Citizen Housing Group Limited (202328004)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328004

Citizen Housing

6 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation, including its decision not to grant this as a permanent tenancy.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. She resides in the 3-bedroom property with her son and niece, who are neurodiverse and have learning difficulties. She has told this Service she has fibromyalgia and arthritis.
The landlord moved the resident and her family into temporary accommodation on 2 August 2023. This is so it could conduct structural works to her home, which it anticipated would take up to 4 months.
On 17 October 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. She stated:
1. She had to decorate the temporary accommodation herself despite being disabled and a single mum. In doing so, she sustained an injury to her leg and back.
2. Her housing officer had told her she could stay in the accommodation permanently but their manager had overridden this.
3. Her children felt anxious about returning to the original property. She referenced their vulnerabilities and explained her son had become attached to the temporary accommodation and it was closer to her niece’s school and friends.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 31 October 2023 and stated the following:
1. It had considered her request, but to allow her to stay would disadvantage other residents who were on the housing list as she would be ‘jumping the queue’.
2. It said it had told her she would need to return to the property when it had completed works and she had signed an agreement to this effect.
3. The neighbourhood officer denied saying she could remain in the temporary accommodation.
4. It apologised for the personal difficulties her family were facing but said she would need to return to the property in line with its policies and procedures.
The resident escalated her complaint the following day. She acknowledged she had agreed to return to the property after the landlord had completed works but felt it should allow her to stay. She said:
1. The neighbourhood officer had said she could stay in front of her children who accepted they would remain there.
2. She was a good tenant and had no rent arrears.
3. She would struggle to pack and move back home due to the injuries she had sustained.
4. Further work was required in the property and she was not prepared to move back until it had completed this.
5. She should not have had to decorate the temporary accommodation herself.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 29 November 2023 and stated the following:
1. She would need to return to her property when work was complete.
2. It said it had found no evidence the neighbourhood officer told her she could stay and reiterated this was not in line with its policies.
3. The process for seeking a permanent move was through ‘homefinder’ or mutual exchange. She should seek medical advice if she felt the home was no longer suitable due to her injuries.
4. Its surveyor confirmed it had completed repairs to an acceptable standard and she would be able to inspect the home before moving back in.
The resident returned to the home on 2 January 2024. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wants it to find her suitable alternative accommodation.

Assessment and findings

In both her complaint and escalation request, the resident said she had to redecorate the temporary accommodation herself upon moving in. She felt this was the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord provided a void checklist for the property prior to the resident moving in. This identified several repairs which the landlord said it completed, and it replaced the carpets and blinds. Otherwise, the checklist identified the standard of decoration to be ‘good’ across all areas. Prior to the resident moving in, it also provided a decoration allowance so she could paint the property. Based on this, the landlord took reasonable measures to ensure the property was in a lettable condition.
However, the resident noted she was a single mum and disabled in her complaint, and felt on this basis the landlord should have decorated the property. The landlord’s repairs policy states it may complete works which are the responsibility of the resident at its discretion, considering their vulnerabilities and specific needs.
It is not clear whether it was aware of the resident’s circumstances when choosing to provide an allowance rather than painting the property itself. Nor is it clear the resident requested support with this at the time. It is therefore not reasonable to find fault with the landlord on this point. However, it should have explained its position or apologised in its complaint response. The resident felt it had treated her unfairly and its failure to address this caused her frustration.
The landlord sets out how it lets its properties in its lettings policy and tenancy management policy. In most cases, it lets its properties through a local council or other partnership ‘choice-based lettings scheme’, known as ‘homefinder’. It does not keep its own housing list and housing priority is determined by the council or scheme operator. There are occasions where it may let its properties outside of choice-based lettings to help it meet the needs of its residents.
It may consider a discretionary move where there are circumstances that seriously impact on the health or wellbeing of the resident if they were to remain in their original home. It gives an example of a medical condition that will cause permanent damage or disability if the resident does not move.
Its tenancy conditions manual also notes that, where it needs to complete works to the tenancy, which it cannot do with the resident in situ, it will move the resident to temporary accommodation for as long as it takes to carry out the works. The resident is required to move back to their home when the works are complete.
The landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures in moving the resident to temporary accommodation and asking her to return to her main home. While it could have exercised discretion, it was not required to. It gave an appropriate explanation of its policy position and noted it would not be fair to other residents on the housing list if it deterred from this.
The resident said the neighbourhood officer told her she could remain in the home. The resident noted her children have autism and it was particularly detrimental for them that the landlord changed its position, as they had accepted they would be staying. She felt on this basis it should allow the family to stay.
The landlord said it had investigated the resident’s concerns. It said the officer denied saying this and it had found no evidence this was the case. We do not dispute the resident’s position but based on the available evidence we are unable to determine what was said and any fault on the landlord’s part.
The landlord apologised for any ‘misleading communications’, especially if these happened in the presence of her family. Its internal communications show it asked its team leaders to review its decant policies and procedures with all neighbourhood officers, to ensure they were aware of its process and approach.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to explore and address the resident’s concerns which showed it took her concerns seriously. It explained that, despite this, it could not deter from its policy, which was reasonable, and its apology demonstrated empathy. While it was understandably distressing for the resident to feel the landlord had retracted its offer of accommodation, the landlord’s response was fair.
The resident noted she had sustained injuries while decorating, which would impact on her ability to pack and return to the property. In its complaint response, the landlord directed the resident to request an occupational therapy assessment from her doctor if she felt her main home was no longer suitable based on her injuries.
While it was fair of the landlord to signpost the resident for additional support, it did not directly address her concerns about packing and moving. It subsequently arranged for a removal company to assist, but it is not clear if this extended to support with packing. It should have responded on this point, and either explored whether she required further assistance, or outlined the support it would provide.
In her escalation request, the resident also shared that her son had threatened to self-harm and her niece said she would run away if they had to move. These were serious concerns and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explored whether she had any support or would like it to refer her to support services. The landlord is in the process of implementing a vulnerability policy, in which it notes there are a variety of support services available to its residents. It notes staff should make safeguarding referrals or liaise with other agencies as appropriate. We have recommended that it train its staff on the policy once it has implemented this.
The resident also raised concerns about the condition of her home and said she was not prepared to move back in until all works were complete. Specifically, in an email to the landlord on 2 November 2023, she requested that it address or replace:
1. Cracks which had appeared in the walls.
2. The guttering and facias which she said contained asbestos and were rotting.
3. A gap at the bottom of the front door.
4. 3 aerials which she had purchased, 2 of which were missing and 1 was damaged following its works.
The landlord had not completed the works at this time. The complaint handler confirmed they had passed her queries on to the building surveyor who said she would have the chance to inspect the property before returning. At the time of its final complaint response, its surveyor confirmed it had repaired the home to an acceptable standard and said it had addressed all her concerns. This was except for the door which it said it would address in line with ‘supply.’ The resident returned to the property in January 2024.
It was understandable the resident wanted it to fully complete the works before she returned home. The landlord acted reasonably by passing her concerns on to its repairs team and gave her the opportunity to view the property before returning. As such, we have found no fault with the landlord on this.
The resident raised further concerns about the condition of her home following her return. This included damp and mould, and further cracks in her walls. She also said her kitchen tiles were lifting and her floor was crumbling. As these issues were identified following her return to the home, and she did not raise them as part of her complaint, we cannot consider them as part of this investigation. The landlord should ensure it addresses any repairs raised by the resident in line with its policies and procedures.
Overall, the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s move to temporary accommodation. It provided a reasonable explanation of its decision not to grant this as a permanent tenancy. However, we have found service failure based on how it responded to concerns about the family’s vulnerability. This includes its failure to act on comments she made about the children’s wellbeing. It should also have provided its position on its responsibility for redecoration based on her disability. The landlord did not do enough to demonstrate it had considered these concerns in its complaint response, or otherwise.
It should compensate the resident £100 for any distress and inconvenience she experienced that it could have alleviated by coordinating additional support or by simply responding to her concerns.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation, including its decision not to grant this as a permanent tenancy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failure to respond to her reports and concerns about the family’s vulnerability.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress caused by its failings.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure training for staff on its vulnerability policy once implemented.