Clarion Housing Association Limited (202120262)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120262

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 March 2023

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 landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports concerning antisocial behaviour.
2. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 30 August 2005 and the property is a flat. The resident has vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.

Antisocial Behaviour

Throughout the years the resident has made reports about her neighbours’ antisocial behaviour (ASB). During March 2020, the resident raised an ASB report about her neighbour arriving in the property ‘intoxicated, bouncing off walls and shouting abuse’. She explained to the landlord at the time that the police were informed.
On 7 May 2020, the landlord created an action plan with the resident which explained what steps it would jointly take moving forward to assist her with issues she was experiencing in the property. It also said that it would assist the resident with ASB issues although it did not provide any more detail on this.
On 24 August 2020 the resident raised an ASB report about her other neighbour subletting. She expressed concerns about the neighbour’s cleanliness, parties and raised concerns about the child in the property.
During November 2020 the resident raised a further ASB report about a noisy party that took place and the dumping of bulk rubbish in communal areas. The landlord forwarded on the concerns to its tenancy specialist and provided diary sheets to the resident to get an understanding of the ongoing incidents.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord sent a letter to the resident informing her that it was closing her case. It explained that it had met its agreed plan of action dated 7 May 2020 although it did not provide any further detail on this. The resident raised further concerns about her neighbour, and the landlord sent her more diary sheets to complete.
Throughout February 2021, the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint. It reviewed the timeline of ASB and did not find any open incidents, nor did it find that any diary sheets had been returned by the resident.
On 16 February 2021, the resident made a further ASB report about her neighbour and subletting of the property. Subsequently the landlord considered possible abandonment of the property and proceeded to look into the matter. It was noted that the landlord had previously checked the property on 17 December 2020 and there were no signs of abandonment.
On 23 February 2021, the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in issuing a stage two response. It acknowledged the resident complained about its slow progress with her ASB complaint, which she first raised over 30 months ago. However the landlord explained the case was closed in March 2020 due to lack of contact from the resident. The stage two response did not make reference to the resident’s recent ASB reports in November 2020, however it said the resident should contact it if further issues arose.

Management Transfer

The resident is a victim of domestic violence and on this basis it was recommended she be added to the landlord’s management transfer list around December 2019. The management transfer criteria was discussed with the resident, and she informed the landlord of her area of preference and that she did not wish to live in a flat.
On 1 May 2020, the landlord made two property offers to the resident. The first property was a two bedroom house, and the second was a flat.
In response to these offers, the resident said that she did not wish to accept either for the following reasons:
1. Two bedroom house – She did not wish to live in the area, it was not the area which she had initially asked for and she did not feel safe in that area.
2. Flat – She did not wish to live in a block of flats and wanted her own garden.
The landlord explained that it was difficult to meet the resident’s criteria which led to the delay in it being able to offer her an alternative property sooner. It proceeded to write to the resident to explain that, following her refusal of the two properties offered, it would be withdrawing her from the management transfer list. It further explained that it felt her rehousing request should have been made on a medical basis rather than as a management transfer, and signposted her to the local authority for assistance.
On 7 May 2020, the landlord created an action plan with the resident regarding what she wanted to achieve and what steps it would jointly take in regards to her request to move homes. It agreed to do the following:
1. To assist the resident to register on the housing portal.
2. To provide advice regarding making a complaint about how her management transfer was dealt with.
On 14 October 2020 the resident raised a complaint about her request for a management move, and the landlord issued its stage one response on 20 November 2020. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about her management move offers and subsequent removal from the list.
The landlord explained that it had a limited pool of homes it could offer and the ones previously offered to the resident were in line with its policy. It recognised it was not possible to meet all of the resident’s criteria, but believed it had made two reasonable offers. As the resident had not accepted either of these, it had removed her from its management transfer list as per its policy.
The landlord explained that it informed the resident in May to contact her local authority to assist her further. It also said that her rehousing request should be made on a medical basis rather than as a management transfer.
On 12 January 2021, the landlord sent a letter to the resident explaining that it had met its agreed plan of action dated 7 May 2020. It had referred her to its tenancy sustainment team and supported her with registering with the housing portal.
During February 2021, the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint and refusal of its offers. It looked into reasons as to why the two property offers it made were not suitable, it took into consideration if these were in an area where the perpetrator of domestic violence lives or any other reasons as to why the property was not suitable.
On 23 February 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the resident. It apologised for the delay and explained it understood her complaint to be about the following:
1. When the resident first applied for a management transfer she specified she did not want to move to a block of flats, because of past experiences.
2. Because of domestic violence(DV) history, the resident informed the landlord of locations she would feel safe in. She was asked to expand the scope but did not feel this was reasonable.
3. Two offers in May 2020 did not comply with the resident’s needs, because one was in a block of flats, the other was not in the preferred location.
4. In 2016, the resident had surgery for a brain tumour, this affected her personality (anxiety, depression, bipolar).
5. The resident was unhappy with the cancellation of the management transfer status. She stated at the time she was unable to mentally deal with an appeal within the time allowed.
6. The resident would like the landlord to reinstate her management transfer application.
In addition to the final response the landlord provided the management transfer and allocation policy to the resident. It explained that it relies on a management transfer in a small number of circumstances where a tenant is experiencing either serious anti-social behaviour or harassment that puts their life at risk; or domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put, the tenant or a member of their households’ life at risk.
It also explained that only one offer for a like for like property is generally made in such circumstances. As it made two offers, including one house, and because it saw no evidence that living in a flat would impact the resident, it concluded that these offers were not detrimental to her safety and well-being.
The landlord further advised the resident to make a rehousing application to a different local authority or to seek a mutual exchange if her health was being impacted.
The landlord acknowledged it was delayed in provided the resident with a response at both stages of the complaints process and offered a total of £100.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour (ASB)

In cases concerning ASB or noise nuisance, we assess how the landlord responded to the reports of ASB and whether its response was in accordance with its policies and procedures, relevant legislation and good practice, and appropriate and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
The evidence shows that the resident had made several complaints about the sub-letting claims, the earliest stemming back to March 2020. The landlord had stated that this complaint had been closed down as the resident did not wish to take the complaint further. Most recent to the resident’s complaint, on two occasions during August and November 2020, the resident made reports about her neighbours having parties, dumping bulk waste and subletting the property.
The evidence shows that when the resident reported ASB in August the landlord acknowledged her concerns, it then wrote to her and explained that no further action would be taken. We have not seen that the landlord explained its reasons to the resident for not progressing the case further.
When the resident raised further concerns during November 2020, the landlord issued diary sheets to her twice to complete in order to get a better understanding of the issues which were occurring and to support its investigation. We have not seen evidence that the diary sheets were completed or returned to the landlord.
The evidence shows that the resident raised further concerns in January 2021, however we have not seen a report for this. The landlord then provided further diary sheets for the resident to complete.
Section 5.1. of the landlord’s ASB policy states, ‘We will categorise ASB complaints as follows:
1. Crime (category 1) – ‘we will work with the police on a collaborative basis to tackle criminal activity in our neighbourhoods; we will take action to enforce tenancy conditions and refer victims to relevant support agencies, while the Police investigate the criminal behaviour and bring charges against the perpetrator. We will not generally lead on resolving such incidents, but in some serious cases if it is appropriate to do so, we will explore our options for taking our own legal action such as an ex parte injunction’.
2. Noise (category 2) –‘we will investigate cases within 5 working days when our threshold is met. We will initially encourage customers to try and resolve noise nuisance from neighbours between themselves and advise customers to report excessive noise to their local council’s environmental health team. We will try to work with the local environmental health service that have statutory powers to tackle noise nuisance and serve abatement notices on those responsible for the noise’.
3. Other forms of ASB (category 3) – ‘we will investigate other cases of ASB within 5 working days when our threshold is met’.
Section 5.2.1 of the ASB policy explains ASB thresholds. It states that ‘where the ASB requires something to be removed such as discarded drugs paraphernalia or dumped rubbish in communal areas, we will remove the items but will not investigate the problem unless the threshold is met’.
Section 5.2.2. states ‘The thresholds for categories 2 (noise) and 3 (other ASB) are:
1. Three separate incidents reported in the last 7 days by the same person or a member of the same household.
2. Five separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by the same person or member of the same household’.
3. Two separate incidents reported in the past 28 days by two or more people from different households’.
The resident’s reports did not meet the threshold for the landlord to investigate the ASB. We have not seen evidence of multiple reports within a short period of time and therefore when the resident brought the complaint to the landlord during August 2020, it was within its guidelines to not progress the matter. The evidence shows that the landlord was proactive in writing to the resident to inform her that it was closing the case, however this did not provide an explanation to the residents as to why the case was being closed.
Whilst we understand the landlord’s decision to close the case, we have not seen evidence to support that it looked at the longer history of the resident’s reports. Taking into consideration the resident’s vulnerabilities, and the repeat reports it would have been proactive for the landlord to look at the overall issues as a whole and provide the resident with a detailed explanation as to why it was not taking further actions. Whilst the Ombudsman does not consider that this constitutes service failure in this case, we have made a recommendation to the landlord to help it improve its future service.
With regard to the further reports made in November and January 2021, the evidence shows the landlord did look into the resident’s concerns about her neighbour subletting, however it did not find evidence of this. Following this, It was proactive for the landlord to request that the resident complete diary sheets. Given the nature of the reports, it can be difficult to substantiate a resident’s claims, therefore diary incident sheets would have aided in the landlord’s investigations by providing information about frequency and nature of incidents. We have not seen evidence to suggest that the resident had completed these or provided them to the landlord. Therefore without further information to support an investigation and also taking into account the gaps in reports, the landlord was within its right to close the resident’s complaint and take no further action.

The resident’s request for a management transfer

The landlord has an obligation to handle housing transfers and allocations in accordance with policies, which ensures all residents are treated fairly and consistently. Section 3.1 of the landlord’s management transfer policy sets out the following circumstances are considered for management transfers:
1. Serious anti-social behaviour or harassment that puts their life at risk.
2. Domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put the tenant or a member of their households’ life at risk.
In this instance it is understood the resident was a victim of domestic violence, therefore it was appropriate for the landlord to consider her for a management transfer.
The resident has said that when she spoke to the landlord about her need for a management transfer, she explained that she did not want to live in a block of flats, and that she had informed it of locations she would feel safe in. We have reviewed the available information and found no record of these conversations. However, we can see that the landlord confirmed that it further spoke to the resident about expanding the location choices.
The landlord proceeded to offer the resident two properties. One was within a block of flats and the other was a house. The resident refused these offers because she felt they did not meet her needs.
Section 3.3(v) of the conditions for management transfers policy states, ‘only one offer of a ‘like for like’ property will be made unless the tenant is currently under-occupying.’ Considering that the landlord offered the resident two properties, one of which was in line with her preference of a house instead of a like for like offer of a flat, this was proactive and went beyond its policies to accommodate the resident.
It is not disputed the resident had a preference to the location. Section 4.5 of the policy states that the landlord’s priority in agreeing management transfers is to remove the individual from a property/area in which they are currently at risk to a place of safety. Where it can, it will try to take account of the residents’ preference in respect to the areas for rehousing.
In this instance the landlord took into consideration the resident’s preference, however did not state this was a guarantee. Whilst we acknowledge the resident had a preference, we have not seen any evidence to suggest any safety concerns for the properties offered. It is important to understand that properties offered are subject to availability, so it is not always possible for landlords to entirely meet a resident’s preferences.
The landlord removed the resident from the management transfer list following the refusal of these two properties. On removal it signposted the resident to its tenancy sustainment team to support her with registering with the local authority’s housing portal.
The Ombudsman understands how sensitive the resident’s circumstances are, however the landlord’s policy clearly stated that it would only offer one property on the management transfer list and, as the resident refused two properties, it was within its right to remove her from the management transfer list. Overall the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord handled the situation with care and in accordance with its guidelines.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to resident’s complaints. It explains that a two-stage complaint procedure is ideal. In this instance the landlord has two complaint stages and provided the resident with two formal responses.
We have reviewed the landlord’s complaints policy, however it does not provide expected timeframes. In its stage two response, it explained that it aims to resolve stage one complaints within 10 working days. For stage two complaints it aims to respond within 20 working days. Generally in the event a landlord is unable to do so, it should write to the resident to inform them of the expected date for a response.
In this instance the resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 14 October 2020, however she did not receive a stage one response until 20 November 2020. Following this she requested for the complaint to be escalated on 9 December 2020 but did not receive a stage two response until 23 February 2021.
The landlord apologised for the delay and considered its compensation policy, offering the resident £100 compensation for service failings during stage one and two of the complaints process.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord was correct to offer compensation to the resident as there was a clear delay in responding to her. The landlord’s compensation policy states that in instances of failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure has no significant impact it would award from £50 compensation.
Whilst we acknowledge that the delay caused inconvenience and upset to the resident, the landlord was proactive in apologising and offered compensation in line with its guidelines. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the apology and amount of compensation offered was fair, and taken together this was reasonable redress.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning anti-social behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in response to the failings in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord handled the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. Its responses to the resident’s reports were proportionate to the evidence that was available to it.
Whilst we recognise the resident’s housing situation and reasons for seeking an urgent move, the landlord made two reasonable offers of property that were in line with its management transfer policy.
The landlord acknowledged its complaint handling service failings, apologised to the resident and compensated her fairly.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

If it has not done so already, the landlord to pay its offer of compensation to the resident within four weeks of the date of this letter.
The landlord to contact the resident to discuss her current housing options and any other assistance it can provide her.
The landlords should consider its current approach to record keeping and satisfy itself it is sufficiently accurate and robust, to demonstrate what face to face or phone conversations take place.
When repeat reports are made, the landlord should look at the history of reported cases, offering an explanation to its resident’s on the outcome of its review.