Tower Hamlets Council (202209790)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209790

Tower Hamlets Council

26 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s decision to accept a notice to quit the joint tenancy and re-grant sole tenancy to the resident’s wife.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident and his wife (Ms L) had a secure joint tenancy with the landlord until February 2021. The rules for the tenancy agreement set out that 4 weeks’ notice must be given to end a tenancy, and that “notice by one joint tenant ends the rights of all joint tenants”.
The landlord’s domestic violence and abuse procedure sets out how it will support and assist victims of domestic abuse. It says that it will “take it seriously”, “prioritise safety” and “maintain strict confidentiality”.
The landlord’s joint to sole tenancy procedure states that, where the applicant is a victim of domestic violence, it can consider accepting a termination of the joint tenancy and re-granting a new sole tenancy to the victim. It says this requires approval as a discretionary management priority decision. It says, to do so:
1. a neighbourhood housing officer (NHO) should prepare a report for the Housing Management Panel (HMP).
2. supporting evidence should be attached, which could include a report from a multi-agency risk assessing conference (MARAC).
The procedure says that if the HMP agree a new sole tenancy, the applicant should be told of the decision and invited to sign a termination notice (notice to quit), giving 4 weeks’ notice of the end of the joint tenancy. Following this, the landlord will contact the applicant asking them to sign a new sole tenancy.
The landlord’s domestic violence and housing protocol provides guidance to its staff on how to help and minimise the risks to people who are experiencing domestic violence. This protocol sets out, amongst other things, that when responding to reports of domestic violence the landlord should:
1. interview the victim.
2. adopt a victim–centred approach.
3. consider whether a change of tenure is needed by either implementing court orders or using its procedures to change or reassign the tenancy.
4. keep accurate and up-to-date records.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time stated that it aimed to respond to complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 within 20 working days. Its current complaints policy, available online, sets out that it now aims to respond to stage 1 complaint in 10 working days. The target for responding to those at stage 2 remained at 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that financial compensation may be appropriate if it has delayed action.
In October 2020 Ms L contacted the landlord and reported domestic abuse by the resident. The resident provided us with police records which detail his arrest on 20 October 2020 in respect of allegations of domestic abuse. The police records also contain the resident’s police interview on 27 October 2020, when he made counter allegations of domestic abuse by his adult son.
Also on 27 October 2020 the resident completed a housing options form with the landlord. In this he said Ms L had made false allegations against him, leading to his arrest. He said his bail conditions required that he did not attend the property. Following this, he made a homelessness application to the landlord.
In November 2020 an NHO for the landlord referred the case and a report to its HMP for consideration of accepting the termination of the joint tenancy and re–granting of sole tenancy to Ms L. The landlord told us that its HMP heard the case in early December 2020. However, it has been unable to provide minutes of this meeting or record of what was discussed or agreed at this time. Subsequent internal emails we have seen note that the HMP had requested confirmation about the resident’s arrest.
On 9 December 2020 the landlord’s NHO sent an internal email forwarding an email from police the same day. In this the police confirmed the resident had been arrested and that the investigation was ongoing. In January 2021, after a neighbourhood team leader for the landlord chased a decision from the HMP, the landlord’s housing options team confirmed agreement of sole tenancy. Ms L terminated the joint tenancy with effect from 28 February 2021.
In early June 2021 the resident’s solicitor (Mr P) asked the landlord to confirm the tenancy on the property. He said that the resident had been told by the landlord 2 to 3 weeks before that the property had been transferred to Ms L’s name. The landlord responded later that month. It said:
1. following reports of domestic abuse from Ms L, it presented the case to its HMP to consider accepting termination of the joint tenancy and granting of sole tenancy to Ms L.
2. this was in line with its procedures and its protocol on domestic violence and housing.
3. its tenancy agreement with the resident set out that notice from one joint tenant ended the rights of all joint tenants.
On 21 December 2021 Mr P complained to the landlord on the resident’s behalf. He said:
1. the decision to terminate the tenancy and re-grant it to Ms L was unfair.
2. Ms L had made false claims of domestic abuse.
3. the resident had been released under investigation, without bail, on 7 December 2020 and no charges had been made since.
4. the resident said he had been a victim of aggression and threats from his adult son and had told the police of this in October 2020.
5. the resident had not been interviewed, questioned or contacted by the landlord.
6. the landlord’s domestic violence and housing protocol said rigorous enquiries must be made into all applications.
7. the resident had only become aware that the joint tenancy had ended when he contacted the landlord in May 2021.
8. the decision had left the resident homeless when he had health concerns.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 8 April 2022. It said:

the tenancy had been terminated by Ms L after it advised her that, should she do so, it would grant her sole tenancy.
the HMP had been presented with evidence of domestic abuse by the resident and that he had subjected Ms L to mental and financial abuse.
the HMP’s decision had been made subject to confirmation from the police of the resident’s arrest and removal from the property.
it considered this was the correct and proportionate decision, and it could not consider reinstating the joint tenancy as it had been ended lawfully by Ms L.
there was no evidence the resident had reported his counter allegations to the police or the landlord.

Mr P escalated the complaint on 25 April 2022. He disputed that the landlord had not contributed to the termination of the joint tenancy. He said it had done so by assuring Ms L it would grant her sole tenancy. Mr P asked that the landlord provide evidence it had relied upon. He said it was incorrect in stating the resident had not reported counter allegations, as he had done so during his police interview in October 2020.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 May 2022. It said:
1. it had referred the case to its HMP on 7 December 2020 as Ms L was seeking sole tenancy.
2. its protocol said that it could consider the termination of the joint tenancy and granting of sole tenancy when the application was from a victim of domestic abuse.
3. the HMP decision was made following confirmation that the resident had been arrested and removed from the property and following this Ms L had served 4 weeks’ notice ending the joint tenancy.
The landlord noted the resident’s concern that he had not been given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. It said that it took a non-judgemental approach to domestic abuse cases. It said this did not include undertaking an investigation or interviewing the alleged perpetrator. It said evidence submitted had been provided in confidence, and it had a duty to uphold this. It said that it was not reasonable or appropriate to disclose information to the resident.
The landlord noted the resident said no further action had been taken against him by police. It said:
1. it had acted on the information available at the time – that the resident had been arrested and asked by police not to return to the property.
2. at the time of the HMP’s decision the resident had not reported any counter allegations to the landlord. It said that, after the resident made contact, the NHO had advised him to report the matter to the police as he was no longer a tenant of the property.
3. the grant of sole tenancy had now been made and could not be reconsidered.
4. it was satisfied this decision was appropriate in view of the evidence submitted and the confirmation from the police.
Mr P told us that the resident wanted the landlord to reconsider the tenancy decision or offer him an alternative secure tenancy. Mr P said the resident, who is now living in sheltered accommodation, also wanted compensation.
The landlord told us that it had presented the case to its HMP due to extenuating circumstances. It said it was satisfied, under the circumstances, that the course of action was appropriate. It said it did not seek representations from alleged perpetrators when considering domestic abuse claims.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns that the decision to terminate the joint tenancy and re-grant sole tenancy was unfair, and that Ms L had made false claims of domestic abuse. While these concerns are acknowledged, the purpose of this investigation is not to consider or decide upon the domestic abuse claims. That is not our role. Instead, the focus of the investigation is on whether the landlord acted reasonably, and in line with its policies and procedures, and its tenancy agreement with the resident.

The landlord’s decision to accept a notice to quit the joint tenancy and re-grant sole tenancy to the resident’s wife

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident was clear that notice to quit from one joint tenant ended the rights of all joint tenants. It does not require agreement, or the knowledge, of all parties to the tenancy.
Its procedures in respect of joint to sole tenancy and domestic violence state the landlord may consider accepting a termination of a joint tenancy and the granting of a new sole tenancy to a victim of domestic violence. Procedures outline that this requires approval as a discretionary management decision. To do so the landlord’s NHO should prepare a report, with supporting evidence, for the HMP.
The evidence that is available shows that the landlord appropriately prepared a report and referred the case to its HMP for a decision, in line with its procedures. However, it has been unable to supply any record of the HMP meeting in December 2020 when it said the case was considered. As a result, it is unclear precisely what was discussed and agreed by the HMP at this time. That was a failing in record keeping. The landlord should reasonably have ensured that record of HMP’s consideration of the case was retained and was accessible. However, emails show the NHO obtained information from the police, requested by the HMP. We have also seen later confirmation of its agreement of sole tenancy, and Ms L’s subsequent notice to quit the joint tenancy. As outlined above, in line with the tenancy agreement, this notice to quit ended the joint tenancy.
The landlord followed its procedures when accepting the termination of the tenancy and re-granting sole tenancy. However, it failed to make appropriate record of the HMP’s decision-making and considerations. It is clearly important that landlords maintain accurate and complete records so that it can demonstrate steps taken were appropriate. Its failure to do so was also contrary to its domestic violence and housing protocol, which outlines that accurate records should be kept. As such, an order has been made that the landlord review the processes and guidance in place for recording and storing decisions made by the HMP.
It is noted that Mr P raised concerns that the resident was not contacted for interview by the landlord about the claims of domestic abuse. The landlord said in its complaint responses that its consideration of domestic abuse cases did not include undertaking an investigation or interviewing the alleged perpetrator. The landlord’s procedures do not specify any necessity to do so. Instead, they set out steps that should be taken to obtain information from, and provide support to, the victim. The NHO referred the case for a discretionary decision to be made by the HMP based on the evidence submitted. That was in line with procedures. We have seen evidence the NHO subsequently took steps to obtain and supply supporting evidence requested by its HMP before that decision was made. That was reasonable. It is noted that the landlord provides limited guidance to staff in its procedures about the type of supporting evidence to include when referring a case to HMP in such circumstances. In light of this, a recommendation has been made that the landlord review procedures to consider what additional guidance can be provided to staff about supporting evidence.
Mr P raised concerns that the resident was not told of the change of tenancy until he contacted the landlord in May 2021. The landlord’s procedures do not set out any steps it should take to inform other parties to the tenancy after a joint tenancy has ended. Given the nature of domestic abuse cases, the landlord would need to consider the potential risk of disclosing such information. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have given consideration to notifying the resident of the change to his tenancy status for practical purposes, such as for any future housing applications. There is no evidence it did so, and that was a failing. In view of this, an order has been made that the landlord review procedures and guidance around this. This is with a view to clarifying appropriate actions to notify other joint tenants after accepting the termination of a joint tenancy.
It is acknowledged that the resident wants the landlord to reconsider the tenancy decision or offer him an alternative secure tenancy. We have found that the landlord took appropriate and reasonable actions when accepting the termination of the joint tenancy. The actions were in line with its procedures on domestic violence and joint to sole tenancies. Whether to grant a new secure tenancy to the resident would be for the landlord to consider under its relevant policies and procedures.

Complaint handling

It is apparent that the landlord’s stage 1 response was significantly delayed. It did not provide its response to the complaint of December 2021 for 15 weeks – far outside its response target at that time of 20 working days. Mr P chased the landlord twice for a response. We have seen that during this time the landlord discussed internally which department was best placed to respond to the complaint. While it was important to establish this, it should not have taken the landlord so long, or delayed the response to this extent. As a result, it failed to provide the resident with a timely response to his complaint. There is also no evidence it took reasonable steps to communicate with Mr P about this delay. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay to its complaint response, there is no evidence it considered awarding compensation to recognise the impact of this delay. It would have been reasonable for it to do so, in line with its compensation policy. The resident should not have had to wait for so long for the initial response to his complaint. With consideration to the circumstances, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award has been ordered aimed at recognising the impact of the delay.
While the landlord provided a clear and thorough response to the resident’s complaint, it did not specifically address the concerns Mr P had raised that the resident was not told of the change to the tenancy until May 2021. It would have been appropriate for it to do so. It would also have provided it the opportunity to consider learning or potential improvement in processes. As noted earlier, there is no evidence the landlord gave reasonable consideration to notifying the resident after the change to the tenancy.
It is also noted that the landlord referred the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, instead of us, after its stage 2 response. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), landlords should provide residents with appropriate referral rights to the Housing Ombudsman Service. In light of this, an order had been made that the landlord remind its complaint handling staff of this.
There was a lengthy delay by the landlord in providing a complaints response, and the failure to address all concerns raised. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s decision to accept a notice to quit the joint tenancy and re-grant sole tenancy to Ms L.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. This apology should be made in line with Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. Make a payment to the resident of £250, comprised of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to consider notifying the resident earlier of the change to his tenancy status.
  2. £150 for the impact of its complaint handling failings.
3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
  1. review the processes and guidance it has in place with regards to recording and storing decisions made by the HMP.
  2. remind its complaint handling staff about providing appropriate referral rights in line with the Code.

Recommendations

Within 6 weeks of the report review procedures and guidance about referring cases to the HMP. This should be with the aim of considering whether additional guidance can be provided to staff about supporting evidence it may be appropriate to include/obtain.