Sovereign Network Homes (Former Network Homes) (202336875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336875

Sovereign Network Homes

30 August 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 response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The resident is a survivor of domestic violence and has 2 children.
3. The information provided advises that in February 2022, there was a physical incident involving the resident and her ex-partner, after which their relationship ended, and there were verbal incidents in July and November 2022.
4. In late February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and asked it to consider moving her. She explained that she was a survivor of domestic violence and that she and her children had been affected by recent mental and physical abuse. She explained that her ex-partner still lived in the area, she was in therapy and a child had been referred to the local child and adolescent mental health services, and she wanted to be able to raise her children in an environment without fear of conflict or trauma they may need to recover from. She sent a letter from a women’s support organisation, photos of physical marks, a victim support text message, a police acknowledgement of a report with a reference, and a police slip which noted that she was advised to avoid contact and arrange orders, seek further support from non-government organisations, and report any further incidents to police.
5. In early March 2023, the landlord said a request for a management move could be considered by a panel that was meeting on 12 April 2023. It asked the resident to send a completed application form and supporting documents, and advised her to approach the local authority as homeless if she did not feel safe in her home. Around this time, it is understood that the landlord also advised her to contact the police about obtaining an injunction against her ex-partner.
6. The evidence provided by the landlord shows that on 3 April 2023, it received an email from the resident attaching an application form and 19 attachments. These included medication information, confirmation that the resident saw a counsellor, confirmation that she was referred for local authority early help review and signposting, confirmation of a child’s referral to community services, a police reference, confirmation of a closure of a referral to the local child and adolescent mental health services due to a lack of receipt of information, confirmation of attendances at a medical centre between 2012 and 2018, a supporting letter from a women’s support organisation, a mediation record saying mediation had started but broken down, a psychotherapist letter detailing involvement, and photos of physical marks.
7. On 11 April 2023, after contact from the resident, the landlord said it had not received her application and asked her to re-send it. It also said that the April panel was cancelled and the next housing panel was 10 May 2023. The resident and a representative re-sent the application and 22 attachments on 3 May, 11 May, 22 May, 23 May and 1 June 2023, however there were reportedly issues in the landlord being able to see them, and it did not confirm it received them until the application and attachments were re-sent on 13 June 2023.
8. In June 2023, the landlord said that it felt the information provided was not strong enough to obtain panel approval for a management move, and it attempted to obtain further information from the resident and the police, explaining that it was best practice to get as much supporting evidence as possible to help the panel make their decision.
9. In July 2023, the landlord’s panel considered the application, after which the resident was told the decision had been deferred while her case was referred to a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC), which would assess the risk to the resident and ensure she was being provided the necessary support. The resident expressed dissatisfaction with this, and said she was receiving all the support she needed and just needed moving out of the area where her ex-partner lived.
10. In August 2023, the panel met again and the landlord wrote to the resident. It noted that the MARAC referral had been declined as the case did not meet their threshold. It noted that the panel had considered the case and read through all documents supplied, detailing 5 documents as an example. It said that it was agreed that the threshold to award a management transfer was not met as there was no severe immediate risk to life or personal safety. It advised the resident to take out an injunction, contact the local authority to assist in a possible move, and explore other housing options such as mutual exchange, shared ownership and private rent. It said that if the resident was dissatisfied with the decision she could make a complaint within 30 days of the decision.
11. The resident complained. She noted that her case had sensitivities, but she felt that the application was not handled with care, was prolonged, and did not consider information and documents as a matter of urgency. She noted that the application was sent in April 2023, but this was only acknowledged in June 2023 and went to the panel in July 2023, and while there were apparently issues with the emails the communication was not great.
12. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 1 November 2023. It detailed a chronology which said the application and supporting documents were not received until 13 June 2023, and it said that the documents received were a supporting statement from the resident, photos showing physical marks, a statement from the child and adolescent mental health service, a victim support text message and a police reference. It explained that when the panel first met there was insufficient information on which to make a decision, and to get a better understanding of the level of threat it was decided to refer the resident to MARAC, which later said their threshold was not met. It said that having reviewed information, it could not agree that there was a delay processing the resident’s information, that the information was not viewed with urgency or importance, or that the information provided was not properly considered.
13. The resident escalated the complaint. She said that the response did not correlate with her experience and she did not feel that the case was adequately investigated. She noted that she had sent over 22 documents, and felt she had sent more than enough information to support her case.
14. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 20 December 2023. It noted that the resident initially contacted in March 2023, it did not have necessary information until June 2023, and the panel then met in July and August 2023 and communicated its decision in August 2023. It said that the 2 month gap between the receipt of information and the decision was not unreasonable given the involvement of the panel and MARAC. It acknowledged the sensitivity of the resident’s situation and emotional nature of subject matter, but said it was unable to acknowledge any delays or failures in the handling of her application. It said that based on the information available, the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer and that as a specific member of staff had advised, she was advised to contact the local authority for assistance if she felt there was an urgent need for rehousing.

Assessment and findings

15. The resident expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord’s responses said it did not receive information until June 2023. It is also understood that she does not feel its summary of 5 documents that were reviewed reflects all the information that she provided. As a result, she feels that the landlord’s complaint investigation was not thorough, that some information she supplied was not considered by the housing panel, and that she provided enough supporting information for the landlord to move her via a management transfer.
16. The landlord has said that information was not provided by the resident until 13 June 2023, after which it clearly sought to work with her to try to obtain additional evidence to ensure her case presented to the housing panel was as strong as possible. In an information request from the Ombudsman, the landlord has provided a copy of an email from the resident on 3 April 2023 with attachments. This shows it did receive information earlier than 13 June 2023. There are some differences, however the April 2023 information seems largely similar to the June 2023 information in respect to the resident’s circumstances. This means there was over 2 months delay in the landlord considering the information and trying to work with the resident to obtain additional information to present to the panel, and this potentially deprived her of the opportunity to have her case presented to earlier panels in May or June.
17. The landlord’s internal housing panel minutes say the information reviewed “included” 5 documents, but it gave the impression in a complaint response that only 5 documents were received and considered. The Ombudsman can see that the resident’s April and June 2023 emails contained 19 and 22 attachments, more than 5 documents, so it would have been helpful if the landlord had provided clearer confirmation that the panel took these into account.
18. The Ombudsman can see other instances where the landlord’s communication was unhelpful. The evidence seen shows that a supporting statement was provided by a women’s support organisation, so a complaint response referral to a statement from the resident may have been confusing if this did not reflect information she submitted. The transfer decision said that the resident could complain within 30 days, however this did not reflect its policy that complaints could be made within 6 months. Finally, a complaint response referred to some advice from specific staff with whom the resident disputes having any interaction with, which will have undermined her confidence in its investigation.
19. The landlord has said that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management move, while she believes she should have been moved as she provided evidence that was not considered. The landlord takes a risk-based approach for management transfers, and it is evident that it attempted to obtain information from the resident and police to assess the current risk to her. The housing panel noted that eligible circumstances for a management transfer include where there is a severe or immediate risk to life or personal safety because of domestic violence, where it cannot take any other action and it is not possible for the police or local authority to take quicker or more effective action. The panel considered if this was met, and concluded it was not as on the evidence submitted, there was no severe immediate risk to life or personal safety.
20. The panel was noted to have reviewed information that “included” 5 documents, which could be clearer, however reviewing the information from the resident there is no clear evidence that the landlord may have been wrong to not approve a management move. The Ombudsman understands the resident’s situation and her desire to remove herself and her children from the borough where her ex-partner lives, but it is not evident that she and her children have been considered to be at severe immediate risk by parties such as the police. It is therefore not evident that the resident may have met the main eligibility criteria for a management move, and that the landlord’s handling may have resulted in a more significant detriment.
21. While this is the case, the landlord did not acknowledge that it had received information earlier, did not consider the impact of this on the timeliness of the progress of the resident’s application, and did not consider the time and trouble caused by information having to be re-sent multiple times between May and June 2023. The landlord was also unhelpful to not provide clearer reassurance that all submitted information was considered. The landlord’s handling will have caused unnecessary delay, distress and uncertainty in what will have already been a stressful situation for the resident. It will also have caused her to feel an ongoing sense of an injustice due to a lack of confidence that a correct decision and complaint investigation occurred. The landlord lacked sufficient customer focus and regard to the resident as a survivor of domestic violence. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in its response to her request for a management transfer.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Orders and recommendations

23. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues identified.
24. The landlord is recommended to review how it manages expectations for management transfer applications, and ensure that the risk-based approach taken is sufficiently communicated to residents. As part of this, the landlord could consider amending the application form for management transfers so that this draws attention to the qualifying criteria.
25. The landlord is recommended to ensure that accurate information is included about its complaint procedure in correspondence such as transfer decisions.