tenancy to her son, as this was in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement, and its succession policy. However, its correspondence to the resident on 20 April 2023 and 9 May 2023 did not make clear the legal reasons why there was no right to assign the tenancy to her son. Had this been done at an early point, the landlord may have better managed the resident’s expectations.
  5. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord promptly sought legal advice regarding the matter. It was appropriate that it sought expert advice to make sure it was acting lawfully.
  6. The stage 1 response was provided on 24 May 2023, within 4 working days of the resident’s complaint. This was in line with the landlord’s complaints procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The response clearly stated the landlord’s position that the resident did not have the right to assign the tenancy to her son, and explained the legal advice received. The landlord was entitled to take this position, as this was in line with the terms of the resident’s tenancy, and its policy. It was appropriate that the landlord repeated its advice regarding the resident’s son applying for the housing register.
  7. However, the landlord’s explanation of the legal basis for its position could have been clearer had it have started by explaining that the tenancy could only be assigned to those who had a legal right to succeed (as per paragraph 6.28 of the tenancy agreement). This would have provided context for the points it made about succession rights.
  8. On 24 May 2023, the resident requested escalation to stage 2 of the complaints procedure. She expressed confusion that the landlord referred to succession in its stage 1 response, when she wanted to assign her tenancy.
  9. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 1 June 2023, 5 days after the resident’s request to escalate. This was once again in line with its complaints procedure and the Code. The landlord reiterated its position and the legal advice it had been given. It was appropriate that it clarified that the tenancy agreement only allowed for assignment to a person who was legally entitled to it, and the son was not so entitled, because upon the death of one joint tenant it would pass to the other. However, the explanation could have been made clearer by reference to the relevant paragraph of the tenancy agreement.
  10. The stage 2 response expressed sympathy for the son’s housing situation and acknowledged that the resident would be disappointed by the response. This was appropriate, as was the reiteration of advice for her son to apply for the housing register.
  11. Considering the landlord’s handling of the matter overall, while its explanation of the legal reasons for its position could have been clearer at an earlier point in the parties’ communication, it was entitled to tell the resident she did not have the right to assign the tenancy to her son. This was in line with the terms of the tenancy agreement and its succession policy. It was also appropriate that the landlord took legal advice to make sure it was acting lawfully. It was further appropriate that it offered advice and assistance regarding the son’s rehousing. Therefore, a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the residents’ request to assign her tenancy to her son.