London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202121929)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121929

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

8 June 2023

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 response to the resident’s request to change her tenancy from a joint to a sole tenancy and for a move.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a three-bedroom house with her adult son, with anavailable room for his carer. The tenancy began on 10 November 2009. According to the landlord’s records, it was categorised as an “intermediate market rent” (IMR). The resident had acquired the tenancy under the historical Mortgage Rescue Scheme whereby housing associations acquired property at risk of repossession and relet it to the owners.
Under the tenancy the landlord granted, the resident’s tenancy began as an assured shorthold and was converted to a periodic assured tenancy 12 months later. The template for an IMR tenancy was a six-month assured shorthold tenancy agreement.

Legal and policy framework

The landlord’s transfer of tenancy policy stated as follows:
1. The landlord would only agree to change a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy where it was satisfied, from the evidence given, that it was the will of both joint tenants, or that there was a court order. It would grant a new tenancy in those circumstances.
2. The landlord should not advise the tenant to end the tenancy, only advise the tenant on all the available options. The tenant should also seek independent legal or specialist housing advice.
3. Joint tenants were expected to resolve relationship breakdowns and conflict through the Family Court.
4. The landlord would not change a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy where only one party wished to do so or both tenants wanted the sole tenancy except by following an order from the court. This had to carried out by way of assignment.
5. Where one joint tenant had left the property, had a known address but refused to relinquish the tenancy, it must advise the remaining tenant to seek independent legal advice.
6. Although the remaining tenant could end the tenancy by serving a Notice to Quit (unless it was fixed term tenancy), it was not good practice for the landlord to offer “opinionated advice” on ending a joint tenancy.
7. In cases of serious domestic violence, the landlord would not influence the victim to end the joint tenancy. It could signpost the tenant to the appropriate advice service.
8. The landlord had a discretion to issue a new sole tenancy and it referred to its Domestic Violence & Abuse policy.
The landlord’s Domestic Violence & Abuse (DVA) policy stated as follows:
1. It would consider rehousing. Survivors of DVA might be considered for a management transfer direct offer or designated for management transfer priority status banding. These options could be considered in addition to the local authority application or where the victim was refused full homelessness duty from the local authority.
2. The purpose of awarding a management transfer direct offer was to remove the victim permanently away from the property to an area which is considered to be safer.
3. If the abuser were a joint tenant with the victim, the victim had the legal right to unilaterally end the joint tenancy. This could only be done through their own decision and the landlord must not encourage victims to end joint tenancies unilaterally.
4. In addition, landlord’s Allocations and Transfer policies prioritised victims of DVA for either a management transfer direct move or a management transfer priority status move into suitable alternative and like-for-like accommodation.
Under Schedule 7 of the Family Law Act 1996, the court may make a transfer of tenancy order on granting a decree of divorce and before or after the decree is made absolute.
The landlord’s lettings policy stated as follows:
1. The landlord would help residents whose homes were too big for them move to a smaller property.
2. It would work proactively with all prospective downsizers.
3. It would offer the opportunity to bid in Band 2 and an under-occupation payment of £500.
4. Residents who needed to move due to the threat of domestic abuse, violence or harassment but who were not in immediate danger were to be awarded Band 3.
The Lettings Panel only dealt with cases where a resident was required to move as a result of an emergency. Direct management offers were awarded in cases where any undue delay to rehousing was untenable. There would be situations where it needed to directly rehouse existing residents either on an emergency, temporary, or permanent basis including that the resident was at risk by remaining in their home due to domestic abuse, gang-related violence, or any other type of Anti-Social Behaviour.
The complaint policy set out a two-stage procedure. The response timescale was 10 working days, unless otherwise notified. The response time at stage two was 20 working days, unless, again, if otherwise notified.

Chronology

There was medical evidence from mid-2019 stating that the resident suffered from PTSD and the medical advice that the resident should move.
On 23 August 2020, the landlord sent the resident a mutual exchange form. The resident completed with details of another tenant who would exchange properties with her and signed it on 21 September 2020.
On 11 October 2020, the landlord declined the resident’s application on the basis that the “two households did not match”. The resident explained that her ex-husband had left the matrimonial home approximately four years previously and that she did not have any contact with him. He would not agree to having his name removed “just to spite her”. The landlord advised her she may have to go through the courts to have his named removed and then re-apply for a mutual exchange.
The landlord informed the resident that the tenancy type should be changed on its system. The landlord would update the resident after 10 working days. It noted internally that the status of the property showed as a market rent as it had been acquired as part of a mortgage rescue scheme. It was, however, an assured tenancy.
On 13 October 2020, the resident wrote that she was concerned about delays though she understood they were due to the then ongoing pandemic.
The resident wrote on 16 October 2020 that the property triggered her PTSD which had been caused by 20 years of abuse. The landlord requested a copy of her tenancy agreement.
On 23 October 2020, the resident provided confirmation that she had an assured tenancy.
The landlord noted internally on 6 November 2020 that it had advised her to seek independent advice to apply to remove her ex-husband from the tenancy. It was also seeking to resolve the status of the tenancy.
The resident wrote on 11 November 2020 referring to her application to exchange having been declined. The landlord noted it was due to the fact it was a joint tenancy. It provided its policy on joint tenancies and a copy of her tenancy agreement. It highlighted that one person can end the tenancy and that it would need a court order in order to “make changes” to a joint tenancy.
The resident wrote on 16 November 2020 that she could not put herself in a vulnerable position and make an application. She asked for alternative suggestions. She also said she was unsafe because her ex-husband knew where she lived.
The resident wrote on 26 November 2020 that her son had started to be domestically abusive which in the last few weeks had become physical. Her son had subsequently left and found temporary accommodation elsewhere. She provided her medical evidence of 2019 written in support for her application to move in June 2019. She had been advised that it was within the landlord’s discretionary powers to rehouse her and that she should get that offer in writing before giving notice to end her tenancy.
It wrote to the resident on 15 December 2020 stating that it was unable to change a tenancy from a joint tenancy to a sole tenancy without an “Occupation Order” order under Part IV Family Law Act 1996. She would need to seek legal advice. The resident replied that she wanted written confirmation that the landlord would rehome her should she end the tenancy. The property was also too big for her.
On 30 December 2020, the landlord wrote that an occupation order was the only option available to her. The resident replied asking whether the landlord could contact her ex-husband. The landlord stated it could not do so and suggested the resident could make a complaint to the landlord.
A national advice specialist wrote on 12 January 2021 on the resident’s behalf with a formal complaint as follows:
1. The resident wanted the landlord to take a “fresh look” by a senior officer at the landlord’s approach. It described the extent of the domestic abuse including serious criminal assault. She was in fear if she took action. The resident wanted to end the tenancy by unilateral service of a Notice to Quit (NTQ) on the basis of a commitment by the landlord to award her a sole tenancy of the same property. The resident had also made a homelessness application.
2. The agency asked for “constructive assistance”.
3. The ex-husband continued to manipulate her through their autistic son. A solicitor had confirmed the same. It set out potential risk if the resident made an application.
4. If the landlord was unable to give the assurance it would grant a fresh tenancy, it suggested that it reconsidered her case at the time the tenancy was terminated and at that point award her a sole tenancy. There was no legal barrier and it could apply its discretion.
5. The joint tenancy was created despite the resident having been the sole owner and mortgage holder of the property.
6. There had been no recent police involvement.
7. If she were to serve a NTQ without a promise of rehousing, she could potentially be considered to be intentionally homeless.
8. She would also consider an offer of an alternative tenancy of a similar type and standard to her own.
Internally, on 13 January 2021, the landlord considered it would need to explain to the outgoing tenant if he materialised and would need to justify why it had accepted a termination from the remaining tenant and sign the remaining tenant up to a sole tenancy. If the resident or the advice agency were not happy about this, “they could escalate further”.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord’s decision was for the resident to make an application to the court. It had taken legal advice.
The landlord replied on 27 January 2021 as follows:
1. It apologised for the late response and causing her any stress or inconvenience.
2. The landlord did not get involved in relationship disputes or contact the other party asking them to give up their rights to their joint tenancy.
3. It referred to its policy stating that it did not have the right to ‘transfer’ a tenancy from joint names to a sole name and ‘remove’ a name from an agreement. The joint tenancy would need to be ended and a sole tenancy created. The new tenancy would normally be the current tenancy type appropriate for the property.
4. The landlord would have to be satisfied that the request was either the desire of both parties or that a court had ordered a transfer. The landlord would normally expect the remaining tenant to seek agreement from the departed joint tenant before seeking to end the joint tenancy and seek a sole tenancy.
5. Where a joint tenant has left the property and the joint tenancy had ended, the landlord had no obligation and would not normally rehouse the departed tenant. The ending of the joint tenancy could also affect their homeless status. It would advise them of the potential implications of giving up the tenancy.
6. It was “duty bound” by the legal implications relating to joint tenancies agreements.
7. If she was unsatisfied with its final response, she had the right to escalate this to her complaints team.
The resident made a further complaint on 18 January 2021 as follows.
1. She had began to try and move several years ago. In 2018, she was advised to seek an exchange.
2. Despite the landlord’s insistence that it supported victims of domestic violence, letters from her doctor and psychologist supporting a move because of the effects of this house on her PTSD and months of correspondence, the landlord insisted on a path that would require her to interact with her abuser.
3. She requested a move. The property was too large, expensive and in need of repairs that were not easily completed with people in occupation. It was affecting her mental health. She wanted an explanation why it was “defending her ex-husbands tenancy rights but refusing to contact him”.
4. She requested the following:
  1. The landlord to honour commitments made in a newspaper article and help her as a tenant to feel safe.
  2. Compensation for the distress caused by blocking her mutual exchange. It was devastating to “have an escape on the horizon only to be recaptured and given little choice but to be trapped indefinitely”.
On 29 January 2021, the resident wrote that she had made a formal complaint and it had been “downgraded” to an enquiry. While she appreciated that it was not an obligation to contact her ex-husband, the resident suggested in the light of the landlord’s commitment to ensuring their residents felt safe, the landlord would do something so that she did not have to re-engage with her abuser. She asked whether she could remove herself from the tenancy, thereby leaving her husband liable for the rent.
The landlord did not deem her at risk because her husband had left four years previously. She referred to her PTSD. She was disabled by her PTSD. She had provided medial evidence to support this. The landlord replied that it followed “all equality law and regulations”, but at the same time had to follow other policies and procedures.
The landlord wrote on 1 February 2021. It had contacted its solicitor again that day. It repeated the same position. It suggested going through the parties’ solicitors. It was unable to change the legalities governing the joint tenancy process.
The advice agency wrote on 1 February 2021 that the resident had sought legal advice who confirmed theirs. It appreciated that the landlord was not obliged to assure the resident that if she ended the tenancy by unilateral service of a Notice To Quit (NTQ), but it could re-offer the tenancy of the property as a sole tenancy. It was legally possible to agree to this taking into consideration all the facts of the case. It had discussed all other possibilities at length but the resident was convinced of the overwhelming psychological and physical risks of taking those options.
Internally the landlord noted that on 2 February 2021 the agency’s view the landlord “can do this without the consent of the former partner”. It had “spoken to legal twice” and the advice remained the same. It “did not get involved with the advice agency or any other authority”.
It agreed on 8 February 2021 to contact the resident’s former husband to offer him the choice to terminate his joint tenancy, as he no longer lived at the address. If he did not agree, she would have to apply for an order. The landlord decided that “on this occasion”, it would be justifiable for the landlord to initiate the contact under the circumstances.
The landlord sought advice on 8 February 2021 as to whether it would be “unlawful” for it to contact the ex-husband. It suggested the advice agency send a termination form with a covering letter.
The landlord considered that the ex-husband did not have to terminate his tenancy but might not be aware of his options, so he would be no worse off if he decided not to end the tenancy. It asked for clarification of the advice.
The in-house solicitor advised as follows:
1. The consequences of serving a NTQ.
2. How the landlord should act, including the landlord not giving advice.
3. “It would send the termination notice and then write to the other tenant and explain what the other is going on and seek independent legal advice”.
4. The solicitor “(was) not sure as to why it was unlawful but a landlord would not advise and assist in terminating the tenancy as it would be seen as cohesion (sic)….or something along these lines, just provide the basic info for them to follow through”.
The landlord noted its decision on 10 February 2021 that legal advice confirmed its decision to direct the resident to obtain a court order transferring the tenancy into her sole name. It “updated” the complaint which had been escalated.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 March 2021. She was “categorically told” by the judge that following reading her correspondence with landlord that it had been incorrect in directing her to this course of action. She had “a terrible time” with the barrister and the judge, having to justify why she was scared of her ex-husband but it was “insufficient to grant her protection”. The “hoops” the landlord had put her through were “incorrect”.
According to internal note of 9 April 2021, the resident chased for a response.
She wrote on 17 April 2021 with a further complaint as follows:
1. The court had said that order the landlord “demanded“ was not appropriate.
2. The landlord had not responded her to her, despite being chased.
3. She could not afford to live at the property, let alone her other circumstances. She requested a rent reduction.
4. She requested a move to an appropriate property as soon as possible without having to find a social exchange partner. She also sought compensation for being provided with incorrect advice.
5. She also requested that the landlord review its policy regarding domestic abuse and offer her an apology.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 26 April 2021. The resident had reported that she had applied for a non-molestation order and an occupation order which the Judge declined on the grounds that her fears were not reasonable as the reported incidents were historic and her ex-husband had not been in occupation for several years and would not return. It was not good practice for a landlord to offer opinionated advice on ending a joint tenancy. The resident wanted reassurances she would be given a sole tenancy. The landlord had provided a joint to sole application form. The landlord would consider her request as it had the discretion to issue a sole tenancy in cases of domestic abuse. She had explained the need to move away from her current home which it fully understood and wished to support her with.
The landlord recorded on 13 May 2021 that following the MP enquiry and complaint, due to mitigating circumstances, it had agreed to the resident having a sole tenancy, by the resident surrendering her tenancy and the landlord regranting a fresh tenancy.
The resident submitted a NTQ dated 24 April 2021 effective 23 May 2021.
The landlord signed a “joint to sole” form dated 2 June 2021. The notes were added stating “Agreed by RM that due to current circumstances joint to sole can be approved. Discretionary decision as a victim of Domestic Abuse and impact on current mental wellbeing. Also property is too large and affecting (the resident) financially”. There was an in-house request to sign the resident as a sole occupant.
The resident wrote on 20 June 2021 that she believed that her son entered her home without permission and had stolen items on behalf of his father. She explained her distress. She was chasing the tenancy agreement. She referred to the condition of the property.
The landlord placed the case on hold on 22 June 2021, pending further clarification needed regarding its decision.
The original officer wrote internally on 23 June 2021 that on the advice of its in-house solicitor, lettings would not be “converting” the tenancy from a joint to sole. It had advised that one person can end the tenancy but it would end the tenancy for both residents. It could not end the tenancy and sign the resident back up on the existing tenancy, unless the resident had been offered a transfer. The resident had been informed that the tenancy would “be converted” from a joint to sole tenancy.
The landlord replied on the same day and gave advice regarding downsizing. The landlord added that it thought that it had responded to the resident’s complaint. If issues were still outstanding, the resident would have to refer back to the previous officer.
There followed an internal discussion between teams about the status of the tenancy and whether it could be “converted” from joint to sole and/or the tenancy surrendered and a new tenancy granted. The objections consisted of the policy forbidding the change, the legal advice that a NTQ ended a tenancy and that the tenancy was an “IMR” and/or a mortgage rescue tenancy. It stated that the landlord had signed the resident to the “wrong tenancy”. There was also some discussion about which team should deal with the matter. The solution was to offer the resident a direct let but grounds were required to do so.
On 29 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it was making further enquiries and that the property was a mortgage rescue property.
The resident wrote on 1 July 2021 that the email told her very little. She had tried to research the term “mortgage rescue property”. She expressed her distress and how the situation was a trigger to that distress. She asked how to downsize.
The landlord wrote on 13 August 2021, stating that it had prepared a report requesting a direct offer of accommodation and the request was approved at a panel meeting on 6 August 2021. It explained the conditions of the offer. It would not be able to predict how long the process would take.
The report set out the resident’s personal and financial circumstances, and referrals that had been made to assist her. It stated that the ex-husband had “not submitted a termination”.
The landlord wrote on 4 September 2021 with its stage one complaint response. It noted it had awarded her priority “for a transfer” and the rehousing team would identify and make a direct offer which would resolve the issue. The previous advice given to her regarding a joint to sole tenancy application was correct at that time. It did not uphold her complaint for that reason but awarded a discretionary payment of £100 for the unacceptable delay in progressing the complaint. It had done what it could to resolve the complexities of the case.
The resident replied the next day that she did not accept the findings. The court stated that she had been advised incorrectly by the landlord. The advice agency proposed a solution which the landlord had arrived to eventually. She set out the impact on her mental health and work. She reported that it seemed to her that help was only available when there was immediate danger from an abuser. She felt that there seems to be no comprehension of the long-term effects of domestic abuse. She was not reassured that it had done what it could, especially in a timely manner. She was not satisfied that lessons had been learned and that apologies were sincere. She had “slipped through the cracks”. She saw no reason why the direct offer could not have happened much sooner. She asked the landlord to escalate the complaint.
According to the landlord’s records at the time, the husband called the landlord on 10 September 2021. He had left the property in 2016. The landlord sent him a “Notice to Quit Application” in March 2021 which he completed and returned.
An internal note of 19 October 2021 noted that there was no policy in relation to re-housing an individual joint tenant where there has been historical domestic abuse in the past.
The landlord wrote on 27 October 2021 with its stage two complaint response as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay due to having an increased volume of work.
2. The request for Joint Tenancy to be changed to Sole Tenancy was unsuccessful due to the Occupation Order being rejected by the court.
3. The landlord could legally only change tenancy contracts either by the agreement of both of the joint tenants or by “instruction” from the court.
4. On 3 September 2021, the landlord approved a direct let, placed the resident on its priority housing list and requested the assistance of the local authority for a reciprocal transfer, subject to availability.
5. Once an agreed property has been identified and accepted, the change of tenancy from joint to sole on which property would be completed.
6. A downsize payment or credit would be provided for the total of £500.
7. It fully recognised the time, effort, and inconvenience this matter “may have” caused. It therefore offered £300 consisting of the initial £100 relating to the unacceptable delay on progressing the complaint, £100 for the time and effort this matter “may have” caused “leading up to her request for the complaint to be escalated” and £100 for the delay to her request on 5 September 2021 for escalation to stage two.
On 20 December 2021, the landlord granted a new tenancy agreement at another property which began on of a one-bedroom flat.

Assessment and findings

On the basis it was likely the landlord was aware of the resident’s circumstances, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not warn the resident that she would not be able to exchange with another tenant as matters stood. It was also concerning that the landlord could not easily identify the type of tenancy she held. This caused a delay.
The initial suggestion that the resident should apply for a court order in order to transfer the tenancy to her sole name was reasonable. A landlord is not entitled to or legally able to “remove” a tenant from, or end, a tenancy without court proceedings.
There are good policy reasons for referring the resident to the court. The landlord would have to take care as to appearing to take sides or appearing to influence residents’ decisions. In many situations, the landlord cannot make a decision as to who out of joint tenants should retain the tenancy. However, the landlord should not apply its policy strictly and should consider any exceptional circumstances. This is a matter of law in relation to a public body, as well as the Ombudsman’s expectation.
However, once the resident highlighted her particular circumstances, and appealed for help, and in particular the medical evidence of 2019, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not consider alternatives. The landlord would be in the best position to suggest an alternative to making a court application.
It was not reasonable that the landlord persisted in not addressing the specific suggestions of the resident and her advisor, that she end the tenancy and the landlord grant her a fresh tenancy, either at the same or another property. As the advice agency pointed out, there is, and was, no barrier in law to that suggestion. While the landlord was entitled to consider its position should her ex-husband return to the property, the reasons it gave appear to conflate the situation of an assignment of the property to the remaining resident, with a partner ending the tenancy and being granted a fresh tenancy. The landlord would not be entitled to, or legally able to, unilaterally assign a tenancy from one joint tenant to another, nor would it have an obligation to grant a fresh tenancy if a tenant had ended the existing tenancy. However, there is no reason in law (though there may be in policy) not to offer a fresh tenancy where a tenant had ended it. The landlord unreasonably failed to address the advice agency’s suggestion at that juncture.
It was also unreasonable that, after having been informed by the resident that her son had left the property, the landlord did not consider her options in the light of the resident under occupying the property. It could have placed her on its rehousing list on that basis alone. This would have been in line with its lettings policy, as a way to make the best use of its stock, as well as in line with government policy and so that the resident would avoid the “bedroom tax” (if applicable), in addition to the resident’s own circumstances and wishes.
The landlord’s transfer policy cited that the landlord had the discretion to offer the resident a fresh sole tenancy under its DVA policy and the DVA policy stated that it would consider and prioritise a management move. It is noted that the purpose of the policy was to keep the resident safe from imminent risk rather than address the resident’s PTSD. The landlord noted on 19 October 2020 that its policy did not cover historical abuse. However, this did not prevent the landlord from considering the resident’s particular circumstances.
Its lack of meaningful response, making a decision without explaining its reasons, for example for not contacting her ex-husband and its suggestion that the resident should make a complaint, would have given the resident the impression that the landlord did not appreciate the effects of domestic abuse and a lack of understanding of the resident’s trauma.
It is noted that the landlord suggested that the resident should seek an “occupation order”. That was inappropriate as the correct order the resident should have been seeking was an order for a transfer of tenancy. The evidence indicated that it was an occupation order that the resident applied for. If that was the case, this may explain why her application to the court was rejected. However, the landlord’s suggestion was to seek independent advice and she had the assistance of the advice agency, so fault is not attributed to the landlord in that regard. However, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard to be careful about the terms the landlord uses and to be cautious about using legal terms, in particular given that its policy was not to give advice.
The landlord also failed at this point to address the resident’s concerns about contacting her husband by either direct contact or making a court application. The landlord was entitled to be cautious. Contact could also have prompted the ex-husband to end the tenancy, leaving the resident in a potentially difficult position. It would not appear to be unreasonable for the landlord to contact the ex-husband to invite him consider his options. The later evidence indicated that the landlord did contact the ex-husband and he had purported to end the tenancy (though there was no evidence that he had in fact done so) in order to avoid rent liability.
There was some further delay in February 2021, due to there being confusion about what the landlord could and could not do and an apparent reluctance to engage with the advice agency.
It was reasonable of the landlord to seek legal advice The landlord officer reasonably pursued the legal advice in order to get clarity. However, it was not reasonable that the in-house advice did not appear to have considered the advice agency’s suggestion. It was also concerning that the in-house advisor was unable to explain their own advice. The outcome of the landlord in persisting in its previous position led to further delay.
The landlord would not have an obligation to offer a rent reduction. It was appropriate, while there is no evidence of when the landlord did so, to refer the resident for benefits advice, in particular in relation to an application for a discretionary housing payment (DHP).
It was reasonable of the landlord to reconsider the matter in April 2021, although it is concerning that this appears to have only occurred as a result of an enquiry by the resident’s MP. The result was that the landlord applied its reasonable discretion and agreed that it would grant a fresh tenancy at the property at the property if and when she surrendered her tenancy.
It was then unreasonable of the landlord to have blocked that decision. It framed a process of “converting” a tenancy from joint to a sole tenancy. At the same time, it referred to ending the tenancy and signing the resident back up. This demonstrated confusion between the two concepts, which again led to further delay.
The matter was further complicated by the discussion about the type of tenancy that was issued to the resident originally. The evidence indicated that under the mortgage rescue scheme the landlord would grant an assured shorthold tenancy, but that it had granted a assured tenancy in error. The resident would have a right to apply for a transfer of tenancy either way. The evidence also indicated that the tenancy fell within the landlord’s private rented stock. The discussion appeared to conflate the type of tenancy with the issue whether the property was part of its social housing stock. If the latter, then it would be reasonable that the landlord would not agree to a transfer from its private housing stock to its social housing stock. That is because social housing stock is regulated and is subject to allocation agreements between the landlord and local authority. Social housing is a scarce resource which has to be allocated fairly. However, there was no evidence that this aspect formed part of the landlord’s reasoning.
The reasoning within the internal discussions of June 2021 was not clear, and while the evidence indicated that the landlord was willing to resolve the matter, there was uncertainty about how to address the issue and which team should do so. The impression was that there was no overall understanding or proper analysis of the situation. The discussion continued to refer to “converting” the tenancy, when the landlord was looming to granting a new one, which confused the issue. While they communicated with each other, each team worked within its own remit without a broad shared understanding and knowledge of the various categories of the landlord’s stock and different types of tenancies. This created further delay for the resident.
Given the presenting issues, including varying awareness in areas of housing law, the Ombudsman will make both an order and a recommendation in that regard. It was particularly concerning that the landlord’s decision of April 2021 to apply its discretion and grant a new tenancy was inappropriately blocked on the basis of the law.
Informing the resident that the property was a mortgage rescue property, would not give her any insight into the issues and was not a meaningful update or explanation for the delay.
The landlord reasonably sought to resolve the matter by offering the resident a direct let. This was a benefit to the resident, as she would now be paying a social rather than a market rent. It was also a reasonable exercise of the landlord’s discretion to grant her a priority direct let. The landlord was in any event in a difficult position having made a promise to the resident in the first place.
There followed a further unexplained delay before the application for a direct let was considered. However, the evidence showed that the landlord framed the internal application for a direct let helpfully.
Any delays thereafter were due to the availability of stock and fault is not attributed to the landlord in that regard. Indeed, the evidence showed that the landlord was proactive in working with the local authority in seeking to procure a property for the resident.
The matter was not straightforward. The landlord was entitled to first consider alternative options. Ultimately, the landlord exercised its reasonable discretion and resolved the resident’s issue by offering her a direct let. A further application for an exchange would not necessarily have taken less time to secure a property than the direct let. However, there were unreasonable delays. The resident had not been given proper guidance when pursuing an exchange. While there was evidence of a will to find a solution, the landlord appeared at times to be slow to appreciate the resident’s difficulties. It was concerning that it took the contact by the resident’s MP to prompt a resolution. The landlord was also appeared to be hampered by a lack of clear reasoning and proper due attention to the matter. This led to the landlord not taking a decision to resolve the matter till August 2021.
While the landlord made some recognition of the delay by its offer of £100 in compensation, the landlord did not recognise its failings in its decision making or the impact on the resident, the distress that she described, given her vulnerability and her difficult circumstances. Failings included not providing guidance on her exchange application, the prevarication over regranting her a sole tenancy, and the delay in offering a direct let. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find its offer of a direct let, though significant in terms of a resolution, reasonable redress. If the landlord had not identified an alternative solution, the Ombudsman would have found maladministration rather than service failure.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

It was unreasonable of the landlord to treat the resident’s complaint of 12 January 2021 as an “enquiry”. It is recognised that the advice agency letter stated that the resident did not wish to make a complaint but sought “a fresh look”. However, the communication was clearly a complaint, and the landlord did not seek clarification. The agency had asked for a fresh look and a constructive solution. The response did not produce either. It merely reiterated its policy, including an irrelevant portion regarding the departing tenant.
There was then a significant delay to the first stage complaint response from 18 January 2021 to 4 September 2021. There was some uncertainty whether the landlord had responded to the resident’s complaint and asked her to refer back to a different officer. The response did not recognise that, while some of its position was correct, it was not correct in all aspects as highlighted in this report. To state the advice was correct “at that time” was unreasonable. The circumstances had not changed, apart from the failed court application, only the landlord’s attitude had changed.
There was a further delay to the second stage response from 5 September 2021 to 27 October 2021. The second stage response only repeated the contents of the first response. There was no meaningful review or recognition of the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord offered £200 compensation for its delays, in recognition of the delays in its complaint handling. While the landlord by that stage had offered a solution, the landlord failed to review the process, or address the resident’s particular points including of the complaint handing that it had “downgraded“ her initial complaint. It did not recognise its failings and therefore there was no evidence that it had learnt any lessons. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find the offer of £200 to be reasonable redress and finds service failure. The Ombudsman would have found maladministration had the landlord not recognised its delays and not offered compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to change her tenancy from a joint to a sole tenancy and for a move.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord identified a solution to the resident’s request, and while there were complex issues for the landlord to consider, there was an unnecessary delay due to the landlord’s prevarication and failing to exercise its discretion sooner.
While the landlord recognised its significant delays to its complaint handling, it failed to address the resident’s points or carry out a meaningful review.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £700, including the £300 offered to the resident, as follows:
  1. An additional amount of £300 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to change her tenancy from a joint to a sole tenancy and for a move.
  2. An additional amount of £100 in relation to landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Given the presenting issues highlighted in this report, including a lack of understanding of the nature of the tenancies and the underlying reasons behind the landlord’s policies, legal and otherwise, a senior member of staff at Director level should review this report and consider service improvements including as suggested by the recommendations below. The Director should then write to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks of this report in order to indicate what steps will be taken in that regard.
3. The landlord should confirm compliance of these orders to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider publishing its policies on its website, in order to improve transparency and information.
2. The landlord should consider delivering external and internal training to all staff dealing with lettings in all teams so that they understand the nature of the different stock across the landlord, the nature of the tenancies, the distinction between its private and social housing stock, and an understanding of how its teams are organised.
3. The landlord should consider delivering training regarding the effects of historical domestic abuse, the reasons behind its policy and provide guidance as to the issues the landlord should consider when seeking to depart from a policy, including referring to a senior member of staff.
4. The landlord should deliver training as to the terms its uses and to be cautious about using legal terms, in particular given its policy not to give legal advice.
5. The landlord should ensure that it logs and diarises complaints and complaints responses, ensures that complaint emails are not missed, and avoid referring a resident to different teams, rather take ownership and ensures itself that a complaint is being addressed.
6. The landlord should ensure that it carries out a meaningful review of its complaints in order to identify its failings, reasons for delays, and how it could learn and improve its service.
7. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.