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

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202316825)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202316825

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

26 March 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 applicant 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 the applicant’s request to succeed the property.

Background

  1. The applicant resides in the property, a 3-bedroom house, with his father, brother, and brother’s children. His mother held a secure tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 1990. She was the sole tenant on the tenancy agreement. Following her death in January 2023 the applicant’s father succeeded the tenancy.
  2. On 20 January 2023 the applicant informed the landlord his mother had passed away earlier in the month. The housing officer provided the applicant with forms to apply for succession of the property, which he completed and returned the same day. On 27 January 2023 the housing officer informed him his father would succeed the tenancy according to statutory succession rules which give priority to a surviving spouse.
  3. The applicant explained he had been living in the property since November 2020 and it was his family’s wish that he succeed the tenancy. He felt the landlord had applied the terms of the tenancy agreement and the law incorrectly. He asked the landlord to correct the error and transfer the tenancy to him in several emails from January 2023 to April 2023.
  4. On 13 April 2023 the applicant asked the landlord to log a complaint due to its decision to grant his father the tenancy. He also said it had sent letters addressed to his mother which was not only insensitive but evidenced the succession had not occurred automatically by law as it had claimed. He said it had also failed to respond to his emails on the matter.
  5. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 27 April 2023. It explained that his father was entitled to succeed the tenancy under section 89 of the Housing Act 1985. This was not a matter of choice but of statutory requirement and the tenancy vested in his father upon his mother’s death. It apologised for delays in dealing with the matter and for not responding to all of his emails.
  6. The applicant escalated his complaint on 9 May 2023. He felt it had not investigated his complaint properly. He said he had pointed out many times that section 87 rather than section 89 of the Housing Act applied, and the property was not his father’s principal home. On this basis, he felt he was eligible to succeed. He requested compensation for distress, and time and trouble chasing the matter.
  7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 9 June 2023. It reiterated its position with regards his father’s statutory succession rights. It said it his father’s residency in the property had been confirmed by both his mother and father on separate occasions. On that basis, it concluded his father was eligible to succeed. It offered £30 for a slight delay in its response and apologised again for failing to respond to some of his emails.
  8. The applicant remains unhappy with the landlord’s position on the succession and its handling of the issue.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We understand the applicant would like the landlord to transfer the property to him. It is not for this Service to make a legal judgement, grant succession, or possession. These are decisions for a court. Our role in this type of complaint is to consider the evidence available, whether the landlord kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances of the case.

Handling of succession request

  1. In refusing to transfer the property into his name, the applicant said the landlord had not applied the legislation and tenancy terms correctly. He felt it had unnecessarily prioritised his father.
  2. In emails between the applicant and landlord between 27 January 2023 and 16 February 2023 the applicant argued he was eligible under the terms of the tenancy which he said allowed it to transfer the property to ‘either’ a spouse or family member. The landlord explained that statutory succession had taken place and his father had succeeded the property under section 89(2) of the Housing Act. The applicant felt it had incorrectly referred to section 89 rather than section 87.
  3. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that for secure tenancies granted before 1 April 2012, succession to the tenancy on the death of a tenant is governed by sections 87 to 90 of the Housing Act 1985. Under section 87, a member of the secure tenant’s family is eligible to succeed the tenancy if it has been their only or principal home for the preceding 12 months when the tenant died. Section 89(2) applies the order of succession starting with the tenant’s spouse.
  4. It is also the Ombudsman’s understanding that Section 87 and 89(2) are not mutually exclusive. It was therefore accurate for the landlord to refer to the order of priority that follows under section 89(2) when succession under section 87 applies.
  5. The tenancy agreement also confirms this order of priority. While either party can succeed, it states that the tenancy passes “a) to the tenant’s spouse, if any, if living with the tenant at the time of death, and if not; b) to a member of the tenant’s household who resided at with the tenant throughout the period of twelve months ending with the tenant’s death”.
  6. The landlord’s position was therefore reasonable. It sought the advice of its solicitor and outlined the terms that applied with regards to statutory succession and the order of priority in emails to the applicant on 28 January 2023, and 14 and 15 February 2023. It reiterated this in its complaint responses. It could have directly addressed the applicant’s claim that section 89 did not apply and provided further explanation on this point. While this clarity would have been helpful, this was not a failure of the landlord. It provided an adequate and accurate explanation of the legal basis that applied.
  7. The applicant argued it was the family’s wish he succeed the property and his mother had stated this in her will. He expressed this throughout his correspondence with the landlord and said it could have exercised discretion. In response, the landlord said it could not decide if or when a statutory succession took place. It said this happened automatically under law.
  8. Where statutory succession applies, it is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the landlord is not able to exercise discretion about possession because rights are granted under law. As outlined in its succession procedure, it can only use discretion where there are no statutory or contractual rights to succeed. Its procedure also clarifies that, where there is a person who is entitled to a statutory succession in accordance with the provisions of the Housing Act, but the tenancy has also been left to another person in a will, the statutory successor will prevail. The landlord’s position was therefore reasonable in line with its policy and the law.
  9. The applicant refuted the succession had happened automatically or felt the landlord had not followed proper procedure in “allowing” this. He noted that it had initially sent him forms to apply for succession which showed there was a process it had to follow. He said the landlord did not know his father’s name and had sent letters addressed to his mother. He felt this evidenced succession had not taken place immediately.
  10. The housing manager called the applicant on 13 April 2023. They explained they had addressed the letters to his mother due to delays in confirming the succession and adjusting the internal system. While the landlord had a process for applying for succession, this did not negate the circumstances of the applicant’s case or confirm it had to be applied in all cases. Overall, the landlord provided reasonable explanation of the legal stipulations in place that meant his father was eligible and had succeeded automatically under law.
  11. The landlord apologised for sending letters addressed to the applicant’s deceased mother in its complaint response. This had caused the applicant and his family distress, so it was appropriate that it apologised and explained how this had happened.
  12. In his escalation request, the applicant said the property was not his father’s principal home. He explained in subsequent correspondence with the landlord that his father had returned to the property in 2020 from his principal home overseas. On this basis, he said his father was not eligible.
  13. In its final response, the landlord outlined the enquiries it made, and its conclusion that his father was living in the home and was therefore eligible to succeed. It is not for this Service to investigate his father’s eligibility and the applicant should seek legal assistance if he believes the landlord has not considered or is incorrect about the full circumstances.
  14. In both its complaint responses, the landlord apologised for its failure to respond to all the applicant’s emails. In emails sent by the applicant on 14 and 16 February 2023 he asked the landlord for a copy of its complaints procedure, details of this Service, and for clarity on the law it had applied. While it had outlined the legal basis for the succession in prior emails, there is no evidence it provided a copy of the complaints policy or details of this Service.
  15. The housing officer spoke to the applicant on 17 February 2023 and informed him they were leaving but would handover to another colleague. The applicant chased the landlord for an update on 27 February 2023, and 23 and 28 March 2023, but received no reply. As stated in his email, the applicant was seeking an update on the next steps for him to succeed the tenancy.
  16. The new housing officer called the applicant on 3 April 2023 and said they would take his concerns to their manager. The applicant had to chase them for a response on 12 April 2023 and he complained the following day.
  17. It is not clear what information was pending consideration by the landlord during this period. Regardless, the landlord should have responded to the applicant’s emails and it should have provided its complaints procedure. Its failure to do so caused the applicant unnecessary frustration and time and trouble chasing it. It appropriately apologised for this in its complaint responses and explained this was due to staff turnover. The landlord has also explained to this Service that delays occurred due to the inexperience of the housing officers which meant they were seeking updates from senior staff.
  18. The landlord acknowledged a slight delay in sending the final response to the applicant for which it offered £30 compensation. The response was late by 1 working day according to the timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy and this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s offer of compensation provided remedy for this shortcoming.
  19. Overall, the landlord provided appropriate information about the succession and legal requirements around it. However, it delayed in responding to the applicant’s emails which was a service failure. The landlord’s apology served as appropriate remedy. For this reason, we have found reasonable redress.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the applicant’s request to succeed the property.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

  1. It has not already done so, the landlord should pay the applicant the £30 compensation it offered for the delay in its stage 2 response.