Clarion Housing Association Limited (202308660)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308660

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The residents request to be rehoused.
2. The complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property, which is a two-bedroom ground floor flat, since 23 July 2007. The resident lives in the property with her partner, son aged 14 and daughter aged 15. The resident’s daughter has mental health issues. The landlord has recorded no vulnerabilities for the household.
In 2021 the resident contacted the landlord 3 times to tell it that the property was overcrowded. She asked it how she could be allocated a bigger property. The landlord advised her:
1. To register for rehousing with her local authority.
2. To register for mutual exchanges.
3. That it only did transfers in emergency situations such as when there was a domestic abuse situation.
The resident completed a form on the landlord’s website on 30 March 2023. She selected the option to “make a complaint”. She said that she had contacted the landlord previously about being rehoused because “we are currently falling outside your property requirements as per the allocations policy”. She explained that this was because she had 2 teenage children of the opposite sex who were sharing a bedroom.
The landlord responded by email on 13 April 2023. It sent her a link to an online survey so that she could find out what housing options were available to her.
The resident replied on 14 April 2023. She said that the link provided did not work and asked the landlord to resend it.
On 26 April 2023 the landlord apologised that the link was not working and told the resident to apply to her local council to go on the waiting list for rehousing. It said that it also advertised some properties on 2 other websites which she could also apply for.
The resident responded on the same day. She said that she was already registered for rehousing with her local council but had been awarded priority C. She said that she had also checked the alternative websites and there were no suitable properties advertised.
The landlord referred the resident to its customer support team who booked an appointment on 30 May 2023 to give the resident advice and support. The resident expected this appointment to be in her home. The landlord failed to attend this appointment but called the resident the next day instead.
The resident contacted this Service for assistance. We wrote to the landlord on 28 July 2023. The landlord then raised a stage 1 complaint which it acknowledged on 3 August 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 11 August 2023. It repeated the housing advice it had already given. It explained that it would only consider a management transfer “if there was a serious risk of threat to customers or their families”. It apologised that the link it had sent had not worked and that the appointment for housing advice was not attended on the day it should have been. It offered £50 compensation for the missed appointment.
On 11 August 2023 the landlord also made a referral to its tenancy sustainment team. It said that the reason for the referral was “for support for priority banding assistance with the local authority housing register and to further support with options to be rehoused.” The referral said that the resident had previously been given housing options advice frequently by the customer contact centre. It explained that another daughter used to live at the property but she had moved out due to mental health issues and the resident was concerned that the overcrowding would affect her other children’s mental and physical health in the same way.
A member of the landlord’s sustainment team contacted the resident on 22 August 2023. The landlord confirmed the outcome of the visit in a letter dated 6 September 2023. It said that due to the “complexity of rehousing and our inability to influence your case, we agreed there wasn’t anything I could assist with.” It confirmed that the resident had explained that the local authority had banded her application correctly but had not “considered the mental challenges” faced by the household. The landlord explained that the resident should “complete a medical form with evidence of diagnoses or reports to support your claims”. The resident said that she didn’t have any supporting letters but would ask for a report from the social worker which she could supply to the local authority. The landlord said that the resident had been irate during the interview because the referral had not been explained properly to her and it apologised for this.
On 27 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She said that the landlord had made a referral but she had been given the same advice again. She said that things were getting worse because her second daughter now had similar mental health problems to her first daughter. The landlord told the resident that the complaint would be forwarded to the customer solutions team on 28 September 2023.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 5 January 2024. It said that when the resident moved into the property she had 1 daughter and was adequately housed. However, because she now had a partner and 2 children of the opposite sex who were over 10 years old, she would be entitled to a three-bedroom property according to its allocations policy. It explained that approximately 17% of households living in social housing in the area were overcrowded and that it appreciated that this could have an impact on health and wellbeing.
It explained that a percentage of its empty properties were allocated via the local authority waiting list but that it advertised the remaining percentage via property portals and its’ website. It said that it did not hold its own housing register, however it kept a record of existing tenants who needed an urgent move via management transfer. It explained the criteria for this and confirmed that the resident did not meet the criteria. It said that it recognised that the household was overcrowded but due to relevant policies and procedures it did not uphold the resident’s complaint and was unable to offer her a larger property. It awarded a further £150 compensation broken down as £100 for the delayed stage 2 complaint response and £50 discretionary payment for a failure to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

The decision regarding the banding given for rehousing was made by the local authority and not 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. This would be more appropriately dealt with by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). Because of this, and in line with paragraph 42(o) 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.

The resident’s request to be rehoused.

The landlord’s allocations policy states that it offers a large percentage of its available properties to applicants nominated via the local authority. The landlord therefore correctly advised the resident to register for rehousing with the local authority as this was the avenue through which most of its’ housing was let. The landlord also correctly offered the resident advice on the type of evidence that the local authority would need to be supplied with to consider awarding her application a higher banding.
However, the landlord advertises the remaining percentage of available properties outside this system. It says that it does not hold a waiting list for these retained allocations but will assess each applicant according to need.
According to the landlord’s allocations policy, applicants will be placed in priority band 1 (high priority) if they are existing tenants who are overcrowded. The policy also states that “a family with one son and one daughter is eligible for a 3 bed home once the eldest child is ten years old.” Which means that the resident’s family is overcrowded and therefore as an existing tenant of the landlord her application for any of the retained lettings advertised via the landlord’s website or the alternative property portals would be awarded the top priority. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord informed the resident of this.
The allocations policy also states that:
1. For retained allocations, applicants will be required to express an interest on advertised homes by completing and submitting an online application form.
2. Properties will be advertised for 7 days before applicants are shortlisted, however, if 10 applications are received for a property before 7 days then new applications will not be accepted and applicants will be shortlisted sooner.
3. Applicants in the same priority band will be prioritised based on the date and time that they submitted their application, with the earliest submission being placed in the highest position.
4. That it would make provision for customers that require assistance with completing application forms or with applying for properties. This may include providing forms and communications in a range of accessible formats, completing applications over the phone and providing an assisted bidding service.
It was therefore very important that the resident understood that she needed to check the landlord’s website and the property portals very regularly. She also needed to know how to access the application form to apply swiftly if she saw a property advertised that suited her needs. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord advised her of this.
If the resident applied for any retained lettings, she would be awarded the highest priority. Therefore, it was extremely important that she understood how the application process worked so that she did not miss this valuable opportunity. Consequently, the lack of guidance and the inadequacy of communication that was given regarding this was a severe failing. This Service has also seen no evidence that the landlord offered the resident any assistance with completing applications.
The impact of this failing is speculative, however as this was possibly the resident’s best opportunity to be rehoused the landlord should have ensured that adequate advice was given. This would have ensured that the resident did not miss opportunities to be rehoused over several years because she had not understood the process and importance of applying quickly for these properties.
The landlord’s management transfer policy says that it expects to rely on a management transfer in a “small number of circumstances where a resident is experiencing:
1. Anti-social behaviour (ASB) or harassment that puts them at risk of serious harm.
2. Domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put, the tenant or a member of their household at serious risk of harm.
3. In very exceptional circumstances we may utilise a management transfer where the customer has had a significant change in their circumstances and is no longer able to access their home, e.g. discharge from hospital after a life changing injury or disability.”
The landlord therefore followed this policy when it advised the resident that she did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. It also signposted her to look for a mutual exchange. Therefore, it acted appropriately when it gave this advice.
The landlord sent the resident a link to an online survey to assist her with housing options. However, this link was not operational so the resident had to contact the landlord again. The landlord also arranged an appointment for the resident to discuss her housing options but the officer did not attend at the agreed time. This cost the resident time and trouble because she waited in for the landlord and then had to contact it to rearrange the appointment. However, the landlord recognised these errors in its stage 1 complaint response, apologised and despite its compensation policy stating that £15 should be offered for a missed appointment, it offered £50 compensation.
Due to the landlord’s lack of effective advice and guidance regarding the process of applying for its retained lettings there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time (the Code) said “a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so”.
The landlord’s interim complaints policy in place at the time said “an explanation will be provided, setting out the reasons why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process, if we decide not to accept a complaint. If further enquiries are needed to resolve the matter or if a customer requests it, the issue will be logged as a complaint.”
The resident clearly told the landlord that she wished to complain about its response to her previous requests to be moved. However, the landlord did not log this as a complaint and did not provide an explanation why the matter was not suitable for its complaints process. This error led to the resident feeling as though the landlord was not listening to her which caused her distress and inconvenience. The resident then contacted this Service for assistance which cost her time and trouble.
Following the stage 1 complaint response the landlord referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment team for further advice. This referral was not mentioned in the stage 1 complaints response and this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord gave a full explanation why the referral was made. This led to the residents’ expectations being raised. This caused her further distress and inconvenience when she realised that the appointment would not automatically lead to a move.
The Code said that landlords must respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated and that if an extension of beyond 10 working days was required this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s interim complaints policy was not in line with the Code and allowed 40 working days for the stage 2 or “peer review” complaint response to be provided. The landlord has since updated this policy and it is now in line with the Code.
The landlord took 70 working days to respond to the stage 2 complaint which was unacceptable. It failed to comply with the code or its interim policy. This failure caused the resident further distress and inconvenience and cost her time and trouble because she contacted this Service again for assistance. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The Code also said that a complaint investigation must seek “sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made.”
In her request to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process, the resident expressed concerns about her children’s mental health. However, the landlord did not address these concerns within the stage 2 complaint response.
After such a long delay the landlord should have contacted the resident for an update on her circumstances prior to issuing the stage 2 complaint response. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it did so. It should have clarified at this point whether the resident had obtained any further evidence to support a move due to medical reasons and to assess whether a management move was now appropriate. This complaint handling failure meant that the landlord did not check that the advice given was still appropriate and that no further options were available to the resident and her family.
Due to the failings identified there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be rehoused.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
Pay the resident directly a total of £500 in compensation. Compensation is broken down as follows:
1. £250 for distress and inconvenience.
2. £150 for time and trouble.
3. £100 for poor complaint handling.
Any compensation already paid as part of the stage 2 complaint response should be deducted from this amount.
Provide a briefing note to all customer service staff to ensure that all complaints requests are forwarded to the appropriate department. This is to make sure that complaints are considered by the relevant team and that residents are informed if the landlord has decided not to accept the complaint.
Apologise in writing to the resident for the failings in this case.
Meet with the resident in her home to:
1. Review her current housing circumstances and evidence of any medical issues.
2. Ensure that all its databases are updated to reflect these.
3. Check that the resident is maximising all rehousing opportunities by explaining to her when and how often to check its website for new retained lettings properties, or if she can set up an alert.
4. Give advice on how to apply for these properties and assistance if required.
5. Make sure that she is also bidding on all available properties via the local authority bidding system and regularly seeking a mutual exchange.

This to be completed within 8 weeks of the date of this report.

Review how it communicates to its tenants about how to apply for its retained lettings. Provide a briefing note (which should also be discussed at a team meeting where possible) to relevant frontline staff on the advice they should give to tenants requesting advice on rehousing options. This should include how to locate the application form, the importance of checking the website regularly and what happens if more than 10 applicants apply for a property. A copy of this briefing should be provided to this Service within 8 weeks of the date of this report.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders by the above deadlines.

Recommendations

The resident advised this Service during the investigation that she has several repairs issues outstanding at the property which mean that a mutual exchange is less likely to be achieved. These include damp and mould in the bathroom, kitchen issues and problems with electrical wiring. The landlord should ensure that any issues that it is responsible for are addressed.