The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Clarion Housing Association Limited (202217008)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217008

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 May 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:
    1. Response to reports of rubbish accumulation in the resident’s garden and associated staff behaviour.
    2. Response to the resident’s request for a sole tenancy and associated universal credit (UC) claim.
    3. Complaint handling .

Background

  1. The resident’s original tenancy agreement was a joint tenancy with her ex-husband dated January 2004. The tenancy agreement detailed the property as a 2-bedroom house. A deed of assignment was made on 11 November 2020 for the resident to be the sole tenant. The resident has said she has vulnerabilities in relation to mental health.
  2. Between April 2012 and December 2020, it has been evidenced that the resident and the landlord liaised over removing the ex-husband from the tenancy agreement. On various occasions the landlord advised the resident that it could “not just remove someone from the tenancy” agreement and that she would have to seek legal advice. Furthermore, the landlord said a person could not be removed from the tenancy whilst they were in rent arrears.
  3. In September 2020 and October 2020 the resident’s support worker liaised with the landlord in relation to removing her ex-husband from the tenancy. On 30 October 2020, the support worker confirmed the arrears had been paid and the ex-husband had provided written consent to be removed from the joint tenancy. A tenancy assignment was issued on 11 November 2020 to have the tenancy solely in the resident’s name.
  4. On 14 January 2021, a generic letter was sent to the resident from the local council in relation to complaints it had received regarding rats in the surrounding area. It outlined steps to “discourage rats from visiting the area”.
  5. The resident requested to raise a formal complaint on 31 March 2021 and made a further complaint on 18 April 2021. She outlined the distress she experienced from her relationship breakdown and the effect the “untidy tenancy” had on her universal credit claim. She wanted to know why she was “constantly told” nothing could be done to remove her ex-husband from the tenancy and how the landlord proposed to compensate her for “years of emotional turmoil.” The resident chased a response in April and May 2021.
  6. On 25 May 2021, the landlord visited the resident in relation to rubbish accumulation in her garden. It liaised with the resident’s support worker in relation to clearing the rubbish.
  7. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 June 2021. It explained that due to a significant amount of the resident’s complaint dated back to 2011, its complaint policy did not extend to issues raised more than six months ago. It went on to apologise if the resident felt its call handler was not sensitive when explaining it could not compensate for emotional distress, however, it was correct that it does not compensate for emotional distress. The landlord offered to put the resident in contact with someone in “advice and support” and awarded £50 compensation for its response delay. The resident responded the same day rejecting the compensation saying she did not want it paid into her rent account.
  8. Between July 2021 and February 2022, the landlord continued to liaise with the resident’s support worker regarding possible grants that may be available to assist the resident in funding the rubbish removal, however there were none available.  Generic letters were sent by the landlord to residents in February and November 2022 in relation to various issues in the area including keeping gardens free from rubbish.
  9. On 19 August 2022, the resident requested to raise her complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded on 27 September 2022 refusing to escalate to stage 2 given the time elapsed between the original complaint response of June 2021. It did however raise it as another stage 1, with its response being sent on 10 October 2022. It outlined action it had taken and offered the resident support and advise from its support team. It offered the resident £50 compensation for “failure to follow process” and said it would be added to a rent account if it was in arrears.
  10. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 11 October 2022. She again refused the £50 compensation and said that:
    1. The landlord was “calling her a liar.”
    2. She was unhappy that photos were taken of her garden from the neighbour’s window, and she was “not to blame for the rat problem.”
    3. Universal credit was not updated in relation to the untidy tenancy and therefore this affected the amount she received.
    4. The situation caused her “mental distress” that she wanted compensation for due to “human error.”
  11. The landlord sent its final response on 20 January 2023 outlining the action it had taken to investigate the complaint. It offered the resident a total of £633.74 compensation which was broken down into:
    1.  £333.74 owed to the resident for the difference in 2 rent payments following an increase in payment from UC, that were not applied to the account
    2. £200 for the delay in managing the joint to sole process and lack of communication
    3. £100 for its delayed response at stage 2. It again said if there were any rent arrears the compensation would be offset against the arrears.
  12. The resident advised this service that she felt the landlord had caused her rent arrears by failing to remove her husband from the joint tenancy, which in turn affected the amount of universal credit she received.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to rubbish accumulation in resident’s garden and associated staff behaviour

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen, it is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. This investigation will therefore assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to a given situation and decide whether its actions were fair and reasonable, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.
  2. The local council sent a generic letter to local residents on 14 January 2021 in relation to rats that had been reported in the area. The landlord carried out a visit on 24 May 2021 in relation to the accumulation of rubbish in the resident’s garden. Internal emails of the same day evidenced that given the resident’s vulnerabilities and her appearing “somewhat distressed during the visit” it would liaise with the support worker over the rubbish removal. This was appropriate.
  3. On 29 June 2021, the support worker confirmed to the landlord that it was not able to assist with funding for the rubbish removal. The landlord explained to the support worker that it was a standard tenancy condition for a resident to maintain a tidy garden and keep free from rubbish. This was appropriate and in line with the tenancy condition. Point 3.20 of the tenancy agreement says that tenants are obligated to keep a garden “clean, tidy and cultivated and not to store any rubbish in it.”
  4. The landlord visited the resident on 3 September 2021 to discuss the possible breach of tenancy in relation to the rubbish in the garden. An internal email of 6 September 2021 said the landlord had discussed with the resident the breach of tenancy and suggested applying for a “local grant”. This was appropriate and resolution focused given the resident’s limited ability to fund the rubbish removal.
  5. On 27 September 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint in relation to the housing officer visiting her and “threatening her with eviction” regarding mattresses in her garden. She was also unhappy that the housing officer had taken photos of her garden. She said she wanted compensation for being threatened with eviction. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what was verbally discussed with the resident during the visit, instead it will comment on communications that were sent to the resident in response and if the landlord’s actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstance.
  6. On 8 October 2022, the landlord responded at stage 1. It explained it had liaised with the resident support worker in relation to the accumulation of rubbish in the garden and offered the resident support via its local support team. This was evidenced by internal emails and was appropriate.
  7. It was reasonable for the landlord to visit the resident and liaise with her support worker in relation to the accumulation of rubbish in the garden and take photos. This forms the basis of evidence gathering into any possible breach of tenancy conditions. It acted within its obligations as outlined in its tenancy management policy which says “it will undertake some initial enquiries and try to resolve the issue with the tenant concerned. Where appropriate will give tenants an opportunity to put things right and where necessary offer advice or refer them for additional support if they are unable to maintain the conditions without additional support.”
  8. Nevertheless, point 7 of the tenancy policy goes on to say “support for vulnerable residents”:
    1. Where a resident is unable to maintain their home and garden because of ill health, frailty, or disability we will work with the residents to explore options for obtaining support and assistance to help them fulfil their tenancy obligations. This may include support from Clarion’s own teams or, with the resident’s permission, working with other agencies.
    2. At the discretion of the relevant Head of service, the landlord will undertake or arrange for necessary one-off works such as dealing with an infestation, tree works or garden clearances, and exempt the vulnerable tenants from any re-charges. Referrals will also be made to appropriate support services where available, to prevent a repeat problem occurring.
  9. Whilst it has been evidenced that the landlord assisted the resident regarding a local grant, there is no evidence to demonstrate it considered undertaking or undertook the work itself as outlined in its policy. This was not appropriate.
  10. The resident remained unhappy and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 11 October 2022. The landlord responded on 20 January 2023, saying that it had liaised with the local environmental health (EH) regarding rats in the area as they had copied the landlord into letters that were sent to local residents. It said that the local EH were unable to attend properties due to covid and therefore its staff undertook inspections to ensure its residents were complying with their tenancy conditions. This was appropriate and in line with its obligation in investigating any possible breach of tenancy.
  11. Overall, the landlord’s actions were mostly appropriate when investigating the possible breach of tenancy conditions and in line with its tenancy management policy. Its stage 2 response clearly outlined the reasons for its actions and that it had been working alongside environmental health to address the pest problem in the surrounding area. However, it did not consider undertaking the rubbish removal as outlined in its policy. It was aware the resident was vulnerable especially as it been liaising with her support worked to address the problem, and was advised they could not assist.
  12. Therefore, as outlined above there was service failure in the landlord’s response to rubbish accumulation in resident’s garden and associated staff behaviour. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, £50 compensation has been awarded. This should be paid directly to the resident and not into her rent account.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a sole tenancy and associated universal credit (UC) claim.

  1. The government website states that an untidy tenancy is one in which a joint tenant has left the property and is not paying rent, for example following a relationship breakdown, but the landlord is unable to remove them from the tenancy for legal reasons. Universal Credit would normally divide the rental liability equally among joint tenants when calculating housing costs. However, under the tenancy, the remaining tenant would be liable to continue to pay the full amount of rent, despite only receiving half from UC.
  2. The landlord’s tenancy and change of assignment procedure says it provides guidance to staff who are involved in managing or processing tenancy changes from a joint tenancy to a sole, in the event of divorce and separation. It continues it cannot agree to sole to joint change requests except when it is by order of a court and cannot simply remove a tenant’s name or change the tenancy from a joint to sole tenancy just because one of the joint tenants has left the property and/or the remaining joint tenant requests it. Furthermore, if there are any rent arrears it will send a letter confirming that assignment cannot take place until arrears are cleared.
  3. The landlord has explained that due to a cyber-attack it did not have access to a significant amount of information pre-2018. Nevertheless, it has been evidenced that the resident had been requesting the landlord remove her ex-husband from the tenancy since April 2012, a situation that was distressing for her and her family. The landlord had also advised that due to rent arrears it could not amend the tenancy until the arrears were cleared. We normally would expect a complaint to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. Whilst the historic information provides contextual background, this complaint will focus on the events leading up to the resident’s formal complaint April 2021.
  4. The resident had said she considered that the issue in delaying removing her ex-husband from the tenancy, had impacted her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments and acknowledges what a difficult situation it had been for her. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether this affected the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any errors by the landlord.
  5. The landlord was consistent with its advice to the resident when making requests to remove her ex-husband from the tenancy. The landlord had explained to the resident that she should seek legal advice to have her ex-husband removed from the joint tenancy. This was appropriate as a landlord cannot be seen to take sides in such situations nor make a decision as to which joint tenant should retain it.
  6. As time progressed and the resident continued her requests, the rent account went into arrears due to her only receiving half payment towards housing cost from UC. The landlord advised the resident that no changes could be made to the tenancy until the rent arrears had been cleared. This was appropriate and in line with its policy as detailed above.
  7. On 11 September 2020, the resident’s support worker contacted the landlord asking for confirmation that the court application submitted by the resident’s ex-husband was sufficient to have the tenancy transferred solely to her. There was no evidence to show that this was responded to, which is not appropriate.
  8. The case notes show that the landlord contacted the resident directly on 22 September 2020 offering assistance in relation to debt management. Whilst it was appropriate to offer such advice as it was aware of the rent arrears, it should not have contacted the resident directly, given her support worker was advocating on her behalf and the known vulnerabilities of the resident. An authorisation form had been signed in April 2020.
  9. On 30 October 2020, the resident’s support worker formally requested the resident’s ex-husband be removed from the tenancy. She said that the local council had cleared the rent arrears and had attached a written request from the resident’s ex-husband for him to be removed. On 11 November 2020, this was actioned, and a tenancy assignment was signed by the resident and her ex-husband. The landlord acted promptly in arranging for the resident to sign the relevant documentation which was appropriate.
  10. The government website says that if a tenant makes changes to a UC claim it will contact the landlord to verify the rent. However, case notes show the landlord failed to update its own system until 23 December 2020 and did not contact UC until 24 February 2021 to update them on the change of tenancy which was 15 weeks later. From internal emails, it shows the landlord itself was confused about the date that this was provided to UC. This was not appropriate and also concerning that either records were not being kept up to date or staff were unaware of how and where to access the correct information. These events occurred prior to the cyber-attack. This service’s KIM report recommends that databases are easy to interrogate, and that the data can be extracted and used. An order has been made in relation to this.
  11. The resident explained in her stage 2 complaint of 11 October 2022 that the landlord delayed in removing her ex-husband from the tenancy until 2021, this was despite him having left the property 10 years prior. She said it affected her mentally and whilst she accepted, she cannot be compensated for her “breakdown,” she wanted compensation for its lack of action. The landlord sent its final response on 20 January 2023 and explained the action it should have taken when processing changes to a tenancy and any associated UC claim. It went on to apologise for the delay in contacting UC and overall offered £633.74 compensation to the resident. This was made up of £100 for its delayed response, £333.74 from “the difference in UC payments” which it said would be retained on her rent and £200 for “service failures in process management”.
  12. In summary, whilst the landlord had provided the resident with the correct advice in relation to removing her ex-husband from the joint tenancy, it delayed in relaying confirming of the sole tenancy to UC for 15 weeks. This delay caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience and affected the amount of UC to which she was entitled. The landlord had been aware of the resident’s previous issues with rent arrears and how this affected her mental health. She had said on numerous occasions to the distress she was experiencing, therefore the landlord should have been proactive in ensuring the correct information was recorded on its own systems and provided to the relevant agencies.
  13. It has been noted that the landlord accepted its failings in this matter and offered the resident compensation which was resolution focused. Nevertheless, the amount offered did not reflect the distress experienced by the resident. This is because £333.74 was a rent refund the resident was owed and should not be considered as compensation. As a result, in real terms £200 compensation was offered to the resident for its delay in providing the correct information to UC.
  14. Therefore, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a sole tenancy and associated universal credit (UC) claim. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident a total of £375compensation has been awarded to her. This is broken down into £25 per week for 15 weeks for the period between 11 November 2020 and 24 February 2021.This can be reduced by the £200 if this has already been paid to the resident. The remaining £175 is to be paid directly to the resident and not into her rent account.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord said that it experienced a cyber-attack in June 2022 and as a result any formal complaint would be subject to its interim complaints policy from 17 June 2022. This meant that any new complaint raised from this date would be subject to the amended timescales:
    1. Stage 1 will be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
    2. Stage 2 will be acknowledged within 10 working days and responded to within 40 working days.
  2. The resident made her stage 1 complaint on 31 March 2021 and the complaint policy in place at the time had a response time of 10 working days at stage1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  3. The resident chased a response on 10 May and 27 May 2021 and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 6 June 2021 which was 45 working days later and not appropriate. This was significantly outside of its policy timescale of 10 working days.
  4. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 19 August 2022. The landlord responded on 27 September 2022 saying it could not escalate her complaint to stage 2 given the time lapsed since her original complaint but would raise the matter again as a stage 1. At this point, the landlord’s interim complaints policy was in place. Nevertheless, it failed to acknowledge the resident request within 10 working days and did not respond until 26 working days later which was not appropriate. It was, however, appropriate for the landlord to raise the matter as stage 1 given the amount of time that had passed since its initial stage 1 response.
  5. The resident outlined her stage 1 complaint on 27 September 2022 and also said she was unhappy that compensation had been paid into her rent account despite rejecting it. The landlord responded on 10 October 2022, which was appropriate and within its policy timescale.
  6. It went on to explain the action it took and apologised for entering the compensation award onto the resident’s rent account when she had declined it. It said it was an “oversight” and offered a further £50 compensation. This was appropriate and resolution focused. It accepted its failing and attempted to put things right.
  7. The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 11 October 2022 and rejected the £50 compensation. The landlord sent its final response on 20 January 2023. This was 70 working days later and considerably outside of the timescale outline in its interim policy and was not appropriate.
  8. The landlord’s final response was clearly laid out, it apologised and offered the resident £100 for its delayed response. It was appropriate that the landlord apologised and offered the resident compensation, however £100 did not reflect the distress caused by the delays at both stage 1 and 2 and the landlords failure to listen to the resident requests in relation to rejecting the compensation.
  9. In summary the landlord failed to adhere to its policy timescale, despite these being amended to account for the cyber-attack. It was evidently frustrating for the resident in pursuing the complaint and caused her distress and inconvenience over a prolonged period of time. She had said she felt the landlord was not listening to her, which was only compounded by its repeat failure to adhere to her wishes to reject the compensation.
  10. Therefore, as outlined above there was service failure by the landlord for its handling of the complaint and an additional £200 compensation has been awarded to the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for a sole tenancy and associated universal credit (UC) claim.
    2. Response to rubbish accumulation in resident’s garden and associated staff behaviour.
    3. Complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
  2. The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report, in line with this service’ apologies guidance. https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/centre-for-learning/key-topics/our-orders/apologies-guidance/
  3. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £615 made up of:
    1. £375 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its response to the resident’s request for a sole tenancy and associated universal credit (UC) claim. This can be reduced by £200 if compensation has already been paid to the resident in relation to this matter.
    2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience in relation to its response to the resident’s complaint. This is in addition to any compensation paid in relation to this matter.
    3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its response to rubbish accumulation in resident’s garden and associated staff behaviour. This is in addition to any compensation already paid.
  4. The landlord to familiarise itself with this service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) and for staff or a member of staff to attend this service’s free workshop on the KIM report. If only 1 member of staff is to attend, the information obtained from the workshop should be cascaded to all relevant staff members.
  5. If not already done so, inspect and arrange clearance of items in the garden in relation to the original complaint.

Recommendations

  1. Contact the resident to ascertain if she requires any further support and ensure its systems reflect the vulnerabilities of the resident.