Clarion Housing Association Limited (202014927)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014927

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 May 2022

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

This complaint is about the properties offered by the landlord via its management transfer process.
The related complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant, and the property is described as a ground floor one bedroom flat which has the sole use of a garden.
The landlord’s policy for management transfers sets out how it will handle the requests it receives when it is not safe for the resident to remain at the property and there is a realistic chance of a suitable property becoming available. The landlord will:
1. make one offer of a “like for like” property within three months having regard to the resident’s areas of preference
2. inform the resident that it can consider other rehousing options such as via the local authority, other housing providers and the private sector
3. carry out a regular review on the ongoing need for the management transfer, if a suitable property is not available, and the victim is at serious risk
4. following a refusal of an offer of a management transfer, carry out an appeal within five working days and notify the resident of the outcome within the same time period (five working days).
The landlord’s guidance for residents who have been approved for a management transfer notes that it cannot always make offers in a resident’s preferred area or for a particular property type unless there is an established medical reason or exceptional circumstance and that it has a contractual obligation to let its empty properties through the local authorities’ housing register.
In addition, it shows that properties offered are held for 48 hours, that if most of the property requirements are met, this is considered a reasonable offer and that a refusal of an offer of a property could lead to the review or withdrawal of the management transfer status.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint procedure with complaints answered within 10 working days at the first stage of the complaint’s procedure and within 20 working days at the final stage.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the range of compensation levels payable to resolve an adverse effect or impact on its residents. It recommends awards up to £250 for failure to meet service standards where the failure has not significant impact on its resident and awards between £250 to £700 where it has identified considerable failure but there has been no permanent impact on the complainant.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that it approved a management transfer to a two-bedroom property outside the borough for the resident on 3 April 2019 on the grounds of domestic violence.
The resident complained on 30 April 2019 that she was unhappy that she was only entitled to one offer of alternative accommodation and that if she refused the offer, she would not be entitled to receive another offer of accommodation. It is recorded that the landlord contacted the resident the same day (30 April 2021) to obtain further information regarding the areas she could not stay in due to the domestic violence.
The landlord’s internal records note that on 3 May 2019, it had spoken to the resident who confirmed that she was concerned about receiving only one offer of alternative accommodation, that she needed to be moved because of her experiences with her ex-partner, that she had a police report confirming the situation and that she needed to be near her support network.
A worker from the women’s refuge contacted the landlord on 14 June 2019 to advise that the rent liability for two properties was causing financial difficulty for the resident, that the arrears would continue to mount unless she was found alternative accommodation and requested that the landlord expedite the resident’s move to alternative accommodation especially as the three-month period was nearing. In addition, it explored whether the landlord was considering an internal or reciprocal transfer.
In response, the landlord confirmed that it was considering an internal transfer, that it had not identified a suitable property, that most of its empty properties were subject to the local authority nomination rights and acknowledged the resident’s financial situation. It asked whether the resident had considered applying to the local authority for rehousing, that it would raise the case at the next meeting of the exceptional circumstances panel (ECP) and provide an update.
On 17 June 2019, the worker from the women’s refuge contacted the landlord to advise that the resident had held a tenancy with the landlord for over 20 years, therefore, she did not want to approach the local authority as she considered that a backwards step. In addition, the worker requested the date that the ECP were meeting and asked whether the resident was being considered under the pan London housing reciprocal scheme.
It is noted that the following occurred on the 25 June 2019:
1. the worker from the women’s refuge chased the landlord’s response and advised that the resident had returned to her property that day (25 June 2019) due to the financial strain of having a rent liability for two properties
1. the resident’s case was discussed at the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) and it was recommended that the resident be supported to apply for a transfer as a matter of priority to keep the family safe
2. the landlord confirmed to the worker from the women’s refuge that it could consider the resident’s case under the pan London reciprocal arrangements, that it took all cases seriously and that it was affected by a limited housing supply.
It is noted in the landlord’s records on 1 July 2019 that it checked whether a suitable property was available for the resident.
The landlord’s records show that the resident was made an offer of alternative accommodation of a basement flat in August 2019. The offer of alternative accommodation was refused and the landlord accepted the resident’s reasons that she did not feel safe moving to a basement flat as this was similar to the property she was living in and she retained her status on the management transfer list.
It is recorded that the landlord contacted the resident in November 2019 and February 2020 to advise that it did not have any suitable properties available. However, it did not provide confirmation of those contacts to this Service.
The landlord’s records show that it made an offer of alternative accommodation around November 2019 which the resident refused as the property was near the family of the resident’s ex-partner. The landlord accepted the reason for refusal and the resident remained on the management transfer list.
The landlord made another offer of alternative accommodation on 3 March 2020. The resident refused the offer stating it was too far from her support network. The landlord considered the reasons of refusal and advised the resident that it considered that it had made a reasonable offer in line with its management transfer policy and gave the resident another opportunity to accept the offer.
The landlord received communication from the resident’s Member of Parliament (MP) on 16 March 2020 and the resident was given a further opportunity until the 14 April 2020 to accept the offer otherwise the management transfer status would be withdrawn.
There is no evidence of communication between the landlord and the resident from May 2020 until the resident made her complaint on 29 October 2020. She complained that she had emailed the landlord on 2 March 2020 and it had not responded. She expressed that she remained in an unsafe property, and that:
1. it had failed to find her alternative accommodation or to maintain contact with her
2. she was aware that despite the pandemic, the landlord was still conducting viewings
3. MARAC had been involved and that her ex-partner had breached the injunction on several occasions
4. she had been waiting for 17 months for a move to alternative accommodation and remained in the same situation.
The landlord acknowledged the email that same day (29 October 2020) confirming that the complaint would be investigated. The resident responded the same day advising that she had not received a response to her email of 21 October 2020.
It is noted in the landlord’s records on 18 November 2020 that two offers of alternative accommodation were made to the resident and had been refused. In light of this, a senior manager would review the management transfer status and that the status might be removed.
The landlord emailed and spoke to the resident on 23 December 2020 confirming that it had withdrawn the management transfer status and that she could request a review of its decision.
In response, the resident contacted the landlord on 12 January 2021 to request a written explanation for its decision to remove her from the management transfer list.
On 22 January 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident to advise that the complaint investigation was underway. In response, the resident provided the email correspondence she had with the landlord’s staff regarding the management transfer status.
In response, the landlord emailed the resident on 25 January 2021, apologising for the delay in responding. It stated that its previous correspondence informed her that the last property offered would be the final offer as she had previously refused properties and that she had been given her appeal rights which had now expired.
It is noted that the resident contacted the landlord on 17 February 2021 setting out her circumstances, advising that she lived in fear as her ex-partner had breached the non-molestation order on four separate occasions. She also highlighted that:
1. the landlord had accepted that the two properties it had offered were unsuitable
2. it made an offer in March 2020 advising that she had to accept the property without viewing it
3. new tenants moved into the flat above in October 2020 and she experienced noise disturbance
4. she received a recent diagnosis of PTSD and that her GP had provided a letter noting his concerns and that remaining at the property had an impact on her mental health
5. she requested that the landlord confirm that she was on the management transfer list for urgent rehousing and that the property offered would not put her at risk or compromise her safety.
The landlord responded by emailing the resident the same day (17 February 2021). It explained:
1. that it considered her case to be complex
2. that the complaint investigation was being concluded
3. it had informed her on 23 December 2020 and on 25 January 2021 that the management transfer status had been removed
4. that she could request a review of the decision if she disagreed
5. it apologised for the distress this information caused her
6. that it would conduct a final review of her management transfer status having regard to the medical evidence it had received.
The resident’s advocate contacted this Service on 19 February 2021 advising that the resident had received three offers of alternative accommodation – the first was withdrawn, the second the landlord accepted was unsuitable and the third offer was made during the lock down restriction and the resident could not accept the property without undertake a viewing.
It further advised that following intervention from the MP, the landlord apologised and agreed that the offer would be placed on hold until the lockdown restrictions were lifted. However, the landlord had not accepted that the resident needed to stay close to her support network and had removed her from the management transfer list when she did not accept the last offer. It requested that the landlord review its decision and agree that the resident’s management transfer status be reinstated and that future offers of accommodation it made took into account the resident’s circumstances.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 26 February 2021. It concluded that:
1. it had correctly followed the management transfer offer process
2. it had delayed in informing the resident that she had been removed from the management transfer list
3. no further offers would be made and it provided reasons for the removal from the management transfer list following its review in February 2021
4. it offered a compensation award of £400 for the service failures it had identified: £50 for its failure to respond to letters and return phone calls, £250 for its failure to act in line with its policy and £50 for its complaint handling failures.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint on 8 March 2021. She re–stated her request for the management transfer status to be reinstated and claimed that it had denied her request though it had admitted failings and made her an offer of compensation.
The landlord received representation on behalf of the resident on 15 March 2021 from her university regarding the unsuitability of the previous offers and the landlord responded on the same day advising that it had agreed to a further offer of alternative accommodation to be made to the resident.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to acknowledge her request to escalate to the final stage of the complaint procedure and apologised for the delay in its acknowledgement. It advised that it had tried to contact her by phone and that it would respond to the complaint within 20 working days.
The landlord responded at the final stage of its complaint procedure on 20 April 2021 and apologised for its late response. It concluded that:
1. it had made two offers of alternative accommodation which it had agreed were unsuitable and made a further offer on 3 March 2020, which had been refused
2. it did not accept the resident’s reasons for refusing the property, therefore she was asked to accept the property on 9 March 2020 and following intervention from the MP an additional time was given until 14 April 2020, otherwise, she was advised that the management transfer status would be withdrawn
3. it had carried out a review of the management transfer process in October 2020 and made contact in December 2020 to provide the appeal rights regarding its decision to remove her from the management transfer list
4. it had carried out a further review on 19 February 2021 which upheld the decision to withdraw the management transfer status as the last offer of accommodation made was considered a reasonable offer
5. it had considered the representations it had received regarding the impact caused by remaining at the property where serious domestic abuse had occurred
6. it recognised the failings identified in the stage one response regarding the delays and gaps in communication
7. there was lack of empathy shown in its communication in December 2020 and January 2021 regarding the situation she was in, it recognised that its communication had not provided a comprehensive response to address the queries it had received and apologised for this
8. it had delayed in providing the resident with her appeal rights to the third property it offered and accepted that if the appeal had been carried out earlier, the resident would have had the opportunity to accept the offer of alternative accommodation even though it was not her preferred choice of property
9. her management transfer status would be reinstated and a further offer of alternative accommodation would be made excluding the two boroughs where she would be considered at risk
10. it had improved the management transfer process, by having regular meetings to review its empty properties and identify suitable residents waiting for a management transfer and it would produce a frequently asked questions document to provide information about the management transfer process
11. it apologised that it had not handled the management transfer better and for the frustration and disappointment this caused and awarded a further compensation amount of £300: £250 for its failure to act in accordance with its policy and to engage meaningfully with its resident and £50 for its complaint handling failures.
The resident contacted this Service and advised on 30 April 2021 that she was satisfied with the landlord’s decision to return her to the management transfer list. However, she remained unclear how it had addressed the failings that it had identified especially as there had been a mismanagement of her case.
After the complaint process, the resident experienced further breaches of the non-molestation order in August 2021 and the landlord made a further offer of accommodation on 25 August 2021. The resident was unhappy with the location of the offer and the landlord has advised this Service that it withdrew the offer on 8 October 2021 and that the resident is no longer on the management transfer list.
In addition, the landlord has advised that it is exploring additional security measures that it can put in place such as installing fencing and locks to the resident’s property.

Assessment and findings

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

The resident has experienced domestic violence and it is recognised that this has caused her and her family extreme distress and worry. In reviewing the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman’s role is to look at how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports and her concerns and whether or not it acted appropriately and in accordance with its policies.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair, put things right and 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.
Looking at all the information, in accordance with its management transfer policy, the landlord approved the resident’s management transfer in April 2019. The policy notes its intention to make an offer within three months and its limitations as its empty properties are let through the local authorities housing register
The landlord made two offers of accommodation, the first in August 2019 – four months later and the second within 8 months which it reviewed under its management transfer policy. It accepted the resident’s reasons for refusal which were appropriate actions to take having regard to the nature of the property offered and the locality to her ex-partner’s family.
The landlord made a final offer in March 2020 and when the resident did not view the offer, it withdrew her management transfer status. The landlord appropriately reviewed its actions through its complaint process and agreed to reinstate the management transfer status and make the resident a further offer. The landlord’s action was person focused, as it considered the information from her educational establishment and the medical information, she had supplied regarding how the housing situation had impacted her and acknowledged that its delay in providing her with her appeal rights impacted her ability to reconsider her decision not to view the property it had offered.
The landlord has acknowledged that there were gaps in its communication with the resident between May 2020 to October 2020, that it did not provide regular updates in accordance with its policies, that it did not give full reasons for the removal of the management transfer status in its communication in December 2020, that she had to chase for a fuller explanation for its decision to remove the management transfer status in January 2021 and that it did not provide her with her appeal rights. Following its review, it appropriately recognised that the tone and language within its communication with the resident could have been better by acknowledging the resident’s concerns and providing fuller explanations for the actions it was taking.
When the landlord reviewed the matter through its complaint process, it apologised for the distress that the resident experienced and made an overall compensation award of £600 for its communication failures, for its failure to act in accordance with its policy and for its failure to engage meaningfully with the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay compensation awards of £250 to £700 where it finds considerable failure but there has not been a permanent impact on the resident such as having to repeatedly chase responses and for failure to act in accordance with policy. The amount of redress awarded by the landlord is therefore considered appropriate.
The landlord has learnt from the complaint and has reviewed its operations to improve the management transfer process through the early identification of properties that may be suitable for residents on its management transfer list. It has also agreed to produce a frequently answered questions document to provide clarity to residents affected by the process.
In accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord has been fair in its assessment of its service failure and apologised for this, taken steps to put things right though the award of compensation and identified learning points that should ensure that its handling of management transfer property offers improves in future. This represented reasonable redress for the service failures in its handling of the resident’s property offers.

Complaint handling

The resident complained to the landlord on 30 April 2019 that she was entitled to only one offer under the terms of its management transfer policy and that if she refused the offer she would not be entitled to a further offer. The landlord contacted the resident to obtain further understanding of her concerns, however, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to her complaint. This was inappropriate as this was an opportunity for the landlord to explain its policy and to resolve the concerns that the resident had raised.
The resident made a further complaint in October 2020 that she had been waiting for 17 months on its management transfer list and had not received a suitable offer. The landlord responded to the complaint on 26 February 2021 – this was four months after she made her complaint which is unacceptable as its complaint handling standard states that it will respond within 10 working days.
The landlord assessed that the resident was entitled to an overall compensation award of £400 at the first stage of the complaint’s procedure. There is an error in its calculation as the compensation award totalled £350: £250 for its failure to act in line with its policy, £50 for its failure to communicate effectively with the resident and £50 for its complaint handling failures. The landlord at the final stage of the complaints procedure reviewed the compensation award of £400 and assessed that it was satisfactory considering the gaps and significant delays for its communication service failures with the resident.
The landlord offered £50 at the first stage of the complaint procedure for its complaint handling failures which does not represent the severity of the issue as it took too long for the landlord to respond to her concerns about its delay in finding her alternative accommodation and her appeal rights, particularly given it was aware of the resident’s anxiety about securing a property move. Therefore, the £50 compensation award for its delay in providing a complaint response did not provide sufficient redress.
The resident escalated her complaint on 8 March 2021, requesting the reinstatement of the management transfer status and the landlord received information from the resident’s advocate which it appropriately considered when it undertook its final complaint review.
The landlord’s complaint procedure says that it will provide its final complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 20 April 2021 outside its published timescale of 20 working days. It recognised its delay and offered a further compensation award of £50 for its complaint handling failures. This was an appropriate remedy as it reflected its complaint procedure which states that this level of award is appropriate when it has failed to respond to complaints within its own complaint process.
Overall, the landlord took around two years to complete its consideration of the resident’s concerns around the management transfer status it had awarded. This was unreasonable, especially as it was aware of the resident’s concerns around remaining at the accommodation and the breaches of the non-molestation order by her ex-partner. The £100 compensation awarded by the landlord, £50 at stage 1 and £50 at the final stage was insufficient overall. Therefore, a further award of £100 is appropriate for the delay in resolving the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s experiences, has accepted that there were failings in its handling of the management transfer and its communication with the resident. It has apologised for this, offered compensation, and changed its processes which the Ombudsman considers to be reasonable and proportionate redress for the service failure.
The resident experienced an unreasonable delay in receiving a complaint response from the landlord in reply to her concerns regarding the removal of the management transfer status and its compensation offer was insufficient given the circumstances of the case.

Orders

The landlord should write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord should pay an additional £100 to the resident for its complaint handling failures.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the £700 it offered during its complaint process.