Clarion Housing Association Limited (202108928)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108928

Clarion Housing Association Limited

05 May 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. This complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the transfer of the tenancy to the resident’s ex-partner.
    2. How the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property under an assured shorthold tenancy following an exchange by deed of assignment dated 14 January 2019.
  2. The resident lived in the property with her ex-partner and children, until the breakdown of her relationship. A court order was issued assigning the tenancy to her ex-partner on 19 March 2021.
  3. The resident emailed a copy of the order to the landlord on 26 March 2021, asking that the landlord change the details on the tenancy account. She followed this up and checked her online account to see whether the required changes had been made, eventually making a formal complaint about this on 8 April 2021. She further stated, on 24 April 2021, that she was also concerned that her ex-partner could see her contact details and new telephone number on the account which had eventually been transferred to him.
  4. In its stage one response of 27 May 2021, apologised for the delay in providing the decision and offered compensation of £50 in respect of this delay. It stated that the resident had not sent it the court order until 9 April 2021. The response also stated that she would be jointly responsible for any charges on the account for the first week of April 2021. Finally, the landlord acknowledged that there was a system administration error which meant that the customer reference numbers had been swapped over for the resident and her ex-partner. It confirmed that both accounts had subsequently been disabled whilst amendments were made.
  5. In the stage two decision of 27 January 2022, the landlord acknowledged the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint, and the misinformation contained in the stage one response regarding the receipt of a court order. It acknowledged that it had incorrectly informed the resident that she was responsible for arrears incurred before 8 April 2021. The landlord offered £200 in compensation, comprising £100 in respect of the incorrect information and an additional £100 in respect of the handling of her complaint. This brought the total offer by the landlord to £250.
  6. The resident contacted the Ombudsman to confirm that she was unhappy with the response and the level of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation 

  1. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, and the complaint made to the landlord, the resident has raised issues around an alleged data breach which she says occurred when her ex-partner gained access to her online tenancy account after the transfer of the tenancy from the resident to her ex-partner.
  2. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord noted that the resident’s solicitors had settled a claim against the landlord in August 2021 regarding a data breach, and that therefore it would not consider this aspect of the complaint further.
  3. The Ombudsman does not have the details of the settlement referred to. However, if the landlord’s assertion was correct, that the settlement was settled via court proceedings and was in relation to the alleged breach described in the resident’s complaint, the matter cannot be considered by the Ombudsman. This is because, under paragraph 41(c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or were the subject of court proceeding where judgment on the merits was given.
  4. Alternatively, if the alleged breach mentioned in the resident’s complaint concerns a matter which was not the subject of a settlement, then this aspect of the resident’s complaint would remain a matter which the Ombudsman would be unable to consider. This is because, under paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not deal with matters which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
  5. The Information Commissioners Office has the jurisdiction to consider complaints about potential data breaches and would be the appropriate complaints-handling body to deal with such complaints.
  6. For the reasons outlined above, the Ombudsman will not consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the transfer of the tenancy to the resident’s ex-partner

  1. On 26 March 2021, the resident emailed a court order to the landlord confirming that the tenancy for the property should be transferred from the resident to her ex-partner. The resident reports that she emailed to chase a response as she had not received any acknowledgement via the tenancy portal and was informed by email that her query had been passed on to the landlord’s customer accounts team.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord to state that up to that day, 24 April 2021, the tenancy account remained registered in her name. In addition, a charge of £818.98 was added to the tenancy account in early April, when the account was still in her name. The resident noted that this should not have happened, as any arrears were to be transferred with the account to her ex-partner in accordance with the court order.
  3. In the stage one response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord incorrectly stated that the order had not been sent to the landlord by the resident until 9 April 2021. The landlord also incorrectly stated that the resident would be liable, jointly with her ex-partner, for any arrears on the account incurred before 9 April 2021.
  4. In the stage two response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed that the court order had in fact been received on the 26 March 2021, but not uploaded onto the landlord’s system until 9 April 2021. The landlord appropriately apologised for the fact that the stage one complaint response indicated that the court order was not received before 9 April 2021. It also appropriately acknowledged that there was a delay in the resident’s account reflecting the amendment to the tenancy.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging that the error in the stage one response. It also confirmed that there were no arrears linked to the resident’s account.
  6. In recognition of the incorrect information that was initially provided regarding the liability for arrears, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for “misdirection – incorrect information provided”. In light of these acknowledged service failures, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation to the resident.
  7. In determining whether the compensation offered was adequate, the Ombudsman will consider any compensation policy held by the landlord, alongside the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  8. Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards of between £100 – £600 are suggested for cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.
  9. Under the landlord’s own compensation policy, it is suggested that the landlord will make awards of £250 – £700 for cases where there may be considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include “Misdirection – giving contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about a complainant’s rights.” It also includes, “A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.”
  10. Applying these criteria to the current case, the landlord gave incorrect information about the resident’s rent liabilities under the tenancy and also incorrect information regarding when the court order was received by the landlord. The resident needed to repeatedly explain the landlord’s error, and the issue was not resolved until the stage two response was received.
  11. The resident was in a domestic dispute with her ex-partner, and the court order excluded her from the property. The resident informed the landlord that the effect of the delay and error in changing the tenancy details was to delay her ability to secure a new tenancy.  It also led her to believe that a rent arrears liability, which should have been attributed to her ex-partner, had been wrongly attributed to her.
  12. However, it is noted that the tenancy was correctly transferred by 24 April 2021, and the duration of the delay was therefore relatively short. It is also noted that the resident had not been living at the property since November 2019. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and corrected the errors in information provided at stage one in its stage two response. It is, therefore, considered that an award at the bottom of the range is appropriate.
  13. In consideration of the factors above and both the landlord’s compensation policy and the remedies guidance, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should make a further compensation payment of £150 as per the order below, in addition to the £100 already offered at stage two of the complaints process, to give a total of £250 compensation for the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the transfer of the resident’s tenancy. This is in accordance with the provisions of the landlord’s policy.

How the landlord handled the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s stage one response acknowledged a delay in its response to the resident’s complaint and offered compensation of £50. This was a reasonable offer, reflecting the landlord’s short delay in providing a stage one response to the resident’s complaint, after the 20-working day deadline specified in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint by email on 27 May 2021. In spite of this request, and further follow up requests dated 15 July 2021 and 2 December 2021, the landlord did not issue a stage two response until 27 January 2022. This was a time lapse of seven months and considerably beyond acceptable standards.
  3. In the stage two response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this failure to escalate the resident’s complaint. It offered compensation in the sum of £100 in respect of its complaint handling, comprising £50 for the delay, £25 for inconvenience and chasing, and £25 for failure to follow process.
  4. Under the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, awards of £100-£600 are considered appropriate where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified.
  5. The landlord’s own complaint policy suggests awards of £250-£700 are appropriate for “Significant failures to follow the complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant.”
  6. The Ombudsman considers that there was delay at stage one and significant, prolonged, delay at stage two leading to the need for the resident to repeatedly chase a response to her complaint. Therefore, an additional payment of £100 would have been more appropriate in the circumstances. This amount, together with the £50 offered by the landlord at stage one, and the £100 offered at stage two, gives an appropriate total award of £250 compensation for the landlord’s failures in complaint handling in this matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the transfer of the tenancy to the resident’s ex-partner.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident the total sum of £500 in compensation, comprising:
    1. £250 compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration identified in its handling of the transfer of the resident’s tenancy to her ex-partner. This includes the £100 previously offered by the landlord.
    2. £250 compensation in recognition of any distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint. This includes the £150 previously offered by the landlord.