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

Babergh District Council (202314102)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314102

Babergh District Council

24 March 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 applicant 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 decision not to allow the applicant to succeed his late mother’s tenancy.

Background

  1. The complainant is an applicant of the landlord. He applied to succeed to his late mother’s tenancy. His mother (the resident) was a secure tenant of the landlord and the sole tenant. At the time of her death, she lived in the property with her husband. The applicant lives in a property in another area, with his partner and 2 children. The applicant’s property is managed by a different landlord.
  2. The resident’s father assigned the tenancy to the resident by way of a deed of assignment dated 24 September 2008. The resident passed away on 26 January 2023.
  3. The applicant first contacted the landlord on 5 April 2023. He asked whether there was anything it could do to help him succeed to his late mother’s tenancy. The landlord responded on the same day and explained that his mother’s tenancy had ended. It said there were no succession rights due to the assignment that had already taken place in 2008.
  4. The applicant continued to contact the landlord as he wanted to succeed his late mother’s tenancy, so the landlord logged a formal complaint on 10 May 2023. The landlord sent the applicant a stage 1 response on 23 May 2023. It said his application for succession had been unsuccessful because he did not meet the criteria. It said it had followed the correct policy and procedures and its decision was lawful.
  5. Following escalation to stage 2 the landlord sent the applicant a stage 2 response on 21 June 2023. It said the landlord had followed due process as there had already been a succession of the tenancy.
  6. The applicant was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, so referred his complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The applicant has raised concerns about the allocation of properties under the council’s choice based letting scheme. The management of the choice based letting scheme falls under the council’s general responsibilities. As such, it is not part of the landlord’s housing management function. Therefore, we cannot consider this aspect of the applicant’s complaint. This would fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, who have jurisdiction to investigate complaints relating to the wider function of the council.

The landlord’s decision not to allow the applicant to succeed his late mother’s tenancy

  1. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the original tenancy agreement. However, it has been able to provide a copy of the deed of assignment. This confirms that the resident’s father assigned the tenancy to the resident (the applicant’s late mother) on 24 September 2008.
  2. The resident passed away on 26 January 2023.
  3. The applicant contacted the landlord on several occasions between 5 April 2023 and 6 May 2023 to ask if he could succeed his late mother’s tenancy. He explained that his grandfather had lived in the property since the 1950’s and his mother had taken over the tenancy in 2007. The landlord told him that there were no further rights of succession allowed and, in any event, he did not meet the requirements to succeed. The applicant disputed the landlord’s response, so the landlord raised a formal complaint on 10 May 2023.
  4. The landlord sent the applicant a stage 1 response on 23 May 2023. It said it had not upheld his complaint because it had correctly applied the law. It said his application to succeed had been unsuccessful because:
    1. There had already been what amounted to a succession following the assignment in 2008.
    2. The applicant had not lived at the property during the 12 months before his mother’s death.
    3. The property was not his only or principal home as he had his own tenancy at a different property with another landlord.
  5. The applicant continued to dispute the landlord’s decision. So, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2. The landlord sent the applicant a stage 2 response on 21 June 2023. It said it did not uphold his complaint as it had followed the relevant policies and procedures and he did not have the right to succeed.
  6. The right to succeed a secure tenancy is set out in the Housing Act 1985 (HA1985). The landlord’s tenancy policy accurately reflects the relevant legislation relating to succession and assignments of secure tenancies.
  7. Section 91(3)(c) HA1985 allows for an assignment of a tenancy to a person who would qualify to succeed upon the death of the tenant. A member of the family can succeed a secure tenancy that began before 1 April 2012. Therefore, the evidence shows that the resident (the applicant’s late mother) became a tenant by assignment on 24 September 2008.
  8. Section 88(1)(d) HA1985 says that a tenant is considered a successor if they became the tenant following an assignment. This means that the resident (the applicant’s late mother) was a successor. There can only be 1 statutory succession to a secure tenancy. Therefore, the evidence shows that the landlord applied its tenancy policy correctly when it concluded that there were no further rights of succession following the resident’s death.
  9. In addition, the evidence shows that the applicant had his own tenancy with another landlord at the time of his mother’s death. Therefore, the landlord correctly applied its tenancy policy when it told the applicant that, even if there had been a right of succession, he would not have met the occupancy requirements.
  10. The landlord has considered the applicant’s request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy prior to and through the complaints process. Its contact and correspondence with the applicant was empathetic and understanding of his situation. However, it is clear from the evidence provided that the applicant had no right to succeed. Although the situation was understandably distressing for the applicant and his family, the landlord’s consideration of the matter was appropriate and fair in the circumstances. As a result, the Ombudsman finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when it made its decision not to allow the applicant to succeed his late mother’s tenancy.