Clarion Housing Association Limited (202403710)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202403710

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. She lives in a two-bedroom property with her partner and two daughters, one of whom was 16 at the time of the complaint.
4. On 14 September 2023 the resident reported a serious incident involving her daughter to the landlord. Subsequently, upon reporting the incident to the police, the resident was informed that the perpetrator, who resides in the same block, had relocated from his address.
5. Between September 2023 and January 2024, the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint by opening an antisocial behaviour (ASB) case, making safeguarding referrals, and advising the resident on options to move, including a management transfer, mutual exchange, and seeking temporary accommodation or placement on the housing waiting list through the local authority.
6. On 5 January 2024 the resident agreed to a management transfer and was offered a ‘like for like’ 2-bedroom property. The resident refused the offer due to concerns about the area being problematic and the property’s run-down condition and the lack of security, with an easily accessible balcony on the main road. 
7. On 8 January 2024 the resident complained, expressing disappointment and frustration with her experience with the landlord. She felt rushed and pressured to decide on the management transfer property offer. She said that she had provided medical evidence confirming their need for a 3-bedroom property and as the oldest daughter was 16 years of age, was entitled to her own bedroom. After maintaining her current property for 10 years, she believed the ‘like for like’ property should be fair. Additionally, she said that she had not been provided with a direct contact for the tenancy specialist team, causing further delays.
8. In a follow-up email on 11 January 2024, the resident mentioned that the area the offered property was in did not come under her chosen areas. She felt that the property had two very small bedrooms, which would not be suitable for her children, especially her eldest daughter, who self-harmed. She said the landlord had been irresponsible not to consider the property’s safety or the family’s well-being.
9. The landlord sent a stage 1 response and reiterated that its management transfer policy did not permit the resident to move to a larger property. She was encouraged at the time to reconsider her refusal. The landlord deemed the offer reasonable, and as it was refused, the resident’s priority status was removed, in line with its policy. It apologised that the resident had felt rushed, but it had to act on matters with urgency where high risks were identified. It explained that the customer service email had been given to ensure an audit trail for all communication and to ensure the resident received a response in the absence of staff members. It offered £50 compensation for the delay in its complaint response.
10. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked the landlord to review its handling of the management transfer and the compensation it offered. She felt the compensation was not enough to address the emotional distress and safety issues faced by her family.
11. The landlord’s final response on 27 March 2024 confirmed that a management transfer was not initially used to relocate overcrowded families. The landlord had reinstated the management transfer after a further incident on 25 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged communication difficulties and awarded £250 in compensation for various issues, broken down as follows: £100 as discretionary payment for the management transfer not being originally awarded and the resident having to escalate, £50 for the communication issues, and a further £50 for the stage 2 response being sent outside of its service level agreement, with an additional £50 offered at stage 1.
12. The resident asked us to investigate her complaint as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her management transfer. The landlord stated in an email to us in September 2024, “As the customer has children of the same gender and the eldest is now 17, we are happy to consider a move to a 3-bedroom, but this does not mean the customer will be moved any sooner.”

Assessment and findings

Landlord policies

13. The landlord‘s management transfer policy as was in place at the time outlines how it will address requests from residents who are dealing with antisocial behaviour (ASB) or harassment that puts them in danger.
14. The policy confirms that while a resident is awaiting a suitable property, additional security measures can be considered subject to an assessment of cost and level of threat.
15. The policy specifies that the landlord will make one offer of a suitable property, as defined in section 7 of the allocations policy.
16. Section 7.1 of the allocations policy as was in place at the time confirms that a property will be considered appropriate in size by allowing one bedroom for the applicant and their spouse, and each person in the household aged 16 or older.

Assessment

17. We recognise that the circumstances in this case have undoubtedly led to significant distress for the resident, her daughter, and their family.
18. The landlord was notified of the incident in September 2023 and acted appropriately by advising the resident on her options to relocate from the property. The landlord completed safeguarding referrals, collaborated with the police and social services, and provided the resident with contact information for other support agencies, demonstrating effective partnership working and collaboration.
19. The resident carefully considered her moving options and what was best for her family. She expressed concern about being offered a like-for-like property as she had asked for a 3-bedroom property, explaining the impact the incident had on her 16-year-old daughter, which had led her to a decline in her mental health and self-harming. She did not think it was appropriate for her to share a room with her younger sibling, a position that was supported by the police and doctor.
20. The resident declined the landlord’s management transfer offer of a 2-bedroom flat, citing safety concerns as a main issue (along with other factors), particularly regarding the balcony’s accessibility from the main road. The landlord’s failure to adequately recognise or address the resident’s valid concerns demonstrated a lack of empathy and consideration for the family’s experience.
21. Additionally, the imposition of deadlines to accept or refuse the offer left the resident feeling unsupported and pressured. While acknowledging the necessity of reasonable timelines, a more empathetic approach and a comprehensive review of the property’s security could have instilled confidence and provided the necessary support for the resident in making her decision.
22. While the resident was in her property, the landlord failed to take adequate measures to ensure the family’s safety. According to the management transfer policy, additional security measures can be considered while a resident waits for a property to become available. The evidence shows that the landlord indicated that arrangements were being made for additional locks on the windows and doors in response to a safeguarding referral in February 2024. It is unclear why this did not proceed, or why the landlord had not considered it earlier. The resident has since informed our service that the promised additional security measures were not installed despite receiving panic alarms.
23. The landlord’s management transfer policy, which was in effect at the time of the complaint, states that only one suitable property will be offered. The definition of “suitability” is provided in their allocations policy. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord frequently referred to the management transfer offer as one that would be “like for like.”
24. Section 7.1 of the allocations policy defines suitability by offering a property of an appropriate size. It calculates property requirements by allowing one bedroom for the applicant and their spouse or partner, one for each person in the household aged 16 or older, and one for every pair of children under 16 of the same sex. As the eldest daughter was 16 then, the policy confirms that she was eligible for her own bedroom, therefore, the family was eligible for a 3-bedroom property. However, the landlord failed to apply its policy correctly or explain its decision-making process to the resident. 
25. Despite the clear evidence provided by the doctor and police supporting the family’s need for a 3-bedroom property, the landlord missed another opportunity to assess their bedroom requirements. While the family’s need for a 3-bedroom property was confirmed in the landlord’s application to the local authority, the landlord failed to review its own assessment of the family’s bedroom allocation.
26. As noted above, in September 2024 the landlord confirmed to our service that it was willing to consider the resident for a 3-bedroom property due to the resident’s eldest daughter being 17 years old, although this did not mean the customer would be moved any sooner. It is unclear exactly what the landlord meant by this, and there is no indication that the resident has been offered a 3-bed management move since September 2024. The resident has told us she was not informed of this change of position by the landlord. The landlord unreasonably delayed confirming the resident’s eligibility for a 3-bedroom property, exacerbating the distress caused in an already stressful situation. Additionally, the landlord’s suggestion that she was using her management transfer to “avert overcrowding” was insensitive and inappropriate.
27. The landlord confirmed that its previous communication had made it difficult for the resident to make contact and acknowledged its failure to adjust its service provision as necessary. It appropriately offered compensation to recognise the impact on the resident and assured that a new dedicated officer would oversee the case. The landlord’s attempt to address the situation was reasonable. However, its failure to inform the resident about the revised bedroom eligibility after the complaints process was completed likely caused further distress and demonstrates that the landlord has not sufficiently learned from its previous communication failings.
28. The landlord showed some positive practices in its partnership working, but it failed to follow its management transfer and allocation policy. At times, the landlord lacked sensitivity to the resident’s circumstances and failed to understand the impact of the incident on the family. As a result, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer. An order has been made to return the resident to her original position, which would have allowed her eligibility for a 3-bedroom management transfer, had the errors not occurred.
29. We have reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance. According to the landlord’s policy, payments ranging from £250 to £700 are offered in cases of significant service failure without a permanent impact on the resident. This includes instances such as prolonged failure to adhere to policy and repeatedly passing the complainant between staff without any one person taking overall responsibility. Therefore, we have decided to award £550 in addition to the £150 offered. A payment towards the higher end of the scale is appropriate for the identified failings, which have caused significant distress over a prolonged period.

Complaint handling

30. At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s interim complaints policy required responses to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 responses within 10 working days from the date the complaint was logged.
31. In this case both responses from the landlord were outside its interim policy timescales. However, the landlord recognised this, apologised and explained what action it was taking to improve. It also offered £100 in compensation for the delays. This was reasonable to remedy the impact of the failing and was in line with our remedies guidance.
32. The landlord has confirmed that it implemented a new complaints policy to comply with the Complaint Handling Code in April 2024 and that training was implemented to update staff on the changes. Therefore, no further orders have been made on this.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer.
34. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered redress to the complainant prior to the investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint.

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £550 for the impact the failings had on the resident.
    3. Pay the resident £250 offered at stage 2 if it has not already done so.
    4. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident, unless she requests otherwise.
    5. Write to the resident to confirm her eligibility for a 3-bedroom management transfer, setting out the next steps in the process and the likely timescales involved.
    6. Review the communication failings in this case and confirm what steps it has already taken or will take to improve communication with vulnerable residents in the future.
    7. The landlord should update us within 4 weeks that it has complied with the above orders.
36. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Complete refresher training regarding the handling and application of management transfers. In particular, the landlord should confirm that all frontline staff are familiar with the process and application, as set out in its policies.