Havebury Homes (202304161)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304161

The Havebury Housing Partnership

24 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

The complaint is about how the landlord handled the granting of the resident’s starter tenancy.

Background

Both parties of a joint tenancy have made the complaint. The joint tenants will be referred to as ‘the resident’ for the purposes of this report. In instances where we reference one party, the relevant pronoun will be used.
The residents are assured tenants of the landlord, a housing association. They live together with their children in a 4-bedroom property.
The resident initially made an application to succeed his late mother’s tenancy in November 2021. This was declined and from 28 December 2021, the resident lived at the property under a use and occupation agreement.
On 22 February 2022, the landlord offered to review the resident’s case to see whether contractual succession applied. In April 2022, it was confirmed that there was no contractual right to succeed the tenancy. Following discussions between the landlord and the Local Authority a starter tenancy was offered in December 2022. This was signed on 13 June 2023.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 5 June 2023, he complained about the way the landlord had handled the granting of the starter tenancy. He also asked for this tenancy to be backdated to the date it was offered, 22 December 2022.
On July 11, 2023, the landlord responded to the complaint. It said there were communication issues that caused frustration and distress for the resident. It offered £300 as compensation for these issues. It also stated that there was no evidence of intentional delays in offering or progressing the starter tenancy.
On 12 July 2023, the resident escalated the complaint, expressing that the starter tenancy made him feel insecure and he should not have to wait 12 months to finish the probationary period. The landlord responded on 29 August 2023, acknowledging the resident’s distress. It agreed to change the starter tenancy to an assured tenancy before the probation period ended to ease the resident’s concerns. It also confirmed that the £300 compensation for communication issues was still available.
Before the complaint process was finished, the resident referred his complaint to us. In April 2025, he said that even though he now had an assured tenancy, he felt the landlord did not handle the starter tenancy issue fairly. He described the process as frustrating and distressing and believed that a higher level of compensation should be awarded.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Complaint

The resident originally made an application to succeed his late mother’s tenancy, which was rejected in November 2021. He raised a complaint with the landlord which was responded to at stage 1 of its complaint process on 22 February 2022. In the interest of fairness, this investigation has focussed on the resident’s more recent complaint which was made in June 2023 and responded to on 29 August 2023. This is because we can only investigate complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure and are referred to us within 12 months. Therefore, this investigation has focussed on the actions of the landlord from 12 April 2022 to 29 August 2023 which are dealt with as part of the more recent complaint.
The resident has also told us that the landlord’s handling of the matter under review in this investigation had a negative impact on him and his household’s health and wellbeing. While we are an alternative to the courts, we do not establish legal liability or calculate awards for damages. Matters relating to personal injury are likely better suited to consideration by a court via a personal injury claim. However, we will consider any distress or inconvenience caused by the landlord’s level of service.
The resident has raised several other issues of complaint with the landlord. These include issues about his request to succeed his late mother’s tenancy, repairs including damp and mould, and payments on a garage rent account. These issues are being dealt with under our case number 202312525 and so will not be the focus of this investigation.

Handling of the Starter Tenancy

A use and occupation agreement (UOA) is used where a person is occupying a property and must make payments to the landlord to occupy that property without a formal tenancy agreement being in place. As the landlord had decided that the resident was not entitled to succeed his mother’s tenancy, it was fair to place the resident on a UOA.
On 12 April 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and said that as there was no contractual right of succession, it was happy to arrange to discuss the resident’s next steps. This was a positive step by the landlord to ensure that the resident was offered the opportunity to discuss his case.
The resident did not reply to the landlord and on 23 May 2022 it contacted the resident again to move things forward. It asked for the resident’s availability in the week starting 6 June 2022. This showed that the landlord was proactively managing the resident’s case, taking reasonable steps to engage with the resident.
On 27 May 2022, the landlord received contact from the Local Authority (LA) as the resident had called them to discuss his housing situation. Following this, the landlord sent a letter to the resident on 8 June 2022 for a home visit on 20 June 2022. The landlord’s actions were reasonable as it continued to be proactive in its attempts to progress the resident’s case.
On 20 June 2022, the landlord called the resident to say that it could not complete the visit due to a positive COVID test and would like to rearrange. While this would have been frustrating for the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask for the visit to be rearranged given the positive test.
The landlord’s call note dated 20 June 2022 recorded that the resident said he felt he had been treated poorly by the landlord and could not understand why he could not stay in his home. He said that the property was adapted for his needs and had an occupational therapy report that supported this. The landlord told the resident that the purpose of the visit was to discuss his housing situation and help with any applications. However, the resident ended the call before any new visit could be arranged.
Due to the discussion detailed above, the landlord liaised with the LA to discuss the resident’s case between 6 and 18 July 2022. The landlord agreed to make a referral to its Tenancy Sustainment team to provide the resident support which would include registering on its choice-based lettings scheme. While it was positive that the landlord continued to take steps to progress the resident’s case, it made no further contact with the resident after the call on 20 June 2022. This failure to keep the resident updated was unfair and caused the resident some distress.
The resident chased the landlord on 22 July 2022 and requested a meeting. After consulting with the LA an appointment was arranged for 23 August 2022. On 3 August 2022, the landlord internally decided that it could consider a ‘direct let’ if the LA’s housing needs assessment demonstrated that the property was suitable for the resident. At the meeting the landlord explained its decision regarding succession, and asked for information so it could decide if a direct let would be suitable.
The landlord’s allocations and letting policy says that in exceptional cases a direct let may be made. Its policy provides examples such as if a property is specifically adapted and meets a particular need of a resident. Therefore, the decision by the landlord to consider a direct let was reasonable and aligned with its policy.
However, this is a consideration that should have been looked at earlier. The landlord knew that the resident was living under a UOA and that he had no succession rights in April 2022. It should not have taken until August 2022 for it to consider whether a direct let would be appropriate. The landlord had been aware that the resident had disabilities and that adaptations in the property suited the resident’s needs. The resident told the landlord on 16 November 2021 as part of his succession application that he had an occupational therapy assessment which supported this view. Therefore, the time taken to consider if a direct let was a suitable course of action was unreasonable. The resident suffered some avoidable distress and inconvenience because of this delay.
The resident supplied the relevant information to the landlord on 13 and 27 September 2022. Once the landlord received this information it passed to the LA so they could complete a housing needs assessment. The landlord acted promptly once it received the information from the resident to ensure that the case could progress.
Between 3 October and 1 December 2022, the landlord and LA liaised about the potential offer of a tenancy on a direct let basis. On 7 December 2022 the landlord decided that an offer of a tenancy could be made to the resident. As part of its own customer service standards, the landlord says that it will be respectful, engaging, and fair in everything it does. While the landlord acted reasonably in liaising with the LA, it did not keep the resident updated on its actions during this period. This was not fair to the resident who was already distressed at the situation he was in. By failing to follow its own policy and engage the resident fairly in this period, the landlord increased the level of distress felt by the resident.
On 28 December 2022 the landlord offered a starter tenancy to the resident subject to verification checks and a property inspection. While the resident disputed the offer of a starter tenancy as he had been paying to live at the property for over a year, the offer of a starter tenancy was reasonable. The offer aligned with the landlord’s tenancy policy which says, “Starter tenancies will be granted where the applicant does not hold a tenancy, including those residing in a property on a ‘use and occupation’ basis.”
The landlord arranged to speak with the resident to complete the relevant verification checks and made a call on 12 January 2023. During this call the resident expressed his unhappiness with the offer of a starter tenancy, the need for a property inspection and the requirement to complete an energy performance survey while there were outstanding repairs. The landlord considered the resident’s comments and liaised internally to confirm the minimum requirements for it to offer a tenancy.
This was a reasonable step to take by the landlord. It noted the resident’s frustrations and comments and considered these with the relevant people internally before responding to the resident on 30 January 2023.
In its 30 January 2023 email the landlord summarised the requirements for the resident. It said it was required to conduct checks and inspections of properties before issuing a new tenancy. This would include:
1. verification of identity
2. affordability checks
3. a property inspection and energy performance survey
The landlord asked that the information needed to complete the verification checks be provided by 10 February 2023. This request by the landlord was fair, and in line with its allocations and lettings policy which says that, once a property is offered on a direct let basis it would need to complete verification checks. Additionally, the need for an energy performance certificate (EPC) is set out by the government in its guidance for ‘minimum energy efficiency standards’.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 February 2023, he queried the need to provide similar information to documents he had already supplied when the landlord was considering if succession was possible. He also told the landlord that he had spoken with a solicitor and that due to his late mother signing a new tenancy he should be entitled to succeed. Following this, the landlord liaised internally and decided it needed advice from its own solicitor about the resident’s points. It made a referral to its solicitor on 22 March 2023 and updated the resident about this on 5 April 2023 when it requested a copy of the ‘new tenancy’ the resident’s late mother had signed.
While the landlord was progressing the resident’s case internally, the time taken to complete the solicitor referral and update the resident was unreasonable. It had decided on 13 February 2023 that it needed to refer the case to its solicitor, but the referral did not take place for 5 weeks. The landlord did not update the resident about its actions for 7 weeks. This increased the distress and inconvenience felt by the resident.
On 28 April 2023, the landlord received advice from its solicitor and based on this advice sent a letter to the resident on 15 May 2023. The letter said the resident:
1. had refused to comply with the request for documentation
2. was occupying the property with no current legal right to do so
3. must provide the necessary information to complete the verification process
4. must confirm a date where the landlord could visit to sign the new tenancy and complete a property inspection
5. would be issued with proceedings for possession and the tenancy offer withdrawn if the request was not complied with
It was reasonable for the landlord to act on the advice of its solicitor when deciding to send the letter on 15 May 2023. While we understand that the resident was shocked and distressed at receiving this letter, the landlord was entitled to rely on its own solicitor’s advice when deciding on the action to take.
The landlord and resident met on 16 May 2023 to discuss the letter and agreed action points to complete the verification checks, affordability checks and that a survey would be completed between 22 May and 2 June 2023. It was positive that the landlord met with the resident to discuss the letter and agree next steps promptly. This ensured that there was clarity on what was needed from the resident to ensure the tenancy offer was not withdrawn.
Following the meeting, the landlord confirmed that it had found some documents that the resident sent it previously as part of earlier considerations. However, it still needed some further documents to satisfy verification. It also confirmed that the EPC survey would be completed on 25 May 2023. All verification and survey’s that the landlord had requested were completed by 25 May 2023. It was positive that the landlord worked with the resident following the letter on 15 May 2023, to ensure that all requested steps were completed.
However, after completion of the EPC survey the landlord did not contact the resident again until he chased them on 5 June 2023. It was only after the resident chased, that the landlord said a further check was required for an electrical inspection. The landlord arranged for an electrical inspection to take place on 13 June 2023 at the same time as the starter tenancy would be signed. This was a failure to manage the case effectively. The landlord omitted the need for an electrical inspection in its earlier requests, and did not contact the resident until he chased for an update. This further frustrated the resident and heightened the distress he already felt.
The resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s actions on 5 June 2023 and signed his starter tenancy on 13 June 2023. In its stage 1 response the landlord considered its actions were reasonable in handling the case, but that its communication between October and December 2022 could have been better. It offered the resident £300 for the poor communication.
The resident escalated the complaint on 12 July 2023 and as part of the escalation asked for the landlord to backdate the starter tenancy to December 2022 due to the delays caused by the landlord. In its stage 2 complaint response dated 29 August 2023 the landlord did not agree to backdate the starter tenancy, but did agree to convert the starter tenancy to an assured (lifetime) tenancy 10 months earlier than planned.
In summary, the Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustrations and view that the landlord was unfair in how it managed the offer of a starter tenancy. He was of the view that he was entitled to succeed his late mother’s tenancy and has told us he felt insecure when living without a tenancy agreement. However, the landlord’s decision to use a UOA and then offer a starter tenancy was fair and in line with its tenancy policy, and allocations and lettings policy.
However, there were times between 12 April 2022 and 13 June 2023 when the landlord could have acted quicker. For example, it did not consider the potential for a direct let for 4 months between April and August 2022, and did not refer the matter to its solicitor for 5 weeks between February and March 2023. Additionally, there were gaps in its communication with the resident on several occasions where it did not keep the resident updated on its actions.
We have considered whether the decision to convert the resident’s tenancy early and the offer of £300 compensation was a reasonable offer for the above failings. The landlord’s compensation policy says that a ‘moderate’ impact is where an issue has caused a substantial impact to a household over a lengthy period. Where this happens and there is no permanent impact on a resident a payment of between £100 to £600 should be offered to put things right. The landlord’s compensation policy broadly follows our own remedies guidance which says where there is maladministration and an adverse, but not permanent, impact on a resident a payment of £100 to £600 should be offered.
In the Ombudsman’s view, there was no permanent impact to the resident as he was offered and signed a tenancy agreement. However, the landlord’s offer of £300 compensation was to cover the poor communication between October and December 2022. We have found that there were other failings in addition to this poor communication and therefore consider that the offer of £300 is not proportionate recognise the full impact on the resident. As such, the landlord’s actions amount to maladministration.
The impact to the resident is mitigated by the decision of the landlord to convert the starter tenancy to an assured tenancy early. This means that any of the delays found, did not affect the amount of time the resident had to wait for this conversion to take place. Given the failings we have found, a fair offer of compensation would be £500 (inclusive of the £300 already offered). This is to acknowledge the several independent service failures that accumulated over a prolonged period.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the granting of the resident’s starter tenancy.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write an apology addressed to the joint tenants for the failings identified
2. Pay compensation of £500 to be shared by the joint tenants (inclusive of the £300 already offered)