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

Vivid Housing Limited (202127008)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127008

Vivid Housing Limited

20 September 2022


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 response to the resident’s request to succeed to his late parents’ tenancy.

Background

  1. The applicant’s parents were tenants of the landlord, before passing away in November 2021. The applicant lived with his parents from 2019. For the purpose of this report, the applicant will be referred to as the resident.
  2. On 1 November 2021, the resident’s mother passed away. Ten days later, the resident’s father also passed away. Contact was made to the landlord on 11 November 2021 to ask if the resident could remain living in the property. The landlord asked for proof that the resident had resided in the property for over 12 months. It also warned the resident that it would serve a Notice to Quit (NTQ) on 17 November 2021.
  3. The landlord wrote to the resident in November 2021. It explained that succession rights can only be used to pass on a tenancy once. Unfortunately, where there is a joint tenancy and one person passes away, the tenancy automatically passes to the surviving tenant as a sole tenancy. That meant that despite the resident’s parents passing away within ten days of each other, the one tenancy transfer had been used when the tenancy passed from the resident’s mother to his father. The landlord informed the resident that he could not remain at the property in the long term, and offered to support him and his family in finding alternative accommodation.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord about its decision to decline his succession of tenancy in November 2021. He also questioned how the tenancy had passed from a joint tenancy to a single tenancy, when his father hadn’t signed any paperwork. In response, the landlord again explained the law on succession, stating that there was no longer a succession right with the property. It stated that the NTQ it had served in November would expire on 19 December 2021. It clarified that the resident would not be expected to move out by that date, and gave a subsequent date of 28 February 2022 for him to move. The landlord offered to provide tenancy support from a Neighbourhood Officer (NO), and again advised the resident to approach the local authority to find alternative housing. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision and escalated his complaint in December 2021.
  5. The landlord responded in January 2022. It reiterated the law on succession rights, and explained that it had sought legal advice from a solicitor. It stated that succession is automatically passed when one joint tenant dies, and so no paperwork had been necessary for the succession to take place. It apologised for initially asking for information regarding the length of time the resident had lived at the property, as this had been irrelevant. It offered £30 compensation, for any inconvenience this may have caused. It again offered support in finding alternative accommodation for the family. ­
  6. The resident has explained in his complaint to this Service that he believes that the landlord could have utilised its discretion to allow him to stay at the property. He would like the landlord to reconsider its decision.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is to examine the reasonableness of a landlord’s actions and decisions in the circumstances of a complaint. The Ombudsman cannot provide a legal determination of either a landlord or tenant’s interpretations of the rights and obligations set out in the tenancy agreement. A tenancy agreement is a legal document, and succession rights can sometimes be legal issues. Because of that, this investigation focusses on the reasonableness of the landlord’s decisions, but the resident may wish to consider obtaining advice or guidance from an appropriate source, such as Citizens Advice, to fully understand his full succession rights.
  2. Succession in assured tenancies is governed by the Housing Act 1988. One statutory succession is allowed to a surviving spouse or a member of the deceased tenant’s family. Where a tenancy was originally a joint tenancy, and one of the joint tenants dies, this counts as a succession and no further statutory successions will be allowed. The landlord’s decision and explanations to the resident accurately reflected this.
  3. In its complaint response, the landlord acted appropriately in assuring the resident that it would extend the NTQ timeframe, to allow him time to find alternate accommodation. It also supported the resident in its offer of help through the NO. It thoroughly explained the legality of succession rights, and acknowledged that the situation was distressing for the resident and his family. In its final response it again showed that it had taken the matter seriously, explaining that it had consulted with a solicitor, who had confirmed the legal position on succession. It acted reasonably in offering the resident a token compensation, in acknowledgement of its team focussing on irrelevant issues initially.
  4. The resident stated, after completing the landlord’s complaint’s procedure, that he believed the landlord could have used its discretion to come to a different decision. Nothing provided in the evidence for this case indicates that the landlord had any discretion to change the succession rules in the resident’s circumstances. Even if it did, the Ombudsman would not be able to change a discretionary decision taken by a landlord without maladministration.
  5. This is understandably a distressing situation for the resident and his family. However, the landlord followed the rules on succession, set out in the HA 1988. Its response to and handling of the resident’s request to succeed to his parents’ tenancy was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.