Clarion Housing Association Limited (202419433)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419433

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for:
1. An inspection of the property.
2. A management transfer.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the property, a 1-bedroom flat in a low-rise block. The resident has lived at the property alone since June 2017. The landlord has told this Service it is not aware of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
On 14 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord to say she previously asked for an inspection to be conducted at the property in 2022, due to noise and vibrations from buses, and had received no response. The landlord informed the resident it had no records of the request and provided her with advice on alternative housing options.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 28 May 2024. She stated the landlord had failed to inspect her property and to resolve the complaint she wanted to be moved as a priority.
On 3 July 2024 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said it had arranged to conduct an inspection, at her request, but it was unable to gain access to the property. In respect of her housing options the landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority for an emergency priority transfer, or alternatively, she could consider a mutual exchange.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 3 July 2024. She stated she was unhappy with the response and wanted the landlord to provide her with a management transfer. The landlord responded with its stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2024. It apologised that the resident felt the need to complain and stated:
1. There was no evidence to suggest her property was uninhabitable and attempts to conduct inspections had been unsuccessful as the resident had not provided access.
2. It did not consider that the resident was eligible for a management transfer. However, the landlord would continue to support her to explore alternative housing options.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and brought the complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
In her correspondence with this Service, the resident has raised matters that occurred both before and after those subject to this complaint, that have not been through the landlord’s complaint process. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to matters which were considered and completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 26 July 2024. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this Service.
The resident has informed this Service how the issues have impacted on her health. It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, complaints about personal injury are better dealt with by the courts because they will often have the benefit of an independent medical expert who can give evidence on the diagnosis, prognosis and cause of any injury. This means we are unable to determine if the landlord was responsible for any health impacts or personal injury.

Inspection of the property

The resident has told this Service that she has concerns about the safety of her property and states it is uninhabitable. These concerns stem from the property being situated on a busy bus route and she states the noise, vibration and pollution from the buses is having an impact on her health.
In her communication with the landlord, the resident said she had asked for an inspection of her property in 2022 and on 28 March 2024, due to the issues she was experiencing. The landlord has no record of these requests being made.
However, a record of the landlord indicates that the resident did request an inspection of the property on 14 March 2023 due to the vibrations she was experiencing. The landlord attended the property on 11 April 2023 and noted there were no issues.
On 14 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said she had not heard anything back from her request for a property inspection in 2022 and the vibrations from the buses were making her unwell. She did not refer to a further request being made in March 2024. The resident stated she had already requested assistance from Environmental Health, but her case had been closed.
The landlord informed the resident it was unable to locate any information regarding these requests and advised her to speak to her GP if the situation was making her unwell. The landlord also suggested the resident raised a complaint so that the matter could be fully investigated. Given the focus of the conversation was around the lack of action by the landlord, the advice to raise a complaint so that the matter could be investigated further was reasonable.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 May 2024 and stated it had failed to conduct an inspection of her property, despite her home being a “health hazard” due to the high vibrations. The resident requested that the landlord supply her with copies of inspections that had been conducted at the property prior to her moving in and for a further inspection to take place.
On 13 June 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her complaint. It explained that while it could not alter the bus routes, it would be willing to consider noise management. This was a solution focused approach for the landlord to take and demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s complaint seriously.
During the call, the resident also informed the landlord that there were cracks in the walls of the property from the vibrations. In a call to the landlord the following day, the resident stated it was not the vibrations causing her problems, it was the frequency of the buses.
The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 19 June 2024, to assess the cracks and any potential noise improvements it could make. However, the resident cancelled this appointment in advance, and the landlord made a new appointment with her for 26 June 2024. When the surveyor attended the property, the resident was not home. The surveyor contacted the resident by phone while at the property and the resident told him, “It was too late”. The inspection could not take place as there was no access to the property.
The terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement place an obligation on the resident to allow the landlord access to her property to conduct repairs and maintenance work. The landlord cannot be held accountable for any delays caused by the resident not allowing access.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 3 July 2024, the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the resident had felt the need to complain.
2. The sign-up documents from the start of the resident’s tenancy did not indicate there were any repair issues when she moved into the property.
3. The resident informed it in June 2024, that the vibrations were not the issue, and it was the frequency of the buses.
4. While it was unable to locate the earlier requests she had mentioned, it had acted on her complaint promptly by arranging an inspection.
5. A surveyor had attended the property but was unable to gain access. The resident was advised to contact the landlord to arrange a convenient time for the surveyor to reattend.
6. The resident should contact Environmental Health if the buses continued to pose an issue.
The resident felt impacted by the frequency of buses and said it diminished her enjoyment of her property. However, as part of its provision of housing to the resident, the landlord has no control on the type or frequency of traffic that passes the resident’s property. Whether there was a statutory nuisance would be the responsibility of a local authority to decide. Therefore, the advice the landlord gave the resident in its response was appropriate.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 3 July 2024. She stated the property was a “danger” to her life and the landlord had failed to supply her with any documentation that suggested the property was fit for habitation. The resident said that due to the noise, vibrations and pollution from the buses, the property was “not fit for habitation” and it was the landlord’s responsibility to involve environmental health.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2024. The landlord apologised the resident felt dissatisfied; however, it was content that its stage 1 response was accurate and reasonable. The landlord also said:
1. The resident had lived at the property for 7 years, and during that time had reported no issues with the structure or habitability of the property.
2. It was satisfied from the information it held on record, that the property condition met the appropriate lettable standard when the resident moved in.
3. Periodic inspections of the property’s exterior and communal areas had taken place during the period of the resident’s tenancy and revealed no concerns regarding the building’s structure.
4. A surveyor had attended the property as agreed but was unable to gain access.
5. A further surveyor visit had been arranged for 8 August 2024. The appointment required the resident to allow access to the property. If the appointment was inconvenient with the resident, the landlord said it would reschedule.
6. The resident should report the issues to Environmental Health herself, and the landlord would cooperate with any investigation conducted.
The surveyor attended the property on 8 August 2024 but was only able to inspect the exterior and communal areas of the property as the resident was not home. It is understood that the inspection remains outstanding as the resident has not provided the landlord with access to the property.
In summary, the landlord has acted appropriately to the resident’s reports and subsequent complaint. It is clear the resident was frustrated with the situation. However, given that the resident failed to provide access on multiple occasions, contrary to the terms of her tenancy, this prevented the landlord conducting the inspection. Based on the evidence provided, the landlord has demonstrated that it tried to support the resident on multiple occasions to complete the survey.
It was also appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident to report her concerns with Environmental Health. The resident had told the landlord that she had done this in the past. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that there were no barriers to the resident accessing this service and not take the matter up on her behalf.
In conclusion, the evidence shows there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an inspection of her property.

Management transfer

A management move / transfer is a process where tenants who are unable to live safely in their current property can apply to their landlord for a high-priority transfer to a new property.
On 14 May 2024 the resident contacted the landlord regarding the issues she was experiencing in her property, and she said the impact of the buses was making her unwell. The landlord notes of the call recorded the resident advised she was extremely angry and frustrated during the call. The landlord advised the resident that she would need to move via a mutual exchange or obtain GP evidence to support a housing application with the local authority in the area she wished to move to. This was appropriate advice for the landlord to give.
On 28 May 2024 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that her property was uninhabitable. To resolve the complaint, the resident stated she wanted to be moved via “emergency priority transfer” as soon as possible. During a call with the landlord on 14 June 2024, the resident said it was not the vibrations she had an issue with, it was the frequency of the buses.
In its stage 1 response dated 3 July 2024, the landlord advised that emergency priority bandings were awarded by the local authority who held the waiting list. The landlord advised the resident to contact the local authority or consider obtaining a different property through a mutual exchange. The landlord does not have control of the housing list held by the local authority. There was no evidence to suggest the resident’s property was uninhabitable or that the resident was in immediate danger if she returned. In these circumstances, the landlord was not obliged to take further action, and this was appropriate advice for the landlord to give.
The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord on 3 July 2024. She said she was unhappy with the response and wanted a management move to a larger property in a different area because her current property posed a danger to her. The resident stated she had GP evidence to support a move to a different area. This Service has not been provided with evidence that the landlord was provided medical evidence that supports the resident required a move on medical grounds.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 26 July 2024. It said it had applied its management transfer policy, and the resident did not meet the required criteria. However, the landlord stated it would continue to provide support and advice to the resident on other ways in which she could move to her preferred area.
The landlord’s management transfer policy states a transfer can be considered in limited circumstances, which includes:
1. Ani-social behaviour or harassment that puts the tenant at risk of serious harm.
2. Domestic abuse that is putting or likely to put the tenant at serious risk of harm.
3. In exceptional circumstances a management transfer can be used where a tenant has had a significant change in their circumstances and is no longer able to access their home (e.g. life changing injury or disability).
The resident’s circumstances did not fit the criteria for a management transfer set out in the landlord’s policy. Therefore, the landlord’s decision not to provide the transfer was reasonable and one it was entitled to make. The landlord did offer advice and support on other means of obtaining a property.
There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property inspection.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property move.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord continue to liaise with the resident to conduct an inspection of the property, and where possible, provide the resident with copies of inspection documents to provide her with reassurance.