Clarion Housing Association Limited (202220624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220624

Clarion Housing Association Limited

20 June 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 way the landlord handled:
1. The sale of the resident’s property;
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident was a shared-ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2–bedroom, first floor flat in a 3 storey block. This report refers to correspondence from the resident, as well as the solicitor and estate agent who were acting on her behalf during the sale of her property. For the sake of clarity, these parties will all be referred to as “the resident”.
On 13 December 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to advise that she was selling her property. The resident sent the landlord a copy of her survey report on 19 January 2022. The landlord wrote to her on 27 January 2022, thanking her for this and other information she had provided relevant to her sale, including her sales instruction form. It advised her that it had sent her details to its nomination service provider and told her it would contact her within 5 working days with an update.
On 1 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to check that its service provider had contacted her. She responded on the same day to confirm that it had made contact and that she was meeting it on 3 February 2022 at her property. On 14 February 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the marketing details for her property would be published on various websites within 24 hours. On 23 and 28 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord for an update on whether there had been any interest in her property. On 3 March 2022, the landlord confirmed that the nomination period would end on 12 April 2022, after which she could put her property for sale on the open market. It added that in order to withdraw from the nomination period, she would have to pay a fee.
On 16 April 2022, the resident informed the nomination service provider that she had sold her property and, on 21 June 2022, she requested a copy of the management pack. The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 August 2022 to say she was trying to obtain the management pack, which seemed to be “taking a considerable amount of time” and that the buyer was “threatening” to withdraw from the sale. The resident chased this up again on 6, 14 and 30 September 2022. The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 September 2022 to inform her it had suffered a cyber attack. The records show that the resident received the management pack from the landlord on 6 October 2022.
On 2 November 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a stage 1 complaint about its lack of response to her enquiries. The landlord wrote back on 11 November 2022 and stated it had passed her complaint onto its customer solutions team, who would contact her directly.
Meanwhile, on 3 November 2022, the landlord sent the resident the memorandum of sale and, on 4 November 2022, it explained why there was a delay in responding to her requests. It told her that the member of staff dealing with her sale had been on extended absence due to illness. It added that, as part of the conveyancing process, it needed to complete its internal anti-money laundering process for the buyer. The resident wrote back on 8 November 2022 to confirm that the checks on the buyer had already been completed in October 2022.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 15 November 2022. It stated that it understood her complaint to be about its delay in issuing the memorandum of sale for her property. It said that:
1. Following discussion with its resales and staircasing team, it confirmed that it had sent the resident the memorandum of sale on 3 November 2022 and the sale was being progressed by all parties.
2. It had provided its solicitor with the staircasing memo approval on 8 November 2022 and would send this to the resident as soon as possible.
3. It was sorry it had requested documents that the resident had already provided. When the staff member dealing with her sale had returned from sick leave, they were not aware the required checks had already been completed. Due to the urgency of the matter, the member of staff who had been providing cover would continue to assist to ensure deadlines were met.
4. It was sorry for the delays and poor communication the resident had experienced. Whilst it noted the cyber incident contributed to the “significant delays” there had also been multiple instances where it had failed to respond to her emails.
5. It wanted to offer the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its failure to follow its policy and the resident’s time and trouble chasing it for a response.
The resident responded on 15 November 2022. She stated that:
1. She felt insulted by the landlord’s offer of £50 and was not prepared to accept any compensation from it until she completed the sale of her property.
2. Her issues were not “solely” regarding the delay in sending the memorandum of sale.
3. The reasons she was complaining was due to:
  1. The lack of response throughout the “whole” process.
  2. The lack of response from the landlord’s chief executive officer (CEO) who she had copied into numerous emails.
  3. The landlord requesting documents that she had already provided.
4. An apology was not acceptable when the matter had caused her “a great deal of stress” and the implications of paying for an empty property for around 11 months.
5. The landlord had to be accountable for the “endless errors” and delays they had caused.
6. It had “constantly” mentioned the cyber incident. However, she had told it in December 2021 she was selling her property, which was “way before” the event.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on the same day. It stated that it was investigating her complaint and would aim to provide her with a response within 10 working days.
The resident wrote to the Service on 7 December 2022 to say that she had chased her complaint on 29 November 2022 but had still not received any response. The Service wrote to the landlord on 20 December 2022 and it issued its stage 2 response on 19 January 2023. It stated that:
1. Having reviewed its records it could not see that the landlord had caused any delays between 13 December 2021 and 14 February 2022.
2. The reason it took 2 months to market her property was because it had to complete the valuation and wait for the energy performance certificate (EPC) to be issued.
3. It had not identified any delays between 14 February and 7 March 2022 and had responded to enquiries in a timely manner.
4. It had sent her the property allocation information on 7 April 2022 and she contacted it on 21 June 2022 to request a copy of the management pack. On 30 August, when the resident chased it up, it reminded her the “reservation process” needed to be followed before it could issue the pack.
5. The case handler responsible for her sale was away on sick leave between 4 August 2022 and 22 October 2022, and any emails sent directly to this case handler would not have been responded to during this time. All communications sent to the central email address and team leader were actioned during this time.
6. On the return of the case handler, there was a duplicate request for information. However, it had not identified any further failures in its communication from 4 October 2022 onwards.
7. It was pleased that her sale had completed and she had been able to move to her new property.
8. It usually acknowledged emails sent to its chief executive officer on her behalf and sent to the relevant team.
9. On 20 November 2022, she had provided a reply to its stage 1 response and apologised that it had not raised a stage 2 complaint at that point.
10. In recognition of the failures it had identified, it made the resident an additional offer of £150 compensation in recognition of:
  1. The inconvenience the resident had experienced;
  2. Repeated failures by it to reply to letters and return phone calls;
  3. The resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matter;
  4. The landlord incorrect information.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 24 January 2023 for assistance. She stated that she felt her complaint had not been resolved or addressed. She said that the landlord had not acknowledged its mistakes or delays, which had had a “huge” impact on her health and finances. She added that she had not received a “genuine apology” and dates of events were not accurate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told the Service that that way the landlord had handled the sale of her property had had a significant impact on her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord was operating what it referred to as its “interim” complaints policy. This was a 2–stage process and was operational during the time the landlord was experiencing the impacts of the cyber incident. The procedure states that both stage 1 and 2 complaints must be acknowledged and logged at within 10 working days of receipt. It aims to respond to new complaints received since 17 June 2022 within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. It refers to the stage 2 as a “peer review”, which it will aim to conclude within 40 working days.
Its complaints policy goes on to state that, if it is unable to resolve the peer review within this time, it will:
1. Contact the resident and explain why it is unable to resolve the peer review.
2. Provide a timescale of what is involved in order to resolve the peer review and, if possible, approximately how long it will take.
3. Agree with the resident the frequency of keeping them updated and their preferred method of communication.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy allows it to award discretionary compensation:
1. Awards of £50 to £250:
  1. Remedies in the range of these amounts may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant.
2. Awards of £250 to £700:
  1. Remedies in the range of these amounts may be for cases where the landlord finds considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
3. Awards of £700 and above:
  1. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.
The landlord’s website states that, on some shared ownership leases the nomination period is 8 weeks and, on others, it is 4 weeks. Although the Service was unable to access a copy the resident’s lease agreement, the records showed that her property was subject to an 8 week nomination period. The website states that the landlord takes the opportunity to release residents from their nomination period if a buyer has not been secured within the 4 weeks of the specific nomination period within the lease. The landlord works with a specialist shared ownership company to market shared ownership homes during the nomination period. If a shared ownership buyer is not found within this period, the company may continue to market the property as shared ownership, but also list the property for 100% open market sale.

The sale of the resident’s property

It is acknowledged that selling a property can be a stressful experience and that delays, especially when avoidable, along with poor communication can exacerbate this. The Ombudsman’s role in this case was to consider whether the landlord had taken reasonable and appropriate steps when handling the resident’s sale. This report will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it followed good practice.
The landlord told the resident on 27 January 2022 that its nomination service provider would contact her within 5 working days. The landlord acted appropriately when it contacted her on 1 February 2022 to check that its provider had been in touch. This demonstrates the landlord was taking a customer focussed approach in ensuring it met its commitment to the resident.
It is noted that, between February and April 2022, the records show that the landlord responded to the resident in a timely manner. When the resident made enquiries during this time, there is no evidence the landlord delayed in providing a response. For example, when the resident asked the landlord on 23 February 2022 if there had been any interest in her property, it responded the following day to let her know it would get in touch once it received any eligible applicants. Similarly, when the resident asked what the fee would be to withdraw from the nomination period, the landlord responded on the same day with an answer to her query. The records therefore indicate the landlord acted reasonably during the aforementioned period.
However, there was a delay of nearly 4 months from when the resident requested the management pack on 21 June 2022 to when she received in on 6 October 2022. The evidence shows that the lack of response to the repeated requests by the resident to send the pack was due to a member of staff being on extended sickness leave. There is no evidence the landlord had informed the resident at any time about the absence of the case handler. Furthermore, there are no records to indicate it had made any attempt to arrange a proper handover or ensure a different staff member could promptly take over the case. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to ensure smooth and seamless service continuity. An effective handover process is particularly important when supporting residents who are in time critical situations, such as when they are selling their properties. That the landlord did not arrange a timely handover, alert the resident to the fact the case handler was on sick leave or provide alternative contact details was a failure. This would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience when trying to obtain essential documents, while at the same time causing worry that her sale may fall through.
It is noted that, once the case handler returned from sickness absence, the landlord was proactive in supporting the resident with her sale. It acted appropriately when it waived its management pack fee in recognition of the delay and arranged for 2 members of staff to help manage the sale to ensure it went through as quickly as possible.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management issued in May 2023 states that the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action. It can result in landlords missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. The report recommends that staff should be able to easily access the information they require. Although it was issued after conclusion of the complaints process, it encapsulates the good practice the landlord would have been expected to follow.
Due to the absence of a proper handover and poor internal information sharing, the evidence shows unnecessary duplication, which again caused avoidable delays. When the case handler returned from sick leave, it is evident he had requested documentation the resident had already provided 2 months previously. This is further evidence of ineffective internal communications and the lack of a proper system in place to ensure such duplication is avoided. This would have caused an unnecessary additional delay and also caused the resident, who was already anxious about her sale, additional frustration and distress.
It is noted that, in its stage 2 response, the landlord states that the member of staff in question was absent from 4 August to 22 October 2022. As the resident first asked for the management pack on 21 June 2022, it is unclear why the landlord had failed to acknowledge the request. This could have been because of the cyber incident that the records indicate had occurred on 17 June 2022. However, the stage 2 response also states that “all communications sent to the central email address and team leader were actioned during this time”. This suggests the landlord was receiving electronic correspondence at the time. There is no evidence the landlord had advised the resident to contact the central email address or that it let her know the cyber incident would have had an impact on her ability to contact it. It could have provided a means by which she could raise queries or request documents that would have ensured timely response to her correspondence. Given the resident was in the process of selling her property, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for landlord to have alerted her of any issues prior to September 2022. This would have meant she could ensure her contacts were being picked up and that she was able to keep her buyer informed during the process.
The landlord’s stage 2 response also states that, when the resident chased it on 30 August 2022 for the management pack, it advised her that “the reservation process needed to be completed prior to the pack being issued”. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous records to show it had mentioned the “reservation process” to the resident in its correspondence. It is not evident it had explained the process at any point or provided any documentation relating to it. Furthermore, there is no reference to the process in any of the landlord’s publicly available policies and procedures. Despite making enquiries with the landlord, the Ombudsman has not been able to obtain any information about this process. That the landlord could not demonstrate that it had properly explained or signposted the resident to information about this process when she first requested the management pack was a failing. If the landlord was referring to the nomination period but using a different term, it had failed to appreciate that the deadline for this had already passed. It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to review its processes. It should also assess whether they are sufficiently transparent to ensure that there is clarity about what will happen and what is expected of residents who are selling their homes.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its poor communication and the excessive delay in providing documentation essential to the resident’s sale between June and October 2022. It also acknowledged its internal communication failing that caused an unnecessary duplicate request for information. Furthermore, the landlord offered £50 compensation at stage 1 and a further £150 at stage 2, making a total of £200 in recognition of the failures it had identified. The landlord’s offer was in line with its compensation policy for failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint

It is noted that the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within 10 working days, which was appropriate and in line with its complaints policy.
However, despite informing the resident in its stage 2 acknowledgement, dated 15 November 2022 that it would respond to her within 10 working days, it did not issue its response until 19 January 2022. It is unclear why the landlord did not advise the resident of the 40 working day timescale for peer reviews it was operating at the time. In providing misleading information in its acknowledgement, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations about when she would receive a response. This would have caused confusion and meant the resident had to chase for an update and approach the Service for assistance. This could have been avoided had the landlord provided the correct information at the outset.
Although the delay in issuing its peer review outcome letter was not significantly delayed beyond its 40 working days timescale, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to let her know there would be a delay. This was a departure from its policy. The landlord has stated that the cyber security incident had partially contributed to delays during the process. Notwithstanding the cyber incident and its obvious impacts, the landlord should have had sufficiently robust systems in place to ensure residents were kept up to date. That the landlord provided the resident with misleading information about its response times and failed to contact her to inform her that its response would be delayed was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its handling of the sale of the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £300, calculated as follows:
  1. £200 that the landlord offered in its stage 1 and stage 2 responses;
  2. £100 in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
2. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears, where they exist.
3. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report.
If it has not done so already, the landlord to carry out a review to ensure it has effective systems in place so that proper handovers take place when lengthy staff absences are anticipated. This is particularly important in time critical situations such as when residents are in the process of selling their homes. The landlord to report back to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of receiving this report to confirm any measures it has put in place.

Recommendations

The landlord to take steps to review its processes. It should also assess whether they are sufficiently transparent to ensure that there is clarity about what will happen and what is expected of residents who are selling their homes.