London Borough of Islington (202437111)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202437111

Islington 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s request to take over the tenancy following the death of his mother.
   2. Rent arrears that accrued while the request was being considered.
2. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant in his sole name and has lived in the property since 21 April 2025. Prior to this, he lived with his mother in a 3-bedroom maisonette where his mother was the sole tenant following the death of her husband, the resident’s father in 2005. The resident’s mother passed away in July 2021. The landlord is aware of the resident’s physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
4. The resident applied to take over the tenancy in July 2021. On 31 August 2021, the landlord sent the application form to the resident and asked for a Notice to Quit (NTQ) to be served so his mother’s rent account could be ended. The landlord received the resident’s application form on 13 October 2021. The form was not processed until January 2023 and the NTQ was not served until 21 March 2023. This meant a Use and Occupation (U&O) account (an account for “occupancy charges” to be paid into which the request was being processed), was not created until 24 April 2023.
5. The local authority commenced a fraud investigation around 1 February 2023. The resident said the investigation was closed in March 2024. On or around 10 September 2024 the landlord granted the resident a discretionary tenancy but advised he would need to move to a smaller property.
6. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 28 October 2024 in which he said he was unhappy with:
   1. the way the landlord had managed his request to take over the tenancy and the associated delays
   2. the impact the delays had on his financial situation and his ability to apply for benefits, Universal Credit (UC), and Discretionary Housing Payments (DHP)
   3. the ongoing confusion regarding the rent account
   4. the distress and inconvenience caused and the effect on his health
7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 16 November 2024 in which it upheld the complaint. In summary, the landlord:
   1. confirmed it received the resident’s application form on 13 October 2021, but staff turnover between September 2021 and August 2024, and sickness during Covid-19 had delayed progress
   2. said it considered 10 January 2023 as the date the application began to be processed
   3. said there was no evidence it had served a NTQ when initially requested, a new one was served on 21 March 2023, and the U&O account was created on 24 April 2023
   4. only payments made after 24 April 2023 would be transferred to the U&O account as the resident had claimed UC housing costs to be paid to his mother’s account under an ‘untidy tenancy’ arrangement
   5. said it confirmed its decision to grant a discretionary tenancy to the resident via his Solicitor, and it was made on the basis he could occupy the property until he could downsize to a smaller property
   6. acknowledged it had not responded to several update requests from the resident and his MP
   7. offered a total of £575 compensation (£25 for the late complaint response, £350 for not serving the NTQ and the 14-month delay in processing the application, and £200 for the time, trouble, and distress)
8. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 November 2024. He remained dissatisfied with:
   1. the landlord’s response which stated there was a 14-month delay
   2. the level of compensation
9. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 19 December 2024. The landlord upheld the complaint. In summary, the landlord:
   1. said the correct procedure had been followed in relation to the fraud investigation, it was satisfied with the time taken to conclude the investigation and did not find further compensation was due
   2. confirmed it had granted the resident a discretionary tenancy as a child of a late tenant, for health reasons, and to avoid the potential of being made homeless
   3. confirmed the resident had agreed to downsize, and the local authority would support him in finding a suitable home
   4. advised it had looked at the compensation and reviewed the period of July 2021 to January 2023, considered the unanswered contact and the prolonged period when the security of housing was unclear, while coping with the loss of his mother
   5. increased the compensation offer to £975, with the additional £400 being offered in acknowledgement of the time, trouble, and distress caused
10. The resident brought his complaint to us on 19 December 2024. He said:
    1. he was unhappy with the time taken to process his application, and the impact on his mental health and wellbeing
    2. he wanted more compensation
    3. he wanted clarity regarding his mother’s rent account to ensure all money paid had been transferred to his own account

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

11. The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on his health. While we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this further, he should seek legal advice.
12. We received evidence of a fraud investigation that was completed prior to the decision being made on the tenancy. We cannot consider complaints which concern matters in respect of Local Housing Authorities in England which do not relate to their provision or management of social housing, or the management of dwellings which they own and let on a long lease. As such while we may refer to the investigation for context, this will not be assessed as part of this investigation. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, he should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s website for information on how to raise a complaint.
13. The resident has referred to further issues relating to the application, his mother’s rent account, a lack of communication, and the process for moving to another property. These are noted; however, the landlord must have the opportunity to respond to any issues raised through its formal complaint process. It is therefore only fair and reasonable to consider events up until the date of the final complaint response. If the resident wishes to pursue these issues, he may consider raising a new complaint to the landlord.

The resident’s request to take over the tenancy following the death of his mother

14. The landlord’s Succession Policy and Procedure state:
    1. there can only be one succession of a secure tenancy and only one person can succeed to a secure tenancy
    2. potential successors must be informed they will be charged for U&O of the property while the request is considered.
    3. the U&O account should not be set up before the expiry of the NTQ, which should be served within 10–working days of the notification of the death
    4. all applications will be subject to an eligibility check, and the housing fraud team will complete checks within 10–working days
    5. if the applicant meets the requirements but there has been a previous succession, the right of succession is lost
    6. the landlord should however consider the circumstances of the individual in this case
    7. if a discretionary succession is approved but the property is too large, it will consider moving the person to a more suitable property, called a “discretionary transfer” or enable them to swap properties with another tenant similar to a mutual exchange
    8. it will ordinarily only consider a person for a discretionary succession where they are likely to be owed a housing duty as decided by the Housing Needs Section of the local authority due to vulnerability or other circumstances
    9. the discretionary tenant will be charged for U&O of the property until they move out
15. The landlord’s Customer Care Standards state:
    1. it will offer a call back by the next working day if it cannot help the resident immediately
    2. it will confirm receipt of emails within 2-working days and send a full reply within 10-working days, or an explanation of any delays with a new date of a full reply
    3. if a staff member is away, a resident will receive an automatic reply giving a return date and an alternative contact
16. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states it will:
    1. compensate for time and trouble in pursuing a complaint (£100 to £300)
    2. offer compensation for each month of a delay after the service standard period (£25 for each month)
    3. consider distress by looking at the circumstances and the time taken (£100 to £300 or severe or prolonged stress up to £1000)
    4. consider whether it could have rectified the problem quicker than it did
    5. consider the personal circumstances, vulnerability, and wellbeing of the complainant
17. The resident told the landlord of his mother’s death and his intention to take over the tenancy on 27 July 2021. The landlord’s records confirm it sent an application form to the resident the same day; however, it was sent again on 16 September 2021 as the resident had not received it. This was reasonable.
18. On 31 August 2021 the landlord asked for a NTQ to be served as soon as possible. The landlord told the resident he would be liable for the charges to “occupy” the property approximately 4 weeks after the NTQ was served. This was appropriate and in line with procedure; however, there is no evidence the NTQ was served. Consequently, the U&O account was not set up to allow the resident to pay the occupancy charges. The landlord’s evidence demonstrates it chased both issues internally from November 2021 through to March 2023 when a NTQ was served, 19 months later. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with procedure. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any communication to the resident during this time. This is a significant failure by the landlord.
19. The landlord received the resident’s application form on 13 October 2021. There is no evidence of any further communication with the resident until 6 January 2022 when he called the landlord for an update. The resident asked for a call back but there is no evidence the landlord returned the call. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with the Customer Care Standards.
20. The landlord chased updates internally in March 2022 but there is no evidence of a response. This indicates an internal communication failure which consequently impeded the landlord’s ability to update the resident. The resident pursued the landlord again on 9 September 2022 and 4 November 2022, but there is no evidence of a response from the landlord. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident was not appropriate as it was not in line with its Customer Care Standards.
21. The resident contacted Citizen’s Advice (CAB) in November 2022. CAB emailed the landlord on 15 and 16 November 2022 and January 2023 outlining the case and asking for an update. It told the landlord the resident was housebound following a series of serious operations and the delay was causing “huge financial difficulties.” There is no evidence the landlord responded to CAB. This was unreasonable and a communication failure by the landlord.
22. The landlord contacted the resident on 22 November 2022 and confirmed it would look at the application and get back to him. There is no evidence it did. This was unreasonable. It was a communication failure by the landlord and did little to reassure the resident that it would do what it said it would.
23. On 12 January 2023, the landlord told the resident it had “located the application and passed it to the correct team for assessment”. This would infer it had not made any progress up until this point, 15 months after it had received the form. This is not appropriate and a significant failure by the landlord to follow its procedure. Furthermore, the landlord did not demonstrate an understanding of the impact the delay was having on the resident and the distress it was causing by not knowing if he could remain in the property. This was unreasonable.
24. On 1 February 2023 a fraud investigation commenced. While this is not subject to our investigation, it notably had a direct impact on the time taken to reach a decision regarding the resident’s future tenancy. The resident states he was told the criminal action against him was closed on 8 March 2024, 13 months later, but there is no evidence to confirm this.
25. Notwithstanding the time taken to complete the fraud investigation, the resident states he was granted a discretionary tenancy on 10 September 2024. This was 3 years after the landlord received his application and several months after the conclusion of the investigation against him. This was not appropriate. It was a significant failure by the landlord to follow its process and led to considerable distress for the resident during a difficult time.
26. The resident raised a complaint 28 October 2024. The landlord responded on 26 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged a series of failures in its handling the resident’s request including internal communication failures and failures to respond to the update requests from the resident and CAB. It acknowledged it did not serve the original NTQ and said this was due to staff turnover between September 2021 and August 2024 and due to sickness because of Covid-19. This may have been unforeseen and unavoidable, but the landlord should have made arrangements to ensure the resident was not impacted and that it communicated any delays to him. There is no evidence it did this. Further, while the landlord highlighted the failures surrounding the case, it did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence. This was unreasonable.
27. The landlord offered £550 compensation (£350 in recognition of the delay in processing the request, and £200 for the time, trouble and distress caused). Considering it took 22 months for the landlord to decide on the application request (excluding the 13 months for the fraud investigation) the compensation offered was not in line with the Compensation Policy which states £25 per month would be offered for every month over its service standard. Furthermore, it was not proportionate for the level of distress and inconvenience to the resident who experienced an avoidable, prolonged uncertainty regarding his home.
28. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 November 2024 on the grounds of inadequate compensation. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 19 December 2024. The landlord re-affirmed its initial findings and confirmed it had increased the compensation offer to £600 for the time, trouble, and distress. Despite the increase, the offer did not reflect the delays, lack of communication, the customer experience and distress on the resident and did not comply with its Compensation Policy. The offer was also not in line with our remedies guidance for these circumstances.
29. The landlord missed a further opportunity to identify any learning to prevent a recurrence of the failures it identified. It did not demonstrate it followed our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
30. In summary, we find maladministration. The landlord identified its own failures in terms of delays, process and communication and tried to put things right for the resident. However its lack of learning was unreasonable, and its compensation offer was not in line with its Compensation Policy or our remedies guidance. An order has therefore been made to the pay the resident the following:
    1. £550 for the delay in processing the request (£25 a month for 22 months)
    2. £500 in recognition of the prolonged distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays.

Rent arrears that accrued while the request was being considered

31. Following the resident’s request to take over his mother’s tenancy, the landlord told him he would be responsible for paying the occupancy charges until a decision was made on his request. This was appropriate as it was in line with procedure. However, the landlord failed to serve the NTQ which meant the U&O account was not created. The NTQ was served on 21 March 2023, 19 months after it was initially requested. The U&O account was created on 24 April 2023, 4 weeks after the NTQ was served. This was a significant failure by the landlord.
32. As a result of the failures linked to the NTQ and U&O, the resident’s mother’s account remained open, and the arrears continued to increase. In August 2022, the resident told the landlord he had applied for UC and an “untidy tenancy” was authorised. In the absence of the U&O account, the resident’s UC payments were paid into his mother’s account from 22 September 2022. In addition, he paid £50 or £60 a month to cover the arrears. This arrangement continued until he moved into his own property in April 2025.
33. The resident engaged with CAB who told the landlord the resident had lost his job. It confirmed he had some housing costs paid via UC, but he was subject to the bedroom tax so was paying £60 a month to the arrears from his benefits. CAB told the landlord the resident had no money to live on and asked if it would allocate DHP to cover the shortfall of the housing costs paid by UC. The landlord failed to respond to CAB. This was unreasonable. It was a communication failure, but also the landlord did not demonstrate an understanding of the impact the situation was having on the resident’s financial situation which was causing him distress. This was impacted further when the landlord served the resident’s mother with an eviction notice in April 2023, without any communication or explanation why.
34. The resident’s mother’s account was amended on 19 May 2023. On 14 June 2023, the landlord sent the resident a U&O letter that confirmed his liability for the weekly charge and the current balance owed. It sent further letters on 22 June 2023 and 30 April 2024 each giving an updated balance. There is evidence to show the landlord asked for all money paid into the resident’s mother’s accounts to be transferred to the resident’s U&O account. The records show it would only transfer the payments made after the U&O had been set up. £1,011.69 was transferred to the U&O account on 26 June 2023.
35. There is no evidence the landlord took accountability for the failures that led to the delays in the accounts being created, or consideration when deciding on what payments would be transferred to the U&O account. The landlord’s decision regarding the transfer of money was therefore unreasonable and led to continued distress for the resident that was not recognised by the landlord. Furthermore, the resident has stated he is unclear if all the surplus funds prior to the creation of the U&O account have been transferred to his account, and the landlord has not provided clarity to confirm this.
36. In August 2024 the landlord agreed to ‘write off’ the arrears on the resident’s mother’s account. The landlord confirmed this in its stage 1 complaint response on 26 November 2024. This was reasonable; however, it did not take away the distress experienced by the resident over a 3-year period while the matter was ongoing.
37. In summary we find maladministration in relation to the rent arrears that accrued while the request was being considered. The landlord did not recognise the time, trouble and distress caused to the resident over a prolonged period over which the issue continued and did not offer compensation to reflect this. An order has therefore been made to offer the resident £250. This is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of maladministration where there has been no permanent impact on the resident, but where the failure has adversely affected a resident.

Complaint handling

38. The landlord’s Complaint Policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5-working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days of the acknowledgement dates. If more time is needed at either stage of the process, the landlord should provide the resident with an explanation and a clear timeframe for a response.
39. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
    1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
    2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
    3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response
    4. any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident
40. The resident submitted a complaint on 28 October 2024, and the landlord acknowledged receipt on 1 November 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 26 November 2024, 17-working days from the acknowledgement date. There is no evidence the landlord communicated the delay with the resident. This was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy.
41. The landlord apologised and offered £25 compensation for the delay. This was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy for a complaint handling failure.
42. The resident escalated his complaint on 28 November 2024. The landlord acknowledged receipt the same day and provided its final complaint response on 19 December 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy. The landlord confirmed the compensation offered in its stage 1 response for the complaint handling. While it would have been helpful if the landlord had confirmed how it would prevent a recurrence of such a delay, considering the above, we find reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

43. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to take over the tenancy following the death of his mother.
44. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of rent arrears that accrued while the request was being considered.
45. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

46. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has:
    1. written a letter of apology to the resident for the failures highlight in this report
    2. paid the resident a total of £1300, broken down as follows:
       1. £550 for the delays in processing the residents request to take over the tenancy following the death of his mother
       2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s delay in processing the request
       3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the rent arrears that accrued while the request was being considered
       4. this is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
       5. the payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide us with confirmation of the payment
    3. written to the resident to confirm the current position of both his account and that of his late mother’s, including confirmation if any further payments will be transferred to his account from his mother’s account
47. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has reviewed the handling of the resident’s request to take over the tenancy and identified learning to prevent a recurrence of such failures.

Recommendations

48. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £25 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis this compensation is paid.
49. The landlord should consider delivering complaint handling refresher training to teams involved in the complaint process to ensure it complies with its policy in future cases.