Clarion Housing Association Limited (202207045)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207045

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 January 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. The condition of the property upon letting.
2. Sanctuary repairs requested due to history of being a victim of domestic violence.
3. Her request for a housing transfer due to her concerns about her safety.
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy started on 28 January 2022 and ended in May 2023. The property has three bedrooms. It is indicated in the landlord’s internal communications that the resident has mental health issues.
The resident has a history of experiencing domestic abuse and was being supported by the domestic violence support services and social services. They are referred to as advocates in this report. Prior to the resident signing the tenancy agreement for the property, her former landlord (a local authority) and her advocates discussed arrangements for a sanctuary scheme process for the resident.
A sanctuary scheme is a multi-agency victim centred initiative which aims to enable households at risk of violence to remain safely in their own homes, by installing a “sanctuary” in the home and through provision of support to the household to the household.

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
Below is a summary of issues raised by the resident that have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints process:
1. a hole in the living room ceiling.
2. sewerage overflow.
3. ant and fly infestation.
4. its handling of her reports of possible asbestos in two bedrooms and the hallway of the property.
5. the renewal of the kitchen, bathroom and boiler which was promised but had not been completed.
As the above matters have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process, they would not be considered within this investigation. We may however consider the landlord’s handling of her complaint about these matters. The resident is advised to raise these matters with the landlord through its complaints process if she wishes to pursue its handling of them.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reference to the adverse effect that the landlord’s handling of this matter has had on her health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord obligations

The landlord published information on how it is helping to tackle domestic abuse on 21 December 2021. It states that it deals with domestic abuse and violence through a separate policy and procedure to its anti-social behaviour policy. It describes domestic abuse as a behaviour that could involve violence, threats or any behaviour to intimidate, harm, punish or frighten. It states that:
1. All its housing teams are trained in how to discuss and handle domestic abuse situations and offer support in providing extra security measures (including extra locks, personal alarms, extra lighting and a phone with a direct line to the police) or help signpost residents to seek alternative and safe accommodation or put the resident in touch with a refuge.
2. It recognises that residents have every right to feel save in their homes and would take reports of domestic abuse or violence extremely seriously.
3. If needed it will provide support in finding emergency accommodation or provide extra security measures if needed.
4. It will work the police, local councils, and other organisations.
It also published information about the safe at home project on its website. This helps to support residents at risk of post separation abuse by installing a CCTV device and solar lighting at their homes. It noted that this would provide reassurance and can also provide evidence to the police to prevent further issues. It said referral is through specialist agencies to support residents who are being re-housed due to domestic violence and those experiencing post separation abuse.
The landlord’s repairs policy incorporates the Homes Act 2018 (Fitness for Human Habitation) which requires all landlords to ensure that their properties, including common part of the building are fit for human habitation at the beginning of the tenancy and throughout. The Act states that there is an implied agreement between the tenant and landlord at the beginning of the tenancy that the property will be fit for human habitation. One of the principles of its voids process is to ensure that an empty property is inspected, repaired, cleaned and left in a safe and suitable state for re-letting as quickly as possible.
Its voids procedure states that it will undertake a number of safety checks and complete repair works, in line with its voids standard, before it is let to a new tenant.
The landlord’s repairs policy (effective July 2020 – December 2022) states that it aims to ensure that repairs to properties are carried out in a timely manner. It aims to complete:
1. Emergency repairs (a repair that presents an immediate danger to the resident or jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident) within 24 hours to carry out works to make safe or temporary repairs.
2. Non- emergency repairs within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The landlord’s management transfer policy recognises that in exceptional circumstances it is necessary to try and urgently rehouse a tenant outside of its allocations criteria due to a serious threat to their personal safety. It would rely on a management transfer in circumstances where:
1. Serious anti-social behaviour or harassment puts a resident’s life at risk or:
2. Domestic abuse is putting or likely to put the resident or a member of their household’s life at risk.
3. The police confirm in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to the tenant or their family that means it is no longer safe for them to continue living at the property and there is a realistic change of a suitable property becoming available quickly.
4. Where a tenant requests a management transfer but it has been refused it would inform the tenant of the reasons why a management transfer cannot be granted i.e. the case does not meet the criteria set out in this policy and that they have 10 working days to appeal in writing if they believe the decision is incorrect.
The landlord implemented an interim complaints policy effective from 17 June 2022. Under the policy it operates a two stage complaints process. Under the policy it aims to respond to stage one complaints received from within 20 working days and stage two complaints within 40 working days of the complaint being logged. For complaints logged before the 17 June 2022, it will contact the customer and try to progress these through to resolution. If it is unable to progress all or some aspects of the complaint it will manage their expectations.
The landlord’s compensation allows for financial payments of recompense for loss of service or where a resident has experienced unnecessary inconvenience.

Summary of events

The resident’s advocates contacted the landlord on 31 January 2022 to confirm if it was happy to fund the sanctuary scheme for the resident. They advised it that the resident was previously a tenant of a local authority and that there were sanctuary scheme measures at her previous property due to a history of domestic abuse experienced. They further advised that the previous landlord had suggested an assessment should take place at the new property to establish any safety concerns in the property. The landlord responded that the assessment should be sent to it once completed so that the repairs could be raised.
On 14 February 2022, the advocate contacted the landlord and provided a copy of the sanctuary scheme assessment. The following works were agreed:
1. Fix security lighting to the front and rear of the property.
2. Fit new back gate which should be solid wood with no gaps and fitted with a bolt at waist length on the inside of the gate.
3. Front door should be replaced where possible with a solid core door to PAS 24 standards in line with current building regulations. Current door had glass panes and only one locking point which was not considered to be secure by current standards..
4. Back door should ideally be replaced with a laminated glass and solid core door fitting with multipoint locking and mortice lock.
5. Windows should be checked to see if keys could be located for them, replaced or locks replaced. Check window restrictors that were already in place were working properly and had functioning keys.
6. Check the fence at the bottom of the garden as it appeared to be quite old and in need of replacement.
The landlord noted the repairs requested and passed it to the relevant team on 15 February 2022 and actions noted after this date are outlined below.
1. Security lighting to front and rear of the property. It telephoned the resident on 17 February 2022 to offer an appointment but it was unable get through. It was unable to leave a voicemail so it booked an appointment. It sent the resident a text on 29 March 2022 notifying her that its operative was on the way.
2. Back gate and fence. Records indicate the resident was contacted on 21 February 2022 that the operative was on his way. It later noted that nothing was wrong with the gate at 15:25pm on the day. It re-raised works for a new gate on 14 March 2022. Regarding the fence it arranged for an operative to attend. It texted her on 18 May 2022 that an operative would be with her between 15:20pm and 15:35pm. No notes on outcome of the visit.
3. Doors and windows. It contacted the resident on 23 February 2022 that an operative was on the way. The landlord noted that the resident reported on 24 February 2022 that a missed appointment card was dropped at the property. She informed the landlord that she had not yet moved into the property and was living in temporary accommodation nearby. She said she left a note on the door asking to be contacted when the operative was there.
4. The landlord noted that she would need to be contacted prior to the visit as she had not yet moved into the property.
The resident’s former landlord and her advocate chased the landlord for an update on the works between 25 February 2022 and 1 March 2022. They said the resident could not move in as the sanctuary works had not been completed.
The landlord responded on 2 March 2022 and provided the following update:
1. security lights – Appointment booked in for 29 March 2022 am
2. front door attended on 24 February 2022.
3. appointment for back door and windows booked for 7 March 2022 am
4. Gate and fence – awaiting date to be booked in.
The landlord sent a text to the resident on 7 March 2022 that an operative was on its way and would arrive between 8:30 and 8:45am.
The resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on 7 March 2022 that the resident was experiencing difficulties communicating with the landlord regarding the works. They said the resident left a note at the property that she was on school runs and would be available around 9:15am and for them to give her a call if they arrived earlier. However, she found a note left for her that the works had been rescheduled until 22 March 2022 but she did not receive a phone call. The resident further said there was no number to call them on and that she had been having difficulties contacting the right member of team to discuss matters with. They asked the landlord to avoid scheduling appointments during school drops or pick-ups for future works.
The landlord’s records indicate that it texted the resident on 8 March 2022 and 9 March 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s advocate on 10 March 2022 and advised that the missed appointment on 7 March 2022 had been rebooked for 5 April 2022 to resolve the back door and window repairs.
The landlord noted on 14 March 2022 that it received contact from the resident regarding the repair to her front door. It raised emergency works on 14 March 2022 to the windows as they would not lock. It noted that it needed to be safe due to her past experience of domestic violence.
The landlord’s repair records noted on 5 April 2022, that the resident made contact and asked for a full update on the repairs. It further noted that the new side entrance gate and lockable handles to all windows were done.
The advocate contacted the landlord on 30 May 2022 that some of the works agreed in the sanctuary scheme were still outstanding and that there were issues with cladding. They reported that the resident had tried to contact the landlord and written to a senior member of staff but had had no response. They advised that the resident was very distressed and did not feel settled in her home and asked whether she could be moved.
The landlord responded on 6 June 2022 and asked if the resident had contacted the repairs team if she had concerns about other repairs.
The landlord communicated internally regarding the resident’s repairs in light of her concerns about cladding. It noted that the only repair open was for the fencing which was scheduled for 21 June 2022.
The resident sent a letter of complaint to the landlord dated 9 June 2022. She complained that:
1. The property had incomplete repairs such as a hole in the living room ceiling, faulty back door, windows and the back gate could not shut. When she moved in sewerage was backing up from the toilet, all over the kitchen floor. She was made to sign the tenancy agreement on 28 January 2022 whilst the landlord knew there were issues outstanding.
2. She was assured at the time she signed the tenancy that the sanctuary repairs would be completed before she moved in.
3. She was being stalked and felt unsafe in the property and ignored whilst the sanctuary report had outlined what needed to be done. She sent an email to customer services four weeks ago but no one responded.
4. The repairs team sent a property inspector who expressed concerns about the state the house was in at the time it was let.
5. She was told by the repairs team they could not carry out the sanctuary repairs as the property had cladding all round it.
The resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on 14 June 2022 and asked for updates on the sanctuary works due to concerns expressed about the front door not being secure and the windows not locking. They also reported that the resident was feeling unsafe as she was being stalked by her ex-partner. The housing officer responded that other advocates had also made contact regarding this matter and the only outstanding repair was the fencing which had been booked for 21 June 2022. The officer further said they were not aware of any other outstanding repairs.
The advocate advised on 23 June 2022 that the resident wanted to be moved. They said the resident was convinced that she was being stalked by her ex-partner and that he had been making violent threats against her which she had reported to the police. They said they believed the issues were significantly impacting the resident’s wellbeing and asked if there was an option to move her. They further highlighted that the repairs to the front door, back door and fence had not been actioned as recommended in the sanctuary report. The landlord responded that it would follow up the outstanding repairs with the relevant teams. With regards to moving, it said it would need supporting evidence from the police and that the resident should also contact the local authority about moving.
The landlord informed the resident’s advocate on 23 June 2022 that the doors had been ordered and that it would normally take 8 to 12 weeks and an appointment would be arranged once in stock. It further noted in its internal emails that the gate had been fixed but not the fence.
The landlord informed the resident’s advocate on 27 June 2022 that the door installations and back fence renewal had been booked for 29 July 2022 as this was the earliest date available. It asked the social worker to inform the resident due to issues with its systems.
The advocate responded on 28 June 2022 that the resident had asked if the doors could be fitted sooner than 29 July 2022. She was concerned that a month was a long time to be in the property amidst her concerns of safety. They asked if the landlord could put measures in place such as cameras, to help her feel safer in the home if the appointment could not be moved forward. The landlord responded that it was unable to offer an earlier appointment. It also said it was unable to provide a camera and asked if the resident had a domestic abuse kit from the police. It also asked if she had a location of interest marker (LOI) marker.
The landlord and the resident’s advocates communicated in a number of emails on 1 July 2022. They said:
1. there was an LOI marker and a domestic abuse kit from the police.
2. the landlord should confirm that the doors would definitely be fitted, as she was previously informed that the cladding outside the home would make it impossible.
3. the resident was feeling unsafe as a police officer visited her home and advised that it would be very easy for someone to access the property through the front door. It asked the landlord to respond with what action it was going to take to keep the resident and her children safe. They also asked if the resident could be provided with temporary accommodation until the property was more secure.
The landlord responded that the same day that:
1. it was unable to answer the question about the doors and said its surveyor had confirmed that the appointment had been arranged.
2. The resident should contact her local authority to request temporary accommodation as it did not offer them being a housing association.
3. It noted the resident’s safety concerns and acknowledged the delays as the doors had to be ordered. It asked if the domestic abuse kit was being used and if there were any orders such as a non-molestation order and restraining order. It also asked if a refuge had been considered for the resident.
4. It reiterated that an order would provide extra safeguarding for the resident as the courts would take the matter up if it was breached.
The advocate responded that they would ask her to make contact with them to see if a refuge placement needed to be considered whilst she waited for the doors to be fitted.
The landlord’s records noted that it received a police report dated 1 July 2022. It noted that an incident was reported by the resident on 13 June 2022.
The landlord noted on 5 July 2022 that it spoke to the police officer who attended the incident. They advised that there was no evidence, but that the door could be opened if someone put their hand in the letter box and they requested another door jammer.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 11 July 2022 and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint by 25 July 2022. In addition to the issues raised in her letter of 9 June 2021, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to also consider the issues raised to this Service which were:
1. Its handling of her reports of possible asbestos in two rooms and the hallway of her property.
2. Renewal works to the kitchen, bathroom and boiler which had not yet been done.
The landlord responded to this Service on 12 July 2022 that it had experienced some disruption to its systems following a cyber security incidence and could not check its systems. It said it was communicating actively with residents about the disruption they were experiencing and had been updating its website and social media with information on the situation and how residents could make contact while its systems were impacted.
The resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on 18 July 2022 and asked if the resident’s appointment, scheduled for 29 July 2022 to install the doors, could be moved as she had a medical appointment to attend. The repairs team acknowledged the request internally and asked that another appointment should be confirmed with the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 27 July 2022. It advised that it was experiencing issues with its systems due to a cyber-security incident. It said it had limited access to previous information that had been sent, so it provided an email address for her to forward her complaint to. It also advised that due to the disruption, it may not be able to respond to her within its normal timescales and it apologised for any inconvenience this may cause.
The resident’s social worker contacted the landlord by email on 29 July 2022 and said:
1. The resident reported that she waited in all day but no one had turned up to fit the new doors as promised. The doors were a significant part of helping the resident to feel safer in her home but she had been let down.
2. Though the landlord’s surveyor had said the cladding would not be a problem, the repairs team later informed the resident that they could not fit the new doors due to the cladding on the property.
3. There was an ant infestation in the property which the resident had made repeated efforts to report but nothing had been done. There was a young child living in the property so urgent action was required.
The resident sent the landlord another letter of complaint dated 29 July 2022. She said:
1. According to the sanctuary report, the doors were meant to be completed.
2. She had an ant and fly infestation in the kitchen.
3. She wanted to be rehoused into a property where there were no issues with the doors or windows.
The landlord noted on 1 August 2022 that it had sent the resident’s email to the relevant staff. It also had internal discussions about the appointment on 29 July 2022 to ascertain what went wrong.
The resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on 2 August 2022. They stated that the ongoing situation with the outstanding works was having an adverse effect on the resident’s mental health. The stated that the works on the security lighting, doors and windows were still not fully resolved. The only work that she said had been satisfactorily completed was the back gate. The landlord acknowledged in its internal emails that the implementation of the sanctuary works had been outstanding for 6 months where it should have been treated as urgent. Its repairs team also implied in its internal emails that it was unable to fit the new doors due to cladding.
The resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on 3 August 2022. They asked if the resident could be moved if the works were not completed. The landlord responded that their concern had been raised with the relevant team. In an internal email the same day, the landlord noted that it spoke to the resident who advised that she did not feel safe in the property. It later clarified in another email that it was agreed that the doors could be fitted with the cladding in place but the repair was cancelled at the last minute. It discussed the possibility of a decant in light of the resident’s concerns about safety and if a surveyor could visit to ascertain if a decant was needed. It concluded that a decant would not be approved and it arranged for an operative to make the door secure as an emergency.
The landlord informed the resident’s advocates in an email dated 4 August 2022 that the resident refused access that day for the installation of the new door. It stated that the resident was insistent that she could not live there and had been calling for an update on her move.
The resident’s advocate informed the landlord on 5 August 2022 that there appeared to have been some miscommunication as they were at the resident’s home on 4 August 2022 when the landlord’s representative attended. They said she refused access as measurements had previously been taken, but the works were not completed.
The resident’s advocate contacted the landlord on 8 August 2022. They advised that the repairs team had visited in the morning at 8am to fix the gate and door, but the resident was not in as she had an appointment, so they put a note through the door. They stressed the importance of scheduling and keeping to appointments.
On 9 August 2022 the landlord said in its internal emails that it had booked in appointments for 15 August 2022 and 17 August 2022, and with the resident, to replace the two external doors, fencing and make good the rendering.
On 11 August 2022, the landlord made enquiries with the police regarding its investigation of the resident’s reports. It asked if the perpetrator of the incident was an ex-partner or not and asked if they would provide a supporting letter.
The landlord contacted the resident’s advocates on 15 August 2022 and advised that 3 operatives attended in the morning but they were unable to gain access. It suggested that they should assist the resident with booking appointments that were convenient for her. The social worker responded that:
1. An incident occurred that triggered the resident’s anxiety when she saw someone whom she believed to be a friend of her ex-partner.
2. She was traumatised and felt unable to stay at her property over the weekend and did not return in time for the appointment.
3. The repairs team advised that they would contact her as they could still send someone out on 17 August 2022 to carry out some works.
4. They had stressed to the resident that it was important for her to be in attendance whilst the works in the property were being done as she felt they could be carried out in her absence.
The landlord’s internal email on 18 August 2022 noted that it would need supporting evidence from the police which it had not received. Its repairs team also advised that:
1. It had repaired the fence but the resident refused the installation of the doors. It was waiting for the resident to confirm a suitable date for the installation of the doors.
2. It had struggled to gain access to the property and the resident had not been communicating her availability.
3. The resident was scared to answer the door and said she was not aware of the appointments prior to attendance. It said its planner booked the works in the previous week with the resident.
The landlord noted in its internal email dated 19 August 2022, that it had confirmed an appointment with the resident for 24 August 2022 to install the front and back doors.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage one complaint on 25 August 2022. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and it explained that this was due to issues with its systems. The below is a summary of its response:
1. In terms of the repairs, it had actioned the items highlighted in the sanctuary scheme report as quickly as possible and there had been some issues with obtaining access to her property which had contributed to the delays. Its repairs team advised that the remaining repairs, the replacement of the two doors at her property had been arranged for 24 August 2022.
2. Regarding the rent paid between 28 January 2022 and 28 March 2022, it agreed that a rebate for the period mentioned had been agreed and would be applied to her account once its systems were restored.
3. With regards to her request to be rehoused, it said there were no current plans to move her and the focus was on completing the repairs at the property to ensure that she felt safe and secure. It said should the situation change, the external agencies supporting her would make contact to discuss the possibility of a further managed transfer.
4. It identified a service failure in the handling of the complaint and the delay in providing a response and offered £250 in recognition of the inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord noted in an internal email on 26 August 2022 that it had contacted the resident regarding the compensation offered but she refused it and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage two. It said the resident requested the escalation because of the decision not to provide alternative accommodation as she was still being stalked.
In an internal email dated 1 September 2022, the landlord discussed obtaining information from the police in order to determine whether there was adequate evidence to support a management transfer.
The landlord contacted the resident’s advocate on 2 September 2022 in light of her reports of stalking. It requested details of the incident or crime number relating the issues so that it could liaise with the police and offer any support required.
The advocate contacted the landlord on 7 September 2022 and advised that the resident was still feeling vulnerable, even though the sanctuary scheme works had been carried out. They said it was difficult to get the details of the extent of any abuse as the resident had not disclose it and asked if a supporting letter from them would help in rehousing her.
The landlord made a disclosure request to the police on 7 September 2022. It also noted in its internal email that works were completed to renew the doors on 24 August 2022.
The landlord made further enquiries with the police on 8 September 2022 regarding the resident’s reports. It asked if the police considered her to be at significant risk of harm and if it would be willing to provide a supporting letter for a transfer. The police responded that the resident reported a public order offence that an unknown male had jumped out of the bushes and had intentionally walked towards her and her child in a threatening manner.
The police advised the landlord on 13 September 2022 that the case was still under active investigation and a decision had not yet been reached.
The resident wrote to the landlord (possibly dated 16 September 2022) and said she was feeling unsafe living in the property and did not feel safe going to the local shops. She further said the repairs were still not completed and that it should rehouse her for safety reasons.
The resident sent a stage two complaint letter to the landlord on 16 September 2022. She said:
1. The repairs had still not been completed but door repairs had been completed.
2. It should assist with her council tax query.
3. It failed to rehouse her.
The landlord noted on 21 September 2022 that supporting letters were received from her advocates.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 21 September 2022. It said:
1. It had not been able to access all the evidence in her case due to the cyber-security incident experienced in June 2022 and it had had to rely on staff’s knowledge and email trails.
2. Void works were completed in the property and handed back before she signed her tenancy agreement on 28 January 2022. At the time the property was let there was no hole in the living room ceiling or exposed asbestos. It had not been able to find any record of these repairs being raised, but it would ensure that an inspection was completed and contact her directly to raise an appointment.
3. It received the sanctuary request and passed it to its repairs panners on 15 February 2022 but due to no access to its repairs system it could not confirm when they received the order or if there was a delay in the allocation of the work.
4. It provided updates on inspections and installation dates but it was unable to provide a date for the fence and gate due to a storm that occurred the month before, which caused a national shortage of fencing materials and resulted in significant delays in completing such works.
5. It attended on 7 March 2022 to measure the back door so it could order a replacement and inspect what works were required for the windows, but found a note left by the resident that she was not available. Consequently a new appointment was scheduled for 5 April 2022. The reason for the extended period between the two dates was due to its operatives attending to emergency roofing works due to the impact of the storm. It apologised that the delay was not acceptable given the urgency of her situation as it should have prioritised the works required in her property.
6. It completed the window locks and restrictors, but it was unable to confirm the date they were completed.
7. Whilst it had previously offered a rebate for the delays in moving her into her property, further investigation had determined that it was not notified of the sanctuary scheme request until 14 February 2022. It acknowledged the delays in implementing the sanctuary scheme and would ensure that she was not charged rent during this period. It would make the adjustments to her rent account as soon as its system was available.
8. There was a delay in installing the new doors because it was unable to gain access on 5 April 2022 to complete the measurements, and because the doors needed to be specifically manufactured to fit her door frames. It attended on 29 July 2022 to install her front and rear door and renew the fencing but it was informed that she refused for the works to go ahead. It said she disputed this and explained that that she was in but nobody attended her property.
9. It had not been able to confirm her call to its contact centre, to ascertain she was advised the doors could not be fitted due to an external cladding issues, due to problems accessing its systems. It had however established from a manager that three operatives attended her property to complete the works and left a calling card.
10. Upon receipt of the email from her advocate on 2 August 2022, it attempted to contact her on 4 August 2022 but was unsuccessful, so it scheduled the works for 5 August 2022 but it could not ascertain if the appointment was confirmed with her.
11. It attended the property on 5 August 2022, but she refused to allow the works to be completed. A further appointment was rescheduled for 8 and 9 August 2022 to complete the outstanding work.
12. On 8 August 2022, it returned to the property to install the new doors, but she was unavailable. It had not been able to ascertain if the appointment was confirmed with her due issues accessing its system. A further appointment was scheduled for 15 August 2022, with a follow up visit on 17 August 2022 to complete the external cladding. These dates were both confirmed with her and her social worker but access was refused. The works were rescheduled for 24 August 2022, whereby she allowed access and the front and rear doors were fitted, and the rear fence installed.
13. Its repairs area manager confirmed that all outstanding works relating to the sanctuary scheme had been completed.
14. In regards to her request for rehousing, it offered advice to her advocates regarding security and how to source emergency housing. It contacted the police, who advised that there was limited evidence to take criminal action against the perpetrator. It was that based on the information given from the police, that at this stage, we did not have the required burden of proof to seek an injunction against the perpetrator.
15. A Team around the Family (TAF) meeting took place on 21 July 2022, which it attended. It was agreed at the meeting that it would provide confirmation of when the front and rear doors would be fitted and the position with rent being charged in the period between January and March 2022 when she was not living at the property. It provided an update to the advocates on 4 August 2022.
16. In the response to her advocates it confirmed that the outstanding sanctuary scheme works were due to be completed on 29 July 2022, that a rent rebate would be issued for the period she did not reside in the property.
17. It has considered whether it was appropriate to offer her a management transfer but it concluded on 18 August 2022, that she did not meet the criteria as the police could not provide evidence to support her application.
18. Following concerns raised by her advocates about a stalking incident, it requested a police disclosure on 8 September 2022 of all reported incidents relating to the stalking so that a further review could be undertaken into the possibility of providing her a management transfer.
19. If the police and social services supported her management transfer application and provided corroborating evidence, it would review and assess whether she met the criteria under its policy and procedure and provide a decision to her.
20. It concluded that despite the difficulties presented by the limited data as a result of the cyber incident, it was satisfied that the investigation was thorough. It acknowledged that there were significant delays in completing the sanctuary scheme and it did not give the work the priority needed. The delays were also partly due to the difficulties it experienced in gaining access to the property and not mainly its responsibility.
21. As a result of the failure in its handling of the repairs, it had proposed that any further sanctuary scheme requests should get raised by the area manager directly to the planners in its repairs team to avoid waiting in an inbox to be processed. It had requested that a tracker should be created so that the area manager has clear oversight of all open sanctuary scheme requests and visibility of their progress. It would contact the supporting agency and request that any future sanctuary schemes that are needed prior to signing the tenancy should be given to it four weeks in advance. In recognition of the service failures identified, it awarded £400 for the delay in prioritising the sanctuary scheme works in addition to the £250 awarded for the complaint handling at stage one.

Post complaint actions

The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2022 that she was not satisfied with its response to her complaint. She said:
1. there was an agreement to complete sanctuary works before she moved in and works were still outstanding from the report that were yet to be completed.
2. The landlord did not attend the property on 29 July 2022 as she waited in.
3. She was concerned about her council tax bill and did not agree with the total amount of compensation offered in her complaint response.
4. She had suffered so much due to the stalking and wished to be rehoused.
The landlord sent the resident a follow up response to its stage two response on 27 October 2022. It said:
1. Some of the issues raised in her letter were not part of her original complaint or the stage two escalation request.
2. Since receiving further information it had applied discretion and agreed a management transfer on 26 September 2022.
3. It had made an offer of alternative accommodation which she rejected due to feeling a lack of security and safety. As a result it continued to search for suitable properties for her.
4. It addressed fresh concerns raised about council tax liability.
5. It agreed that the sanctuary works scheme works were excessively delayed due to combined factors of access issues and coordination and expedition of works at its end.
6. It had reconsidered the amount of time between receiving the request for works and completion (July 2022). It agreed that this was an excessively long period of time but also had to consider access issues. It offered an additional £200 which brought the total compensation to £850 (£600 for the delays in repairs and £250 for the complaint handling).
The resident informed this Service on 15 December 2023 that the landlord moved her to another property on 15 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The condition of the property upon letting

The evidence provided by the landlord indicates that extensive works (including decorative works) were scheduled to be completed between 30 August 2021 and 30 September 2021. It is further noted from the evidence that post completion works were completed after which it was signed off as ready to let on 16 September 2021. Photographic evidence (kitchen, toilet, bathroom) was also provided (dated 16 September 2021) which showed that the property was in a clean and relatively good condition. The resident has not provided any evidence contrary to this. This aligns with its response on 21 September 2022 that:
1. When the property was in the void period, it would have identified and undertaken all relevant repairs required after the previous resident had vacated.
2. For the property to be re-let it would have achieved a void standard, which includes providing a gas safety certificate, electrical certificate and confirmation that the property including the bathroom and kitchen met a safe and serviceable standard.
Regarding the hole in the roof and concerns about asbestos, it advised that these issues were not identified at the time it was let. It also said it was unable to find any record of the repairs being raised, but it assured her that it would complete an inspection and follow up any repairs required. In view of this, there is no evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property upon letting.

Sanctuary repairs requested due to her history of domestic violence

It is clear from the evidence that the sanctuary scheme repairs were agreed and passed to the landlord after the tenancy commenced. The tenancy was signed on 28 January 2022 and the landlord was notified of the repairs recommended on 14 February 2022. Whilst the resident complained that it was agreed that the works would be completed prior to her moving in, there is no evidence of this agreement. However, the landlord was made aware of the resident’s history as a victim of domestic violence and should have made its best efforts to complete the agreed works as quickly as possible or within the published timescales for completing non-priority works.
From the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord made attempts to contact the resident on 17 February 2022 to arrange an appointment for the security lighting and it attempted some visits to the property in February and March 2022. We have seen that it visited on 23 or 24 February 2022, but the resident missed the appointment and she informed the landlord that she was not yet living in the property. It noted this and the resident’s request to be contacted when operatives were there. In response to chases from the advocates and concerns that the resident was unable to move in as the sanctuary works had not been completed, it advised that appointments had been scheduled for 7 March and 29 March 2022 to complete works to the security lighting, back doors and windows.
The landlord sent a text message to the resident on 7 March 2022, that an operative would be with her by 8:45am but she missed the appointment. Although the resident later reported that she left a note to be contacted by phone as she had taken her children to school, and would prefer appointments after 9:15am, there was no evidence that she previously asked for a time preference. Moreover, the landlord notified her by text that an operative was on the way as agreed. It also made her advocate aware of the appointment on 2 March 2022, so time preferences should have been agreed at this time. The landlord’s actions at this point were reasonable as the resident had missed two appointments. It is also noted that the landlord waived the resident’s rent from 28 January 2022, when the tenancy commenced, till 28 March 2022 when she moved into the property. Its decision to adjust the resident’s rent account to the date she actually moved in is a positive step to take in building trust and reassurance with the resident. It took this decision even though it did not receive the sanctuary scheme until 2 weeks after her tenancy had commenced.
On 30 May 2022, more than four months after the sanctuary scheme had been completed and agreed, the resident’s advocate reported that works agreed had still not been completed. The landlord appeared not to be aware of what works were outstanding or working in collaboration with its other teams as it indicated in its internal correspondence on 7 June 2022, that the only repair open was the fencing which was scheduled for 21 June 2022. As of 9 June 2022, it was unclear what the landlord was doing about the works which led to the resident’s submission of a formal complaint on the day. The resident’s advocates were also left with no choice than to continue to chase for updates which they did on 14 June 2022.
Contrary to its earlier views on the status of the repairs, it advised the resident’s advocate on 27 June 2022 that the doors and back fence renewal had been booked in for 29 July 2022. The landlord should have kept the resident or her advocates updated on the status of the sanctuary works. It was not proactive in its handling of the case and appeared to act only when contacted by the resident or her advocates. This also shows that the resident’s concerns were not being taken very seriously as the repairs had been outstanding for more than the 28 days stipulated in its repairs policy for routine repairs. This is not acceptable given that it was aware of her history of domestic violence and her vulnerability. Failure to keep the resident updated on the works would have caused her significant distress, frustration and uncertainty.
The landlord responded in a later correspondence to the resident on 21 September 2022, that she missed the appointment on 5 April 2022 and 29 July 2022. It is unclear how it arrived at this conclusion as it mentioned in its response that it had not been able to access all the evidence in order to address her complaint. This is unreasonable. Notes recorded in its repairs files for the property indicate that the resident contacted the landlord on 5 April 2022 for an update on the works. The evidence also shows that the landlord had not been able to conclude the events that occurred on 29 July 2022 as it queried what happened internally, in light of the resident’s reports that no one attended.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it dropped a missed appointment card at the property or that it contacted her on the day of the appointment as previously agreed. It is further noted that the resident had asked the landlord (on 18 July 2022) to reschedule the appointment booked for 29 July 2022), due to it clashing with a medical appointment. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the request internally, it has not evidenced that it was rescheduled and details of it passed to the resident. It is therefore unreasonable that it concluded that both appointments were missed by the resident. To be advised that both appointments were missed without sufficient evidence would have caused the resident further distress and frustration.
The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 29 July 2022 regarding the outstanding works. Her advocates also chased up the progress of the works on her behalf on 2 August 2022. They advised that the delays in implementing the sanctuary scheme was adversely affecting the resident’s mental health. At this point, the landlord acknowledged in its internal communications that the repairs had been outstanding for 6 months where it should have been acted upon urgently. There were further unsuccessful visits to the property such as its visit on 4 August 2022, and 8 August 2022, but it is unclear if the resident was notified of these appointments before attendance.
This Service has seen from the evidence that the landlord’s operatives were unable to gain access for an appointment scheduled for 15 August 2022 to replace the doors and fencing. The resident’s advocates acknowledged this and explained that she was unavailable for the appointment due to an earlier incident that had occurred. The appointment was rescheduled and it confirmed in its final response to the resident that the outstanding works in the sanctuary scheme were completed on 24 August 2022. It acknowledged a service failure in the handling of the sanctuary works and that it did not give it the priority needed. It said the delays were also partly due to the difficulties it experienced in gaining access to the property. As noted earlier, the landlord was unable to gain access in February and March 2022, and further access issues in August 2022 led to the works being postponed until 24 August 2022. In view of this, the landlord’s response is considered reasonable in light of its difficulties accessing the property. This said, there was a delay of about 18 weeks (between April and July 2022) where there is evidence of little or no action on the part of the landlord to resolve the repairs.
The landlord demonstrated some learning from its failings and it:
1. Proposed changes to sanctuary scheme requests to prevent unnecessary delays.
2. Requested that a tracker should be created so that the relevant could monitor all open sanctuary scheme requests and progress.
3. Work with supporting agencies so that future sanctuary schemes requests that are needed prior to signing the tenancy should be agreed four weeks in advance.
In addition to the proposed changes, it offered £400 to the resident for the delay in prioritising the sanctuary scheme works. It revised the offer to £600 on 27 October 2022 after the complaints process had been exhausted. The landlord’s compensation policy allows for payments in the range of £700 and above where there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both. The policy further notes that it will not offer compensation where its contractor or staff have not been able to gain access to carry out work so it took account of missed appointments in the offer made in adherence with its policy.
Taking into account its issues with access, the revised offer would have been considered reasonable. However, the resident’s advocates reported throughout the life of this case that the delay in completing the repairs were detrimental to her health and wellbeing. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the offer of £600 does not reflect the impact the delays have had on the resident, in particular given her experience. The sanctuary scheme was agreed to provide assurance that the property she was living in was safe and secure for her, but the resident reported for several months that she felt unsafe in the property due to the doors and windows not being repaired as recommended. In light of this, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the sanctuary scheme requested due to her history of being a victim of domestic violence.

Her request for a housing transfer due to concerns about her safety

As noted earlier in this report, the resident has a history of domestic abuse which resulted in measures being put in place to identify any safety concerns in the property in February 2022. It has also been established during our assessment of this case that it delayed in implementing the sanctuary scheme.
The landlord acted accordingly in raising emergency works to secure her window on 14 March 2022 due to contact from the resident that she did not feel safe. In response to safety concerns and reports made by the resident and her advocate that she was being stalked between 30 May 2022 and 23 June 2023, and their request for alternative accommodation, the landlord’s advice on 23 June 2023 was appropriate and in line with its policies. It said it would need supporting evidence from the police in order to consider a management move. What we have not seen is evidence that it contacted the police to request evidence to support her request for a management transfer or that it requested additional information regarding the stalking from her or her advocates. This is unreasonable and its actions do not align with its promise to take such reports extremely seriously. It should also have considered whether alternative accommodation could be offered to her as it had not yet completed the sanctuary scheme repairs agreed in February 2022 to help the resident feel safe in her home. This would have left the resident feeling unheard and unsupported by her landlord.
The landlord informed the resident’s advocate on 23 June 2022 that it may take at least 8 weeks for the new doors to be installed in compliance with the sanctuary scheme recommendations. The resident asked for an earlier date due her concerns about safety but it said it was unable to install the doors sooner. She requested safety measures such as a camera but it responded that it did not install cameras. It should at this stage have completed a risk assessment, considering its awareness of the resident’s vulnerability, to determine any safety issues or if she could be temporarily decanted pending the time the works could be completed. Its actions at this stage are not in line with its guidance to help victims of domestic abuse feel safer in their home. The landlord has provided evidence to show that it acted in compliance with its safe at home project, by considering the resident’s request for camera installation.
There is evidence of over reliance on external agencies in its handling of the resident’s concerns which shows that it did not adopt a victim centred approach in how it responded to the matter. In response to her concerns about her safety and security in the property, it advised her to request a domestic abuse kit from the police. Whilst the information on its website about domestic abuse states that it would assist a resident with emergency accommodation where necessary, it passed this responsibility to the resident and informed her to contact her local authority for alternative accommodation. In response to further concerns raised by the advocate on 1 July 2022 that the police said the property could be accessed from the front door and a request for what it would do to safeguard the resident, it said it did not offer temporary accommodation as it was a housing association. This is unreasonable, as its guidance on tackling domestic abuse states that it would provide support in finding emergency accommodation if needed. Whilst its advice to the resident to make use of the domestic abuse kit and consider a non-molestation order or restraining order were appropriate, it is seen to pass the responsibility of exploring options of safeguarding the resident to her advocate and other external agencies. This includes its advice to the advocate the same day. Its actions are not in adherence to its guidance on tackling domestic abuse and a reluctance to take responsibility in addressing the resident’s housing needs is noted throughout the life of the case. This would have lowered the resident’s trust in the landlord.
The landlord acted accordingly in contacting the police on 1 July 2022 to obtain further information about the resident’s reports. However, there was a delay from 9 June 2022 when she notified the landlord about the stalking. Although the police advised that there was no evidence of the reports made by the resident, it is not clear from the evidence if it enquired about a report to support the resident’s request for a management transfer. Due to further requests by the resident between 29 July 2022 and 3 August 2022 to be rehoused, it was appropriate that the landlord discussed the possibility of a decant on 3 August 2022. This demonstrates some learning from its earlier mistakes but this should have been considered much earlier in the process as the resident had been raising the concern for close to 4 months. This would have provided assurance to her that her concerns were being taken seriously. It is noted that it decided later decided that a decant would not be approved and that it had arranged emergency works to the door.
It is noted that the resident continued to express concerns about her safety and in accessing the community after the sanctuary works had been completed. The landlord informed the resident in its response on 25 August 2022 that it had no plans to rehouse her as its focus was on making the property safe. It is unclear if a separate response was sent to her offering her an explanation for its decision in accordance with its policy. Nevertheless, we have seen from the evidence that it worked collaboratively with the police and her advocates to explore the need for a management transfer. This is noted in its correspondence with them on 11 August 2022 and between 7 September 2022 and 13 September 2022 where it requested supporting information for rehousing. Its actions in the later stage of the case were appropriate. In its final response to the resident on 21 September 2022, it assured her that it would review the matter once it had received further evidence. We have seen from the landlord’s post complaint actions that it reviewed her request and approved the management transfer on 26 September 2022.
Overall, it is evident that the landlord did not fully consider the resident’s vulnerability in its handling of her request for alternative accommodation. It took several weeks from March 2022 till August 2022 to consider whether alternative accommodation should be offered, even though she repeatedly requested it. It did not consider her request for target hardening and relied solely on the police to provide this support even though there is provision for this in its policy. It learned from this but it did not acknowledge a failing in its handling of the matter or offer compensation for any distress caused. In light of the above, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a housing transfer due her concerns about safety.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 9 June 2022 but there was a significant delay in responding to the complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on 11 July 2022 and asked it to respond by 25 July 2022. It responded on 12 July 2022 that it had experienced a security incident which affected its systems and that it was communicating actively with the resident. Based on the evidence seen, it did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 27 July 2022 (34 working days after the complaint was submitted). This is not appropriate and whilst this Service acknowledges that the cyber security incident would have caused a disruption, it should have contacted the resident within a reasonable period of time, given our intervention and prompt.
The response to the complaint was also late, sent to the resident 55 working days (25 August 2022) after it was received. This is not in adherence with policy. This said, the landlord acknowledged this error and the inconvenience the delays would have caused to the resident in its response. However, it failed to fully address the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property at sign up, her complaint about sewerage and that its inspector had commented on the state the property was in. The Ombudsman also advised the landlord on 11 July 2022 of additional matters which the resident wanted it to investigate such as renewal works and asbestos in the property but it did not address them in the stage one response. This is not in adherence to this Service’s complaint handling code which states that landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord showed some learning in its handling of the resident’s stage two complaint. It responded promptly to the resident’s stage two complaint on 21 September 2022, which was less than 20 working days from the date of the complaint (26 August 2022 & 16 September 2022). It commented on the issues omitted from the stage one response such as the condition of the property at the time it was let. However, it missed another opportunity to fully address all the points in the complaint as it did not comment on her concerns about sewerage overflow and an ant and fly infestation in the property. This would have caused the resident some frustration.
Its compensation policy notes that it will award £250 to £700 where a complainant repeatedly has to chase responses over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with the policy or where it fails to address all relevant aspects of the complaint leading to considerable delay in resolving a complaint. It offered £250 for the delay in responding to the complaint but there is evidence of service failure as it did not provide a full response at both stages of the complaint. An order has been made to address this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property upon letting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the sanctuary repairs requested due to her history of domestic abuse.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s concerns about her request for a housing transfer due to concerns about her safety.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord followed its void procedure in arranging repairs to the property before it was let to the resident. It provided photographic evidence of the condition of the property which showed that the property was in an acceptable state at the time it was let. It advised her that issues raised after the tenancy commenced not identified in the void period would be addressed accordingly.
There were delays of over 4 months in completing the sanctuary scheme works that were agreed for additional safety for the resident. It did not proactively manage the resident’s expectations or communicate effectively on the progress of works. It acknowledged its mistakes, offered apologies and compensation to the resident. There is evidence of lessons learned as it proposed measured to prevent similar occurrences.
The landlord did not adhere to its domestic abuse guidance to treat such reports seriously when the resident initially reported a housing transfer due to concerns that she was being stalked by her ex-partner. It delayed in considering alternative options of housing for the resident due to the delay in completing the sanctuary scheme repairs. It appeared to rely on external agencies to provide support when there is provision in its policy and procedure to do so. It learned from this and considered whether there was a need to decant the resident. It also worked collaboratively with the external agencies and the police to gather evidence to support her application for a management transfer.
The landlord’s acknowledgement and response to the resident’s stage one complaint was delayed. It responded almost 3 months after the complaint was received and it did not fully address all the points raised by the resident. It acknowledged the delay and offered compensation to the resident. It also showed some learning in its handling of the stage two complaint as the response was sent within the timescales in its policy. However, it missed another opportunity to address the outstanding issues from the stage one complaint.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident a total of £400 broken down as:
  1. £200 for the distress and frustration due to the delay in completing the sanctuary repairs.
  2. £100 for the distress to the resident for the failings identified in its handling of her request for a housing transfer.
  3. £100 for the frustration and inconvenience to the resident for failings identified in its complaint handling.
  4. Pay the resident the amount of £850 previously offered if it has already been paid.
2. Share this report with the relevant staff and emphasise the importance of adhering to its internal policies:
  1. especially when dealing with vulnerable residents.
  2. Ensure that the relevant complaint handling team provide full responses to all points raised in complaints.