Clarion Housing Association Limited (202008234)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008234

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 October 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

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy of a 2-bedroom flat on the first floor of a residential block owned by the housing association landlord. The tenancy agreement began on 23 October 2015.
  2. The resident lives with her child, who has learning and behavioural difficulties, epilepsy, and asthma. An occupational therapy (OT) assessment conducted on 4 October 2021 stated that the child was unable to complete everyday activities independently, lacked an understanding of danger, and required constant supervision. The child had previously fallen from the first-floor window, set fire to the kitchen, and slid in his wheelchair from the top of the stairs. According to the OT report, the family would benefit from a property known as Category D – which provides easy access with the following characteristics:
    1. Ground floor (internal stairs are okay), with a private front door and an enclosed garden.
    2. Accessible shower or adaptable to fit access level facilities.
    3. Separate kitchen with a lockable door.
    4. 3 – bedrooms to accommodate the live-in carer.
    5. Nearby parking.
    6. The resident explained that she needed to stay within the locality of her child’s school and her support network; therefore, she initially requested that the search for a property should focus on a specific postcode in London.
  3. On the basis of the OT report, the landlord accepted the resident for a management move on 2 February 2022. The landlord cautioned the resident that limiting her search to a single borough could result in a prolonged wait for a property. To improve the chances of securing a property, the landlord suggested that the resident should consider bidding for properties with the local authority and on mutual exchange portals.
  4. Between February 2022 and April 2022, the resident called the landlord several times, asking to speak with the team responsible for searching for her property. She wanted to widen the boundaries of her search and asked to discuss her options with the landlord. However, she could not get through and requested a call back from the team responsible for the search. As her request for a call back had not been answered, the resident raised a formal complaint on 19 April 2022, stating the lack of progress in finding a property and the lack of communications from the landlord.
  5. The landlord responded on 4 May 2022. It apologised that it failed to call the resident back. However, it said: “I believe it was made clear to you that we would only contact you when a suitable property became available”. It repeated its warning that the search area was still very limited. The landlord said that overall, it had 1,150 3-bedroom properties. Out of these, only 146 could be a possible match. The landlord said it would take significant time to find a suitable property, and the resident must use all avenues, such as bidding through the local council, to secure a property.
  6. The resident responded on the same day. She asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2, stating that the landlord had not solved the complaint. Despite awarding £50 in compensation for not calling her back, she could not speak with the team responsible for the search. She asked the landlord to update her once a month with the availability of properties in the surrounding areas, even if no properties were available.
  7. The landlord responded with its final response letter on 14 June 2022. It recognised that confusion led to the resident being passed between teams, and it failed to call the resident back, for which it offered the resident £200 in compensation. The landlord stated that in the past year, it only had 5 available properties within the resident’s search area, and none were 3-bedroom. The landlord mentioned that it had called the resident on 31 May 2022 to discuss a 3-bedroom property that matched most of the resident’s criteria. The landlord said: “You may decline this property and given that it is a house rather than a flat as you have requested, we would not count this offer as your one offer”. The landlord urged the resident to widen her search.
  8. On 13 July 2022, the resident viewed the 3-bedroom property offered to her in June 2022. She declined the offer because the property was unsuitable for adaptation; the location was too far from her support network, and there was no allocated parking.
  9. The resident contacted this service and stated she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s communications regarding the management move and that the landlord had not provided regular feedback on available properties.

Assessment and findings  

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s transfer policy says it assesses transfer applications and categorises them into bands of Urgent, High Priority and Priority, depending on the applicant’s housing needs. The urgent category is where the resident or a member of their household has an urgent medical need or disability, which means that they cannot access and continue to occupy their current home. The urgent category must be confirmed by occupational therapy assessment.
  2. The landlord’s guidance for residents who have been approved for a management transfer notes that it cannot always make offers in a resident’s preferred area or for a particular property type unless there is an established medical reason or exceptional circumstance and that it has a contractual obligation to let its empty properties through the local authorities’ housing register.
  3. The landlord’s policy for management transfers sets out how it will handle the requests it receives when it is not safe for the resident to remain at the property and there is a realistic chance of a suitable property becoming available. The landlord will:
  1. Make one offer of a “like for like” property within three months, having regard to the resident’s areas of preference, the availability of suitable properties, the tenant’s ability to pay and whether they have maintained a clear rent account.
  2. Inform the resident that it can consider other rehousing options such as via the local authority, other housing providers and the private sector.
  3. Conduct a regular review of the ongoing need for the management transfer if a suitable property is unavailable and the victim is at serious risk.
  1. In addition, it also shows that properties offered are held for 48 hours, that if most of the property requirements are met, this is considered a reasonable offer and that a refusal of an offer of a property could lead to the review or withdrawal of the management transfer status.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move a property

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles, which include treating people fairly, following fair processes, and putting things right. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failure on the landlord’s part has occurred and, if so, whether this adversely affected or caused detriment to the resident. If the Ombudsman found that a failure adversely affected the resident, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to put it right and learn from the outcome.
  2. It is recognised that there is a shortage of social housing across England and a chronic shortage in London. Landlords are, therefore, required to manage their stock effectively. This means allocating homes to those most in need. The key questions for this investigation are whether the landlord followed its policy and procedure, treated the resident fairly, and communicated with the resident clearly.
  3. In this case, the landlord explained that the availability of 3-bed properties in the resident’s search area was extremely low. It said it was ‘wholly reliant’ on a property that matched her criteria becoming available, and it did not know when that might be. It urged the resident to continue to bid through the local authority and actively search mutual exchange portals to increase her chances of securing a home. This was appropriate, good, and practical advice from the landlord.
  4. The landlord went further to illustrate the severity of the situation. It provided the resident with data on its housing stock, broken down to each of the 4 boroughs she indicated in her preferences. The landlord repeatedly emphasised the importance of widening the boundaries of the search and considering whether there were any criteria the resident could compromise on in her search. The landlord acted appropriately and managed the resident’s expectations from the outset.
  5. According to the evidence, the resident wanted to widen her search area and asked to speak with the team responsible for the search to discuss her options. The resident kept pursuing her case and told the landlord that social services had raised concerns that the landlord was not clear about the search criteria. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to investigate the resident’s claims, but it failed to do so, which was not appropriate.
  6. The resident repeatedly called the landlord, emailed, and visited its head office. On 10 November 2022, she attended the landlord’s offices together with social services. They wanted to speak with the team responsible, but they could only leave a message with reception. Social services emailed the landlord on 13 November 2022. The resident asked for a call back on 14, 18, 21 and 22 November 2022. Social services contacted the landlord again on 22 November 2022 and left another message. The landlord responded on 25 November 2022, advising that it received the message about the resident’s search criteria and passed it on to the relevant team.
  7. The resident was still waiting for a call back, and on 2 December, she complained about not receiving a call back. The landlord opened a new complaint and awarded the resident £50 in compensation for failing to call her back, but it still did not arrange to call her back.
  8. Overall, there was a persistent failure over a prolonged period in not responding to the resident’s requests for a call back. The resident’s emails and calls to the landlord were not responded to on several occasions. Despite social services intervention, the landlord did not make direct contact. The resident requested a single phone call with the person in charge. After this, she said that a single email once a month would suffice to reassure her that she had not been forgotten about. The landlord had lost sight that its customer was at the other end of the phone line and was under much pressure. It would have been reasonable to consider accommodating the resident’s request for a telephone call, even if it was not obliged to do so.
  9. It is important to acknowledge that the landlord’s shortcomings mentioned above do not change the fact that there is a shortage in social housing, especially in areas where the resident was based and evidently, the resident understood that. However, the resident’s request for better communication, which the landlord should have provided, was not unreasonable.
  10. In its May 2022 stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it was searching for a 3-bed ground-floor property with private access. This was correct and matched the requirement of the OT assessment. In its June 2022 stage 2 response, the landlord emphasised that rather than a house, it was searching for a ground floor 3-bedroom flat with a separate door’ or ‘a 3-bed flat on the upper floors but only in a building with 2 lifts’. The landlord made several references that clearly distinguish between a house and a flat. It even offered the resident a 3-bedroom house and said: “You may decline this property and given that it is a house rather than a flat as you have requested, we would not count this offer as your one offer”.
  11. During the course of the investigation, this service asked the landlord to clarify the confusion. The landlord carried out a review, and on 14 September 2023, it wrote to the resident and said:
  1. While it updated the requirements of a three-bedroom property, it failed to document the additional requirements for a ground-floor property with a private door.
  2. This would have affected the properties it offered the resident over the previous 15 months.
  3. It introduced further checks to minimise such incidents occurring in the future.
  4. The availability of properties was still scarce, and none were available at that time.
  5. It paid the resident £700 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  1. This service welcomes landlord’s initiatives to put things right, and its overall compensation of £950 would have been sufficient amount to put things right, the landlord’s actions were 15 months after its final response letter. As such, this service cannot fairly consider the action taken by the landlord as a reasonable redress.
  2. The landlord confirmed to this service on 2 October 2023 that as a result of its error, the resident should have been offered 3 properties within her search area matching her criteria of a ‘3-bed ground floor property with private access’. In this case, the landlord’s record-keeping error undermined the resident’s property search. Although the resident kept widening the boundaries of her search, it resulted in no available properties.
  3. In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property. These failings caused the resident further frustration and annoyance on top of the mounting distress and concern for her child’s safety. The resident said: “This was not a case of waiting for an accident to happen, this was a case where accidents did happen”. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord may have noticed its error sooner had it been more communicative with the resident. As the situation is ongoing, orders have been made below to put this right for the resident.
  4. Whilst this is evidence of a service failure on the landlord’s part, there is no guarantee that the resident would have accepted the properties that did come up during the previous 15 months. The resident accepted that her property search could potentially take considerable time. The landlord consistently urged the resident to continue and bid for properties through other channels.
  5. Overall, the landlord acknowledged failures in communication and inaccurate record-keeping, causing avoidable delays to the resident’s search. Having acknowledged failure, the landlord was obliged to put this right and learn from the outcome. Despite reassurances the landlord gave in its responses, there was no recourse. The resident search started in February 2021 and is still ongoing despite her efforts to widen her search area. In light of the service failures identified above and taking into account the impact on the resident and her child, an order has been made below to put this right for the resident.
  6. Finally, a further order has been made below for the landlord to learn from the outcome.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to move property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord’s head of service responsible for its management move scheme must arrange a meeting with the resident in person. It must aim to answer all her questions and ensure its records of the resident’s search are correct. It must discuss with the resident whether there are any temporary measures it can take in the interim to mitigate the risk to her child. This may include adaptation, temporary move, or any other measure that the landlord is able to offer. It must also agree on the frequency and method of its communications going forward. Detailed minutes of this meeting must be sent to this service.
  2. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must review the shortcomings identified in this report. The review must include the following:
    1. Determine the root cause of the failings identified in this assessment.
    2. Read the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) and review whether its policies and procedures need updating in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report. If it is not felt that this would be beneficial, it should outline the rationale in its review. The outcome of this review must be sent to this service.
    3. The outcome of this review must include the actions the landlord has taken and would take to ensure these errors are not repeated in the future. A copy of this review must be sent to this service.

Recommendations

  1. If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident within 4 weeks from the date of this report a total of £950 comprising:
    1. £200 in compensation it offered as part of its final response letter.
    2. £50 in compensation for the failure to call the resident back.
    3. £700 in compensation for the error in updating the criteria of the resident’s search.