Clarion Housing Association Limited (202314308)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314308

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 January 2025

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:
1. Response to the resident’s request to alter her tenancy.
2. Response to the resident’s request for a management transfer.
3. Response to overcrowding in the resident’s property.
4. Handling of repairs to the sink.
5. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant in a 2 bedroom property. She holds the property as a joint tenant with her ex-partner. She lives in the property with her children and new partner.
The resident’s ex-partner left the property following a break down in the relationship due to domestic violence. An Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) case was opened by the landlord. It tried to obtain evidence from the police of a significant risk to life. It also made a disclosure request. Its attempts were to support the resident with a managed move.
The landlord did not receive a response and closed its file. The resident asked the landlord between 2022 and 2023 to remove them from the tenancy and grant her a sole tenancy. There were arrears on the tenancy, as such the landlord explained in a letter in April 2022 that it could not remove her ex-partner from the tenancy.
The resident raised her complaint with the landlord on 21 March 2023. She explained her situation and raised concerns about the effect on both hers and her children’s mental health. She explained she had provided it with information including crime reference numbers. She raised her concerns with its handling of her request for a managed move, change to her tenancy, overcrowding, and its handling of the repair to her basin.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 12 April 2023. It explained that:
1. It became aware of her situation in August 2022. She did not meet the criteria for a managed move. For it to consider her for a managed move it needed evidence of significant risk of harm to her or her family. It had worked closely with external agencies including the police, social services and local authorities when reviewing eligibility. She did not meet the criteria.
2. It had contacted the police in relation to her case, but they would not provide information or confirm that she was at risk of significant risk of harm. It had made her aware of this and as it had no supporting evidence provided, it declined her request. It could find no service failure.
3. In relation to overcrowding, it could not see that she had brought the issue to its attention previously. At the time of the tenancy, it was only aware of 2 adults living in the property and the property met their needs. She had not told it that she had 2 children living in the property and she said she had recently informed it. It asked her to provide their details and explained the process to her and explained her housing options to her. This included contacting the local authority for a banding, and mutual exchanges.
4. In relation to the tenancy change, it explained she had asked on 2 occasions and it declined both times. It explained that although it had written to her in 2022, it did not contact her by phone to say it declined the request. It also did not send a letter out in 2023 within its timescales and found a service failure.
5. It found a delay with the sink repairs and explained the reason for its failure to meet its 28 day timeframe. It found a service failure. It awarded compensation of £100. It awarded £50 for the failures in the joint and sole tenancy request due to its failure to follow process and inconvenience caused. It awarded another £50 for the repairs outside of its timescale.
The resident escalated her complaint on 10 May 2023. She raised the same concerns she mentioned in her stage 1 complaint. She said her social worker was “dismayed” at its refusal to allow a managed move. She told it things had escalated since the stage 1 response and the police had intervened. She asked it to add her new partner and children as household members. She said it was aware her ex-partner did not live at the property, but it continued to send letters addressed to them there. She said they were responsible for 50% of the arrears, but it was not chasing them. She also said she was still waiting for it to fix the sink.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 17 July 2023. It said it had reconfirmed with the police that there was no active case that they were investigating. They said they were therefore unable to confirm that she was at risk of significant risk or harm. It also:
1. Said It contacted her to clarify if there had been further incidents recently, that she may not have brought to it or the polices attention. She confirmed there were no significant incidents that had occurred asides from her ex-partner driving behind her and shouting something she did not hear when she turned off a month ago.
2. Explained the criteria for a managed move. It told her in the situation it approved a manage move, it would not provide her with a bigger property, but one that was the same size as her current home. It also confirmed it had added her partner and children to the list of household members.
3. Advised her around her housing options in relation to the overcrowding. It told her it did not hold any waiting list and could not offer her a transfer.
4. It explained that as it was a joint tenancy, this meant that both parties (her and her ex-partner) were both jointly and individually liable for the arrears. It suggested that she sought independent legal advice around her concerns.
5. It found a service failure with its handling of the repair, and the delay in its complaint response. It awarded her compensation of £200. It awarded £100 it previously awarded at stage 1. It awarded an extra £50 for the delay with the repair and for inconvenience caused. It awarded another £50 for the stage 2 delay.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 11 August 2023 and explained her concerns and situation. She explained she wanted it to do the “right thing and not the easy thing.” She raised further repair issues such as it not wiring electrics properly, issues with handles on her window falling off.

Post complaint

The landlord received a debt relief order on 14 November 2023 in relation to the arrears on the resident’s account. The landlord approved a management move on 5 March 2024 based on a risk score by a charity supporting the resident. The resident and her ex-partner provided the landlord with tenancy termination forms on 22 May 2024.
The landlord also provided a stage 2 addendum on 5 June 2024. It found that:
1. It had not awarded sufficient compensation in relation to the tenancy change process. This was particularly around its lack of communication.
2. It also did not identify that it incorrectly applied its policy. The management transfer policy said that it needed supporting police evidence. However, where a person is a survivor of domestic violence, it did not require police evidence.
3. It relied on the evidence of involved support providers. It confirmed that following approval of her later management transfer request, it was awaiting a suitable property to become available for her.
4. It awarded her further compensation of £100 for the processing of the tenancy change process. It also awarded £100 for its handling of the management transfer request, and apologised she had a cause to complain.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about the effects of the situation on hers and her children’s health. The Ombudsman cannot consider this. We cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, any impact on health. The courts must decide on personal injury claims as they can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, the Ombudsman will consider the general distress and inconvenience the situation may have caused the resident as well as the landlord’s response to any reported impact on his health.
The resident has raised concerns in relation to other repairs with the Ombudsman. These include things such as incorrect electrical wiring, and the handles on her window. The landlord did not raise these within the original complaint to the landlord. There is also no evidence these have exhausted the landlord’s complaint’s process, as such we shall not consider them within this determination. If these are still a concern for the resident, she may wish to raise a complaint about them. If she does, we encourage the landlord to provide the necessary responses.
The resident has obtained a debt relief order since the conclusion of the complaint’s process. As this occurred following the stage 2 response, we will not consider this within this report. The Ombudsman’s determination will focus on the circumstances until the stage 2 response.

Response to the resident’s request to alter her tenancy

The tenancy agreement names both the resident and her ex-partner as tenants within the agreement. The tenancy also says that in the case of joint tenancies, both parties must sign the agreement. The agreement says that in the case of joint tenants, each tenant individually has the full responsibilities and rights set out in the terms and conditions of the agreement. The resident and her partner signed the tenancy agreement.
The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with the terms and conditions of the tenancy. However, it is commonly accepted that part of the terms and conditions of a tenancy is the payment of rent. As such, as the tenancy explicitly says that each resident is individually responsible for the terms and conditions of the agreement, the resident was responsible for repaying the arrears.
The landlord appropriately explained this to the resident and recommended that she seek legal advice. This was a reasonable approach for it to take. The landlord found that there was a service failure in its handling of this matter. It awarded the resident compensation of £50.
In its addendum response in June 2024, it found and acknowledged a further failing with its communication and awarded the resident a further £100 in compensation.
However, this offer was 10 months after its stage 2 response, significantly outside of the complaints process. Whilst appropriate that the landlord reviewed its findings and tried to compensate the resident for the further failing, it should have found the communication issue far earlier, during the complaint. This demonstrates poor investigation into the resident’s concerns. Had the landlord made its offer during the complaint’s process, we would have considered the landlord’s compensation a reasonable redress. However, as it found this and made its offer so long after the completion of the process, we find that there was a service failure.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it may offer compensation of £50 to £250 for a failure to meet service standards for actions and responses. In this case, it did not meet service standards by its poor investigation into its failings. Based on this the Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Response to the resident’s request to a management transfer

The landlord looked to rely on its policy in handling the resident’s request. It however did not carefully consider the policy. It had multiple opportunities to identify any errors and correct them but did not do so. Appropriate consideration of the policy may have led to earlier resolution of the situation. Its failing was inappropriate and saw the resident and her family living in a property they did not feel safe in for potentially longer than may have been necessary. This caused the resident distress with the situation.
This is especially important as it had also considered her situation as high risk according to its email of 12 December 2022. Since this point also, it had been considering a managed move for the resident and focused on obtaining police evidence. This was the earliest point that it should have ensured it was applying its policy correctly. She had also told it in her escalation request on 10 May 2023 that her social worker had raised concerns about its decision not to offer her a management move. Although it did eventually identify its failing, this was 10 months after its final response.
This was inappropriate and raises further concerns with its investigations into the resident’s concerns. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may make awards of between £250 to £700 where it has given contradictory, inadequate or incorrect information about a resident’s rights. It also says it may make such an award for a failure over a considerable period of time to follow its policy. The evidence shows that the landlord did not act in line with its policy for a considerable amount of time. It also provided inadequate and incorrect information to the resident around her rights to the managed move. Based on this, the Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident added compensation.

Response to overcrowding in the resident’s property

Once the landlord became aware of the overcrowding concerns in the resident’s property, it appropriately explained her housing options to her. This was a reasonable approach for it to take. It told her that a management move would not mean it moved her to a bigger property. It also explained the effects the arrears could have on her ability to obtain a mutual exchange. It recommended that she sought independent legal advice also. This was a suitable approach for it to take around the resident’s concerns. As such, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration.

Handling of repairs to the sink

The landlord’s repairs policy says that it runs 2 repair priorities. Emergency repairs which are those which presents an immediate danger to the resident or would jeopardise health, safety, or security of the resident. It aims to attend these within 24 hours to complete works to make safe or temporarily repair the issue. It also has non-emergency repairs, which are those were it offers the next available appointment that suits a resident within 28 days of the report.
The landlord’s records show that the resident raised her concerns in relation to the repairs to the sink on 12 March 2023. The landlord attended to make the sink safe. Its records show that it then did not complete the substantive repair until 23 June 2023. This was a 72 day delay in completing the repair and this was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 response the landlord found that there was limited information around what happened to the original work order. This raises concerns with its record keeping. It apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered the resident compensation of £50. Whilst this goes some way in putting the issue right, there was a further failing the landlord did not identify. It has not shown that it kept the resident updated around the delay. This raises questions with its communication around the matter. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure.
The landlord has acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the situation led to inconvenience for the resident. It offered the resident compensation of £50 for the delay. Its actions were in line with its policy. However, due to its failure to identify the concerns with its communication, the Ombudsman orders that the landlord pay the resident further compensation.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated an interim complaints policy during the time of the resident’s complaint. This was due to a cyber-attack in 2022 which affected its systems. The policy says that it would provide a stage 2 responses within 40 working days. If it were unable to resolve the complaint within this time frame, it would contact the resident and explain why. It would provide a timescale of what was involved in order to resolve the complaint and if possible, how long it would take.
The landlord appropriately provided its stage 1 response and acknowledged the resident’s escalation within its time frames. The resident requested an update on 28 June 2023, as she had not heard back about the complaint. The stage 2 response was due on 6 July 2023. The landlord provided the resident with an update on her complaint on 14 July 2023 and asked for an extension to provide its response until 21 July 2023. This means that the landlord did not provide a response to her query around her complaint for a period of 16 days and this was inappropriate.
The landlord then provided its stage 2 response on 17 July 2023. It was appropriate for it to have updated the resident around the delay. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 response that there was a delay in its handling of the complaint and awarded the resident compensation of £50. However, it did not realise the delay in its communication with the resident between 28 June 2023 and 14 July 2023. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to alter her tenancy.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a managed move.
3. No maladministration with its handling of the overcrowding in the property.
4. Service failure in its handling of the repair to the resident’s sink.
5. Service failure in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this order the landlord must:
1. Provide the resident with an apology around the identified failings.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,050. This is inclusive of its earlier £400 compensation across its 3 responses. The Ombudsman breaks this down as:
  1. £200 for its handling of the tenancy transfer.
  2. £150 for its handling of the repairs to the sink.
  3. £100 for its complaint handling failings.
  4. £600 for its handling of the management transfer.
3. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.