Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202007842)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007842

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She has a daughter, and they live in a one-bedroom flat.
  2. In mid-2020 (the exact date is unknown) the resident updated her housing application with the local authority and provided medical evidence regarding hers and her daughter’s health to support her application. The landlord carried out the review and decided not to award medical priority for rehousing. It confirmed she was band three based on overcrowding. The resident appealed, but the landlord maintained its position. It advised that the local authority managed all housing applications within the resident’s area.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord again in April 2021 and asked it to liaise with the local authority on her behalf to change her banding based on her medical condition, and overcrowding. She also enquired about a management transfer (a discretionary move arranged by the landlord outside its normal waiting list)
  4. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord in May 2021. She said she was unsure whether it was the landlord or the local authority which was in charge of her housing application. She said she wanted a three–bedroom property, and a change to her banding for rehousing. The landlord explained that management transfers were for a like for like property. It said the local authority managed her housing application, but the landlord reviewed and approved applications from its tenants. Having reviewed her circumstances, the landlord concluded that she was at the correct banding.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She said her medical condition had not been considered as part of her housing application. She reiterated her request for a management transfer, and higher banding. The landlord said the local authority determined priority for rehousing, including the need to move on medical grounds. It said as the local authority had 100 % nomination rights, it had no provision for management transfers in that area. It said the resident did not meet the grounds for a management transfer with the local authority. The landlord offered to find her a like for like property in other areas. It also suggested she consider a mutual exchange.
  6. The landlord made a direct offer to the resident for a one-bedroom property (outside of her area) on 24 November 2021. It is understood that the resident declined the offer as it was too far away from a hospital providing care to her daughter.
  7. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service she said she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer. She said she wanted a suitable property in her area, and said she was at the incorrect banding. She mentioned that her banding had been changed from band two to band three in 2019 and she disputed this decision. She has also referred to several other matters including but not limited to her dissatisfaction with the police for various reasons, having an at-risk boiler from 2017 until 2022, and damp and cold in her property which caused her daughter to be hospitalised.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout the resident’s complaint she has referred to her dissatisfaction with the local authority’s decision to change her banding in 2019, and how the local authority had managed her housing application in general. Decisions regarding bandings for rehousing are made by local authorities and this decision was not made by the resident’s landlord. The Housing Ombudsman does not hold jurisdiction over the local authority in terms of how it handles its housing register when acting in its capacity of the local authority. Such matters would be more appropriately dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Because of this, and in line with paragraph 39 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident should refer these concerns to the LGSCO if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further.
  2. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service she has referred to a number of issues (some which have been mentioned above) which are separate from her request for rehousing. However, no evidence has been provided for this investigation to show the resident raising these other matters as part of her formal complaint to the landlord. In line with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme, these issues will not be considered in this investigation. This is because the landlord needs an opportunity to investigate matters through its complaints procedure before the Ombudsman becomes involved. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she should raise them as a formal complaint to the landlord in the first instance. The resident may be able to refer these issues to the Ombudsman as a new complaint if she remains dissatisfied once her complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  3. Therefore, this assessment will solely focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing. Matters relating to the local authority, or other issues which were not raised as part of her formal complaint to the landlord will not be considered.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing

  1. The landlord’s management transfer policy explains that such transfers occur in exceptional circumstances when a resident needs to urgently be rehoused due to a serious threat to their personal safety. The landlord will make one offer of a like for like property, unless the resident is under occupying in which case a smaller property may be offered. The landlord can only transfer residents where it retains a percentage of its homes for transfers or direct lets under the nomination agreement with the local authority. This means that in areas where the local authority holds 100% of the nomination rights for the landlord’s properties, the landlord cannot agree a management transfer within that area.
  2. The landlord’s allocations policy sets out that it has different nomination agreements with different local authorities. It awards priority using a banding scheme. It will place the resident in the appropriate banding based on their household needs. It can award high priority when a resident’s medical condition means their property is no longer suitable for them. It will award medium priority (band three) to alleviate overcrowding.
  3. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord as she was dissatisfied with how it had handled her housing application. She asked for a management transfer to a bigger property, and higher banding given her medical condition. The landlord explained that the local authority had 100% nomination rights in her area. It said if it were to offer her a management transfer, it would be in a different area, and in a like for like property (one bedroom).
  4. As explained above, the landlord’s management transfer policy explains that any offers it makes will be for a like for like property, unless the resident is under occupying. The policy also explains that the landlord can only transfer residents when it retains a percentage of its homes for transfers. In this case, the landlord did not hold any nomination rights for the resident’s area and all available homes were advertised through the local authority’s letting system. As such, the landlord could not offer a management transfer within the resident’s area although it could offer an alternative property in another area where the landlord had some level of nomination rights under its agreement with that local authority. Therefore, the landlord made an offer for a one–bedroom property in another area.
  5. It is understandable that the resident wanted to remain in her area to support her daughter’s medical treatment and to be in a bigger property in view of the overcrowding in her current property. However, this was not something the landlord could offer as it would go against its policy, and its agreement with the local authority. The landlord’s alternative option, whilst it was not what the resident wanted, was still reasonable given its limitations.
  6. The resident believes she should be awarded a higher banding due to hers and her daughter’s medical conditions. As explained above, it is not within the remit of this Service to determine what the resident’s banding should be as the decision regarding bandings would have been made by the local authority rather than the landlord. It is acknowledged that the landlord reviewed the resident’s banding and concluded that it was correct. However, regardless of the outcome of this review the landlord could not change the resident’s banding as this could only be changed by the local authority. The Ombudsman can only assess whether the landlord acted fairly and took reasonable steps to review her application. In this case it is evident that the landlord did assess the medical evidence provided by the resident and clearly explained its position regarding her banding.
  7. The landlord clearly explained its position and limitations in terms of what it could do to help the resident move. It set the resident’s expectations from the offset. Given that it had no nomination rights in the resident’s area, there were limited reasonable steps it would be expected to take in order rehouse her in her area, as this was ultimately down to the local authority. It suggested she consider a mutual exchange, and made a direct offer for another area in order to help the resident obtain the outcome she was seeking (move out of her property). It is understandable that the situation would have been frustrating and distressing for the resident. Nonetheless, in the circumstances of this complaint, the landlord’s actions, and explanations were reasonable.

 

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.