Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202219504)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219504

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 March 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move.

Background

  1. The resident, who is an assured tenant, had requested a management move from the landlord. She felt that the property was not appropriate for her, and that it was having a negative effect on her mental and physical health. It is unclear from the information provided when this initial request was made, yet it is clear that this was denied by the landlord as it considered that the resident did not fulfil the criteria needed for such a move.
  2. On 8 March 2022, the resident submitted a complaint, in which she expressed her disappointment that the landlord had denied her request for a management transfer. She also expressed her dissatisfaction that her local authority had not granted her request to be awarded higher priority points for a transfer based on medical grounds. In addition to this, she advised that she was struggling to find a mutual exchange due to a bed bug issue within the property.
  3. Whilst the bed bug issue was mentioned, the resident confirmed that this was not part of her complaint, as this issue was being handled by her solicitors. She also drew attention to other repair issues such as damaged windows, however, she made clear to both the landlord and this Service that her complaint was solely regarding her request for a transfer.
  4. The landlord’s final response to the complaint dated 19 April 2022 advised that it was unable to comment on the local authority’s decision not to award increased priority points. It provided information on how to contact the local authority to dispute this should she want to. The landlord also explained that the resident did not meet the landlord’s criteria in order for her to be awarded a management transfer. It advised that it was bound by its policies and procedures, and therefore there were no grounds in which it could move the resident to a different property. As such, it suggested that the resident should continue to pursue a mutual exchange as the bed bug issue had been resolved, and also suggested that she continued bidding on properties via the local authority.
  5. The resident was not satisfied with the response and advised this Service that she wanted to moved as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. This Service is unable to investigate matters regarding the local authority’s refusal to grant the resident higher priority banding. This is because The Ombudsman can only investigate local authority’s decisions in their capacity as social landlords and we cannot investigate local authority’s other activities. Local authorities activities which do not directly relate to their role as social landlords can be investigated by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). As such, should the resident want to pursue this aspect of her complaint, it would be more appropriate to raise this with LGSCO. This is in line with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body”.

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 4.3 of the landlord’s management transfer policy states that “management transfers should only be considered if the police confirm in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to [the resident] or their family”.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management move

  1. The landlord has an obligation to work within the boundaries of its relevant policies and procedures. In regards to the resident’s request for a management transfer, whilst the request itself may be understandable, if the resident did not meet the required criteria that had been set out in the landlord’s management transfer policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to deny such request.
  2. As noted above, Section 4.3 of the landlord’s management transfer policy states that “management transfers should only be considered if the police confirm in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to [the resident] or their family”. The resident did not demonstrate, nor suggest, that she was in immediate danger and that there was a threat to her safety. Whilst other issues were raised that may reasonably have had an effect on the resident’s mental health (as demonstrated by letters from outside and qualified sources), these issues were such that could be remedied through repairs and other processes. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to deny the request for a management transfer on the basis of the medical evidence provided.
  3. Although the landlord denied the resident’s request, it advised the resident to continue other options for rehousing such as pursuing a mutual exchange or applying via the local authority. It considered the resident’s concerns regarding this, in which she advised that potential swappers had pulled out due to the pest issue that had been present previously. The landlord addressed this by advising that the bed bug issue had been dealt with, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the issue would occur again. The resident was understandably concerned the pests would return, but the landlord had acted reasonably and in line with its obligations by removing the bed bugs and it would not be expected to do anything further in this regard. The landlord cannot be held responsible for potential home swappers pulling out of the mutual exchange due to the presence of bed bugs as the landlord acted to resolve the issue within a reasonable length of time. Additionally, as there was no dispute that the pest issue was resolved, it was appropriate for the landlord to recommend the resident to continue pursuing a mutual exchange as an option for moving home.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, that there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for a management move.