Clarion Housing Association Limited (202218447)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218447

Clarion Housing Association Limited

28 May 2024 

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 reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 1 bedroom flat in a block, and her tenancy started in November 2021. The records show the resident as vulnerable to limited mobility, and mental health support needs.
4.  The resident contacted the landlord to make a report of ASB from her neighbour in February 2022. She reported the neighbour had blocked her access to communal areas and was “screaming abuse” at her. The resident made a further report of ASB, on 9 March 2022, and said she had been subjected to a hate crime in the local area. She also reported “excessive” noise disturbance from a nearby school.
5. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 March 2022 and said it had been trying to contact the resident to discuss her reports of ASB, but had been unable to. It said it was unable to investigate the matter any further without more information. The landlord referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment service in April 2022, and agreed an action plan with how it could support the resident in her tenancy. The landlord agreed to place the resident on its ‘management transfer’ list in May 2022.
6. On 28 October 2022,the resident made a complaint to the landlord about its handling of her reports of ASB, and the associated request for a move. She said she felt the offer of a move was an “empty offer”. The resident reported further ASB in December 2022, the landlord opened a new ASB case, and sought to do a home visit with the resident.
7. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 6 January 2023. It said it handled the ASB case in accordance with its policies and did not uphold that aspect of the resident’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in sending its stage 1 response, and offered £50 in compensation.
8. The landlord offered the resident a move to an alternative property in January 2023, the resident declined the offer. The resident asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 29 January 2023, and said she was unhappy with the offer it had made and she had “no communication” from the landlord. The landlord made a further offer of accommodation in February 2023, which the resident also refused.
9. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 11 May 2023 and said it agreed with the findings in its stage 1 response, that the ASB case was handled appropriately. It explained that, as the resident had refused 2 offers of accommodation, it had removed her from its management transfer list. It apologised for the delay in sending its stage 2 complaint response, and offered £50 in compensation.
10. The resident contacted this Service on 23 November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case, and associated management transfer. The resident stated she had been “going around in circles”.

Assessment and findings

ASB

11. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it adopts a flexible approach when responding to reports of ASB. It states it works collaboratively with the police and local authority when responding and investigating reports of ASB.
12. The landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy states that it will take account of known vulnerability factors in the provision of services, and in decisions around tenancy management.
13. The landlord’s management transfer policy states it will award a management transfer when ASB puts a resident at “serious risk of harm”, or other “exceptional” circumstances. The policy states that resident will receive 1 offer of suitable accommodation.
14. It is evident that this situation was distressing for the resident. It is acknowledged that the resident does not believe that the landlord responded appropriately to her reports of ASB. The role of this Service is not to establish whether the ASB reported was occurring, or not. Our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB was in line with its legal and policy obligations. This investigation has considered whether its response was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
15. When bringing her complaint to this Service, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of complaints of ASB made against her, and the tenancy enforcement action it had taken. While the resident’s concerns are noted, the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB against the resident were not dealt with as part of the complaint related to this case. In line with our Scheme, the landlord needs to have had the opportunity to respond to concerns raised as part of a formal complaint before we can investigate.
16. Considering the above, we have considered the landlord’s handling matter up until the resident exhausted its complaints procedure in May 2023. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB made against her, and the associated enforcement action, she may wish to raise a formal complaint about that specific matter.
17. When the resident reported ASB, in February 2022 the evidence shows the landlord contacted the resident to ask for more information, and supplied diary sheets so she could provide further evidence in support of her case. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it took her concerns seriously. We have also seen evidence that the landlord contacted the local authority, and the police, in relation to the reports of ASB. This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence it adopted the multi agency approach set out in its policy.
18. In relation to the resident’s reports of hate crime, the evidence shows the landlord satisfied itself the police were aware of the alleged incident. This was appropriate as a hate crime is a criminal matter, and the police would be best placed to investigate the matter and take further action, as necessary. As the alleged incident did not happen in the immediate vicinity of the resident’s property, the landlord felt it was inappropriate to conduct its own investigation, this was a reasonable approach in the circumstances.
19. The landlord decided to close the ASB case in March 2022 and advised the resident it was doing so. It explained that the resident had not responded to its requests for a meeting to discuss the case, and it did not have evidence to investigate further. While evidently disappointing for the resident, the landlord needed evidence in order to progress with its ASB investigation. The landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
20. When the resident reported further concerns about ASB, in December 2022, the landlord sought to get more information from the resident, supplied diary sheets, and tried to complete a home visit. We have seen no evidence to indicate the resident responded to its requests for more evidence, or a home visit. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and in line with the approach set out in its ASB policy.
21. The evidence shows that during the period the resident was reporting ASB, the landlord was concerned for her welfare. Due to the experiences she had reported in the local area, and concerns about the suitability of her property, the landlord completed a referral to an occupational therapist (OT) and its internal tenancy sustainment team. This is evidence the landlord took a supportive approach to the resident’s experiences, and sought to support in her sustaining her tenancy. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances and evidence the landlord took a holistic approach to the resident’s reports of ASB.
22. That the landlord agreed to a management transfer for the resident was reasonable in the circumstances. The evidence shows that, while the landlord felt it could not take further action in relation to the ASB case, it used its discretion to agree to the management transfer. This is evidence that it had due consideration of the resident’s vulnerability, and the individual circumstances of the case, and the impact the situation was having on her.
23. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of January 2023, gave a detailed analysis of its handling of the ASB case, which was appropriate. It set out its position on the reported hate crime, and that the police were best placed to investigate such matters. The evidence available supports the landlord’s assessment that it worked closely with the police throughout.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 response also set out its position in relation to the resident’s concerns about noise nuisance, and how it worked with the local authority and encouraged the resident to engage with the relevant service. This is evidence it sought to manage the resident’s expectations and reassure her of the actions it had taken. It also encouraged her to provide further evidence to support her more recent report of ASB, this was supportive and evidence it took her concerns seriously. Again, the evidence available supports the landlord’s own assessment that it worked closely with the local authority throughout and held meetings about the resident’s case. This was a reasonable and proportionate approach in the circumstances.
25. The landlord’s stage 2 response, of May 2023, set out its position in relation to the ASB clearly, which sought to manage the resident’s expectations. We note the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the ASB case. However, that it clearly and consistently set out its position in relation to the evidence needed in order to progress the case, and what the resident needed to provide, was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord acted with clarity and consistency.
26. The landlord’s stage 2 response also clearly set out its position in relation to the management transfer, which was appropriate. Indeed, the evidence shows that the landlord made 2 offers of accommodation to the resident. It is noted that the resident was unhappy with the locations of the offers of accommodation. However, evidence seen for this investigation shows that the landlord sought to meet the resident’s request for a specific location.
27. The landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about its limitations due to availability and locations of its stock. This was reasonable in the circumstances and that the landlord made 2 offers of accommodation shows it used its discretion to go beyond what its policy sets out. Given the shortage of social housing stock available, the landlord acted reasonably and sought to meet the resident’s request as best it could.
28. The landlord took the resident concerns about ASB, and hate crime, seriously. It adopted the multi agency approach set out in its policy. The landlord set out what evidence the resident needed to supply in order for it to progress, and when it closed the ASB cases, it communicated this to the resident and explained why. It took a supportive approach and referred the resident to relevant services when concerned about her welfare, and used its discretion to agree to a management transfer. It went beyond the brief of its management transfer policy and made 2 offers of accommodation. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB.

Complaint handling

29. 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.
30. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it operates a 2 stage complaints procedure and will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
31. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was sent 48 working days after it was made. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its complaint procedure and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in issuing the response, and offered compensation. However, the landlord’s response was inaccurate as it cited the complaint was made on 13 November 2022. The evidence shows the resident first tried to complain on 28 October 2022. Therefore, the redress it offered did not reflect the full delay the resident experienced, which was inappropriate.
32. The landlord’s comments about its cyber incident are noted. It is reasonable to conclude that it impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond to the resident’s complaint. However, its lack of communication to explain the delays was a further failing in its complaint handling. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord acknowledged or sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the delays throughout stage 1 and 2. The lack of periodic updates about the delay, was unreasonable. The resident experienced an unfair and protracted complaints process, without the landlord seeking to manage her expectations, and give an explanation about the ongoing delays.
33. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent 70 working days after the resident made her stage 2 complaint. This was well outside of the timeframes set out in its complaints procedure, and the Code. That it offered the same amount of compensation, for a much lengthier delay, was also inappropriate and evidence it failed to fully consider the detriment of a longer delay. Considering its compensation policy, it is unclear why the landlord did not seek to offer more compensation for the longer delay. The resident was further inconvenienced by a protracted and hard to access complaints process.
34. The landlord offered a total of £100 for the delays in its complaint handling. The redress it offered a stage 1 failed to reflect the full delay the resident experienced. The landlord offered the same amount of compensation at stage 2, for a longer delay, which was inappropriate. As such, the £100 it offered for its complaint handling did not fully put things right for the resident and a series of orders are made below.
35. We recently found similar complaint handling failings for the landlord, in a complaint determined by this Service in December 2023 (202203929). As a result of the finding of maladministration, we ordered the landlord to conduct training with its complaint handling staff. Given the recent order made in this regard, we have decided not to make such an order in this determination.

Determination

36. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

38. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £200 in compensation made up of:
       1. The £100 in offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
       2. A further £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.