Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202425825)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202425825

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

10 September 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 concerns about a management transfer between properties A and B, including communal security.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

At the time of her complaint, the resident was an assured shorthold tenant of a one-bed studio flat, within a block owned by the landlord. Throughout the report, this property will be referred to as property B. The tenancy for property B began on 30 January 2024 following a management move from the resident’s previous property with the landlord, referred to in this report as property A.
The resident has told the landlord that she has anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The landlord is aware that the resident had previously experienced domestic violence.
The resident moved from property A by way of a management move. This was because she reported concerns about her safety and the condition of property A. The resident moved to property B at the end of January 2024. During a visit to property B, the landlord identified repairs that were needed to secure the communal areas of the block.
The resident complained to the landlord in March 2024 about the security of property B. She asked to be moved. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord explained how it had allocated property B. It also addressed her concerns about security.
The resident raised further points of dissatisfaction with the landlord on 8 May 2024. She reiterated these within a complaint on 19 October 2024. She said the landlord had disposed of her belongings in property A, and it was charging her rent for both properties. She also felt it was discriminating against her. She later added that she had been without heating and hot water.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 November 2024. It agreed a further management move. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s other points of concern.
The resident subsequently moved to a third property, property C, by way of a management move in December 2024. She referred her complaint to us in May 2025 as she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. Following this, the landlord identified complaint handling failures and offered the resident compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has expressed concerns about the impact the situation had on her physical and mental health. We are unable to draw conclusions relating to impact on health and wellbeing. Claims for personal injury are matters for a court to decide. A court can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. Where there has been a failing by the landlord, we can consider any general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
Our Scheme states we may not consider complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure by the landlord. We have seen that the landlord did not consider the following aspects of complaint:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s possessions in property A.
2. The landlord charging the resident rent for properties A and B at the same time.
3. Discrimination.
4. Being without heating and hot water.
The landlord’s lack of consideration of these matters is evidence of a compliant handling failure. However, as the landlord has not investigated these issues, we have not been provided with evidence to enable us to fairly consider the landlord’s handling of these matters. Without such evidence, we cannot make a fair assessment. As such, we have not exercised our discretion under the Scheme and these matters have not been investigated.

The management transfer between properties A and B, including the resident’s concerns about the communal security at property B

The landlord carried out welfare checks at the resident’s property (property A) in October 2023 and on 5 January 2024. This was part of its support to the resident to help with the sustainment of her tenancy. During the visit in January 2024, the landlord noted that the resident had made an attempt to take her life and had been admitted to hospital in December 2023. It recorded as follows:
1. The resident had experienced domestic violence, although not for a “few months”.
2. The resident had been attacked, including by youths who had entered property A via her window.
3. There was a large hole in the living room ceiling.
4. There was no heating or hot water at the property.
It concluded property A was “uninhabitable” for the resident, who it described as “very vulnerable”. It made an internal referral that same day. The referral suggested the resident be rehoused while it was trying to find further information about her situation from the police.
Although the exact date is not clear from the records provided to us, the landlord took part in a multi-agency meeting in January 2024. The landlord discussed its concerns about the safety and living arrangements of the resident. Following this meeting, adult social care authorised emergency accommodation for the resident in a hotel until 18 January 2024. During her stay at the hotel, the landlord provided the resident with food vouchers. This was a reasonable way to support the resident whilst she was housed in emergency accommodation.
Before the hotel booking ended, the landlord completed an urgent management move application on 16 January 2024 for the resident as part of its internal processes. The landlord noted the resident had asked to stay in the area, as she had family nearby. A management move is where residents can be re-housed by a landlord, typically within another property from within the landlord’s existing stock. Landlords generally use management moves for rehousing tenants in emergency situations. Often landlords use risk assessments and waiting lists to determine priority for moves where there is limited availability of properties.
The landlord’s management move policy says residents will receive one offer of a suitably sized property, in an area which is at least 3 miles outside of their “at risk” area.
The landlord identified a potential property (property B), which was in the area requested by the resident. However, it noted that it was not more than 3 miles away from property A. As such, prior to offering the property, the landlord liaised with the external agencies involved, including the resident’s domestic violence support worker. The external professionals advised the landlord that as the domestic violence experienced by the resident was not current, they were content with the suitability of the location of property B. The landlord subsequently offered this property to the resident. She accepted it and her tenancy began there on 30 January 2024.
The landlord’s management move policy provides a process for the landlord to follow. In allocating the resident property B, the landlord considered the resident’s preferred area and appropriately sought the advice of external professionals, who had more knowledge of the domestic violence history. After seeking advice and with no concerns being raised, it was reasonable for the landlord to exercise its discretion and deviate from its policy to offer property B to the resident. The resident accepted the property and it was near her family, in line with her request.
The following day, the landlord referred the resident to its tenancy sustainment team for support in setting up property B. The landlord’s internal records noted that it did as follows:
1. Gifted household items to the resident.
2. Provided advice on bills.
3. Gave the resident money from its support fund to purchase furniture.
4. Gave her decorating vouchers.
This shows that the landlord was committed to support the resident in the new property. These were reasonable steps for it to take in respect of physical household items and financial help.
The landlord visited the resident at property B on 5 February 2024. It noted as follows:
1. The double glazed unit of glass in the communal front door front was broken. As a result, the glass was only 1 unit thick.
2. The second communal door was fob operated, but did not have another lock mechanism.
3. A window handle was missing on the ground floor fire exit. As such, it did not lock.
4. Due to these issues, it concluded that the communal area of the block was not secure.
The landlord raised the required works to repair these issues the following day. It told its repairs team about the resident’s vulnerabilities. The landlord subsequently chased its repairs team on 14 February 2024. On this date, it also raised further works for chain locks to be fitted to the front door, a fire retardant letterbox be installed, and window locks and restrictors be fitted.
The landlord visited the resident on 15 February 2024 and noted the windows had locks. It chased the other outstanding works on 26 February 2024 and asked that they be prioritised. The landlord’s repair logs show that it attended on 28 February 2024 to carry out the works for the chain lock, letterbox and window restrictors but the resident declined for the work to take place.
Our investigation of the evidence provided shows the landlord attended to carry out the work within 10 working days (14 – 28 February 2024). This was in line with the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. This policy says that routine repairs will be carried out within 28 working days. Following the resident declining the work, the landlord subsequently completed these on 5 March 2024. Despite the difficulties with access, this was 14 working days after the issues were identified. This was in line with the timeframe stated in the repairs policy.
We have not been provided with a copy of the resident’s complaint, however, the evidence provided shows it was made in March 2024. She said as follows:
1. She was unhappy with property B as the door was insecure. She felt unsafe and there was shouting and banging in the block.
2. Her ex-partner had been seen in the area but the landlord was not taking her seriously.
3. She asked to be moved to another property.
The landlord carried out further repairs in the communal area of property B as follows:
1. It completed work in respect of the fob operated door on 18 March 2024. This was a period of 30 working days from when the repair was raised.
2. It completed work in respect of the fire exit window handle on 16 April 2024. This was a period of 50 working days from when the repair was raised.
Both of these repairs took longer than the 28 working day timeframe stated in the repairs policy for routine repairs. Instead they were completed in line with the 60 working day timeframe for non-routine repairs.
We have not seen any evidence that the landlord told the resident when she could expect these repairs to be resolved. We have also not seen evidence that it kept the resident informed of the progress of these repairs.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that regardless of the repair timeframes stated, it will respond in a time that reflects the urgency of the work needed. Although the landlord made its repairs team aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities, we have not seen any evidence the landlord prioritised the repairs, or sought to reassure the resident about the safety of the property. The resident felt the issues raised were a security concern. Therefore, the lack of consideration for prioritisation, or explanation as to the amount of time repairs would take, would have led to additional distress for the resident. The failure to either provide reassurance that the property was safe, or advice as to how to improve the situation in the interim, was not reasonable.
The landlord completed the works to replace the double glazing unit of the communal door on 22 April 2024. This repair took 54 working days. As this involved a made-to-measure pane of glass, this timeframe was in line with the landlord’s timeframe of 60 working days for a non-routine repair.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 of its complaints procedure on 30 April 2024. It said as follows:
1. It explained that tenants who needed a management move were allocated the next available property that met their needs. Property B had met the resident’s needs.
2. It had arranged for the door access mechanism to be checked on 2 May 2024. If this was found to be inactive, it would raise a repair. During this visit, it would speak to the resident about her concerns around safety.
The landlord’s stage 1 response detailed the considerations around how it came to allocate property B. However, the landlord did not address the repair concerns the resident had. Although the works had been completed by this stage, the landlord did not confirm this to the resident. This was a missed opportunity to summarise the action it had taken and try to alleviate the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s commitment to check the door mechanism again, despite a fix already having been carried out, was reasonable as it had not been able to confirm with the resident if she was reporting a new repair issue.
The resident contacted the landlord’s out of hours service on 7 May 2024. She said that her ex-partner had broken into property B and had stolen items including her key. As such she could not close her door. The landlord attended that same day and changed the lock. This response was within the 24 hour emergency response timeframe as stated in its repairs policy.
The resident told the landlord on 19 October 2024 that property B was close to her where her ex-partner lived. She was concerned about the security of the communal door. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord discussed the matter with the other agencies involved. It asked if there had been any reports made to the police about threats to the resident. One of the external agencies raised the possibility of providing refuge accommodation for the resident.
The resident told the landlord’s out of hours service on 7 November 2024 that a brick had been thrown through her window. The landlord attended in line with its emergency repairs timeframe that same day and boarded the window. It raised a job for a new glass pane. Following this incident, the landlord asked the external agencies managing the resident’s case whether there was an update on the possible refuge accommodation. The landlord was advised that the resident had declined an offer to be placed into refuge accommodation and instead had requested hotel accommodation. The agency told the landlord that the resident would need “complex needs” accommodation, but the resident had not agreed to that level of support. The landlord subsequently visited the resident on 19 November 2024. It offered her additional security measures, which the resident declined.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 on 19 November 2024. It said as follows:
1. The resident had been happy to move to property B at the time, as it was close to family. This had been confirmed by a support worker from an external agency.
2. It had spoken to the resident about the broken window and this matter was being investigated by the police.
3. It had agreed to another management move and she would be allocated the next available property that matched her needs. This would be at least 3 miles away.
The landlord’s response accurately reflected the actions it took as shown by the evidence we have been provided with in this case. The landlord took the resident’s concerns about her ex-partner seriously and offered another management move. This is what the resident had requested as a desired outcome. It provided the resolution she had requested through its complaints process.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the resident moved into property C by way of a management move on 23 December 2024.
Our investigation into this aspect of the resident’s complaint has identified that the landlord acted appropriately in rehousing the resident to property B by way of a management move. In doing so it considered its management move policy and consulted external professions in respect of the suitability of property B. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of professionals.
However, we have identified that the landlord could have acted more quickly to carry out the repairs to secure the communal areas of the block, or done more to re-assure the resident as to how it was fixing the problems she raised. This is particularly in light of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the effect the outstanding repairs were having on her feeling of security. The landlord failed to keep her updated about the timeframe of the repairs and it did not demonstrate it was attempting to prioritise the repairs in light of the resident’s individual circumstances.
In addition, the landlord did not acknowledge any failures in how it handled these repairs as part of its complaint responses. As such, these combined failings when taken together, amounts to a determination of maladministration.
To acknowledge the effect of these failures on the resident, we have ordered compensation of £200. This amount is within the range of compensation suggested by our remedies guidance where a landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right for those failings.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy says that at stage 1 it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It will subsequently respond within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. At stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If additional time is needed at either stage, it will keep the resident informed.
We have not been provided with the resident’s initial complaint, however, from the evidence we have seen, this was made in March 2024. The landlord’s records show conflicting dates for complaint as 13 or 31 March 2024. Following the complaint, it took until 17 April 2024 for the landlord to acknowledge it. This was outside of its stated 5 day acknowledgement timeframe.
The landlord responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 30 April 2024. This was within 9 working days of the acknowledgement, in line with this part of its procedure. However, the landlord did not acknowledge that it took too long to acknowledge the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord 8 May 2024 about property B. She also raised new concerns as follows:
1. The landlord was charging her rent for property A and property B at the same time.
2. She felt the landlord was discriminating against her.
3. She had been without gas and hot water for 7 weeks.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “where someone tells us they are unhappy with our services, asks that their concerns are dealt with as a formal complaint and wants us to take further action.” This definition is not in line with our complaint handing code (the Code).
Our Code says that a complaint must be defined as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord.’ This makes it clear that resident’s do not have to refer to their concerns as a complaint for it to be treated as such.
Therefore the landlord’s failure to treat the resident’s email of 8 May 2024 as a complaint was not appropriate and was not in line with our Code. This led to the resident making this complaint again on 19 October 2024. The landlord subsequently told her on 23 October 2024 that as the issues were linked to the March 2024 complaint, it had escalated the complaint to stage 2. In doing so the landlord failed to appreciate that a number of the concerns raised were new issues which it had not previously considered.
The landlord responded to the resident’s original complaint issues at stage 2 on 19 November 2024. This was 21 working days after the email the landlord took as the escalation request. This was 1 working day outside of its published stage 2 response timeframe. This response only addressed the resident’s original complaint issues. It failed to consider any of the new issues she had raised.
Following our involvement, the landlord reviewed its response to the resident’s complaints. On 29 May 2025, it said as follows:
1. The resident had made a complaint in March 2024 but it had not raised this as a complaint at the time. As a result it had not acknowledged the complaint until 17 April 2024. It apologised for this and offered £100 compensation.
2. The resident had made a complaint on 19 October 2024. This included aspects of complaint which had been raised in March 2024. As such it had escalated this to stage 2. It had overlooked that there had been new aspects of complaint. It acknowledged that it should have opened a new complaint for the new issues. It apologised and offered £100 compensation.
3. It acknowledged that its complaint handling failures had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It offered £200 as redress to put things right.
Despite the landlord reinvestigating its complaint handing, it did not identify that it had also not responded to her complaint, raised in May 2024 about being without heating and hot water or her allegation she was being discriminated against on the basis of her nationality.
When failures are identified, as in this case, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our guidance on remedies.
We encourage landlord’s to try to find a resolution, no matter what stage a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that cases are dealt with fairly during its internal complaints process.
It was not until the resident referred her complaint to us that the landlord conducted a further review of the case and identified its complaint handling failures. Although this did indicate a willingness to learn in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, there was little evidence of this at the time of the original complaint investigation.
Following our involvement, the landlord identified complaint handling failures and offered £400 compensation. The amount was within a range suggested by our remedies guidance where there have been failures which adversely effected a resident.
Although the compensation can be said to have put things right for the resident, the landlord did not offer this during the internal complaints procedure. Our outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined under such circumstances. In addition, the landlord’s offer of compensation was made in June 2025. This was over a year after the resident had first raised these aspects of complaint in May 2024. This meant that the resident’s concerns about these issues were unresolved for a significant period of time.
We have noted that even when the landlord identified its failures, it did not address the new issues of complaint. It instead advised the resident that the case would be considered by us. In light of the effect on the resident of the combined complaint handling failures, the compensation was not proportionate to the level of failing. These combined failures and the lack of adequate compensation, when taken together, amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the effect on the resident, we have ordered additional compensation of £100. This brings the total offer of compensation to £500.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a management transfer between properties A and B, including communal security.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report. It should provide evidence of compliance with these actions to us:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay a total of £700 compensation to the resident. This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £400 compensation. The landlord can deduct this amount if it can provide evidence this has already been paid. The balance of compensation due must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against a rent account. The compensation is made up as follows:
  1. £200 to acknowledge the effect of the landlord’s failures in respect of the management transfer, including communal security.
  2. £500 to acknowledge the effect of the landlord’s complaint handling failures on the resident.
3. Carry out a review of its complaint handling policy in conjunction with our Code.
4. Provide the resident with complaint response which address her concerns that; the landlord improperly disposed of her possessions from property A; the landlord was charging her rent for both property A and B at the same time, the landlord discriminated against her on the basis of her nationality, and; property A did not have heating and hot water.