Dartford Borough Council (202327308)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202327308

Dartford Borough Council

30 June 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

This complaint is about:
1. How the landlord communicated its decision to change its flexible tenancies to secure tenancies.
2. How the landlord handled the resident’s request to change her tenancy from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy.
We have also considered how the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Background

At the time of the complaint, the resident had a flexible tenancy for the property. She and her uncle were joint tenants. She lived in the property with her uncle and her daughter.
In 2020, the landlord decided to change its existing flexible tenancies to secure tenancies. Its board approved that decision on 26 June 2021. The resident learned of this through the landlord’s website, and contacted it to arrange a secure tenancy. She said she wanted to change the tenancy from a joint flexible tenancy with her uncle to a sole secure tenancy in her name.
On or around 10 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to make changes to the tenancy. On 11 August 2023, she made a complaint. She said the landlord had not told her about her right to convert her tenancy, and had made the process of changing from a joint flexible tenancy to a sole secure tenancy difficult. She said it gave her conflicting information about the process.
The landlord treated the resident’s email as a service request, and sent a response on 24 August 2023. It said:
1. It had sent all tenants with a flexible tenancy a letter to explain it would be moving from flexible to secure tenancies. It was changing the tenancies on a gradual basis because of the number of properties and the time involved in the process.
2. It was standard process and good management practice for it to meet with tenants who wanted to relinquish their tenancies. It said this allowed it to provide advice and make sure tenants were aware of their rights when making that decision.
3. Her uncle needed to go to the landlord’s offices to relinquish his part of the tenancy. Once it had spoken to him and confirmed his wishes it could complete the conversion of the tenancy.
The resident responded that day. She said refuting her complaint was not an appropriate response, and asked how to escalate her complaint. The landlord asked her to clarify her complaint.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 30 August 2023. She said:
1. It had not notified her of a right to a secure tenancy, and she had not received any letter.
2. She had gone to the landlord’s office to sign the new tenancy, and the person she spoke to told her that a signed letter and phone call would be enough for her uncle to relinquish his tenancy rights.
3. On 10 and 11 August 2023 another staff member told her the letter and phone call would not be enough, and an in-person appointment was needed.
4. She wanted to know if that process was mandatory, or only applied to her.
The landlord treated the resident’s further email as a service request. It responded on 31 August 2023 and said:
1. It was standard practice that a joint tenant can relinquish their tenancy with a signed letter. This would then be reviewed by a housing officer, and tenants can then be asked to attend an interview or phone call to discuss options and confirm they understand the implications of removing themselves from the tenancy.
2. It asked for her uncle to get in touch to discuss the tenancy.
On 31 August 2023, the resident responded. She said a letter from her uncle was sufficient, and there was no need for the landlord to require anything further.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 September 2023. It said usually it would only require written confirmation that a tenant wanted to relinquish their tenancy, but that in this case it would need to speak directly to her uncle. It said asking her uncle to make contact to discuss his situation and reasons for wanting to leave the tenancy was a reasonable request.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 October 2023. She said her uncle no longer wished to be a tenant, and that she wanted to be issued with a sole tenancy.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 8 November 2023. It said:
1. It had advertised the change from flexible to secure tenancies on its website. It had invited the resident and her uncle to sign a joint secure tenancy.
2. When a joint tenant ends their tenancy, it ends the tenancy for all tenants. It was concerned her uncle had not spoken to the landlord directly, as him leaving the tenancy would end her tenancy.
3. If her uncle wanted to leave the property, this would mean the resident would be under-occupying a 3-bed house, and it would have to offer her a tenancy for a different (2-bed) property.
4. It had only heard from her, and it needed to speak directly to her uncle as the other tenant. It gave contact details for her uncle to contact it.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response, so referred her complaint to us. She said she did not believe the landlord was acting fairly, and wanted it to give her a sole secure tenancy for the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says we may not look into complaints which have not completed the landlord’s complaints process. The resident raised various concerns as part of her original complaint, including staff conduct. She also raised some new issues as part of her escalation request. Any parts of the resident’s complaint which were either not escalated to stage 2 or raised for the first time when escalating to stage 2 have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, so will not be considered as part of this investigation.
Any events after the landlord’s stage 2 response have also not completed the landlord’s complaints process. As such, while we may refer to later events for context, we will not be assessing the landlord’s actions following the stage 2 response as part of this investigation.

Communication of the decision to change flexible tenancies to secure tenancies

The resident said the landlord did not notify her of a right to change her tenancy from a flexible tenancy to a secure tenancy. The landlord says it sent a letter to all flexible tenants to notify them of its decision to change flexible tenancies to secure tenancies. It said the conversion would take place on a gradual basis, and it also advertised the decision on its website.
Based on the evidence we’ve seen, there was no specific way the landlord was required to notify residents of this decision, and no specific timescale in which it was required to change the tenancies. The evidence shows that the landlord published the decision on its website, and it has provided a copy of a letter it confirmed it sent to affected residents. While we appreciate the resident says she did not receive the letter, this does not mean it was not sent. In any event, the resident was able to learn of the decision from the landlord’s website, demonstrating that this was an effective way to communicate its decision.
The evidence provided shows the landlord took reasonable steps to advise affected residents of its decision. We therefore find no maladministration in this regard.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change the tenancy from a joint to sole tenancy

The resident said she was unhappy the landlord would not change her tenancy from a joint tenancy with her uncle to a sole tenancy in her name. She said it made the process difficult, and she did not believe it was following its policies fairly. The landlord said it needed to speak to the other tenant before it could grant the resident a sole tenancy. It told us once it had spoken to the resident’s uncle, it granted her a sole tenancy on 4 March 2024.
The evidence provided does not confirm when the resident first requested a change to a sole tenancy. However, we can reasonably conclude it was between June 2023 (when the resident said she first learned of the landlord’s decision to offer secure tenancies) and 11 August 2023 (when she made a complaint).
When making her complaint, the resident said the landlord initially told her that a letter from her uncle relinquishing his tenancy would be enough. She said it then changed its mind and advised it would need to meet with her uncle first. Throughout her complaint she disputed this was necessary. The landlord said it would need to speak to her uncle directly, and it maintained that position from 11 August 2023 onwards. It said it had only heard about the joint tenant’s intentions through the resident, and had not heard from him directly.
The landlord would not be entitled to, or legally able to, unilaterally assign a tenancy from one joint tenant to another. Nor would it have any obligation to grant the resident a fresh sole tenancy for the property if a joint tenant had ended the existing tenancy. It would be for the landlord to decide whether or not to grant a sole tenancy once a joint tenant ended the tenancy.
It was both reasonable and good industry practice for the landlord to require confirmation directly from the joint tenant that he wanted to be removed from the tenancy. Giving up his tenancy would involve a loss of significant legal rights and protections, and his intentions for where he wanted to live could have an impact on whether or not the landlord would grant the resident a sole tenancy for the existing property, or for another smaller property. This was because the landlord needs to make appropriate use of its available housing stock, and if her uncle moved out the resident’s housing need would be for a 2-bed rather than a 3-bed property.
When the resident disputed that her uncle needed to meet with the landlord for her to be granted a sole tenancy at the property, the landlord explained its standard practice to her. It explained that once a tenant sends a letter relinquishing their tenancy, it would review the letter and can ask the tenant to attend an interview to confirm their intentions. It also correctly explained that her uncle needed to speak to it directly.
While we appreciate that the resident may have found this frustrating, it is good practice for a landlord to require an in-person meeting when there is a request for a sole tenancy to be put in place of a joint tenancy. This is because it needs to be sure that the potentially outgoing tenant is aware of the request being made, has willingly agreed to it, and understands the implications of it. Given that the landlord had only heard of the joint tenant’s intentions through the resident at that point, and had no evidence of any direct contact from her uncle, it was both reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to require an in-person meeting. As such we find there were no failings in this regard.
Having said that, there were some failings around the landlord’s communication. The evidence shows that it told the resident on at least 2 occasions that it would contact her uncle directly to arrange a meeting. However, it has provided no evidence of any attempts to do so. The resident emailed the landlord on 9 October 2023 and asked for an appointment for her and her uncle to meet with the landlord, and gave 4 dates for availability. When the landlord replied, it said it would not discuss the tenancy any further without her uncle present. However, it did not offer any appointment times for her uncle to go to its offices, or make any attempt to book the appointment. This was a failing on its part.
The landlord also told the resident in its complaint responses that a condition of being offered her existing tenancy was that her uncle would not relinquish his part of the tenancy and leave her with a sole tenancy of the property. However, the records the landlord has given us do not support that conclusion.
The landlord’s notes show that in May 2019, it chose to go outside of its normal policy when agreeing to let the resident become a joint tenant of the property with her uncle. It did so because she was in temporary homelessness accommodation and needed to move from where she was. Its emails and call notes from the time say it agreed to the joint tenancy on the condition that the resident ‘won’t be able to separate and move into another property later (as she will be adequately housed) in the future’.
The landlord’s summary in its responses to the resident (that she had agreed she could not have a sole tenancy for this property) does not appear to match its internal notes of what was agreed (that she could not ‘split’ the tenancy and move into a different property later). The landlord’s statement that something different was agreed is not supported by the evidence provided, and has caused the resident confusion and frustration.
Overall, the landlord’s failings in this case are as follows:
1. Failure to contact the joint tenant to arrange a meeting when it said it would do so.
2. Creating confusion around the conditions the resident agreed to when she took up the tenancy.
However, while there were failings, we have seen little evidence that those failings had any effect on the overall outcome in this case.
While the landlord initially failed to contact the joint tenant directly as it said it would, it did give the resident contact details and ask her to pass those details to her uncle on multiple occasions. We have seen no evidence that the resident’s uncle (rather than the resident) tried to make any such appointment himself. The evidence provided shows he contacted the landlord for the first time in December 2023, after the landlord carried out a home visit to try and speak to him.
This first contact from the joint tenant was 4 months after the landlord told the resident that her uncle needed to attend its offices. We have then seen no evidence of any further action until February and March 2024. At that time, the joint tenant visited the landlord, confirmed his intentions for the tenancy, and provided the necessary paperwork. Once he did so, the landlord gave the resident a sole secure tenancy for the property. And while the information the landlord gave about conditions for her flexible tenancy caused confusion and frustration, this did not delay her getting a sole tenancy as it could not take any action until it had met with her uncle.
While there were some failings in the landlord’s communication, its wider actions were reasonable and in line with good industry practice. Those failings also had a very limited impact on the overall outcome. As such, we find there has been a service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy. To put things right, the landlord must apologise to the resident.

Complaint handling

Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, expressions of dissatisfaction must be logged as a complaint. The landlord must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of logging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of an escalation request.
When the resident made a complaint on 11 August 2023, the landlord incorrectly logged the complaint as a service request. When she tried to escalate her complaint on 24 August 2023, the landlord asked her to clarify her complaint. When she did so on 30 August 2023, the landlord again incorrectly treated the complaint as a service request. It was only when the resident asked why her complaint was not being logged as a complaint that the landlord did so. This was not in line with the Complaint Handling Code.
While the landlord did log the complaint at that stage, it sought to defend its original decision not to log the complaint. It said the investigation process was the same as it would have been had it logged a complaint, and that the resident only raised concerns about the process because she did not like the outcome. This was inappropriate. It was only recently, when responding to our information request, that the landlord accepted there were failings in its complaint handling.
While there were failings in its complaint handling, our role is to consider what effect those failings had on the resident (if any). In this case, the landlord’s decision caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience as she had to keep asking it to log her complaint when it should have done so already. However, it did not significantly delay her complaint getting through the complaints process. This is because once it did log the complaint, it issued responses within a reasonable timescale. There was also no change in the overall outcome, as the landlord consistently maintained that it could not change the tenancy without speaking to the joint tenant.
Overall, we find there was a service failure with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling. To put things right, the landlord must apologise to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with regard to the landlord’s communication of its decision to change its flexible tenancies to secure tenancies.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure with regard to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change her tenancy from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord must provide us with evidence of compliance with the above order within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.