Catalyst Housing Limited (202003611)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003611

Catalyst Housing Limited

30 September 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. This complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.
   2. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
   3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application.

3. Paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
5. On 14 June 2018 the landlord received a housing transfer application from the resident. The resident cited her reasons for moving as overcrowding and alleged harassment perpetrated by her former partner. On 14 August 2018 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that she had had been placed in Band C based on her application and had been registered on the choice based letting scheme used by the landlord.
6. On 7 August 2019, following the residents request that her medical circumstances be taken into account in assessing her transfer application, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that her banding would remain the same (i.e. Band C) based upon medical advice. The resident appealed the decision the same day. On 13 August 2019, the landlord advised the resident that her banding had increased from Band C to Band B Priority.
7. On 31 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the outcome of a further medical assessment with regards to her request for a housing transfer. The letter confirmed that the resident had been awarded a Band B.
8. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of her transfer application, the assessment of her medical circumstances and the banding she had been awarded. The landlord issued its final response on 31 July 2020.
9. On 1 September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to make further complaint that she had been constantly bidding for properties on the choice based lettings website but had not been shortlisted for any properties.
10. This is not a complaint that this Service can investigate because this falls properly under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). The LGSCO considers complaints about housing allocations under the Housing Act 1996 Part 6. This includes applications for re-housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf, which could include a housing association), and covers:
    1. Assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference 
    2. Operation of choice based lettings schemes and about the suitability of accommodation offered under those schemes. 
11. As a result, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application is not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It is open to the resident to submit her complaint to the LGSCO along with this report in support of the finding that the complaint is within the LGSCO’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Background and summary of events

12. The resident is a fixed term assured shorthold tenant of the landlord. The tenancy commenced on 10 December 2012. The property is a two bedroom flat where the resident resides with her two sons.
13. On 23 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that she had been attacked at her property by a youth and that her children were also at risk. The resident said that she wanted the landlord to provide her with a management transfer, the resident having been registered on the choice based letting scheme used by the landlord since August 2018.
14. On 4 November 2019, the landlord provided the resident with a letter to present to a local authority asking it to take its supporting letter into consideration should any intervention in the resident’s housing be taken forward. The landlord said that the alleged incidents had been reported to the Police and were backed up with Crime Reference numbers, however the Police had not investigated. The landlord said that as a result it was unable to conduct a management transfer for the resident. The landlord said that it was working with the resident to support her and had advised that if she was at risk of violence to seek temporary accommodation from her local authority.
15. On 23 June 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a further letter to present to another local authority. The landlord’s letter said that whilst there was a lack of evidence to conduct a management transfer, the resident’s banding had been increased to Band B Priority and she had been added to the regional transfer list. The landlord noted that unfortunately, due to the lack of properties available, the resident had been unable to find a suitable property. The landlord asked that that local authority take its supporting letter into consideration should any intervention on her housing be taken forward.
16. On 14 July 2020 a police officer emailed the landlord to confirm that a report of malicious communications had been reported by the resident. The police officer said that the report detailed a number of other reports made to the Police where the resident’s children had been targeted and there was an ‘‘obvious concern with ongoing offences made against the family’’. The police officer said that a number of reports had been made to social services, which they said was standard practice when a young person is a victim of a crime.
17. On 15 July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that its ASB team had liaised with the Police but that the current position was that there was not enough evidence for the Police to take any further action against the alleged perpetrator(s), nor to warrant a higher transfer band. The landlord advised the resident that if she was not happy with its response she could submit a formal complaint.
18. On 20 July 2020, the resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of her request for a management transfer. The landlord confirmed that it would provide its response by 31 July 2020.
19. The landlord issued its final response on 31 July 2020. The landlord said that it was ‘‘so sorry to hear’’ of what the resident and her family had been going through, but having revisited the resident’s request, was unable to overturn its decision to refuse her a management transfer at that time. The landlord said that:
    1. Its ASB team had investigated the resident’s concerns with the Police however, as the Police had no open criminal case regarding these allegations, the landlord could not authorise a management transfer.
    2. It would review its decision if there were any further evidence and if the Police were to progress the case and state that she needed to be moved, with supporting evidence.
    3. If the resident had any further information from the police or any more information for its ASB team to investigate they would do so.
    4. It had noted that the resident had raised the option of her approaching the local authority for emergency housing and confirmed that the resident would not lose her tenancy if the local authority moved her into temporary accommodation, and that she would only lose the tenancy if the local authority were to offer her a permanent move.
20. On 13 August 2020, the resident’s solicitor issued the landlord with a Letter Before Claim in Proposed Judicial Review Proceedings letter. The letter confirmed that the matter being challenged was the landlord’s refusal of 15 July 2020 to agree to a Band A management transfer for the resident. The landlord’s solicitors responded to the proposed claim on 4 August 2020. There is no evidence of any further legal action being taken.
21. On 11 January 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to again complain about the lack of urgency with regards to her being moved on an emergency basis, stating that her family were at significant risk. On 18 January 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that her email of 11 January 2021 had been logged as a new formal complaint and would be responded to by 29 January 2021.
22. The landlord issued its initial response on 11 February 2021. The landlord confirmed that it was aware of the alleged threats and harassment reported. The landlord explained that the current information it had received was that the Police did not have enough evidence to take any further action against the alleged perpetrator(s). The landlord confirmed that its ASB Team had liaised with the Police, and again, this had not provided evidence to take action against alleged perpetrators or warrant a higher transfer band.
23. On 19 March 2021, the Police emailed the landlord to advise that the resident had been a victim of domestic abuse and that in order to safeguard her, ‘‘urgently’’ requested that she be rehoused.
24. On 23 March 2021, the landlord met to discuss the resident’s management transfer request, the resident’s reports of an incident that took place on 16 March 2021, in which the resident advised that she had been a victim of a serious assault and that she needed to be moved immediately, and the police’s supporting evidence, which included confirmation from the Police that the incident on 16 March 2021 was a domestic abuse case and that the family need to be moved. The landlord agreed a Band A management transfer for a like for like property (two bed to two bed). The same day the landlord advised the resident of the outcome of the meeting. The resident responded the same day to say that she did want any changes made to her banding until her case had been reviewed, as she may wish to bid on three bed properties until this had been looked into.
25. On 15 April 2021, A Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) recommended that the resident should be afforded a move to allow them to remain safe from further violence, and that this move should take place as soon as practicable, due to the nature of the case. MARAC’s recommendations were forwarded to the landlord.
26. On 21 April 2021, the landlord provided the resident with a further update, following its meeting on 23 March 2021. The landlord confirmed that it was happy to offer the resident a management transfer, that it had increased the resident’s banding to Band A and had changed her eligibility to a two bedroom home. The landlord said that if the resident was to successfully move into another one of its homes, it ‘‘promised’’ to re-register the resident on the choice based lettings scheme as a Band B, three bedroom eligibility. The landlord said that this would mean that the resident could actively bid for a bigger home, straight away. The landlord said that this was a goodwill gesture. The landlord also advised that if the resident were to move into a property outside of its stock, under the Management Transfer procedure, she would need to raise her request for an overcrowding transfer with her new landlord as it could not supersede or intervene on any decisions a new landlord might make
27. On 22 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to request that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s formal complaints process. The resident complained that whilst she had been awarded a Band A for a two bedroom property she would still have to bid and potentially be waiting for months for a two bed property. The resident said that this meant that, if she were to be successful in bidding for a two bedroom property, she would then have to bid again for a three bedroom property. The resident said that this would then put her to the back of the list and would be a waste of time. The resident said that she wanted to be nominated to another housing association or local authority.
28. The landlord issued its Stage two and final response on 28 May 2021. The landlord noted that it had spoken to the resident the previous week. The landlord said that it accepted that the resident’s current property was too small for her and her household but that it would not be able to move her into Band A with a three bed need. The landlord explained that under its transfer policy, if a resident needed to be moved due to an emergency need they would be given the same type of property that that had at the time of the emergency or urgent move. The landlord said that it had approached 10 other housing providers to see if they could help with a reciprocal move. The landlord said that if they received a positive response they would let the resident know. The landlord said that there was also the ability for the resident to approach any Local Authority and ask for help, as she was fleeing violence, and that it was aware that the resident was also looking at potential mutual exchanges.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s request for a management transfer.

29. The landlord’s Transfer Policy allows for a management transfer in ‘‘exceptional circumstances due to significant and insurmountable problems associated with the tenant’s occupation of a dwelling and there is imminent personal risk to the tenant or their family if they remain in the dwelling’’. The policy states that such transfers will allocated a Band A priority and that such transfers will be to properties of the same size and type.
30. The policy goes on to explain that when the landlord receives an application for a management transfer, the application will only be considered if the case falls into one of four categories, which includes ‘‘Personal protection from threats of abuse or violence’’. The policy describes this as ‘‘a threat of actual violence to anyone in the household resulting in the need to move for their safety’’ and where there is clear evidence to support it.
31. The policy states that where an application falls into this category the landlord will:
    1. Draft a report setting out why the tenant should be authorised for a management transfer.
    2. The draft will be assessed within three working days and if approved, within two days any changes will be uploaded to the Choice based lettings scheme and the resident informed.

Assessment

32. This is a clearly a very distressing and worrying situation for the resident and her family. The role of the Ombudsman is not to investigation the reports made by the resident but rather the landlord’s response to those reports within specific reference to the resident’s request for a management transfer. In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration I have considered what the landlord was committed to do under its transfer policy and whether it behaved in a manner that was fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.
33. The landlord’s transfer policy states that management transfers are awarded in cases where ‘‘a threat of actual violence to anyone in the household resulting in the need to move for their safety’’ and where there is clear evidence to support it. Therefore, it would be reasonable and in accordance with its policy for the landlord to rely on the available evidence from the Police, to decide whether the resident’s situation met its criteria for a management move.
34. The landlord has been asked to provide evidence of initial the steps the landlord took in response to the resident’s request for a management transfer on 21 October 2019. This information was requested from the landlord in our initial request for evidence on 17 May 2021 and again on 15 and 22 September 2021, but has not been provided.
35. It is good practice for a landlord to maintain accurate, contemporaneous records on reports it receives, and its actions in response. This enables it to effectively manage any issues raised by its residents as well as fulfilling its obligations as a landlord. Neither the landlord nor the Ombudsman can properly investigate and respond to complaints without accurate and comprehensive records and this could result in unfairness to the resident.
36. Unfortunately, without being provided with this contemporaneous evidence, the Ombudsman cannot comment further as to whether the landlord decision to refuse the resident’s a management transfer, following her request on 21 October 2019, was reasonable as this Service has not seen the evidence upon which that decision was based. As a result, a separate finding of record keeping failure has been made and an award of compensation to the resident ordered.
37. In its final response of 31 July 2020, the landlord confirmed it refusal of the residents request for a management transfer due to lack of evidence. The landlord also confirmed that it would be willing to review its decision if there were any further evidence and if the Police were to progress the case and state that she needed to be moved, with supporting evidence. The landlord also advised the resident of the option of her approaching the local authority for emergency housing and provided the resident with reassurance that she would only lose the tenancy if the local authority were to offer her a permanent move. Again, this provides evidence that, whilst it was not able to provide the resident with a management transfer, the landlord was taking the resident’s situation seriously and was taking reasonable steps to try and find a resolution to the resident’s housing concerns.
38. Following the resident’s second formal complaint about the landlord’s response to her request for a management transfer, the landlord confirmed that its ASB Team had liaised with the Police, and again, there was insufficient evidence for the police to take action against alleged perpetrators or warrant a higher transfer band. Given that that was the case the landlord’s response was reasonable and in accordance with its transfer which states that Management transfers will only be considered where there is clear evidence to support it.
39. On 19 March 2021, the Police emailed the landlord confirming that the resident was a victim of domestic abuse and that in order to safeguard her, ‘‘urgently’’ requested that she be rehoused. Having received this new information from the police, which provided the required, clear evidence that there was ‘‘a threat of actual violence to anyone in the household resulting in the need to move for their safety’’ the landlord acted appropriate and accordance with its transfer policy. This it did by preparing a draft report setting out why the tenant should be authorised for a management transfer and within three working days of the report from the Police, the landlord met to discuss the resident’s management transfer request. At this point the landlord agreed a Band A management transfer for a like for like property (two bed to two bed). This again was in accordance with its transfer policy.
40. The landlord’s decision that the resident now met the criteria for a management transfer was further supported a month later when MARAC recommended that the resident should be afforded a move to allow them to remain safe from further violence.
41. It is acknowledged that the resident was not happy that under a Band A management transfer she was only entitled to a two bedroom property. It is also understandable that the resident was concerned about not being able to be awarded a Band A with three bedroom entitlement. However, the landlord’s transfer policy states that where management transfers are agreed these will be to properties of the same size and type and therefore the landlord’s decision to agree to a Band A two bedroom priority, whilst clearly disappointing to the resident, was appropriate.
42. In addition to agreeing to the resident’s management transfer, in its final response the landlord also confirmed that it had contacted 10 other housing providers to see if they may be able to assist with a reciprocal move. At the time of the final response the landlord advised that it was waiting to hear from the other housing providers. Following its final response the landlord confirmed to this service that it had made 12 such requested to different local authorities all of which were unable to help.

Determination (decision)

1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s request for a management transfer. 
2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

43. In deciding whether the resident’s situation met its criteria for a management move deciding whether to agree to a management transfer it was reasonable and in accordance with its policy for the landlord to rely on the available evidence from the Police. When the landlord received further evidence from the Police in March 2021, the landlord acted promptly and in accordance with its transfer policy, agreeing to a Band A management transfer within three working days of the information provided by the Police. The landlord also acted in accordance with its transfer policy by agreeing to a like for like (two bedroom to two bedroom) priority.
44. The finding of record keeping failure is made on the basis that landlord’s failure to provide contemporaneous evidence. The landlord has been unable to substantiate its decision from October 2019 as it has not provided the evidence it relied upon at the time.

Orders

45. That within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is to pay the resident £200 for its record keeping failures.