Bolton at Home Limited (202321740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321740

Bolton at Home Limited

26 November 2024

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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have their name removed from a tenancy.
2. The resident’s priority for social housing.

Background

The resident and his partner (Ms A) signed an assured shorthold tenancy, also known as a starter tenancy. The resident and Ms A became joint tenants with the landlord on 20 July 2022. A starter tenancy is a 12-month probationary tenancy where the tenants’ rights are limited in comparison to regular tenancies. Starter tenancies are typically used for new tenants. If the tenant abides by the terms of the tenancy, then after the 12-month period ends the tenancy will transfer to a longer term tenancy.
The resident has since left the property and Ms A is now the sole tenant. The property is a 2-bedroom flat owned by the landlord. The landlord is a housing association. When the resident resided in the property he lived there with his partner and their child.
Due to matters outside of the resident’s control from December 2022 he was unable to live with his partner and child. Following this the resident left the home, but he remained a joint tenant on the tenancy agreement.
On 13 February 2023 Ms A asked the landlord to remove the resident from the tenancy agreement. The landlord said they could not do this as the current tenancy agreement was a starter tenancy. The landlord advised Ms A that the named tenants could be changed once the starter tenancy period had ended. In this instance, this meant the resident could be removed from the tenancy from 20 July 2023, if he and Ms A both consented to the change.
On 26 June 2023 Ms A asked the landlord to remove the resident from the tenancy. On 14 August 2023 the resident was removed from the tenancy after he, Ms A and the landlord signed a deed to assign the tenancy to Ms A.
On 22 August 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. In his complaint the resident expressed dissatisfaction for the following:
1. He was unable to be removed as a tenant, and he felt this was a safeguarding risk as a child lived in the property.
2. The landlord renewed the tenancy in both his and Ms A’s name. He felt this was inappropriate as the landlord knew he did not want to be on the tenancy anymore, and because there was a safeguarding risk.
3. He felt he had to go to the trouble of removing himself from the tenancy.
4. He now could not be rehoused as he had voluntarily been removed from a tenancy.
5. The resident felt the landlord should apologise to him and Ms A.
On 24 August 2023 the landlord responded to the complaint via a stage one complaint response. The landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint, and said they acted in-line with their own policies for the following reasons:
1. The resident and Ms A were joint tenants under a starter tenancy.
2. Ms A was given the correct information when she had requested the change to the tenancy, and she was advised to obtain legal advice.
3. Any bail restrictions or decisions from social services were separate from the tenancy.
On 6 December 2023 the resident made another complaint to the landlord, the nature of this complaint was a repeat of the complaint previously made in August 2023. In response the landlord re-sent its stage one response to the resident.
On 28 September 2023 the resident complained to this service about the landlord’s initial refusal to remove him from the tenancy, the landlord renewing the tenancy in his name and comments made by the landlord which he had not previously complained about. The resident was advised to ask his landlord to escalate his complaint to a stage two complaint.
On 27 December 2023 the resident requested the complaint be escalated to a stage 2 complaint. On the same date the landlord responded and declined to progress the complaint to a stage 2. The landlord said the matters were fully explained in its stage one response, and advised the resident to contact the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS) if he remained dissatisfied.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme notes as follows:
1. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
  1. Concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing.
The resident has raised concerns about his priority for local authority housing after he removed himself from the tenancy. After considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 41(d) of the Scheme this complaint is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction. The resident can contact The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if he remains concerned about this matter.
The resident raised his concerns about comments the landlord made about him still living in the property with this Service. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. Therefore, the comments the resident attributed to the landlord have not been investigated because the Ombudsman has not considered it fair and reasonable to do so.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates an assignment policy which dictates how tenancies are transferred between persons, including when joint tenancies are transferred to a sole person. Any assignment changes must be agreed by the tenants and the landlord, and both parties must sign a deed agreeing to such changes.
Within its assignment policy the landlord outlines that it operates within housing legislation, and this means assignment of tenancy cannot occur during a starter tenancy.

Legislation

The Housing Act 1988 allowed for local authorities and housing associations to issue starter tenancies to new tenants. Starter tenancies are assured short term tenancies which are operated in a 12-month period. Starter tenancies are automatically transferred to a secured tenancy unless the landlord opts to extend the tenancy for 6 months, or takes steps to evict the tenant.
During a starter tenancy the named tenant can be changed in the following circumstances:
1. Following a court order.
2. Via succession if a named tenant dies.

The request to remove the resident’s name from the tenancy

On 20 July 2022 the resident and Ms A signed a tenancy agreement with the landlord. The tenancy agreement outlined both the resident and Ms A agreed to be joint tenants under a starter tenancy. Within the tenancy agreement there was a reminder explaining to the resident and Ms A that the tenancy agreement is a legal document.
On 13 February 2023 Ms A asked the landlord if she could have the resident’s name removed from their joint tenancy. She said the resident was no longer living in the property as he could not live with his child. The landlord said the named tenants could not be changed as the tenancy was a starter tenancy. The landlord told Ms A the named tenants could be changed after the starter tenancy ended, and the tenancy transferred to a non-shorthold tenancy. The landlord also advised Ms A to seek legal advice.
The landlord could have advised the resident and Ms A either one of them was able to serve a notice to quit the tenancy as joint tenants. Ms A could then re-apply for the property as a sole tenant. Another alternative could have been for Ms A to move out of the property until an assignment could occur. The landlord did advise Ms A to seek legal advice, if the resident or Ms A sought legal advice then they would have had the opportunity to consider such options. The Ombudsman considers this a shortcoming for the landlord rather than a failure in service and a recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
On 26 July 2023, after the starter tenancy had ended, Ms A made a formal request to have the resident removed from the tenancy.
On 9 August 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and relayed Ms A’s wishes. The landlord told the resident the tenancy could not be changed without his permission, and that he did not have to remove himself from the tenancy if he did not wish to do so. The landlord’s actions in this regard were reasonable, as it acted in-line with policy, and it reminded the resident of his rights under the tenancy agreement.
On 14 August 2023 the resident signed a deed, in this document the resident agreed to the removal of his name from the tenancy. After this the tenancy transferred to Miss A as the sole tenant.
It is expected that all named parties on tenancy agreements abide by the terms of their tenancy agreement.
It is also expected that all landlords act in a fair and lawful manner, and that their policies and procedures reflect their obligations under relevant legislation.
The landlord acted reasonably by not removing the resident’s name from the tenancy agreement following Ms A’s request on 13 February 2023. The landlord told Ms A they were unable to change the tenancy from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy in her name during the starter tenancy period. The landlord’s policies on assignment, and provisions for assignment within the Housing Act 1988 do not allow for tenants on starter tenancies to change the persons named on the tenancy agreement unless specific circumstances apply. As such, the landlord’s advice to Ms A that she should wait until the tenancy transferred to a non-shorthold tenancy were sufficient and appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord also advised Ms A to seek legal advice when she initially asked for the resident’s name to be removed from the tenancy. This advice was appropriate in the circumstances, given one of the occasions where an assignment can occur within a starter tenancy is via a court order.
The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord did not remove his name from the tenancy at the point in which the tenancy transferred from a starter tenancy to a non-shorthold tenancy. The tenancy agreement, which the resident signed on 20 July 2022, explained the starter tenancy would convert to a non-shorthold tenancy unless the landlord took steps to begin possession proceedings or opted to extend the starter tenancy. As such, the conversion of the tenancy in both tenants names was reasonable, and the resident should have expected this to occur.
The tenancy was a legal document where all parties agreed to abide by the terms of the tenancy. As such, the landlord was not in a position to unilaterally change the tenancy to a sole tenancy without the consent of the resident and Ms A. The landlord’s policy on assignment notes that any change to a tenancy must be agreed by both the landlord and the named tenants. All parties will then sign a deed of assignment before the tenancy can be changed. The landlord acted in a correct and appropriate manner by not changing the tenancy agreement, as at this stage it did not have formal consent to do so from both tenants.
When Ms A asked the landlord to remove the residents name from the tenancy on 26 July 2023 the landlord took timely action to seek both parties consent to change the tenancy agreement. In doing so the landlord acted in a reasonable and timely manner.
The resident was dissatisfied with the process for changing the tenancy. The resident said he did not think the time and trouble this process took was appropriate. This Service has already assessed that the landlord acted in a reasonable and appropriate manner by seeking to obtain the consent of all parties before changing the tenancy agreement. The landlord’s policies include the provision that for assignments to occur the named tenants are required to sign a deed of assignment. As such the landlord acted appropriately by asking the resident to sign a deed of assignment to remove him from the tenancy.
The resident suggested the landlord failed in its safeguarding obligations by not removing him from the tenancy agreement. The resident said at the time the landlord was aware he had been arrested and had bail conditions imposed on him. One of the circumstances in which an assignment can occur within a starter tenancy is when a court order, including orders from the family court, relates to assignment of tenancy. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord was subject to a court order due to safeguarding concerns. As such, the landlord acted appropriately by following its own policies on assignment.
Local authorities have specific statutory responsibilities for safeguarding children and adults, this service has seen no evidence to suggest the local authority asked the landlord to change the tenancy due to safeguarding concerns. Considering this, the landlord acted appropriately by following its own policies on assignment.
This service advises the resident to contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman if he has additional concerns about the local authority’s actions in relation to safeguarding.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to have their name removed from the tenancy.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord should ensure its employees are fully aware around the ways in which a tenancy can end. If required, the landlord should provide staff with refresher training on this topic.