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

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202318982)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318982

Clarion Housing Association Limited

15 April 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 how the landlord handled the resident’s:
    1. Succession of the tenancy.
    2. Reports of disrepair.
  2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s decision to force entry to the property.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident’s grandfather lived at the property as a secure tenant of the landlord until his death on 31 October 2022.
  2. On 30 November 2022 the resident’s mother contacted the landlord to advise her father had died and asked it to assist her in accessing the property so she could go through his belongings. On 5 December 2022 the landlord wrote to her and advised she needed to complete a Termination of Tenancy (TOT) form to access the property. The following day she raised a complaint about the time it took the landlord to provide this.
  3. Under paragraph 25 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s mother does not have a relationship with the landlord which would allow the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. However, from 11 January 2023 onwards she began pursuing a complaint on the resident’s behalf about its handling of his request to succeed the tenancy, and its decision to force entry to the property. Therefore, the resident’s mother will be referred to as his representative in this investigation. We will consider the aspects of the complaint which relate to claimed impacts upon the resident. 
  4. On 11 January 2023 the representative emailed the landlord and complained that it had failed to address her reports that the resident was living at the property and wished to succeed the tenancy. She complained that, despite this, the landlord had broken into the property and made it insecure. She complained this meant the resident had to hire emergency locksmiths to secure the property.
  5. On 17 January 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the representative. It explained it would not permit the resident to succeed the tenancy since it had terminated it as per the representative’s direction on 13 December 2022.
  6. On the same day the resident called the landlord and asked if he could succeed the tenancy. On 9 February 2023 the landlord wrote to him and requested evidence to demonstrate that he had lived at the property from October 2021 to October 2022.
  7. The representative contacted the landlord on 13 February 2023. She complained that it had:
    1. Failed to outline which options were available to the resident once she notified it of his grandfather’s death.
    2. Falsely claimed the resident had not asked to succeed the tenancy on 11 January 2023.
    3. Forced entry into the property rendering it unsafe.
  8. On 14 March 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and asked him to supply the previously requested evidence to support his application.
  9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the representative on 30 March 2023. It explained that it was not aware the resident was living at the property while his grandfather was the tenant. However, it explained that it would permit him to succeed the tenancy based on the evidence he had provided demonstrating that he had resided at the property from October 2021 to October 2022. It also explained that it had forced entry to the property to replace the locks on 11 January 2023 as per its voids process.
  10. On 6 April 2023 the landlord assigned the tenancy to the resident. In October 2023 the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman via his representative. We wrote to the representative on 17 November 2023 and confirmed that the resident wanted the landlord to provide the following outcomes to resolve his complaint:
    1. Confirmation his succession had been accepted.
    2. Reimbursement of £300 for the emergency locksmith costs.
    3. Compensation for a lack of support and communication.
    4. Completion of outstanding repairs to bring the property up to standard.
  11. On 3 September 2024 we wrote to the representative and advised that it did not appear the resident had raised a complaint about disrepair at the property. We advised that he would need to raise a separate complaint about this in order for us to consider it within our jurisdiction.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that we may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  2. There is no evidence that the resident has raised a complaint with the landlord about disrepair at the property. Therefore, as per 42.a, this investigation will not consider this aspect of his complaint.

How the landlord handled the resident’s succession of the tenancy.

  1. The landlord’s succession policy sets out that, in the case of secure tenancies granted prior to 1 April 2012, there is a right of statutory succession for qualifying family members of secure tenants where they are not a joint tenant. It states that the potential successor must at the time of death been occupying the property as their only or principal home. In the case of anyone other than a spouse/civil partner/partner it is also necessary for them to show that they have been residing with the late tenant throughout the 12 months prior to their death. The policy does not set out any timescales for how long this process should take.
  2. The first record we have seen related to the resident’s request to succeed the tenancy is an email the representative sent the landlord on 11 January 2023. In this email she explains that the resident had visited the landlord on this date to make his case for succeeding the tenancy. However, there is no record of this visit. In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that there “was no succession on the property” since the tenancy was terminated on 13 December 2022 as per the representative’s direction to do so.
  3. Since there is no record of the described visit on 11 January 2023, we are unable to reach a view on how or if the resident made his case at this stage. We can see the representative explicitly notes his desire to succeed the tenancy in emails on 11 January 2023. Therefore, the landlord could have attempted to engage with the representative at this stage to explore the resident’s claim for succession.
  4. However, we cannot see any evidence that the resident had made this request himself by this stage. We also note that the tenancy had been terminated in December 2022. Therefore, we consider it was reasonable to advise that there was no tenancy for him to succeed at this stage.
  5. We can see the resident then called the landlord on 17 January 2023. He advised that the representative had mistakenly terminated the tenancy and asked to succeed it. This is the first objective evidence we have of the resident making this request himself. On 9 February 2023 the landlord replied and asked him to supply some information to support his request, including evidence to show he had been residing at the property from October 2021 to October 2022. The landlord acted appropriately and flexibly here by inviting the resident to demonstrate whether he qualified to succeed the tenancy.
  6. Following this the landlord contacted the resident to request this evidence again on 4 March 2023, 14 March 2023, and 22 March 2023. It appears the resident supplied this on 22 March 2023. We consider the landlord did well here to repeatedly prompt the resident to progress his application. On 22 March 2023 it appears the resident supplied the evidence, and the landlord granted the succession on 6 April 2023.
  7. We can see that, following the resident’s phone call of 17 January 2023 to the landlord, it revoked its termination of the tenancy and made suitable and sustained efforts to hear his case. It then considered his arguments and assigned the tenancy within a suitable time frame. Given this, we consider the landlord handled his request to succeed the tenancy appropriately.

The landlord’s decision to force entry to the property.

  1. The resident complains that the landlord incorrectly forced entry to the property on 11 January 2023. He complains that, since he was residing in the property at the time, it was not justified in doing so. He also complains that he was forced to spend £300 in hiring emergency locksmiths to attend and resecure the property.
  2. The representative terminated the tenancy on 13 December 2022. Following this, we can see the landlord initiated its void processes. Part of this process typically includes changing the locks, and this often involves forcing entry to do so. We have seen no evidence that the landlord had been made aware that the resident was living at the property prior to its forcing entry to change the locks.
  3. The first mention of this is when the representative emailed the landlord on 11 January 2023 and explained the resident wanted to succeed the tenancy. However, she did so only after the landlord had already forced entry. Given this, and that the tenancy was terminated on 13 December 2022, we do not consider the landlord acted unreasonably by forcing entry into the property to begin its void processes. It follows from this that the landlord is therefore not obligated to reimburse the resident the £300 costs he incurred in resecuring the property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s succession of the tenancy.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s decision to force entry into the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of disrepair is outside our jurisdiction.