Clarion Housing Association Limited (202116949)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116949

Clarion Housing Association Limited

5 September 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s complaint that she had been discriminated against.
2. Her management transfer.
3. Repairs to a lift and the associated decant process.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord’s handing of the resident’s the resident’s complaint that she had been discriminated against is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident initially asked for a management transfer in July 2021, because the lift at her property kept breaking down. She said that when the lift was broken she was unable to use the stairs, due to her disability. The landlord initially refused the resident’s request. The resident appealed the decision, and wrote to the landlord on 19 August 2021 and said its decision to refuse the management transfer application amounted to disability discrimination, and a failure to make reasonable adjustments for her disability. The landlord changed its decision on appeal agreed to a management transfer on 23 August 2021. While the landlord has agreed to the transfer, the resident remains concerned that the landlord discriminated against her when she initially made her request.
While the serious nature of this matter is acknowledged, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding of discrimination. Whether or not the provisions of the Equality Act 2010 have been adhered to is a matter that may only be decided by a court of law.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
As such, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider the resident’s complaint that the landlord discriminated against her. Should the resident remain concerned about this matter, she may wish to consider seeking legal advice.
While the Ombudsman has not investigated the resident’s concerns that she had been discriminated against, we have assessed the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s management transfer request; and whether it gave due regard to her vulnerabilities.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and at the time of her complaint she lived in a 2 bedroom flat on the 4th floor of a block. he landlord’s records show the resident is disabled and has restricted mobility. The resident has advised that she was reliant on the lift to access her property, as she was unable to use the stairs.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 2 July 2021 and reported that the lift in the building had broken down. She said that she was unable to get up and down the stairs to her property, due to her disability. The resident contacted the landlord again on 5 July 2021 and said:
1. She wanted the landlord to move her, as she was unable to use the stairs when the lift was not working, due to her disability;
2. Her neighbour was making it difficult for the landlord to fix the issues with the lift, because the “motor room” for the lift was in his garden, and he often refused access;
3. She had been told by her housing officer that the landlord did not “rehouse people with health problems”;
4. She felt that the landlord was “dragging [its] feet” and previous emails about that matter were ignored.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 July 2021 and apologised for the ongoing inconvenience of the issue with the lift, and said:
1. An engineer had attended the day before, but was unable to repair the lift;
2. It was going to make arrangements to provide the resident with suitable temporary accommodation;
3. It was considering the resident’s management transfer request, and would issue a decision in line with its management transfer policy;
4. It had obtained an injunction against her neighbour. The neighbour had breached the injunction (not allowed access to do works on the lift), and it had submitted an application to the court to enforce the injunction order.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 July 2021 and asked for an update on her management transfer request. The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. It would call her later that day about hotel accommodation that it had booked for her;
2. The management transfer decision was made by a senior manager and “was not a quick process”, and it had all of the resident’s supporting information it needed to make a decision;
3. If it did approve the request it would be “several months” before a suitable property became available, due to the “short supply” of ground floor properties.
The resident called the landlord on 8 July 2021 and said that she had decided not to accept its offer of temporary accommodation, and would stay with a relative. The resident contacted the again landlord on 30 July 2021 and “the lift had been out of service for 5 weeks”, and asked why it was taking “so long” to fix. She asked the landlord why it was “allowing [her neighbour] to dictate” whether it could do works on the lift, and why the landlord had not evicted him so it could do the works.
The landlord refused the resident’s request to be put on its management transfer list on 26 July 2021, and said:
1. It had decided to refuse the resident’s management transfer request, because her application did not meet the criteria;
2. The criteria for accepting an application were when a resident was experiencing serious anti-social behaviour, harassment or domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put the tenant or a member of their households’ life at risk;
3. It had considered the “exceptional situation” with access issues for fixing the lift and said it was working with its tenancy specialist team and the police to address the issue;
4. It had also considered the fact that the resident was being temporarily accommodated elsewhere while it tried to resolve the matter;
5. As such, it was of the view that the resident did not meet the criteria for being accepted for a management transfer on an exceptional basis;
6. It advised the resident of her right to appeal its decision.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 August 2021 asking to appeal its decision, and said:
1. The unreliability of the lift, meant there were times when she could not access her property;
2. Her disability would get worse over time and her property would become unsuitable;
3. Due to the access issues in fixing the lift, and the matter was ongoing she should be allowed to move.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 August 2021, and asked why it was not replying to her emails about the lift repair. The landlord responded the same day and apologised for not getting back to her sooner. It said that it would now be providing twice weekly updates to residents about its progress with the lift repair, and had identified the cause of the issue. It estimated the works would take 3 to 5 days to complete, and would book the work in as a priority, and was working to get full access to complete the works. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by the issue.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 August 2021 and said that she was concerned that it was not taking the injunction against her neighbour seriously and it still had not completed the works on the lift. The landlord responded the same day and said that it was concerned the neighbour was not complying with the injunction, which has impacted on its ability to carry out the lift repairs. It said it was taking action to enforce the injunction and had contacted the police, but the police had been unable to take any action. It said it had applied to the court, but no hearing date was listed yet, and apologised for the disruption.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 August 2021 and asked about its decision on her management transfer appeal, as she had been waiting over 20 days. The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 August 2021 with its appeal decision and said:
1. It decided to offer a discretionary management transfer on an “exceptional basis”, as it had been unable to confirm when the lift would be repaired due to access issues;
2. Under its management transfer policy the resident would get one reasonable offer only;
3. It advised the resident to widen her areas of choice to reduce the wait to find a new property, as it had a limited number of suitable properties in the area she had chosen.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 August 2021 and said she wanted to make a complaint about the landlord’s handling of her management transfer request, and the length of time she had been decanted. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 31 August 2021, and said her complaint had been allocated to its complaints team who would contact her directly. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 10 September 2021 and said:
1. It had originally declined the resident’s management transfer request because, as per its policy, there needed to be evidence of a serious risk of harm through antisocial behaviour or domestic abuse. In normal circumstances residents that require a move, due to medical needs, would need to apply for rehousing with the local authority;
2. Having considered the resident’s appeal it had decided to approve a discretionary management transfer, as it was unable to determine when the lift would be repaired;
3. It advised the resident to apply for rehousing with the local authority, as this was another way she could be rehoused;
4. It was experiencing difficulties in completing the repairs to the lift, due to access issues through the neighbour’s property. It had applied to the court to enforce the injunction, but this had been contested and the matter was adjourned to a future date;
5. It had decided that the approval for the resident’s decant would remain active until the lift was fully repaired, or a new property was found through the management transfer process;
6. It understood that the resident had decided to stay with a relative, but said that if the arrangement was no longer possible, she could get in touch and it would arrange temporary accommodation;
7. It would continue to provide regular updates about the repair and apologised for the inconvenience and length of time it was taking to resolve the matter;
8. It had found no failures in its handling of the issue, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint, and advised how to escalate to the next stage if she was dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 September 2021, and asked for her complaint about its handling of her management transfer to be escalated to stage 2. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and felt its approach and the policy itself was discriminatory.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 September 2021 and said that she wanted to raise another complaint about paying rent while she was decanted. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response, to the above complaint, on 4 October 2021 and said:
1. When a resident is decanted, they are still expected to pay rent on their property, but are not expected to pay rent on their temporary accommodation;
2. It had been providing the resident with a daily allowance while she was living with relatives temporarily. It was aware the resident was not happy with the amount, due to the costs she was incurring;
3. It had investigated the complaint and found no failures in its handling of the matter, and advised how to escalate to the next stage if the resident was dissatisfied.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 October 2021 and asked the complaint about a rent refund, while decanted, to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 October 2021 and said she did not want to accept the management transfer it had offered. The resident stated that the property had “a very strong smell of damp” and “was in a bad state”. The landlord responded on 21 October 2021 and said that it had decided that the offer would not be considered as the resident’s “final offer”. This was because it had internal stairs, and did not meet the resident’s needs of a ground floor property, and said the resident has been put back on its list for a new offer. The landlord stated that it could take some time, as it could not easily predict when a suitable property would come up. It said it would ensure its next offer was suitable for the resident and it would be a final offer.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response to the complaint about a request for a rent refund on 26 October 2021, and said:
1. It had reviewed its actions in line with its decant policy, and found it had applied the policy correctly and the resident was liable to pay rent while decanted;
2. It was paying the resident a £30 per day ‘household allowance’ which was to cover food and a contribution to living costs while she stayed with family. It was aware that the resident was not happy with this amount, but was satisfied it was acting in line with its procedures in relation to the matter;
3. It said that the fact her son remained at the property, while she was decanted, further supported its view that the resident was liable to pay rent;
4. It was still pursuing legal action against her neighbour in order to gain access to do the works. This was a lengthy process, which was made even longer by the fact that the neighbour had contested the injunction. It had worked “extremely hard” to get to that point, and it did not “underestimate the impact” the matter had on its residents;
5. It was of the view it had acted appropriately in relation to the matter, and had been providing regular updates;
6. It said that the resident had now concluded its complaints process with this complaint, and advised how to contact this Service if she was dissatisfied with its response.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 November 2021 and said an injunction was granted at court to give it access to complete the repairs to the lift. It had booked contractors to complete the repairs in the week beginning 15 November 2021, and would take 5 to 10 days to complete.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response about its handling of the management transfer request on 11 November 2021 and said:
1. It was satisfied that it had not discriminated against the resident on grounds of disability;
2. It restated its position outlined in its stage 1 response that the resident had been granted a management transfer on “exceptional” grounds;
3. An allowance was added during the creation of its management transfer policy, that in “very exceptional circumstances” it would agree to management transfers on medical grounds. This would be considered when a resident is no longer able to access their property, due to a disability. It explained that this was the ground on which the resident’s management transfer request was approved. It disputed the resident’s claim that its management transfer policy was discriminatory;
4. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to resolve the lift repair, and the neighbour refusing access had been a “very frustrating experience for all”;
5. It had decided not to award the resident compensation for the inconvenience she had experienced, as its compensation policy defines compensation as a recompense as a direct result of its actions or failure to act. It was of the view it had taken the appropriate action in the case and legal action was ongoing;
6. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint, and offered £50 in compensation for the delay;
7. The resident had now concluded its complaints process, and advised how to contact this Service if she was dissatisfied with its response.

Events after the complaints process

The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 November 2021 and said that its contractor had completed the repair works to the lift, and it was in back in service. It said that it needed to complete refurbishment works to the lift, and these would begin in January/February 2022. The landlord said it had arranged for a discretionary payment of £100 in compensation per household, for the inconvenience caused by the delay in carrying out the repairs.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 November 2021, and said she had not received a decant payment she was due in October 2021. The resident emailed the landlord again on 23 November 2021 and said that the lift was still not working properly, and expressed concern that she could not return to her property until the lift was fully functioning. The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. Its contractor had attended the previous day, and had left the lift in working order;
2. It was happy to continue with the decant arrangements in place, until it was satisfied the issue was resolved. It advised that the resident was free to return to her property, but it could not guarantee the reliability of the lift, until it had completed the refurbishment work in early 2022;
3. It had arranged for the missed decant payment to be made later that week;
4. It had identified a suitable management transfer offer for the resident and hoped she would be able to view the property in the week beginning 6 December 2021.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 December 2021, and said that she wanted the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. The resident said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the management transfer, the decant, and its refusal to refund her rent.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 December 2021 and said she had decided to go and see the property it had offered, herself. The resident raised a concern that the property had internal stairs, and was not be suitable for her needs. The landlord responded on 16 December 2021 and said it had withdrawn the offer, as the property had internal stairs and was unsuitable. It apologised for the inconvenience and said that its systems did not show if a property had internal stairs, or not, and only stated which floor the property was on. It said that it would check the suitability of any further properties before it offered them.
The landlord emailed the resident on 4 January 2022 and said that it had found a suitable property that she could view the following week. The resident viewed the property on 11 January 2022, and told the landlord that it was unsuitable for her needs due to the size of the second bedroom. She said that her limited mobility would prevent her moving around the bedroom properly. The landlord responded on 12 January 2022 and said that it had withdrawn the offer, as it accepted the resident’s concerns about the property, and the impact of the smaller bedroom.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 January 2022, and said it had been 41 days since her last decant payment. The landlord responded the next day and said it had raised the payment and would be in her account in 5 to 7 working days. It said it had now set up the payments to be made automatically on a monthly basis.
The landlord told this Service the resident accepted a management transfer offer on 23 May 2022.The resident told this Service on 24 July 2023 that her new property was suitable for her needs, and she was “happy with it”.

Relevant obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s management transfer policy states it is to be used to move a resident when they are experiencing serious antisocial behaviour, harassment or domestic abuse. The policy is to be used if the situation is putting or likely to put the resident or a household member’s life at risk. It states that in “very exceptional” circumstances it may use the policy to move a resident who has had a significant change in their circumstances and is no longer able to access their property.
The policy states that if a resident appeals a management transfer refusal decision, the decision will be reviewed within 5 working days, and the resident will be written to with the outcome.
The landlord’s decant policy states that it will arrange temporary accommodation when a resident needs to move immediately because the property is uninhabitable or unsafe. This includes staying with family or friends or arranging for hotel accommodation. The policy states that when a resident is staying with family or friends it will pay the resident £30 per day for the first 4 weeks, and £15 per day thereafter. When a resident is temporarily decanted they continue to pay rent on their permanent home, with no rent due on any temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it has 3 bands for awarding compensation, which are:
1. £50 to £250 for failures resulting in “some impact” on the resident;
2. £250 to £500 for “considerable” failures with no permanent impact on the resident;
3. Above £700 for failures resulting in “significant and serious long term” impact on the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a two stage complaints procedure and will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.

Assessment and findings

The management transfer

The resident expressed a concern about the landlord’s management transfer policy, as part of her complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave the resident an explanation of how its policy was formed and the part of the policy under which she was accepted on to the management transfer list. This was appropriate in the circumstances and sought to manage her expectations, and provide transparency about its decision making.
When the resident first made her management transfer request in July 2021, the landlord explained that the decision making process was not quick. It sought to manage the resident’s expectations, which was appropriate. However, its response was vague and did not give the resident definitive a timeframe within which it hoped to reach a decision, which would have been reasonable. If the landlord was unable to give a timeframe, it would have been reasonable to agree with the resident that it would give periodic updates on its progress. This may have helped to manage the resident’s expectations, and provide clarity about the process. The resident experienced an inconvenience of going through an open ended process, without having her expectations about timeframes managed.
On receipt of the resident’s management transfer request, the landlord explained that it had a shortage of ground floor properties and it would be several months before the resident could expect to receive suitable offers. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, as the landlord sought to the manage the resident’s expectations from the outset about the length of time it would take to rehouse her.
The landlord has a management transfer policy with guidelines, and whether to agree to a management transfer is made at its discretion. As such, this Service has assessed whether the evidence shows that the landlord exercise its discretion fairly. The landlord’s decision letter to refuse the resident for a management transfer clearly outlined the reasons for its decision. It explained how it had considered the resident’s individual circumstances, and how she had not met the criteria for an “exceptional” agreement. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the reasons for its decision, and its view that the lift issue would be resolved soon. This was a reasonable approach to take at the time, as the could not have foreseen how long the repairs would take.
Having refused the resident’s initial request, the landlord allowed the resident to appeal its decision, which was the correct application of its management transfer policy. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s appeal, or communicated the timeframe for a response to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided some explanation about how long the process would take and how the appeals process would work. The impact on the resident was an inconvenience of submitting an appeal of the landlord’s decision, but not knowing when to expect a final decision.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 August 2021, to chase a decision on her appeal, as she had been waiting over 20 days. The resident was cost time and trouble in asking the landlord to issue a decision on her appeal. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to keep the resident updated, given that 5 working days had already lapsed,
The landlord sent its decision to the resident on 23 August 2021, 16 working days after the appeal was made. The decision was made 11 working days later than set out in its policy, which was a failing. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or apologise for the inconvenience caused the resident, and it would have been reasonable to do so.
The landlord overturned its original decision and gave consideration to the additional information the resident had supplied, as part of her appeal. This was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord clearly explained the basis on which it had agreed to the management transfer. The evidence provided to this Service also demonstrates that the landlord fairly exercised its discretion in reaching its decision taking into account that the lift repair was taken longer than had been foreseen.
It is noted that while the landlord had agreed to the request, it was clear in explaining that it could take some time for the resident to be rehoused. This was appropriate in the circumstances as it sought not to raise the resident’s expectations, that overturning its original decision would result in an imminent offer. The landlord also appropriately gave the resident advice about expanding her preferred areas and applying for rehousing through the local authority. The landlord’s actions in this regard were supportive and transparent.
The landlord made the resident an offer of a property in October 2021. The resident went to visit the property and raised a concern about the condition of the property, and why the landlord considered it ready to let, as well as the fact it had stairs. The landlord’s response did not address all of the resident’s concerns and stated that it had withdrawn the offer, due to internal stairs at the property. While it was appropriate to withdraw the offer on suitability grounds, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide clarity about the standard at which a property is considered ready to let. That it did not was a shortcoming in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
While the landlord appropriately agreed to withdraw the offer, it is unclear why the property was offered in the first place. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that the property was suitable before offering it to the resident. That it did not was a failing in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The landlord made another offer in December 2021, that it had to withdraw due to internal stairs. It is unclear why a second property with stairs was offered. However, that it was suggests that the landlord had failed to ensure that the property was suitable before offering it; for a second occasion. In the circumstances, and given what transpired in October, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take care in ensuring that the property was suitable before offering it to the resident. That it did not was a further failing in its handling of the matter and was the cause of additional inconvenience and disappointment for the resident.
It is noted that the landlord sought to reassure the resident in its email of 16 December 2021, that due to lack a of information on its systems, it would conduct a more thorough investigation before offering properties in future. More thorough investigations about the suitability of the 2 offers, may have avoided the resident suffering the disappointment of the unsuitable offers.
The resident refused an offer the landlord made in January 2022, and gave an explanation about the size of the second bedroom and the impact this would have on her. The landlord decided to withdraw the offer, based on this information. This was reasonable in the circumstances and is evidence of the landlord giving appropriate consideration to the individual circumstances of the resident in its decision making. By continuing to work with the resident, the landlord ultimately succeeded in transferring the resident to a property that was better suited to her needs.
The landlord appropriately considered the information supplied on the appeal of its original decision, and decided to grant a management transfer. However, the landlord failed to issue its appeal decision within the timeframes set out in its policy, and failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay. The resident was cost time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a decision. The landlord made two unsuitable offers of accommodation, without properly investigating their suitability before making the offers, which was a cause of inconvenience and disappointment to the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge this when investigating the resident’s complaint, or after a suitable property was found, and therefore did not offer the resident any redress. The Ombudsman has therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.

Repairs to a lift and the associated decant process

The resident first reported to the landlord that she was unable to access her property due to an issue with the lift on 2 July 2021. The landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation, which was the appropriate application of its decant policy. However, it did not make its offer of temporary accommodation until the 6 July 2021, following a further email from the resident on 5 July 2021. In line with its decant policy it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have offered temporary accommodation “immediately”, or sought clarification on whether the resident could stay with family, it is unclear why it did not. A 4 day delay in responding to the resident was unreasonable in the circumstances, and particularly concerning considering the resident’s vulnerabilities. The resident suffered distress at not being able to access her property and the need to send the landlord a second email to get it to respond to her concerns.
The repair of the lift was a complex matter, and took time to resolve. A significant factor in the delay was the difficulty that the landlord experienced in accessing the lift to complete repairs, due to the resident’s neighbour refusing access. The process of obtaining an injunction can be lengthy; however, much of this was outside of the landlord’s control. Nevertheless, the landlord took the appropriate action to gain access to the property, and sought to manage the resident’s expectations throughout the process by providing regular updates about the repair and the legal proceedings.
It is noted that the resident declined the landlord’s offer of temporary accommodation, and decided to stay with a relative. Throughout the decant the landlord reminded the resident that it would offer alternative temporary accommodation if she was unable to continue staying with her relative. This was appropriate in the circumstances, as it sought to reassure the resident.
On 5 August 2021, the resident expressed a concern about the lack of communication and updates from the landlord about the lift repair. The landlord appropriately apologised and advised the resident that it would provide more regular updates. This is evidence that it sought to learn from its handling of the matter up to that point, and put this right by communicating more effectively with the resident. The evidence seen as part of this investigation shows that the landlord sent regular emails to all residents in the block, in line with timeframes set out above. The landlord sent the updates, even if only to advice it had not yet made any progress. This was appropriate in the circumstances as it sought to manage the resident’s expectations that it was progressing with the matter, and provide transparency about its development.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 4 October 2021, failed to address the resident’s request for a rent refund in any detail, and simply stated she was expected to pay rent. It is noted that paying rent is a condition of the tenancy agreement, and the landlord’s policy states rent should still be paid in the event of a decant. However, the landlord failed to give an explanation of its decision and how it had applied its policy in reaching such a decision. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances and provided greater clarity for the resident.
Evidence seen as part of this investigation shows that the landlord deviated from its decant policy and continued to pay the resident £30 per day beyond the initial 4 weeks of the decant. Given the delays in repairing the lift, and the resident’s inability to access her property, this was appropriate in the circumstances.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord sought to provide a detailed explanation about its decision not to refund the resident’s rent, which it failed to do a stage 1. The landlord clearly explained that it had applied its decant policy, and outlined the specific part of the policy that related to rental liability. It also used the response to give a further explanation about the household allowance, in reference to its policy. The stage 2 complaint response provided detail that was lacking in its stage 1 response, and gave greater clarity to the resident. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge that it had not given an adequate explanation at stage 1.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also set out that it was not offering compensation because it had identified no failings in its handling of the matter. The landlord then wrote to all residents in the block, on 19 November 2021, and offered £100 in compensation for the inconvenience caused by the lift issue. This approach must have been confusing for the resident, as she had been told she would not be compensated for inconvenience, only to receive an offer of compensation 3 weeks later.
The landlord offered £100 in compensation to all residents affected by the issue, this was inappropriate. By offering a blanket amount of compensation, the landlord failed to consider the individual circumstances of the resident, and the detriment she suffered as a result of the lift not working. It is evident that the resident inconvenience as a result of the lift issue, which was somewhat mitigated by her staying elsewhere. While the resident was not residing at the property for the duration of the repair, she did suffer inconvenience prior to moving out and as a result of having to stay elsewhere. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider the impact of the time taking to complete the repair on the resident and to offer a sum of compensation that was proportionate in the circumstances.
The landlord failed to make a decant payment to the resident in October 2021, which the resident chased in November 2021. The landlord appropriately apologised and promptly arranged to make the payment. However, it is unclear why the payment was delayed and if the landlord identified action that it could take to prevent such a delay in the future. The resident experienced time and trouble of having to chase the landlord for a payment it should have made to her, in line with its policy. The apology alone did not fully put right its failing in this matter.
The landlord failed to pay the resident on time again in January 2022, which is evidence that the landlord did not learn from the outcome of the previous missed payment. The resident experienced further inconvenience of having to chase the landlord for payment, again. On this occasion, the landlord did show learning and advised the resident that it had arranged for the payments to be made automatically. This was appropriate in the circumstances, but it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered doing this sooner. It was aware of the access issues for the lift repair, and the lengthy legal process it had to undertake. Had the landlord been proactive in setting up automatic payments, this may have prevented the resident having to chase it for payment.

Complaint handling

The resident contacted the landlord on 5 July 2021, and raised a concern that the landlord was not responding to concerns about the lift and its response was slow. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that a complaint is an “expression of dissatisfaction, however made”. Considering this, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have opened a formal complaint – or to seek clarification from the resident as to whether she was making a complaint, if it was unsure. That the landlord did not, was a failing in its complaint handling.
When the landlord acknowledged the complaint, it failed to set out when it would issue its response. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so, so the resident had an idea of when she could expect to hear back.
The resident asked her the landlord to escalate her complaint about its handling of the management transfer to stage 2 on 11 September 2021. the landlord failed to acknowledge the request, and it would have been reasonable to do so.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response, to the complaint about its handling of the management transfer, on 11 November 2021. This was 44 working days after the resident’s escalation request, which was a departure from the timescales set out in the landlord’s policy and the Code. In addition, the evidence does not suggest that the landlord notified the resident of the delay and agreed an extension, in line with the Code. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay and offered the resident £50 in compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances; however, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain what action it would be taking to prevent similar delays in the future.
In addition, the landlord failed to acknowledge the other failings in its complaint handling, such as its failure to provide a thorough stage 1 response about its handling of the decant. It also failed to recognise that did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint, and provide a timeframe for a response in a stage 1 complaint acknowledgment. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to do so; and that it did not was a further failing in its complaint handling and a missed opportunity to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered further compensation in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaint that she had been discriminated against is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a lift and the associated decant process.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s appeal and used its discretion to approve a management transfer. However, the landlord failed to issue its appeal decision within the timeframes set out in its policy, and failed to acknowledge or apologise for the delay. Despite being aware of the resident’s needs the landlord made two unsuitable offers of accommodation, which caused the resident a disappointment.
The landlord took the matter of the lift repair seriously and sought to repair it promptly; however, access issues – and the need for an injunction – prevented it from carrying out the repair swiftly. There was an unreasonable delay in offering the resident temporary accommodation; and the landlord’s offer of compensation failed to take the resident’s individual circumstances into account. The landlord missed decant payments to the resident, and the resident was inconvenienced by having to chase it for payment.
The landlord’s communication surrounding the complaint was poor. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request or provide timescales for its responses. The stage 1 response in relation to the decant was cursory, and the landlord failed to acknowledge some failings on its behalf. Where failings were identified, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had learnt from the complaint and failed to set out what it would do to prevent similar errors in the future

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation;
2. Pay the resident £750 in compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the management transfer process;
  2. The £100 it offered for its handling of the lift repair (if it has not already done so);
  3. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by its handling of the lift repair and the associated decant process;
  4. The £50 it offered for the delay in its complaint handling(if it has not already done so);
  5. A further £150 in recognition of inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by its complaint handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers reviewing its management transfer policy to include indicative timeframes for making decisions on receipt of a request. This may help to increase transparency about the decision making process, strengthening fairness for residents.
It is recommended that the landlord reminds its complaint handling staff about the complaint timescales set out in its policy and the Code. The landlord may wish to also remind complaint handling staff of the importance of showing what learning has been done, as part of its complaint investigation.