The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited (202330125)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330125

The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited

31 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 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 the resident’s:
   1. Application for succession of the property. 
   2. Report of repairs.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, this service must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction – the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
4. Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints ‘which in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to exhausting a members’ complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.’
5. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have completed the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. While the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of repairs, this complaint did not exhaust the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. This aspect of the complaint is therefore outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This report will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s application for succession of the property. 

Background

6. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 4‑bedroom house. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
7. The resident (alongside her husband and son) lived with her mother who was the named tenant. In 2013 the landlord confirmed to her mother that her daughter had the right to a contractual succession, which it said meant there was a right to succeed but it was not an automatic right. The landlord added that, if her daughter succeeded her, she would be given a new tenancy agreement and that meant no further successions could take place, as she would be a successor herself.
8. In March 2023, the resident’s mother died. The resident told the landlord about that on 11 April 2023 and asked for a new tenancy agreement and information about the rent.
9. On the following day the landlord put a card through the door of the property asking the resident to contact it “urgently” as it had a query about the succession of the property. On the same day the landlord noted it had spoken to the resident who confirmed that 1 bedroom in the property was not in use.
10. On the next day the resident wrote to the landlord unhappy that a card had been out through the door given her bereavement. She said she had evidence that she could succeed the property, but the landlord had told her she could only succeed the tenancy.
11. On 26 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident offering its sincere condolences for the bereavement of her mother. It explained she had an account which enabled her to pay for services at the property whilst the documentation for the tenancy was finalised. It gave details of the rent payable per week. The landlord said, “she had succeeded the tenancy for the above address”. It also explained the circumstances in which it would require her to move to alternative accommodation to ensure it made the best use of its housing stock (if the resident was over or under occupying the property).
12. On 5 June 2023 the landlord called to the resident. It said, while she had succeeded the tenancy, it might need to reconsider her occupation of the property given its requirement to allocate properties according to housing need.
13. On 7 June 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident again in similar terms to the letter of 26 April 2023. The landlord noted it could “confirm you have succeeded to the tenancy”. On 12 July 2023 the landlord noted it was seeking legal advice on the succession.
14. We understand that in mid-August 2023, following this legal advice, the landlord told the resident she could succeed the tenancy of the property.
15. On 5 September 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her succession application. She said she wanted compensation for the stress and anxiety the landlord’s actions had caused her.
16. On 22 September 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response under its formal complaint procedures. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the matter of the succession explaining the delays were due to the time taken to get a response from its solicitors. It apologised for the confusion said it hoped to learn from this moving forward. It said it would compensate the resident the sum of £139.78 (which we understand was a credit on her mother’s rent account). In early October 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
17. On 27 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It again apologised for the delay in deciding the succession matter and offered the resident compensation of £300 for the distress caused to her. The resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
18. The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 November 2023 following a stage 3 panel hearing the previous week. It acknowledged the distress caused to the resident by some of its communication with her and set out the failings it had identified. The landlord increased its offer of compensation to £800 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Scope of the investigation

19. We note the resident’s concerns that the landlord’s letter of 7 June 2023 was a forgery and “fraudulent”. Forgery and fraud are criminal offences. The Ombudsman cannot investigate criminal action as such investigations fall properly within the jurisdiction of the police or the courts. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme which states that we may not consider complaints where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.

Assessment and findings

20. The landlord’s tenancy changes policy says, on the death of a sole tenant, the spouse, civil partner or common law partner will succeed, subject to a succession not having taken place before. In the absence of a spouse, some family members may succeed who have lived at the property as their sole and principal home for 12 months or more.
21. The policy says the landlord aims to ensure it makes the best use of its stock which may require a successor to move to alternative accommodation in some circumstances including if the property has 2, 3, 4 or 5 bedrooms and the successor is over or under occupying the property.
22. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider the actions of the landlord, including its responses and decisions. Even where the landlord has accepted its own failings and offered compensation to a resident, the Ombudsman will investigate a complaint, assess the actions of the landlord and, where appropriate, consider, as a result of its investigation, whether the compensation offered was fair in the circumstances.
23. It was reasonable for the landlord to give the resident details of its tenancy changes policy which sets out it may require a successor to move to alternative accommodation in some circumstances including if the successor is over or under occupying the property. The resident challenged this and the landlord sought legal advice, which was a reasonable step for it to take.
24. In its complaint handling, the landlord identified various failings namely:
    1. Its initial communication with the resident had been poor. It referred to the calling card it had put through the door in April 2023, which it noted was “inappropriate and insensitive”.
    2. It recognised sending the letter of 7 June 2023 was “inappropriate and lacked transparency”. It said a director had given feedback to the manager who had sent that letter and acknowledged the distress and anxiety it had caused the resident.
    3. It apologised for the amount of time it had taken to obtain legal advice on succession. It acknowledged it should have sent the resident regular updates during that time. It also explained some of the delay was due to a move between legal contracts and said, in future, it would prioritise cases where it had sought legal advice.
    4. It acknowledged the delay in moving the credit from the resident’s mother’s rent account to the resident’s rent account and acknowledged the distress this had caused to her. It said it had put steps in place to strengthen communication between the housing and income teams.
25. We have identified a further failing in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident. It was clear from speaking to the resident that she felt she had no alternative but attend a meeting arranged for 19 April 2023 even though she had already made plans to visit her mother at the chapel of rest for the last time. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered alternative dates for that meeting; there is no evidence it did so. Given the resident’s recent loss, the landlord should have recognised she was temporarily vulnerable and acted with due sensitivity in its communication with her.
26. In its final complaint response, the landlord set out what action it would take to ensure that the poor service it had highlight would not be repeated. We welcome the service improvements the landlord committed to in its final complaint response and in particular its commitment to provide training to staff in relation to its communication with residents in sensitive or distressing circumstances. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to provide frontline staff with resources to enable it to signpost residents, where appropriate, to obtain emotional or practical support such as from the Bereavement Advice Centre. 
27. The landlord offered the resident £800 in recognition of the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to her by its acknowledged service failings. Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is the Ombudsman’s role to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
28. This sum offered by the landlord was in line with its compensation policy which acknowledges such sums would only be awarded in cases of exceptional service failure. That sum was also in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Redress which says that sums over £600 reflect a significant impact on the resident including a physical or emotional impact. The offer of £800 also reflects the resident’s vulnerable state at the time of the events complained about.
29. We therefore consider the landlord’s apology, offer of compensation and action to improve its service were reasonable and proportionate steps to take to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s mishandling of her application for succession. While we have identified a specific further example of the landlord’s poor communication with the resident, we consider the compensation offered to be adequate as it reflects the impact of poor service to the resident over the period from April to mid-August 2023.
30. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to pay this compensation to the resident. The finding of reasonable redress is based on the landlord making this payment to her.

Determination

31. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made satisfactory redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of the resident’s application for succession of the property.
32. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her reports of repairs is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under section 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Recommendations

33. It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
    1. Pays the resident the compensation it had previously offered of £800 (if it has not done so already).
    2. Provides frontline staff with resources to enable it to signpost residents, where appropriate, to obtain emotional or practical support such as from the Bereavement Advice Centre.