Citizen Housing Group Limited (202407664)

Decision
Case ID	202407664
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Citizen Housing Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	29 May 2026

Background

1. The resident had a phone call with the landlord on 18 May 2023. The landlord made a safeguarding referral to social services based on the phone conversation. The resident complained about this decision and sought compensation for the distress caused.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of:
   1. A referral of the resident to social services.
   2. The complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. No maladministration in how the landlord handled the referral of the resident to social services.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. The landlord’s policy says that it will take action if it is concerned for a resident’s welfare. It followed its policy when it referred the resident social services.
5. The landlord followed its complaint handling timescales. It should have provided a full review in its stage 2 response to the resident. However, it had previously covered the missed points in a letter to the resident outside of the complaint process.

 

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 26 June 2026

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
31 May 2023	The resident complained to the landlord. She was unhappy as the landlord had referred her to social services.
13 June 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 response. It apologised that the resident was unhappy. It said it had followed its safeguarding policy. It said it had made the referral because it believed there might have been an immediate risk to the resident.
14 September 2023	The resident escalated her complaint. She expressed dissatisfaction again about the referral. She also wanted to know more about it. She said she did not want the landlord to contact her.
27 September 2023	The landlord wrote its stage 2 response but did not send it to the resident. It based this decision on the resident’s request that it did not contact her. Instead, it held the response on file.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident remained unhappy at the landlord’s response. She has told us she would like the landlord to acknowledge it did not follow its process.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Referral to social services
Finding	No maladministration

What we did not investigate

6. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through another procedure. In this case, part of the resident’s concern is that the landlord did not disclose information on how many safeguarding referrals it had made and the information contained in them. Concerns about a request for personal information are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The ICO investigates complaints about possible breaches of the Data Protection Act.

What we did investigate

7. The resident spoke to the landlord on 18 May 2023. In this call, the resident made references to her mental health. On the same day, the landlord made a safeguarding referral. Its safeguarding adults policy says it will take appropriate action where there are concerns for a resident’s welfare. The landlord has recorded that it was concerned for the resident’s wellbeing. It acted based on this concern. Its actions were therefore appropriate and in line with its policy.
8. In a call to us on 28 May 2026, the resident said she believed the landlord had not followed its process. She said it should have checked in with her before making the referral. We assessed whether the landlord followed its policies and procedures. The policy does not require it to check in with a resident before making a referral. Given the landlord’s immediate concerns for the resident, it acted appropriately and in line with its policy and procedures.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

9. The landlord’s complaint policy at the time of the complaint complies with the definition of a complaint in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) April 2022. The timescales in the landlord’s complaint procedure complied with the Code.
10. The resident submitted her complaint on 31 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on the same day. It responded in 9 working days, on 13 June 2023. The landlord followed its policy.
11. The resident escalated her complaint on 14 September 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on the same day. It finalised its response in 9 working days, on 27 September 2023. The landlord followed its policy.
12. The landlord did not send the stage 2 complaint response to the resident. On 15 September 2023, the resident asked the landlord not to contact her. She explained her dissatisfaction about being contacted by the landlord. The landlord decided to keep the response on file so the resident could request it if she wanted it. Given the resident’s dissatisfaction, this was a reasonable course of action in the circumstances.
13. However, the landlord did not review the entire stage 1 response. It only addressed the information request in its stage 2 response. The resident was dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. In her escalation, she asked the landlord to review the response. The landlord should have conducted a full review of the complaint.
14. In between the stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord wrote to the resident on 12 July 2023. It reaffirmed its position that the safeguarding referral had followed its policy. The landlord had already repeated its position to the resident. However, it should have included this in the stage 2 response as well.
15. The landlord followed the timescales in its complaint policy. While it did not send the stage 2 response, it prepared it within the required timeframe. The response should have reviewed the full complaint. However, it had already reaffirmed its position in a letter. This reduced the impact on the resident. Its position had not changed.
16. The landlord should apologise to the resident. This action is in line with our compensation guidance for service failure that did not affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

17. The case highlights the importance of clear and consistent complaint handling. Even where a landlord has already communicated its position, it should provide a full response to all complaint issues raised by the resident.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

18. The case also shows good practice in safeguarding decision-making and record keeping. The landlord recorded its concerns and acted in line with its policy. Clear records supported the decisions for its actions.

Communication

19. The landlord communicated appropriately with the resident throughout the dispute and the complaint. It tried to accommodate the resident’s contact requests and responded in a reasonable timeframe.