Clarion Housing Association Limited (202222847)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222847

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 October 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for his father to represent him.
2. Reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
3. Requests for a copy of his tenancy agreement.
4. Request for a management transfer to another home.
5. Subject access request (SAR).
6. Associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint handling body.
Part of the resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of a SAR his father had made on his behalf. SARs fall within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). As such, the Ombudsman cannot investigate or assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR.
We are satisfied that the landlord had explained that the resident could refer this part of his complaint to the ICO in its communications.
After carefully considering the evidence, we have decided that the landlord’s handling of the SAR is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background

During the events in this case, the resident was an assured tenant and he lived in a 1 bedroom flat in a block. The landlord is a housing association which owns and manages the block and the resident’s home.
From the start of the tenancy in April 2022, the landlord was aware that the resident has a learning disability and mental health conditions. The resident was represented by his father during the events in the case and our investigation.
Around 31 October 2022, the resident reported ASB to the landlord. He reported that his neighbour played loud music during the night and had frequent parties. He also reported that the neighbour was climbing up the building to go to and from his flat because he did not have a key fob for the communal entry door.
On 23 November 2022, the resident’s father wrote to the landlord saying the resident, and other residents, had complained about the same neighbour and the landlord had not acted in line with its policies. He listed 9 incidents that had occurred between 18 October 2022 and 23 November 2022 and asked the landlord to investigate.
The letter asked the landlord to send a “full” copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. The resident’s father also attached a letter from the resident giving his permission for his father to act on his behalf in matters relating to his tenancy.
The resident’s father emailed the landlord on 21 December 2022 confirming that his letter of 23 November 2022 had been a complaint. He later asked the Ombudsman for help and we wrote to the landlord on 5 January 2023 asking it to respond to the resident’s complaint.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord gave its stage 1 response to the complaint which said:
1. The resident’s father had asked for a copy of the tenancy agreement on 21 December 2022 and the landlord had sent it on 28 December 2022. It had responded to the request within its service standard timescales.
2. It had given the neighbour a warning following the resident’s first report of ASB. It had told the resident it was closing the case on 22 November 2022.
3. The resident’s father had made another report but it related to the same incident.
4. It was due to meet with the resident and his father on 18 January 2023.
The resident’s father replied later the same day saying the landlord had not answered the points he had raised in his complaint. He also said that:
1. He had not yet received a full copy of the tenancy agreement and had not received an email from the landlord on 28 December 2022.
2. The resident had not been told the ASB case had been closed on 22 November 2022.
3. The landlord was only meeting with him and the resident because he had initiated the “community trigger”.
Following the landlord’s visit on 18 January 2023, the resident’s father and landlord continued to communicate about the ongoing ASB and, from 5 April 2023, the prospect of a management transfer. The resident’s father asked for an update on the resident’s complaint multiple times.
The resident’s father again asked the Ombudsman for help in resolving the complaint. We wrote to the landlord on 25 October 2023 asking it to provide a stage 2 complaint response by 1 November 2023.
On 1 November 2023, the landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response which said:
1. It had recognised the resident’s father as his authorised representative from 14 December 2022. This had been within 14 days of starting its delegated authority process and there had been no service failure.
2. Its investigation had confirmed the resident had not received its email of 22 November 2022 telling him it was closing the ASB case. It should have realised this sooner.
3. It had worked with partners including the police and council to manage the ASB. The police and council had taken their own action and there had been a joint community impact day to gather evidence.
4. It had followed its ASB policy in agreeing action plans but it should have given more frequent updates.
5. It had issued warnings and was taking legal action. It needed to make sure the evidence presented to the court was robust.
6. It had referred the resident for support twice. It should have discussed the referrals with the resident and his father and made more effort to contact them after the referrals.
7. It should have given a copy of the tenancy terms and conditions at the start of the tenancy. It had sent the terms and conditions document on 29 December 2022 but it should have done so sooner after receiving his request. It was sorry for the delays.
8. It had declined his request for a management transfer in line with its policy as there had been no evidence of a serious risk of harm. It had not received an appeal against its decision at the time but would contact him separately to discuss the resident’s housing options.
9. It was sorry that it had not answered all the points he had raised in the complaint in its stage 1 response and had not escalated his complaint sooner.
10. It offered £950 compensation for its failings in handling the resident’s ASB reports and complaint.
The resident’s father emailed the following day challenging aspects of the landlord’s response that he felt were inaccurate. He also said that some points of the complaint had still not been answered.
The landlord sent an addendum to its final complaint response on 13 November 2023 which said:
1. It was sorry for the further confusion in providing him with the terms and conditions of the tenancy. It attached them to this response.
2. It had reviewed the resident’s management transfer request and given him priority for a move due to the impact the ASB was having on him.
3. It would meet the resident’s moving costs and would discuss this further if he accepted an offer of accommodation.
4. It had told him that it intended to pursue possession proceedings against the neighbour. It had later advised it was pursuing an injunction as this was more likely to be successful. It could have given better updates on the progress of the legal case.
5. It offered an additional £400 compensation.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaint process

The resident’s father asked the Ombudsman to investigate as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. The outcomes he sought were for the landlord to move the resident and reimburse his moving costs and acknowledge its failings and learn from them. He felt that the compensation offered was not sufficient and later told us he wanted the landlord to apologise.
The landlord offered the resident another flat later in November 2023 and paid the £1,350 compensation it had offered through its complaint process.
The resident’s father continued to communicate with the landlord reporting ASB incidents and asking for updates on when the resident would be able to move.
The resident moved into his new flat in March 2024 and the landlord paid £2,592 towards his moving costs.
The landlord had continued with its legal action against the neighbour. At a court hearing on 4 April 2024, the landlord obtained an undertaking that he would not commit further ASB.

Scope of investigation

The evidence showed that the resident’s reports of ASB related to a complex case. The landlord, police and the council had each received reports from various residents, including the resident in this case, about the behaviour of another resident in the same block. The reports alleged noise nuisance, drug use and dealing, threats of violence and other ASB.
Around November 2022, the resident’s father had initiated a multi-agency ASB case review which is also known as the “community trigger”. This meant the council led a review to consider how the different agencies had responded to the resident’s ASB reports and decide whether further action was needed.
The Ombudsman cannot investigate or assess the actions of the police or the council in responding to the reports of ASB and noise nuisance. This is because we do not have jurisdiction over those organisations. Nor can we investigate or assess the ASB case review process as that was led by the council.
Similarly, we cannot investigate or assess the court process or any decisions made by the court during legal action taken by the landlord.
The scope of this investigation is the ASB reports that the resident made to the landlord. Our role is to decide whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports fairly and appropriately, and whether it met its obligations and followed its policies. Our role is not to decide if the actions of the other resident amounted to ASB.
We have only referred to the involvement of the police, the council and the court in this report where it was necessary for context.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s request for his father to represent him

The landlord knew of the resident’s vulnerabilities from the start of the tenancy. When the resident signed up for his tenancy, the landlord had noted his learning disability and that he has mental health conditions. It had noted that he was not able to work due to his disabilities and that he may have difficulty in managing his home and affairs. As such, the landlord knew that the resident could need help in managing some tenancy matters.
The letter the resident’s father sent to the landlord on 23 November 2022 had included an attached letter signed by the resident. The attached letter gave the resident’s permission for his father to act on his behalf in matters relating to his tenancy.
The resident’s letter did not give permission for the landlord to communicate with his father as his authorised representative. As such it was reasonable that the landlord decided it needed the resident’s explicit consent before communicating with his father as his representative.
The landlord should have explained its position to the resident’s father at the time but we saw no evidence that it did so. We would also have expected the landlord to have progressed its delegated authority process without delay given it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 1 November 2023 said that it had not started its delegated authority process until 1 December 2022. This meant there had been a delay of 5 working days between the landlord receiving the request and starting its process. It was not clear from the evidence seen why it had not started the process when it received the request on 24 November 2022.
There was then a further delay because the landlord could not retrieve the resident’s tenancy agreement to verify his signature on the returned delegated authority form.
We understand that the landlord had experienced a cyber-attack in June 2022 and was still having difficulty in accessing its records in December 2022. However, the landlord should have considered how it would verify the resident’s signature when it sent the delegated authority form. The landlord would have avoided this further delay if it had asked for any additional documents it needed to be sent with the signed delegated authority form when it was returned.
Overall, it took the landlord 14 working days (from 24 November 2022 to 14 December 2022) to complete its delegated authority process. There were avoidable delays which resulted in the landlord refusing to discuss the resident’s ASB reports with his father until 14 December 2022. It also caused inconvenience to the resident’s father who had to make repeated contacts to try to discuss the ASB and resolve the matter of the delegated authority.
The landlord did not recognise any failings during its complaint process. The Ombudsman’s opinion is that there was service failure.

Handling of reports of ASB

The ASB policy that the landlord sent us for this investigation was effective from September 2020. We have also considered the landlord’s ASB procedure that was effective from July 2022 in assessing the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports.
The ASB policy and procedure said that the landlord would:
1. Record ASB reports and categorise them as crime, noise or other ASB.
2. Assess the vulnerability of those reporting ASB and tailor its response accordingly.
3. Keep residents informed about the status and progress of their case.
4. Work with other agencies to make sure appropriate action was taken.
5. Use the tools and powers available to it as appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances of the case.
6. Provide support to victims and witnesses.
The policy and procedure said that the landlord would not investigate every report of ASB. Where reports were categorised as being about noise or other ASB, the landlord would apply thresholds aimed to avoid it investigating isolated incidents or incidents which it would expect a resident to try to resolve themselves.
However, the landlord’s policy also said that it would not apply thresholds if it felt the person reporting ASB was “particularly vulnerable”. Its procedure explained that the landlord would decide vulnerability by asking the person’s age, and whether they received support from another agency or a personal budget for care, support or health.
The Ombudsman does not consider that this was an adequate approach to assessing vulnerability. We explained in our spotlight report on attitudes, respects and rights that vulnerability is a dynamic state affected by a person’s situation and how they are treated. Vulnerability cannot be decided by just considering a person’s age and whether or not they are getting support.
The ASB policy and procedure both referred to action the landlord would consider when it had identified a risk of serious harm.
However, neither document explained what the landlord would consider to be a serious risk of harm. Nor did they explain how or when the landlord would assess the level of risk of a person reporting ASB. As such, it is not clear how the landlord would identify a risk of serious harm. We saw no evidence that the landlord had assessed the risks to the resident at any point during this case.
We explained in paragraph 31. that the landlord knew of the resident’s vulnerabilities from the start of his tenancy. When the resident reported ASB around 31 October 2022, the landlord should have assessed the resident’s vulnerability and tailored its approach accordingly. We saw no evidence that the landlord did either. Instead, it sent a standard text response acknowledging the report.
The landlord should also have been concerned about the resident’s reference to the neighbour climbing up the building to access his flat. This was a risk to the neighbour’s safety as well as being a nuisance to the resident. The landlord should have investigated this at the time but we saw no evidence that it did so.
As such, the landlord’s response to the resident’s initial report of ASB was inadequate. It meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to provide support and advice to the resident and the opportunity to try to prevent the ASB from escalating.
The landlord had issued a tenancy warning to the neighbour on 22 November 2022. The warning letter said that this had been in response to reports the landlord had received from the police. The letter showed that, by this time, the landlord was aware of multiple reports being made about the neighbour.
The resident did not receive the landlord’s email of 22 November 2022 saying it had closed his ASB case. This meant he was not aware it had been closed and did not have an opportunity to challenge the landlord’s decision. The landlord later acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response.
The letter sent by the resident’s father on 23 November 2022 should have caused the landlord to reconsider its handling of the resident’s ASB reports. The letter had said the landlord’s previous response had been inadequate due to the resident’s disabilities. The landlord missed this opportunity to consider whether the resident was “particularly vulnerable” according to its ASB policy.
The letter also gave details of 9 incidents that had occurred between 18 October 2022 and 23 November 2022. The frequency of the incidents met the landlord’s threshold for investigation as more than 5 incidents had taken place over the previous 28 days.
The landlord should have investigated in line with its policy. Instead, it wrote to the resident on 24 November 2022 saying it usually only investigated when there had been several incidents within a week. The landlord’s letter was inappropriate given the incidents referred to in the resident’s father’s letter of 23 November 2022.
It was not clear from the landlord’s evidence what happened next until it contacted the resident’s father around 11 January 2023 to arrange a meeting with him and the resident. It was not clear whether the landlord’s contact had resulted from the ASB case review process or the resident’s complaint following our intervention on 5 January 2023.
The evidence showed that, from this point, the landlord had taken some reasonable steps that were in line with its ASB policy and procedure including:
1. Sending the neighbour a final warning letter on 27 January 2023 after visiting him to discuss the reports it had received.
2. Asking the resident’s father to help him provide a witness statement.
3. Seeking information from the police and council which it would be able to use as evidence in its tenancy enforcement action. It later took part in a community impact day on 26 April 2023 with the police and council to collect more evidence.
4. Asking the police and council to consider further specific actions within their powers. For example, it asked the police to consider a closure order in response to the allegations of drug use and dealing.
5. Taking advice from a consultant that specialised in ASB management.
However, there were also further failings, delays and missed opportunities after 11 January 2023.
For example, the landlord had decided it had sufficient evidence to start legal action in February 2023. Internal emails showed it took the landlord 13 weeks (from 22 February 2023 until 25 May 2023) to prepare its claim for legal action. The Ombudsman does not consider this to be a reasonable timescale given that the resident’s father had continued to report incidents throughout this period.
Part of the delay was due to the landlord considering whether the neighbour had any vulnerabilities that it should take account of in demonstrating that its legal action was proportionate. We understand that demonstrating proportionality is an important part of the legal process and that the landlord did need to consider the vulnerabilities of the alleged perpetrator as well as the vulnerabilities of those affected by the ASB.
However, the landlord should have been considering proportionality throughout its ASB process and should have considered whether the alleged perpetrator had vulnerabilities sooner. It had missed an opportunity to identify potential vulnerabilities when it visited the neighbour in January 2023.
This meant that the landlord did not make enquiries about the neighbour’s potential vulnerabilities until after it had decided to take legal action. The landlord’s reliance on other agencies to provide it with information about the neighbour’s vulnerabilities resulted in further delay.
The landlord’s decision to continue with legal action after it had considered the neighbour’s vulnerability showed it had taken the ASB reports seriously.
Another cause of the delay was that the landlord’s legal advisor felt the evidence gathered so far may not have been sufficient to persuade the court to grant the orders that the landlord was seeking. This was because some witnesses were only willing to give anonymous statements at the time.
The landlord did appropriately seek further evidence from partner agencies to support its legal case. However, a professional witness may have been useful in gaining the direct witness evidence that the landlord needed. The landlord’s ASB policy said it would consider the use of professional witnesses but we saw no evidence it had considered doing so in this case.
The 13 week delay caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident and his father. They had expected the landlord to progress its legal claim legal quickly from February 2023 and chased the landlord for updates when that did not happen. Further ASB incidents had also taken place while the landlord was preparing its legal claim.
The landlord’s emails to the resident’s father between 17 February 2023 and 2 June 2023 showed it had changed its position on the legal action it intended 6 times. The landlord may have avoided so many changes if it had taken legal advice before 17 February 2023 and if it had not taken so long to prepare its legal claim. Its emails did not clearly explain the reasons for the changes to its proposed action.
On 5 April 2023, the resident’s father reported that the neighbour had threatened the resident. He explained that the resident had knocked on the neighbour’s door and asked him to turn down his music. He alleged that, after the resident had left the scene, the neighbour had threatened to stab or shoot him and that other residents had witnessed this. The resident had also reported the incident to the police.
The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate by establishing who the witnesses were and attempting contact with them, and by communicating with the police. It also served a notice of seeking possession on the neighbour on 11 April 2023 which included the alleged threat as one of the tenancy breaches that the landlord would rely upon in any further action. This was an appropriate response given the landlord did not have a direct witness account of the incident.
There were some occasions where the landlord did not respond adequately to the resident’s concerns. For example, on 20 April 2023, the resident’s father raised concerns that the neighbour and his visitors would use recently erected scaffolding to commit ASB. The landlord had previously received reports of the neighbour and his visitors climbing up the building and should have considered if the scaffolding posed a risk that it should try to minimise. Instead, it replied to the resident’s father saying there was “no suggestion of ASB occurring because of the scaffolding”.
Over the following 2 weeks, the resident had called the police multiple times because the neighbour’s visitors were climbing up the scaffolding and “banging” on his windows. The landlord’s contractor had separately reported “highly dangerous” misuse of the scaffolding on 15 May 2023 and asked the landlord to speak to the neighbour.
The misuse of the scaffolding may have been reduced if the landlord had considered the risks when the resident’s father raised concerns. It was not clear from the evidence what action, if any, the landlord took in response to the misuse of the scaffolding.
Similarly, the resident’s father had reported that squatters had moved into the basement on 17 May 2023. The landlord had replied saying it was already aware of the squatters and was taking action. It also investigated the resident’s concern that the squatters were associates of his neighbour and told the resident’s father they were not connected with the ASB issues on 25 May 2023. However, the landlord’s emails showed no understanding of the resident’s fears for his safety or empathy with his concerns.
The landlord had filed its possession and interim injunction claims with the court on 23 May 2023. From that point, it did not have control over the time it took for hearings to take place or the court’s decision to adjourn the case to enable the neighbour to file a defence. In the meantime, the landlord had appropriately continued to communicate with other agencies in attempting to manage the ongoing ASB.
The court had granted the landlord an interim injunction on 15 November 2023 until a trial date was set to consider its possession claim. The landlord had appropriately shared the conditions of the injunction with its partner agencies. It was also appropriate that the landlord took legal advice when it received reports of potential breaches of the injunction to decide if there was any further action it could take before the possession trial date.
Inadequate communication was a common theme throughout the landlord’s handling of the resident’s ASB reports. The landlord did send the resident’s father multiple emails but they lacked empathy, were often unclear and frequently included unexplained jargon.
For example, on 28 August 2023 the landlord asked the resident’s father if the resident thought his neighbour was being “cuckooed” and on 1 September 2023 said the neighbour’s defence was not detrimental to its “proportionality checklist”. The landlord’s emails did not explain what the terms meant which meant the resident’s father had to ask for explanations.
On other occasions the landlord’s emails gave incorrect information. For example, on 2 May 2023, it told the resident’s father that the neighbour had not appealed the notice of seeking possession it had served. In fact, the landlord had received the neighbour’s appeal on 27 April 2023. We saw no evidence that the landlord corrected this misinformation later.
Overall, the landlord’s communications caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident’s father who often had to ask for clarification or explanations. This in turn caused extra work for the landlord in sending further responses which would not have been needed if its emails had been clear in the first instance. The landlord’s lack of clarity also caused the resident and his father to lose confidence in its commitment and ability to resolve the ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy said it would adopt a “supportive approach” with victims of ASB including making referrals to support agencies where needed.
The landlord had referred the resident to its tenancy support team twice and asked its partner agencies what support they could offer him. However, we saw no evidence of how the landlord had considered the resident’s support needs or whether it had discussed his needs with him or his father.
It was not clear what support needs the landlord intended its support team to address or whether the referrals had been agreed with the resident or his father.
The landlord had also offered to refer the resident to victim support. It was not clear whether the resident had agreed to this or whether any referral was made.
Overall, the landlord did take some reasonable steps in investigating the ASB and pursued legal action to resolve it. However, it did not respond adequately to the resident’s initial reports and there were avoidable delays in it starting its legal action. Its communications throughout were inadequate and it failed to assess the resident’s vulnerabilities and adequately tailor its handling of his ASB reports.
The landlord had acknowledged some failings during its complaint process. It had offered compensation, agreed to give the resident priority for a management transfer and committed to meeting his moving costs. It paid £450 compensation and later reimbursed £2592 for the resident’s moving costs. The Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable redress under the circumstances.
In previous investigations we raised concerns about the landlord’s policy and practices relating to its use of thresholds. We found failings in it not recognising vulnerabilities and not assessing risk when handling ASB reports. In response to our orders on those cases, the landlord has made changes to its practices since the events in this case.
Our future casework will show whether or not the landlord’s changes have been successful. However, the landlord should consider the failings we have identified in this case to decide if it needs to make any further changes to its practices.

Handling of requests for a copy of his tenancy agreement

It is not disputed that the landlord should have given the resident a copy of the terms and conditions of his tenancy when it had started in April 2022. The landlord had acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response of 1 November 2023 that it had not done so.
The resident’s father had asked for a “full” copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement in his letter of 23 November 2022. The letter was clear that the resident had a 3 page tenancy agreement and wanted the accompanying terms and conditions of his tenancy.
Although there was no delegated authority in place at the time, this should have been a simple request for the landlord to comply with. It could have sent the terms and conditions document directly to the resident and told his father it had done so or it could have sent them to his father. Alternatively, it could have directed the resident’s father to its website where the tenancy terms and conditions are publicly available.
However, the landlord appeared not to have registered the initial request from the resident’s father’s letter. This meant he had to ask for the terms and conditions document again on 20 December 2022.
The landlord responded to the second request promptly the following day but sent a copy of the 3 page agreement that the resident already had. The resident’s father had replied on 21 December 2022 clarifying that he had asked for the terms and conditions document. It is not clear from the evidence seen why the landlord did not respond.
When the resident’s father chased his request for the terms and conditions on 28 December 2022, the landlord replied that he had not given it sufficient time to reply. This shows the landlord had not realised the initial request had been made over a month previously.
The landlord’s response caused the resident’s father to ask for the matter to be added to his formal complaint. The landlord may have avoided this if it had not mishandled the request up to this point.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 16 January 2023 said it had sent the terms and conditions document on 29 December 2022. The resident’s father disputes this and says that he did not receive an email from the landlord with the terms and conditions document attached around this time.
We have seen no evidence that the landlord did send the terms and conditions document on 29 December 2022. We do, however, note that the landlord’s stage 1 response had said that the terms and conditions were available on its website.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 24 October 2023 attaching a list of outstanding complaint issues that the resident’s father had brought to us. The list included that the landlord had not sent the tenancy terms and conditions to him.
When the landlord gave its stage 2 complaint response on 1 November 2023, it attached a further copy of the 3 page tenancy agreement that the resident already had. This shows that the landlord had again misunderstood what the resident’s father was asking for.
The resident’s father told us he received the terms and conditions document with the landlord’s addendum to its stage 2 complaint response of 13 November 2023. This means it had taken the landlord almost a year to send him the document.
The time and trouble it took the resident’s father to get a copy of the terms and conditions document should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman’s opinion is that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the request.

Handling of request for a management transfer

The landlord has an allocations policy which sets out how it lets its homes. The allocations policy says that the landlord may consider a management transfer in exceptional circumstances where an existing tenant needs to move urgently. The landlord has a separate management transfer policy that sets out its criteria for considering an urgent move.
The management transfer policy that the landlord sent us for this investigation was effective from June 2023. As such this version was not in place at the time the landlord considered the resident’s request in May 2023.
However, the version history of the policy suggested there had been no relevant changes from the previous version that would have been in place at the time of the resident’s request. We have, therefore, assessed the landlord’s handling of the management transfer request against the policy that it sent us.
The resident’s father had first asked the landlord to move his son in his letter of 23 November 2022. While there was no delegated authority in place at the time, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have contacted the resident to offer rehousing advice. We saw no evidence that the landlord did so and it did not refer to the request to move in its emails or stage 1 complaint response of 16 January 2023.
The evidence seen suggested that the landlord gave the resident and his father advice on rehousing options during a visit on 16 February 2023. No management transfer had been requested by this point so the landlord’s approach in giving advice on the options available was reasonable.
After the resident’s father had reported that his son had been threatened, the landlord told him it could “explore” a management transfer on 5 April 2023. While it sent him a copy of its management transfer policy, its emails did not explain the process it would follow or say whether the resident’s father needed to do anything further to enable the landlord to consider a management transfer.
It was not clear from the evidence we saw when the landlord had started to consider the resident’s request for a management transfer. The resident’s father had asked for an update on 28 April 2023. The landlord had replied on 2 May 2023 saying it had asked the police for further information about the incident and whether the level of risk met its management transfer criteria. We did not see a copy of the landlord’s information request to the police or the response it received.
The resident’s father had reported further ASB incidents and stressed the resident’s need to move in emails sent on 15 May 2023 and 20 May 2023. Regarding the requests to move, the landlord’s response was to clarify that, under its management transfer policy, it was not a “viable” option for the resident to be rehoused in the same area.
We understand that the landlord’s policy aims to move residents away from an identified risk of harm. However, the policy does not preclude residents from remaining in the same area and says that the landlord will take account of their preferences.
In this case, the resident’s request for rehousing was due to safety concerns relating to the block he lived in. The landlord’s suggestion that he would have to choose a different area to be considered for a management move failed to take account of this. Nor did it consider that the resident needed to remain in the area close to his family support. As such, the landlord’s suggestion that he needed to choose a different area was unreasonable.
The landlord refused the resident’s request for a management transfer on 25 May 2023. It said it had no evidence that he was at risk of serious harm but did not explain what information it had considered in making its decision. This was unfair as it meant the resident’s father did not have sufficient information to appeal its decision. It meant that the resident’s father had to ask for further explanations before he could consider appealing.
In emails sent between 26 May 2023 and 31 May 2023, the resident’s father raised challenges about the landlord’s policy approach. He also challenged the landlord’s explanation that it had relied on information shared by the police at an ASB panel meeting on 3 May 2023. The resident’s father had said the information was out of date as further incidents had taken place after then.
The landlord had asked twice if it should consider his emails as an appeal. The resident’s father had replied that he felt he had not had sufficient information to appeal but that the landlord “may wish to review its decision”.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have given some response to his suggestion of reviewing its decision. It should have either confirmed it would consider the resident’s father’s emails as an appeal request or explained why it would not review its decision. We saw no evidence that the landlord did either and the landlord closed the rehousing case on 12 June 2023.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 1 November 2023, it did review its position on the management transfer request. It was reasonable that from this point it complied with the father’s request to consider the risk as being limited to the resident’s block and not the surrounding area. It was also reasonable that the landlord explained how the resident could pursue other options available to him including how to bid for properties through the council’s choice based lettings scheme.
The landlord’s offer of rehousing on 17 November 2023 suggested that the landlord had agreed his management transfer request before that date. However, we saw no other evidence of the landlord’s review of its decision regarding the management transfer request.
We saw no evidence that it had confirmed the outcome of its review to the resident or his father, other than in its complaint response addendum of 13 November 2023. The landlord’s addendum response suggested that it had changed its mind in recognition of the impact the ASB was having on the resident.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request. The landlord did not demonstrate transparency or fairness in its initial consideration of the request. It also failed to give sufficient information for its refusal decision which led to a 5 month delay in it reviewing its position. The landlord did not acknowledge any failings during its complaint process.
We noted that the landlord’s management transfer policy said the landlord “should” only consider a management transfer if the police or another agency confirmed in writing that there was a serious risk of harm or threat that meant it was not safe for the resident to remain in their current home.
While the landlord is entitled to decide its policy, it may have avoided having to review the resident’s management transfer request if it had done its own assessment of the risks of harm. A risk assessment would have enabled the landlord to fully consider the resident’s situation. It may also have identified other measures the landlord could put in place to mitigate the resident’s safety concerns.

Handling of associated complaint

Following a cyber-attack in June 2022, the landlord had operated an interim complaints policy which was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
The interim policy said that the landlord would acknowledge complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and provide a response within a further 20 working days. It said it would acknowledge escalation requests within 10 working days and provide a final complaint response within 40 working days.
The timescales in the interim policy for acknowledging complaints and responding to them were not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time. However, the Ombudsman had accepted that the cyber-attack had affected the landlord’s ability to meet the timescales within the Code and that its interim policy was reasonable at the time.
The landlord has since reverted to a complaints policy that complies with the response timescales within the Code.
The landlord has a separate compensation policy which sets out how it will consider offering compensation when there has been service failure.
The letter from the resident’s father of 23 November 2022 was an expression of dissatisfaction. The landlord should have contacted the resident if it was unsure whether or not to recognise it as a complaint.
The further email sent by the resident’s father on 21 December 2022 should have left the landlord in no doubt that the letter had been intended as a complaint. It should have logged the complaint and sent an acknowledgement. Its failure to do so was contrary to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and its policy.
The resident’s father had to chase multiple times before the landlord logged the complaint and acknowledged it on 30 December 2022.
The stage 1 response of 16 January 2023 did not adequately address the complaint about not sending the resident a full copy of his tenancy agreement. It did not acknowledge that it had received the resident’s initial request for the tenancy agreement on 24 November 2022. Nor did it recognise that it had not sent the terms and conditions document that the resident had asked for. This suggests that the landlord’s investigation had not been adequate.
Similarly, the landlord’s response to the complaint about its handling of the resident’s ASB reports did not acknowledge that he had not received its email about closing the case on 22 November 2022. Its statement that its tenancy specialist team had had advised there had been “no delay” in its handling of the ASB reports suggests the landlord had not adequately investigated this part of the complaint either.
The landlord had acknowledged its failings in handling the complaint at stage 1 in its later stage 2 response. It had also acknowledged its failure to escalate the complaint from the email sent by the resident’s father after receiving its stage 1 response on 16 January 2023.
Although the resident’s father had chased multiple times for a response to his escalation request from 17 February 2023, the landlord had not responded to his contacts about this. It was not until 20 April 2023 that a staff member sent an internal email asking for an escalation to be logged. Even then, the landlord did not do so.
It should not have taken the Ombudsman’s intervention on 25 October 2023 for the landlord for the landlord to have logged the escalation request. By this time, the resident’s father had raised 23 points of complaint relating to the landlord’s handling of the ASB, delegated authority, request for the tenancy conditions, rehousing request and complaint. The landlord may have avoided this if had escalated the complaint sooner.
We recognise that the landlord had limited time to investigate what was, by then, a complex complaint. It was reasonable that the landlord asked the resident’s father if he was willing to extend the response timescale we had set. It was appropriate that it met the timescale we had given when the resident’s father declined to agree an extension.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 1 November 2023 appropriately acknowledged failings in its handling of the complaint, request for the tenancy terms and conditions and ASB reports. While it did not acknowledge any failings in its handling of the management transfer request, the landlord did say it was willing to review its position.
However, it did not respond to all the points the resident’s father had raised. For example, it failed to address his complaint that it had not acknowledged his letter of 23 November 2022 as a complaint or his point that it had not assessed the resident’s vulnerabilities or assessed the risks to him. Nor did it explain why it had not been able to recognise the resident’s father as his representative from his request of 23 November 2022.
It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to give further explanations when the resident’s father challenged its stage 2 response. In its addendum of 13 November 2023, it acknowledged further failings in its handling of the ASB and confirmed it had agreed the resident’s management transfer request. It also gave the tenancy terms and conditions, offered additional compensation and agreed to pay towards to the resident’s moving costs.
Overall, the landlord took a year (from 24 November 2022 to 13 November 2023) to complete its complaint process. It took the Ombudsman’s intervention for the landlord to progress both stages of its process and its responses did not address all the points raised in the complaint.
However, the landlord did acknowledge failings and paid £900 compensation. The Ombudsman’s opinion is that this was reasonable redress under the circumstances.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the statutory Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements of the Code are not being met.
In this investigation we found failures in complaint handling. The landlord should consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of ASB.
2. Associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s
1. Request for his father to represent him.
2. Requests for a copy of his tenancy agreement.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s SAR is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord the landlord must provide evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. The Chief Executive must write to the resident to apologise. The apology must acknowledge the failings we have identified and the impact they had on the resident. The landlord must send us a copy of its apology.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £420. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation is comprised of:
  1. £90 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its delay in dealing with the resident’s request for his father to represent him.
  2. £80 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of the requests for terms and conditions of the tenancy.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s request for a management transfer.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers the failings we have identified in this case and decide if it:
1. Needs to make any further changes to its ASB procedure to ensure it recognises and assesses vulnerabilities appropriately.
2. Should include risk assessment to support its decision making on management transfer requests.
3. Needs to make any further changes to its complaint handling practices.