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

Southern Housing Group Limited (202302221)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302221

Southern Housing Group Limited

4 July 2024


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:
    1. Response to the resident’s concerns that his tenancy agreement had been defaced.
    2. Handling of the resident’s request to assign the tenancy to his daughter.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy is held jointly with the resident’s wife and started in January 2006. The landlord is a housing association. The resident’s daughter and 4 grandchildren also live at the address. The landlord has no recorded health vulnerabilities for the members of the household.
  2. On 5 September 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he was looking to move out of area. He said he wanted his daughter to have the property and assign her the tenancy. The landlord advised him a tenancy could not simply be taken over. It said his daughter would need to ensure she was on the housing list. The landlord provided the resident with an application form for it to consider his assignment request. The resident’s request was declined on 14 October 2022.
  3. The resident raised a stage 1 formal complaint on 27 January 2023. He considered the landlord’s decision not to assign the tenancy to his daughter illegal. Furthermore, he had received a copy of his tenancy agreement which the landlord had written on. He considered it had illegally defaced a legal document.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 31 January 2023. It advised it had reviewed the resident’s tenancy agreement and there was no right of assignment within the terms and conditions. It was satisfied with its decision and offered the resident’s daughter housing advice. It informed the resident he could seek his own independent legal advice should he wish to.
  5. On 22 February 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process (ICP). The resident considered there had been “unprofessional behaviour” by the landlord and had taken the matter to his MP. He considered he had signed his tenancy based on the tenancy handbook supplied to him and considered the landlord’s decision illegal.
  6. On 15 March 2023 the landlord’s stage 2 review panel met to discuss the resident’s complaint. It provided him with its stage 2 final response on 28 March 2023. It said:
    1. His tenancy agreement did not contain a right to assign the tenancy to his daughter.
    2. As the landlord, it had not given permission and its decision remained unchanged.
    3. It informed the MP of its decision and reasons on 26 January 2023.
  7. The resident brought his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service and his complaint became one we could formerly consider on 18 April 2023. The resident said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response because it had:
    1. Defaced tenancy documents.
    2. Used the terms and conditions in his tenancy rather than the tenancy handbook.
    3. Changed its mind regarding assigning the tenancy to his daughter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s correspondence said the landlord’s handling of his enquiries and its refusal to assign the tenancy to his daughter caused stress on all adults and children in the property. We do not doubt the resident’s comments.
  2. Although we are an alternative dispute resolution service, we are unable to establish legal liability on whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can we calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects. Such decisions require an assessment of liability and are decided by a court or insurer. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue a claim for damages for any adverse effect on his health.
  3. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine the complaint by reference to what is, in our findings, fair in all the circumstances of the case. Where the Ombudsman identifies a failure by a landlord, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.

Response to the resident’s concerns that his tenancy agreement had been defaced

  1. The resident states that the landlord “defaced” his tenancy agreement and considered this an illegal act by the landlord.
  2. Having viewed the evidence, we are able to see that the information written on the resident’s tenancy agreement appears to include the number of adults and children within the household at an unknown point in time, confirmation of an assured tenancy, and transfer reference numbers. There is evidence the landlord had taken over the freehold of the property from another landlord. Therefore, the landlord’s explanation to the resident that these were internal administration notes was reasonable.
  3. While we acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction, the writing has been done on areas of available white space and does not cover, amend, or restrict sight of any tenancy conditions or clauses. There is evidence that this document was the landlord’s and it had provided a copy to the resident upon his request. The document remains readable and there is no impact on the resident’s tenancy rights or obligations. These rights were confirmed by the landlord within its complaint responses. Therefore, we are unable to determine any detriment caused to either the resident or joint tenant.
  4. Based on the above, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s response to concerns that his tenancy agreement was defaced.

Handling of the resident’s request to assign the tenancy to his daughter

  1. The resident considers the landlord has illegally used the terms of his tenancy agreement to make its tenancy assignment decision. He states that his tenancy handbook contains different guidance which the landlord should honour. We note that the evidence from the handbook supplied by the resident refers to “the succession rights of a family member.” Furthermore, it states that assignment can only happen in the following situations, and only with the landlord’s permission:
    1. Giving the tenancy to someone who could inherit it if you died.
    2. By order of the court as part of a relationship breakdown.
    3. Following a mutual exchange.
  2. Succession and assignment are separate scenarios with different conditions. Succession happens when someone, who meets the qualifying criteria is granted the tenancy after the tenant dies. This is specific to the security of the tenure and does not necessarily include the property. The tenancy agreement is the primary, legally binding document relied on by all parties. A tenancy handbook broadly covers a wide range of issues. These may not be specific to an individual due to the particular terms of their tenancy. Therefore, this section of the tenancy handbook, provided by the resident, does not demonstrate the landlord’s failure to correctly apply housing law.
  3. An assured tenant of a housing association can sometimes use assignment to change a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy or sign a sole tenancy over to the person who still lives there. In this circumstance the landlord’s policy will only assign to a partner which mirrors the legislation for succession. Therefore, as both tenants sought to leave the property, this would not apply to the resident’s daughter.
  4. The landlord has provided the tenancy agreement and its relevant conditions of assured tenancies document, dated 2022. It states, “a tenant may assign their tenancy to a person who would have been entitled to succeed to the tenancy in the event of your death.”
  5. In the scenario presented by the resident, he and his wife as joint tenants, were both looking to move out of area. Assignment occurs by way of a legal process during the lifetime of the tenant. Whether assignment is possible will depend on the type of tenancy, what the tenancy agreement says, and whether the landlord agrees to it. In this case, the landlord has considered the application by the resident’s daughter and declined the application based on the terms of the tenancy. This was appropriate.
  6. With most assured tenancy cases, the Housing Act 1988 will imply a term prohibiting assignment without the landlord’s consent. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s daughter’s application and provide a written decision. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident that his tenancy agreement was legally binding.
  7. The resident states the landlord changed its mind on assigning the tenancy to his daughter between September 2022 to October 2022. We do not doubt the residents statement. However, while we acknowledge the resident would have found the landlord’s decision disappointing, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord agreed at any stage to assign the tenancy to his daughter. Therefore, without evidence of such an agreement, we are unable to determine a failure by the landlord.
  8. The landlord has acted reasonably by providing the resident with the application form and fact sheets regarding assigning a tenancy. It has demonstrated that it gave fair consideration to the resident’s application, checked the tenancy terms and conditions, and provided a written response. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s daughter was appropriately registered on the housing list and offered further support and advice should she require it. This was reasonable in the circumstances and does not demonstrate a failure by the landlord.
  9. Based on the above, we find no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to assign the tenancy to his daughter.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s relevant complaints policy states it will respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The purpose of the Code is to enable landlords to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the data and learning from complaints to drive service improvements.
  3. The Code, 1 April 2022, required landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy is non-compliant with the Code. A complaint response should at stage 1 be sent within 10 working days of the complaint being made. This has been identified in recent investigations and the landlord ordered to pay particular attention to the complaint stages when it conducts a self-assessment of its complaints policy.
  5. The Code became statutory from 1 April 2024, meaning that landlords will be obliged by law to follow its requirements. The Code aims to achieve best practice in complaint handling and provide a better service to residents. The landlord should ensure any policy updates reflect the new Code.
  6. The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 27 January 2023. This was acknowledged by the landlord the same day. This was appropriate and in line with the 5 day response timescale as set out in the Code, 1 April 2022.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 31 January 2023. This was appropriate and in line with the expectations of the Code.
  8. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 31 January 2023. It was therefore reasonable for him to expect an acknowledgement by 7 February 2023. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 13 February 2023. The landlord sent further correspondence to the resident on 21 and 22 February 2023 to clarify the resident’s escalation request. This did not demonstrate the landlord handling the resident’s complaint in line with the expectations of the Code.
  9. Given the date of the resident’s escalation request, it was reasonable for him to expect a stage 2 final response within 20 working days and by 28 February 2023. The landlord failed to achieve this date, providing its final response on 28 March 2023. This was not appropriate as this was 20 working days beyond the expectations of the Code.
  10. While we have identified complaint handling failures, the detriment to the resident would have been minimal. Therefore, we find service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord is ordered to pay £50 compensation to acknowledge and put right these failures.
  11. This finding is in line with complaint handling failures identified in a special report on the landlord by the Housing Ombudsman Service, published in May 2024. In which, we made recommendations in relation to improving complaint handling, including staff training. Therefore, it has not been necessary to make additional orders as they overlap the expectations of the special report.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that his tenancy agreement had been defaced.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to assign the tenancy to his daughter.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with these orders:
    1. Pay the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord is encouraged to reoffer its support with housing options advice to all members of the household.