Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202322286)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322286

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 March 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in March 2010. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a mid-rise block. The landlord has said it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident. However, the resident’s management move form noted that both she and her daughter have a number of vulnerabilities.
  2. The landlord’s records do not show when the resident initially requested a management transfer. As part of the management transfer process the landlord contacted the police for information on 3 July 2023. The police returned an evidence form to the landlord on 22 July 2023. The form set out that:
    1. The resident’s pregnant friend (Ms A), who was staying with her, was attacked by Ms A’s former partner (Mr B) on 1 January 2023. In trying to intervene on behalf of her friend, the resident was also involved in the altercation. Mr B was arrested and jailed for the incident.
    2. Ms A, who had since given birth, was rehoused out of the area in April 2023. However, the resident feared for her own safety in the event that Mr B (who knew where she lived) attempted to contact her looking for Ms A or her child. An unknown couple had recently come to the resident’s property asking questions. She thought they may have been looking for Ms A and were friends of Mr B.
    3. The resident reported the matter to the landlord and the police. The landlord said was looking into providing additional security to the resident’s property.
    4. Mr B had conditions not to contact the resident or Ms A. In addition, he had a GPS monitoring tag and was subject to a home curfew. In response to the landlord’s question about whether the resident needed rehousing, the police said it could not say if Mr B would breach his conditions and come to the property, but “the threats could be credible and if a move is possible and this can be accommodated then it would be best to avoid the possibility of anything occurring”.
  3. The landlord emailed the resident on 11 September 2023 to inform her it had not granted her a management transfer. It said:
    1. It could only grant priority status for rehousing in the most serious of cases, where there was a serious risk to someone’s personal safety. After assessing the case, it was “not able to confirm you are at serious risk of harm”. This was based on the information provided by the police which said Mr B had bail conditions and a GPS tag in place.
    2. The incident described occurred earlier in the year and there was no further indication of any other incidents involving Mr B since that time.
    3. The resident could appeal the decision within 10 working days.
    4. It provided her with alternative options to help her move. This included making a homeless application to any local authority as well as a mutual exchange.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 12 September 2023. She said:
    1. The information that Mr B was on a GPS tag was incorrect. He only had the GPS tag from 1 January 2023 to 26 January 2023 when he was held on remand for breaking bail conditions. He was released on a suspended sentence with no GPS tag on 15 February 2023.
    2. Ms A was living with her due to safety concerns when Mr B contacted her in January 2023. If he wanted to find Ms A and his child, the resident’s address was the only address known to Mr B to contact for further details of where they lived.
    3. She lived in fear that Mr B “could breach his restraining order at any time”. Research showed that 40% of people with restraining orders breached them. Therefore, she asked the landlord to reconsider the management move.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for an appeal on 19 September 2023. It said it would aim to respond within 14 days of the appeal being submitted.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 September 2023 with its response on her appeal. It said:
    1. Having reviewed the case and obtained further information from the police on the potential risk to her by Mr B, the police advised it that Mr B’s home address was well away from the local area. In addition, the police informed the landlord that Mr B was on bail and on a home curfew with both an electronic tag and with restraining orders against both Ms A and the resident.
    2. It was in the process of reviewing what additional security it could provide to the resident’s home. This included window and door alarms.
    3. The information provided by the resident in the appeal was contradictory to that provided by the police. Therefore, it maintained it acted correctly in not granting the resident the management transfer.   
  7. The resident referred the matter to the Ombudsman on 29 September 2023. She said the landlord did not contact the police for further information and it did not use the right information in making its decision. To resolve the matter, she wanted the landlord to allow the management transfer.
  8. The landlord emailed the resident on 20 October 2023. It said a discretionary appeal was completed following the resident providing it with further information. It added that it undertook a further appeal as it was not in possession of this information at the time it made its earlier decision. Having looked at the case again, it maintained its decision not to grant the management transfer. This was on the basis that there was no immediate risk, as there was no evidence that Mr B had contacted the resident since being released. 

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has informed this Service that while she provided information about her vulnerabilities as well as those of her daughter, she was only awarded 5 medical banding points on a rehousing application. This has meant that although she has been regularly bidding on properties, she has been unsuccessful. The decision regarding the banding given for rehousing and the medical points was made by the local authority and not by the resident’s landlord. The Housing Ombudsman does not hold jurisdiction over the local authority in terms of how it handles its housing register. This would be more appropriately dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Because of this, and in line with paragraphs 42.j and 42.o of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident should refer these concerns to the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue this aspect further.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s management transfer policy sets out:
    1. In exceptional circumstances, the landlord will rehouse a resident “outside of our allocations criteria due to a serious threat to their personal safety, where a suitable available property is available to move them away from imminent harm”.
    2. If the reason for a management transfer request is either antisocial behaviour (ASB) or domestic violence:
      1. A management transfer should only be considered if the police or other specialist professional agency confirms in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to the life of the tenant or a family member, which means it is no longer safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at their property.
      2. Due to the impact on physical or mental health, the landlord “should request evidence from other agencies (other than the police) such as health/mental health professionals to confirm that there is a serious risk of harm or threat to life”.
    3. In the event a management transfer request is declined, the landlord will inform the resident that they have 10 working days to appeal if they are unhappy with the decision and believe it to be incorrect. If an appeal is made, the decision will be reviewed within 5 working days by someone not previously involved in the case. The landlord will then inform the resident in writing of the outcome of the appeal.
  2. The policy explains that “additional security measures can be carried out to properties subject to an assessment of the cost and the level of threat”. Examples of the measures the landlord could assist with include windows and door mortice locks, door bolts, chains, and personal alarms.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer

  1. After the resident informed the landlord of her request to be considered for a management transfer, the landlord contacted the police. This was an appropriate action for it to take and was in line with its management transfer policy. The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the police disclosure in which the landlord outlined the circumstances of the incident from 1 January 2023 involving the resident, Ms A and Mr B. The landlord asked the police a number of questions including what action it took against Mr B and it asked whether there was any indication the resident was at risk of further harm from Mr B. This was appropriate for it to do in terms of attempting to identify the degree of risk that the resident might face, and whether, based on this, the management transfer should be accepted in line with its policy. 
  2. The police’s response confirmed that Mr A was charged for 2 offences in connection with the incident. In response to the question about whether the resident was at risk of further harm, the police said Mr B “has conditions not to contract either victim”, was prohibited from entering the local area, and had a home curfew in place as well as a GPS tag. It added that no further incidents had been reported. Based on this, the landlord declined the resident’s request for the management transfer. The landlord’s actions were appropriate given the information provided by the police about the conditions imposed on Mr B and the lack of further reports of incidents since January 2023.
  3. The landlord’s initial decision of 11 September 2023 set out that any appeal needed to be made within 10 working days, and it would “review and respond to your appeal within 14 working days giving you the decision”. While the landlord did act in accordance with its policy of passing the appeal to someone not involved in the original process, the timescales it referred to for its review were not in keeping with its management transfer policy. The policy set out that the landlord would provide its response within 5 working days. This was exceeded by the landlord, which instead issued the review after 11 working days. This was a failing by it.
  4. The landlord’s records show that, following the resident’s appeal, it contacted the police again with further questions. It was reasonable for the landlord to wait until it heard back from the police before it completed its review. While the landlord informed the resident that it was awaiting further information on 19 September 2023, when it acknowledged her appeal, it again referred to the wrong timeframe of 14 days for it to respond to her appeal.
  5. Upon the landlord receiving the further information from the police on 27 September 2023, it issued its review decision to the resident on the same day. This was reasonable. In addition to this, the landlord’s internal notes show that it arranged an appointment with the resident, scheduled for 6 October 2023. This was because – as it noted on 28 September 2023 – it was not possible to use the alarms on the resident’s windows. Booking the appointment was an appropriate action for the landlord to take in line with its responsibilities for security measures under the management transfer policy.
  6. The landlord’s correspondence shows that it considered a further discretionary appeal for the resident on 20 October 2023. It has informed this Service that this was on the basis of the resident providing documentation she had not previously provided to it. This was a letter sent to the resident from a witness care officer which set out the decision of the case against Mr B, including the sentence passed and conditions. The letter confirmed that “any bail conditions previously in place no longer apply”. This related to the GPS tag which Mr B was wearing since his arrest. Although provision for a discretionary appeal was not specifically made within the landlord’s management transfer policy/procedure, it was reasonable for the landlord to revisit the matter once further evidence was provided to it.
  7. Although the landlord looked at the resident’s request on a number of occasions, there is no evidence that it attempted to contact the resident’s GP or any other mental health professional for their opinion. This was relevant because the resident’s request for the management transfer was based on ASB/harassment from Mr B and the likelihood that he would breach his restraining order by contacting her. This was a missed opportunity by it.
  8. The resident has informed this Service that she was also looking after Ms A’s child for around a year, shortly after they were born. This included the time after Ms A was rehoused. However, due to the perceived increased risk of contact from Mr B, the resident gave this up after the child started walking. In addition, the resident mentioned that she was unable to act as a foster parent. While the Ombudsman has noted these comments, the evidence provided by the parties show that the resident did not previously inform the landlord of this as part of her initial request or appeal. Should the resident wish the landlord to consider this, she would need to provide it with further details about the matter.
  9. In all the circumstances, a finding of service failure has been made by the Ombudsman. This is due to the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s appeal in line with the timescales contained in its policy, and for its omission to contact relevant agencies, apart from the police, when considering the management transfer request. The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out any details of amounts it will pay where it has made mistakes. Instead, it says compensation will be considered “on a case-by-case basis”. The Ombudsman has therefore awarded £50, which is in keeping with our remedies guidance for circumstances where there was a minor failure by the landlord that did not materially affect the overall outcome for the resident.
  10. It is noted that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a management transfer through its transfer request and appeal process, and not through its formal complaints process. The management transfer policy states that, where the landlord offers tenants a right of appeal, if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of the appeal then the landlord will not accept the same issue as a complaint. It confirms that the tenant has the same recourse to the Ombudsman following the appeal outcome as they would following a complaint outcome. Similarly, the complaints policy sets out a list of matters the landlord will not consider as complaints, including “disagreement with a decision we have made where there is another procedure to appeal the decision”. The Ombudsman recognises that the resident was not disadvantaged by this process in respect of her access to our Service. However, there may be elements of the landlord’s handling of management transfer decisions that could appropriately be addressed through the complaints process, such as the associated communication and explanation of decisions. While no failure has been found in relation to this aspect, a recommendation has been made with the aim of improving future service delivery.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £50 for its failings in its handling of her request for a management transfer.
    3. Contact the resident to give her the opportunity to provide it any further evidence in relation to a new request for a management transfer. The landlord should then consider it in line with its policies, including contacting any relevant agencies for evidence in relation to the request.
  2. Within the next 8 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to set out in writing to both the resident and this Service its decision on any further management transfer request.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its management transfer and complaints policies (and any other relevant policies) and considers making provision for residents who have appealed decisions to subsequently access its complaints process, if it has not already done so. This is on the basis that any complaint would relate to the landlord’s handling of the decision-making process, and not the decision itself.