Housing Associations

Summary

C complained on behalf of their family member (A) about Hillcrest Housing Association. A had been a tenant of the association and reported various problems with the property some years ago. Following a chartered surveyor's report, which identified several issues, a number of alterations were made to the property.

C disagreed that the association had repaired the property to a tolerable standard.

In recent years, A reported an alleged insect infestation. Various investigations were done, and A was decanted from the property for a temporary period. C disputed the association's view that there was no evidence of an insect infestation. C also complained that the association failed to provide A with alternative accommodation.

We found that there was evidence that the association had followed their decant process when dealing with the concerns that A had raised. We considered that the association took the concerns about infestation seriously and acted reasonably to address allegations of an ongoing pest infestation. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We also found that the association made reasonable efforts to offer alternative accommodation in response to A's ongoing concerns. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

In terms of repairs to the property, we identified evidence to demonstrate that the association had responded reasonably to the reported concerns. Overall, we found no reason for the association to doubt the professional judgement of those involved. We, therefore, did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C made several reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the Castle Rock Edinvar Housing Association over a number of years. She complained about how her reports of ASB were handled by the association, and particularly that they did not progress action to evict a tenant. We noted that the association sought and considered legal advice, which informed their decision not to commence eviction proceedings. Ms C also complained that the association did not contact the local authority's Family and Household Support Service (FHSS) regarding an Anti-social Behaviour Order (ASBO). We noted that the association had not contacted the FHSS as they had taken the decision that the serving of an ASBO was not indicated. They subsequently contacted the service to discuss Ms C's complaint, and the FHSS appeared content that this was a matter for the association and they did not have to be involved. We considered the association's ASB policy would benefit from being clearer on what the purpose of contact with the FHSS might be and when this might be considered on individual cases. We fed this back to the association. However, we considered that the association managed the situation appropriately and with regard to their policy. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We noted that the association sometimes referred to reports of ASB as complaints about ASB, and we considered this raised the potential for confusion between reports of ASB and formal complaints of service failure (including how reports of ASB have been handled). Ms C complained that the association failed to treat an email she sent them as a formal complaint. We noted that Ms C had submitted a further report of ASB that the association were looking into, when she submitted her email complaining about their handling of her previous report of ASB. The association did not accept this complaint while their enquiries into the current ASB report were still ongoing. We recognised that Ms C was entitled to raise reports of ASB and formal complaints concurrently. However, we also recognised that simultaneous investigation of these might lead to unnecessary duplication of effort. On balance, we considered that the association's decision to delay acceptance of a new complaint was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the association's ultimate response to her formal complaint was unreasonable. We noted that the association's complaint investigation concluded that they had followed their internal processes. As we reached the same conclusion, we considered that their response was reasonable. We saw evidence of a detailed investigation plan and a genuine effort to address Ms C's concerns in full. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is homeless, applied to view properties advertised as being immediately available to let. Mr C considered that the properties were not in a condition to be advertised as being immediately available to let.. In relation to the first property, we found that the electric meter had been read during the void period and therefore it was reasonable for the association to expect that it was working when the property was advertised as being immediately available to let. In relation to the second property, the association offered a paint pack as an incentive to rent this property, and we found that this was in accordance with their policy for properties where décor affected the ability to let the property. We did not uphold these complaints.

Mr C also complained that he was advised that he could obtain immediate entry after viewing the properties and signing the tenancy agreement. We found that in relation to the first property this information was not clear on the website and it would have been reasonable to expect that this would be explained at the outset, given that prospective tenants looking to rent a property immediately may be living in stressful circumstances. We therefore upheld this complaint.

Mr C also complained that he was suspended from the property register because he refused two properties. We found that whilst Mr C understood that he had been suspended, the records did not show that he had and this should have been explained to him. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to make it clear that he may not be able to move into the property on the day of viewing as the tenancy agreement required to be signed and any gas uncapped prior to a tenant. The association should also pay Mr C the sum of £50 as a goodwill gesture, for travel expenses in respect of his journey to view the first property.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• Ensure the website contains information under immediately available properties which states the applicant may not be able to move in on the day of viewing and why. Ensure housing officers state, when arranging viewings of immediately available properties, that the applicant may not be able to move in on the day of viewing and why.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Ms C contacted us on behalf of Ms A, as she had concerns that the housing association had failed to respond to their concerns about disrepair in their house. Ms C said there were also concerns about the association failing to respond to complaints about anti-social behaviour and requests for repairs. Ms C told us that Ms A was classed as a vulnerable adult and suffered from poor mental and physical health. These issues were being exacerbated by the association's failures.

We found that some of the repair issues had been addressed and that some of Ms C's complaints had been upheld by the association in respect of a failure to investigate anti-social behaviour complaints. We also found that the responsible housing officer was on long-term leave, and that this had caused difficulties in determining whether issues had been raised with them by Ms C or Ms A.

We found that the association could evidence their response to complaints of disrepair and that investigations and work had been carried out. Additionally, some of the issues being raised by Ms C, such as decoration within the property, were not repair issues. We also found that the association had offered to address any issues which Ms C believed to be outstanding and also to review any emails which Ms C felt she had not received an adequate response to. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.

Summary

C complained about the service provided by Bridgewater Housing Association (BHA) and the care and repair service they provided when C sought to make alterations and adaptations to their home, which is privately owned. This included changes to their front door and the installation of a ramp. We noted that it is the role of BHA to facilitate repairs. They do not guarantee the quality of the work or assess if the work carried out meets the needs of the client.

We found that BHA carried out a tendering process in accordance with their written procedures. We found BHA communicated with the contractor regarding when work was required to be done.

In relation to the front door the contractor varied the contract without notifying C or BHA in advance. We noted that C had a dispute with the private contractor and that BHA communicated with both parties to attempt to facilitate an agreement between them. In relation to the ramp this was signed off as meeting C's needs by their Health and Social Care Partnership. We considered that it was reasonable for BHA to rely on this information.

We found BHA had reasonably facilitated the works to the door and ramp to the property, in accordance with procedures that they were required to follow, and limited to what they were responsible for. We did not uphold C's complaint.

Summary

C complained about the way a member of the housing association's staff communicated with them and their partner about storing refuse bins at the rear of their property. Taking account of the evidence, overall, we did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the association acted unreasonably in this regard. However, we considered that subsequent correspondence with C could have been more helpful and the situation handled better. We also noted some good practice by the association and that ultimately the situation regarding the storage of the bins was resolved. Therefore, we did not uphold this complaint.

C also complained that the association did not respond reasonably to their complaint. During our investigation, the association acknowledged that the complaint was not handled in line with their complaint handling procedure (the CHP). We agreed that this was the case because the timeframe for response was not met; C was not kept updated; the complaint was not handled according to the CHP; and the response lacked objectivity and impartiality. Overall, we considered that the association's handling of the complaint was unreasonable. Therefore, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings in their handling of the complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the association unreasonably communicated with her regarding her rent and rent arrears. We considered that, while the association was clear in the amount and frequency of payments, an element of their communication had been unreasonable and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained that her request for joint tenancy was unreasonably refused. We note that legislation states that a landlord must consent to the alteration of the tenancy unless they have reasonable grounds for not doing so. The association explained that they had refused the joint tenancy request as they had served a notice which warned that they may seek eviction and explained that the rent account was currently in arrears. The notice referred to was valid at the time and the association offered a reasonable explanation to explain their grounds for refusal. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for failing to reasonably communicate with her in relation to her rent and rent arrears. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Amendment

When originally published (20/11/2019), this summary included the line: "We considered that, while the association was clear in the amount and frequency of payments, elements of the communication had been unreasonable and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint."

This has since been changed to: "We considered that, while the association was clear in the amount and frequency of payments, an element of their communication had been unreasonable and we upheld this aspect of Mrs C's complaint."  We apologise for this error. 

Summary

Mrs C, who was away from her property at the time of a fire on its roof terrace, complained about the action taken by the Sanctuary (Scotland) Housing Association (SH) following the fire. In particular, Mrs C complained that SH had failed to make reasonable attempts to inform her of the fire which had affected her home; and also, that they had failed to take reasonable action to mitigate the damage to her flat and possessions. Mrs C also complained that SH had unreasonably delayed making effective repairs to her home and that they had failed to reasonably manage the roof terrace.

We found that SH had made reasonable attempts to contact Mrs C when they discovered she was away from her property and we did not uphold this aspect of her complaint. We also found that SH had dealt with the matter under their emergency repairs procedure and had secured Mrs C's flat and made it safe. We did not consider that they had failed to take reasonable action to mitigate the damage to her flat and possessions, and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

In relation to Mrs C's concerns that there were delays in making effective repairs, SH accepted that there had been a failure to deal with this matter in a timely way, and while Mrs C's home had remained in a habitable condition, they recognised the difficulties Mrs C had experienced and had made a compensation payment prior to our investigation. We upheld this aspect of the complaint. SH also accepted that they had failed to deal with Mrs C's complaint properly.

Finally, we found no evidence that SH had failed to manage the roof terrace correctly and we did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mrs C for the failure to follow the complaints handling policy. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Relevant staff require to be aware of and follow SH's complaints handling policy.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association imposed restrictions on his contact with their services under their unacceptable actions policy. The restrictions stopped Mr C from contacting the association directly and required him to nominate a third party representative to communicate on his behalf. Mr C complained that these restrictions were unreasonable and that the association failed to make reasonable adjustments on account of his specific needs and disability.

We found that there was reasonable evidence to support the housing association's decision to place restrictions on Mr C's communication. They acknowledged that they could have improved their communication with Mr C and they have already taken steps to address this. However, we were satisfied that the housing association responded appropriately to Mr C's requests for reasonable adjustments. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained about a number of matters. Firstly, they complained that the association failed to take reasonable and appropriate action in relation to their reports of anti-social behaviour. We found that the association had taken some action in response to these complaints but, following police and court involvement, had delayed in taking further action until these proceedings were complete. We considered this action to be reasonable.

Mr and Mrs C's second complaint related to how the association addressed allegations that their neighbours were parking in a manner that caused a nuisance. Mrs C stated that the neighbours repeatedly parked their vehicles in a position that made access to her driveway difficult or impossible. We considered that the association had investigated this matter appropriately and taken action that is reasonable and proportionate, based on the evidence available to them.

Mr and Mrs C's third complaint related to their neighbours' CCTV. They state that the CCTV has been used to monitor them and that their neighbours do not have the necessary registration to use it. We found that the association had taken action, including asking the neighbours to change the position of the CCTV, so it does not take in Mr and Mrs C's property. We considered the actions taken by the association to be appropriate and proportionate, given the circumstances at the time.

Mr and Mrs C's final complaint related to the association's decision to place restrictions on their communication with them. The association acknowledged that their correspondence in relation to this had not been clear and issued a further letter to Mr and Mrs C clarifying this. We found that the association had explained their reasons for this restriction, explained the procedures put in place and provided details of the appeals procedure. We considered this action to be reasonable.

We did not uphold any of Mr and Mrs C's complaints.