Soho Housing Association Limited — case 202311656

Decision Case ID 202311656 Decision type Investigation Landlord Soho Housing Association Limited Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Secure Tenancy Date 10 April 2026 Background The resident succeeded the tenancy in September 2017 after the death of his civil partner, whose tenancy began in 1987. The landlord initially issued assured tenancy paperwork but later confirmed in October 2017 that the resident had succeeded to a secure tenancy. In 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again after it gave conflicting advice about his tenancy status, which led him to raise a formal complaint.

What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of: the resident’s concerns about the error in the tenancy‑type record following succession the resident’s request to add a household member the associated complaint Our decision (determination) We have found the landlord responsible for: reasonable redress in its handling of resident’s concerns about the error in the tenancy‑type record following succession reasonable redress in its handling of the resident’s request to add a household member service failure in its handling of the associated complaint We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons The handling of the resident’s concerns about the error in the tenancy‑type record following succession The landlord recognised its failings, apologised and offered redress which we consider reasonable. The handling of the resident’s request to add a household member The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised, and offered compensation for the distress and inconvenience it caused. The associated complaint The landlord delayed in issuing both complaint responses and went some ways to put things right but the compensation it offered did not reflect the extent of these delays.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £100 made up as follows: £30 previously offered in its stage 2 response for its complaint handling £70 additional for the time and trouble in its complaint handling The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid.

The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. No later than 08 May 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The landlord should pay the resident the £50 offered in its stage 2 response for the miscommunication following his request to add his wife to his tenancy agreement. Our finding of reasonable redress was based on that offer being paid.

The landlord should pay the resident the £50 offered in its stage 2 response for the miscommunication surrounding the tenancy type. Our finding of reasonable redress was based on that offer being paid. The landlord should contact the resident to confirm how he can add his wife as a household member. It should clearly explain the process, set out what information or documents it requires to consider the request, and confirm how it will update its records once this information is provided.

This will help ensure the resident understands the next steps and reduce the risk of further confusion. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 26 June 2023 The resident contacted the landlord to complain. In summary, he said: he did not want to change his tenancy to a 5‑year assured tenancy his tenancy should be secure, not assured emails from October 2017 showed his housing officer confirmed, after legal advice, that he succeeded to a secure tenancy those emails also said he did not need to sign a new agreement the landlord’s recent replies wrongly referred to an assured or 5‑year tenancy Between September 2023 and October 2023 We contacted the landlord 3 times as below: on 20 September 2023 and asked it to send the stage 1 response by 27 September 2023 on 28 September 2023 and asked for the response by 5 October 2023 on 6 October 2023 to warn that we would issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) if it did not reply and set a final deadline of 13 October 2023 13 October 2023 The landlord issued its stage 1 response.

In summary, it said: the original tenancy had been granted to his late partner, and the resident succeeded to the tenancy in 2017 an administrative error meant he was incorrectly issued an assured tenancy, and the landlord apologised for this because the landlord is not the freeholder, the correct tenancy should have been a 5‑year AST rather than an assured tenancy to add his wife as a joint tenant, the current tenancy would need to be surrendered and a new 5‑year fixed‑term tenancy issued in both names alternatively, the landlord could add his wife as a household member, but any future succession would be at its discretion 16 October 2023 We asked the landlord to provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days, by 20 November 2023.

22 November 2023 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. In summary, for the tenancy succession: it said the resident should have automatically succeeded his late partner’s tenancy in 2017 it accepted it made an error by asking him to sign a new assured tenancy it apologised for the confusion and confirmed he holds a secure tenancy it explained that, because 1 statutory succession has already taken place, any further succession would only be at the landlord’s discretion it partially upheld this part of the complaint and offered £50 for the miscommunication for adding a household member: it said it was not able to add the resident’s wife as a joint tenant it explained it could add her as a household member but it won’t give her succession rights it apologised for earlier advice suggesting the tenancy should be surrendered, as this was based on the incorrect belief that the resident held an assured tenancy it upheld this part of the complaint and offered £50 for the unclear advice for complaint handling: the landlord offered £30 for the delay in logging and responding to the resident’s initial complaint The total compensation offered was £130 Referral to the Ombudsman The resident brought his complaint to us.

In summary, he said: he repeated the concerns he had already raised with the landlord about the error in the tenancy‑type record following the 2017 succession he continued to believe he should hold a secure tenancy, and said the landlord had not addressed this or explained why it would not issue the correct agreement he said the landlord had given inconsistent information and had not resolved the matter despite him providing documents that, in his view, supported his entitlement he wanted the landlord to recognise his statutory succession to a secure tenancy he wanted the landlord to correct its records and issue him with a copy of the secure tenancy agreement What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. Complaint The handling of the resident’s concerns about the error in the tenancy‑type record following succession Finding Reasonable redress Where a secure tenancy began before 1 April 2012, the law allows a qualifying family member to succeed the tenancy if the property was their only or main home for the 12 months before the tenant’s death.

Section 87 of the Housing Act 1985 sets out this right. The original tenancy for the property began in 1987. However, the tenancy agreement the landlord provided from that period was incomplete and did not clearly show the tenancy’s status. The resident succeeded to the tenancy in September 2017 after the previous resident passed away. Where a secure tenancy exists and the conditions apply, the successor takes over that same tenancy. Despite this, the landlord issued paperwork in 2017 that wrongly described the tenancy as assured.

On 17 October 2017 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had taken further advice and now accepted that he succeeded to the original secure tenancy. It told him to destroy the assured tenancy agreement and confirmed it had done the same itself. Between May and June 2023, the resident and the landlord exchanged several emails about the tenancy status. The resident consistently said he held a secure tenancy and relied on the landlord’s 2017 correspondence and legal advice.

He asked the landlord either to issue the secure tenancy agreement or to explain clearly why it would not do so. During this period, the landlord repeatedly referred the resident back to its email of 12 May 2023. It continued to describe the tenancy as assured or fixed term and suggested meetings instead of addressing the key issue. It did not properly review or respond to the evidence the resident had already provided. This led the resident to make a formal complaint on 26 June 2023.

The landlord failed to keep accurate tenancy records and to provide correct information. It had already identified and corrected the tenancy status with the resident in an email in October 2017 but made the same mistake again in 2023. Its stage 1 complaint response did not show that it reviewed its own records or earlier advice. This caused avoidable confusion and forced the resident to spend time and effort repeatedly explaining his tenancy position. Poor record keeping played a central role in this case.

The landlord did not retain or refer to key correspondence, which led it to give inconsistent and incorrect information. However, at stage 2 the landlord took more appropriate action. It carried out a thorough review, accepted that the tenancy was secure, corrected the information, apologised, and offered £50 compensation. It also confirmed that a statutory succession does not require a new agreement, because the successor takes over the original secure tenancy. The redress it offered aligns with our compensation guidance for cases where service failures had a clear impact.

We consider the apology and the compensation to be reasonable redress for the delay and its impact on the resident. Complaint The handling the resident’s request to add a household member Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s succession policy says there may be only 1 statutory succession. There can be no statutory succession if the deceased resident was already a successor. Succession can also not take place if there has already been an assignment to someone who was qualified to succeed.

The landlord has not provided any previous correspondence about the resident’s request to add his wife to the tenancy. In the absence of this information, we are unable to clarify how the landlord considered the request at the time or what advice it gave to the resident. At stage 1, the landlord said the resident would need to surrender his tenancy to add his wife as a joint tenant, after which it would offer a new 5‑year fixed‑term tenancy. It also said it could add the resident’s wife as a household member but that any future succession would be at its discretion.

While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain its policy on joint tenancies and household members, this advice relied on an incorrect understanding of the resident’s tenancy type. This made the advice unclear and not fully reasonable in the circumstances. At stage 2, the landlord accepted that it had given unclear and incorrect advice at stage 1. It corrected its position, explained that the resident could add his wife as a household member but not as a joint tenant, and confirmed there is no statutory right to assign a secure tenancy where a succession has already taken place.

This was in line with its succession policy. The landlord apologised for the earlier confusion, upheld this part of the complaint, and offered compensation. These actions show that the landlord accepted responsibility and took steps to put matters right. The apology and compensation offered were reasonable and align with our compensation guidance for cases where a landlord has acknowledged its failings and made proportionate efforts to resolve the issue. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Service failure Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints.

The relevant code in this case was the 2022 edition. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s policy was compliant with the Code. At stage 1, the complaint policy says the landlord would acknowledge within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. If this could not be met, it should have agreed an extension of up to a further 10 working days with the resident. At stage 2, the policy says the landlord would respond within 20 working days. If this could not be met, it should have agreed an extension of up to a further 10 working days with the resident.

The resident contacted the landlord on 26 June 2023 to complain. He later contacted us because the landlord did not respond. As explained above, we contacted the landlord 3 times to request the stage 1 response and set clear deadlines for it to reply. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 13 October 2023, 79 working days after receiving the complaint. This was not in line with the Code or its policy. The landlord did not provide evidence it acknowledged the complaint. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 22 November 2023, which was 2 days later than the date we asked it to and therefore not in line with the Code.

While the landlord offered compensation for the delay in providing its staged 1 response, we do not consider the amount proportionate. It only responded after we intervened several times and warned that a CHFO might be issued. The landlord did not follow its own policy or the Code and gave no reason for the long delay. We have ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation to reflect the time and trouble it caused the resident in pursuing a reply. This is in line with our compensation guidance for where it has acknowledged its complaint handling, made some attempts to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation.

Learning The landlord should consider how it shares information so that its understand the full history and give accurate advice from the start. A more joined‑up approach would help prevent repeated errors, reduce unnecessary escalation, and give residents greater confidence in how their enquiries is handled. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord should ensure it records key decisions and correspondence accurately and makes this information easy to access.

Better record keeping would help it give consistent advice, avoid repeat mistakes, and reduce unnecessary distress and effort for residents in future cases. Communication As with the record keeping, the landlord’s poor communication in this case likely led to a loss of confidence by the resident. A key issue in this case appeared to be the internal communication and inconsistencies in following the succession process. Given the importance of succession decisions to an applicant’s housing status and security, it is vital these are communicated clearly, in an accessible manner and well-reasoned.