Clarion Housing Association Limited (202102884)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102884

Clarion Housing Association Limited

3 October 2022

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 refusal of a request for a management transfer.

Background

2. The resident lives in the property with their child and holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord.
3. On the 31 January 2021 the resident was a victim of a home invasion and was attacked. The resident reported the incident to the landlord on 12 February 2021. When making the report, they explained that the perpetrator gained access through the front door which they said was faulty.
4. During a subsequent conversation with the landlord on 11 March 2021, the resident advised that they were scared to remain in the property and they were living with their parent. The resident wanted to be rehoused and the landlord agreed to gather information to support a management transfer application.  The resident also mentioned during the conversation that the front door of the property was still insecure.
5. On the same day, the landlord contacted the Early Years, Family Wellbeing and Early Help Service within the local authority, for additional information to support the resident’s application. It also submitted a disclosure request to the police for information about the incident.
6. The police responded and informed that it received the report about the incident from a third party and carried out a welfare check on the resident. The police said that the resident did not wish to support the police investigation therefore, the report was closed.
7. The Early Years, Family Wellbeing and Early Help Service responded and said that the resident did not have an open case with children’s social care. It informed that the police had sent a report to the local authority Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). This resulted in the social worker contacting the local authority housing manager.
8. The Early Years, Family Wellbeing and Early Help Service provided the landlord with the contact details for the social worker and local authority housing manager, as the Service did not have information about the outcome of the communication between the two departments.
9. The landlord contacted the local authority housing officer and asked whether the resident had approached the local authority for assistance with housing. The housing officer confirmed that they had spoken with the social worker and the resident respectively and no homeless application was submitted at that time by the resident.
10. The social worker informed the landlord that they had completed an assessment after the referral from the police and determined that there were no child welfare concerns. The social worker said that they referred the resident to Early Years, Family Wellbeing and Early Help Service to discuss housing support, but both services had now closed their respective cases and would not take further action.
11. On 1 April 2021, the landlord issued its decision in response to the resident’s request for a management transfer. It referred to its management transfer policy, which states that for a management transfer to be considered, it must be confirmed in writing by the Police that there is a serious risk or threat to the tenant or their family that means it is no longer safe for the tenant and their family to continue living at the property.
12. It advised that following its enquiries with the both the social worker and the Early Years, Family Wellbeing and Early Help Service, both were unable to confirm that the resident was significantly at risk if they were to remain at the property. In addition, it said that police had not been able to determine this, as there was a lack of evidence and the resident did not wish to pursue the crime report. The landlord explained that as a result, the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer.
13. The landlord advised that alternatively, the resident could approach the local authority for rehousing assistance and register for a mutual exchange. It said that it could also provide additional safety features to the front door of the property and supply the resident with personal panic alarms. It asked the resident to inform it if they wanted this.
14. On 6 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and explained that they were unhappy with the decision. They felt that they had been treated poorly by the landlord because of their socioeconomic status, said that they had not returned to the property and reiterated that they believed the condition of the front door was a factor in the perpetrator gaining access to the property.
15. The landlord treated the correspondence as an appeal request. On 9 April 2021, it raised an urgent request for a surveyor to inspect the door and requested personal panic alarms for the resident.
16. The landlord also issued its response to the appeal on 9 April 2021. It acknowledged that the incident had caused the resident concern but found no evidence of a serious risk of further incidents or, evidence that remaining at the property would put the resident at significant risk. It upheld its decision of 1 April 2021 and confirmed that the resident’s ethnicity had no bearing on the decision.
17. It advised the resident that in light of their concerns about the security of the property, it raised an urgent request for an inspection of the property so that it could complete security improvements. In addition, it said that it had arranged for personal panic alarms to be sent to the resident.
18. On 6 May 2021, the resident contacted this Service about the dissatisfaction with the landlord’s position. We wrote to the landlord and on receipt, it considered a formal complaint about the matter.
19. It provided its final decision to the complaint on 8 July 2021. It found that the decision was in line with its management transfer policy and reiterated the information it provided about alternative options for seeking rehousing. It also said that its offer to improve the security at the property remained.

Assessment and findings

20. The landlord’s management transfer policy explains that the landlord relies on management transfers in circumstances where a resident is experiencing:
    1. serious anti-social behaviour or harassment that puts their life at risk or;
    2. domestic abuse that is putting, or is likely to put the tenant or a member of their households’ life at risk.
21. According to the policy, management transfers should only be considered if the police confirm in writing that there is a serious risk or threat to the resident that means it is no longer safe for them to continue living at the property. There must also be a realistic chance of a suitable property becoming available.
22. Following the enquiries the landlord made with the third party agencies, none of the feedback it received provided any evidence that there was a serious risk or threat that meant that the resident could no longer live in the property. The absence of this evidence meant that the conditions required for the landlord to consider a management transfer were not met. The landlord’s decision to reject the management transfer request, therefore, was in accordance with its policy.
23. This Service understands that being the victim of such an incident would be traumatic for the resident and was the reason for their fear of returning to the property. The landlord recognised that the resident was fearful of returning to the property and offered to carry out security improvements to the property as well as ordering personal panic alarms.
24. It was appropriate for it to offer to do so, but it is a concern to this Service that it took the landlord two months to take action to address the security concern. It was mentioned when the incident was first reported on 12 February 2021 and in the follow up conversation the landlord had with the resident on 11 March 2021.
25. This Service has seen in the evidence provided by the landlord, that the resident stated there would be no point in the landlord attending to the property to inspect the door as they would not be present. The internal correspondence this Service has seen from the landlord shows that it is satisfied it has not received any reports about the security of the property from the neighbourhood warden. Nevertheless, we would encourage the landlord to take steps to visit the property in order to satisfy itself that it is secure. A recommendation regarding this has been made below.
26. It was appropriate that the landlord provided the resident with information on alternative options to pursue rehousing because it was unable to offer this, and the resident had made it clear that they wanted to move.

Determination

27. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its refusal of the request for a management transfer.

Recommendations

28. This Service recognises that a significant period of time has passed since the incident. However, if it has not been to inspect the property since the incident, we would suggest the landlord do so to ensure that the property is secure.