Housing Associations

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association was failing to ensure that their contractors provided a reasonable stair-cleaning service in the communal areas of his home. He had reported a number of issues to them about poor cleaning.

The association acknowledged that there had been problems but noted that they had acted when Mr C raised concerns. They had either inspected the communal areas and found them to be in a reasonable condition or instructed their contractors to carry out further cleaning.

We found that the association had taken Mr C's complaints seriously and responded to each of his communications. As we found no evidence of administrative failings in the way they had dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) that the housing association had not done enough to deal with the anti-social behaviour that Mr A had reported and did not reasonably manage his request to be rehoused.

Mr A had experienced anti-social behaviour from a previous neighbour. When he began experiencing it again from the next tenant, he requested a management transfer (a special transfer not based on the normal points system).

We found that the association had been unable to corroborate Mr A's allegations of anti-social behaviour, despite visiting the property and installing noise monitoring equipment. As such they were limited in how much action they could take. We also found they had assessed Mr A's request to be rehoused in line with their normal allocations policy and did not consider a management transfer to be appropriate; this was a discretionary decision they are allowed to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained about the housing association after being a resident in supported accommodation they provided for around six months. During this period, Mr C said that he experienced ongoing anti-social behaviour from one of his neighbours which he felt the association did not take appropriate action against. Mr C was eventually served with a final warning by the association for threats that he made against his neighbour and for allegedly kicking in the neighbour's door. Following this, Mr C advised that his relationship with the association staff deteriorated and he was eventually issued with notice to leave his accommodation on the grounds that he was refusing support and this was an essential aspect of the tenancy.

On investigation, we found that there was some confusion among staff about whether or not the association's general anti-social behaviour procedure applied to supported accommodation. At the time of the complaint, support staff were of the opinion that this procedure applied but association staff considered that no set procedure was in place. Following our enquiries, the association confirmed that no procedure was in place for anti-social behaviour in supported accommodation, which we considered to be unreasonable. We also considered that their records did not sufficiently evidence thorough communication of their findings in each instance of anti-social behaviour.

On reviewing the final warning that had been served to Mr C, we found that there were a number of errors in communication which had reduced Mr C's understanding of the reasons for which the warning had been served. We also found that the association had incorrectly advised that the police had corroborated the incidents leading to the warning.

We also found a number of errors in the notice of termination served on Mr C, asking him to leave the accommodation. This included failing to clearly explain the reasons the notice was being served and incorrectly referencing sections of his occupancy agreement which were not grounds for eviction. As part of this investigation we also identified that Mr C's occupancy agreement made reference to associated schedules which the association were unable to supply.

Finally, we found that Mr C had submitted a complaint which, despite clearly constituting a formal complaint under the terms of the association's complaints handling procedure, was dealt with as a report of anti-social behaviour and not a complaint. This led to Mr C failing to receive a response to his complaints until submitting them again some months later.

As a result of this, we upheld all of Mr C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• review the anti-social behaviour procedures for the supported accommodation and either make clear to staff that the general anti-social behaviour procedure applies or draft a suitable alternative;
• consider implementing a standard letter template for formal warnings to guide staff and help ensure that clear, well-evidenced reasons are communicated to occupants when warnings are served;
• review the supported accommodation occupancy agreement to ensure that any schedules referenced are included or such references removed;
• consider implementing a standard letter template for notices of termination to guide staff and ensure that all the necessary information mentioned above is clearly communicated to occupants when notices are served;
• provide training to relevant staff on the relevant section of the complaints handling procedure;
• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• carry out a review of the procedures in place at the supported accommodation to ensure that the respective roles of association staff and support workers are clear to both staff and occupants; and
• reflect on the outcomes of this investigation to establish the root cause of the failings identified and take action to address these.

Summary

Mr C disputed that he had access to heating during the period between a repair being reported to the housing association and the repair taking place. We found that heating was available during this time and so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association were failing to carry out repairs to his home in line with their obligations under the tenancy agreement. He had reported leaking taps to the association, who visited to carry out repairs. He was concerned about the level of water damage and was of the view that the association should make right the water ingress problems he had identified.

The association said that they had responded to Mr C's complaints of leaking taps promptly, and within the timescales required by the repairs procedure. They said that they had inspected his property, at his request, and were satisfied that any residual dampness and minor damage to his property was not of a level which required their intervention.

We considered the evidence and established that the association had reacted promptly, and within the appropriate timescale, to Mr C's requests for repairs to his taps. We were also satisfied that they had inspected any damage caused to ensure that the property was still habitable and of a standard required to meet the terms of their tenancy agreement. For this reason, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association delayed in dealing with water ingress to his home, which he said caused damage to his flooring, but the association would not pay for the damage. Mr C also complained that the association failed to complete repairs to the loft and ceiling in his home.

We found that there was no unreasonable delay in the association dealing with the water ingress and, given this, we could not say it was unreasonable that the association would not pay for the damage to Mr C's flooring. We also found, and the association acknowledged, that they should have completed the repairs to Mr C's loft and ceiling much sooner. Given the inconvenience of being left with an incomplete repair and a large hole in the ceiling for an unreasonable period of time over the autumn and winter months, in the specific circumstances of this case, we recommended that the association consider making an ex gratia payment to Mr C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• consider making an ex gratia payment to Mr C.

Summary

Mrs C complained about ongoing issues with damp in her property and how long the repairs for this had taken. Mrs C also complained that the housing association had failed to communicate with her appropriately, and had refused to provide adequate information about the works going on inside her property.

The association accepted it had taken a long time to diagnose the damp problems in the property. They said that this was not unreasonable as the problem had been complex. The association accepted the works had taken too long to complete, but said lessons had been learnt from Mrs C's experience.

We found that the association had taken too long to identify the source of the damp problem in Mrs C's house. This was in part because a new bathroom had been fitted before the source of the problem was identified, and prior to the completion of the bathroom works, Mrs C had provided a privately-obtained surveyor's report to the association recommending more extensive works were required. The association had failed to act on this, which had led to some of the delay. We also found that the length of time taken to complete the works was excessive. Although the association had had difficulties with contractors and their insurance company, there was no evidence of any learning being identified to prevent a recurrence of this problem. We upheld this part of Mrs C's complaint.

We found that the association had, however, communicated appropriately with Mrs C, and we did not uphold this part of her complaint. There was evidence of regular contact with staff at the association and reasonable attempts to manage Mrs C's expectations in terms of the length of time the works were taking.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• provide us with evidence that the installation of Mrs C's bathroom has been reviewed and that any lessons identified are being put into practice;
• apologise for the decision to install the bathroom;
• provide evidence that they have reviewed this case and that any learning has been identified and actioned; and
• provide evidence of the actions they have taken to avoid a recurrence of the delays experienced in this case.

Summary

Miss C complained that the housing association unreasonably failed to carry out work on her kitchen to the agreed specifications. Miss C raised a number of concerns, including that the association failed to supply and fit a breakfast bar and that the work took longer than the three days suggested by the association. Miss C said that she had to pay to have the breakfast bar installed and that the delay in the completion of the work meant that her daughter, who has a learning disability, had to stay in a caravan for a further week, and Miss C had to pay for this extra week's accommodation.

The evidence suggested that the association agreed to fit a hinged breakfast bar in Miss C's kitchen. The association said that when Miss C's tall fridge freezer was put back in place it was clear that the hinged breakfast bar could not be included in the design. However, Miss C said that she had an under counter fridge, not a tall fridge freezer, when the kitchen was planned and fitted, so the breakfast bar could have been included. We did not see clear evidence that a breakfast bar could not be fitted or evidence that the change in position was explained and confirmed to Miss C at the time. We concluded that the association unreasonably failed to carry out the works to Miss C's kitchen to the agreed specifications and we upheld Miss C's complaint.

It appeared that the reason the work in Miss C's kitchen took longer than expected was due to extensive re-plastering of the kitchen walls and this appeared to have been caused by the removal of Miss C's kitchen wallpaper. There was no documentary evidence indicating that, as Miss C suggested, the association told Miss C to remove the kitchen wallpaper. In these circumstances, we did not see evidence that the association acted unreasonably in this regard.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• feed back our decision on Miss C's complaint to the staff involved;
• put in place a system to record agreed works with tenants and any modifications subsequently required and agreed and ensure their records show when jobs are completed;
• compensate Miss C for the cost of installing her breakfast bar on receipt of appropriate invoices; and
• provide Miss C with a written apology for the failings identified.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the housing association on behalf of Mr A, a former tenant, regarding charges he had received for repairs required after he had left his property. He accepted that he had been asked at a pre-termination inspection to re-paint two walls but disputed the amount being requested, as he suspected that the amount was for further works that he was unaware of and had no opportunity to rectify.

Our investigation found that the association's communication with Mr A had been poor, with little information or justification given for the charges he was being asked to pay. We also found that the association's records showed that the works Mr A was being charged for were the painting of an entire room, including the ceiling and woodwork, even though only wall painting had been recorded as required on the inspection sheet signed by him and an inspector. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• provide us with clarification of how the additional charge to change the locks was added to Mr A's invoice;
• calculate the amount payable by Mr A by determining what portion of the cost of the paint work related to two black walls;
• consider reducing the revised amount payable by Mr A by 50 percent in light of the administrative failures;
• apologise to Mr A for the failings identified; and
• reflect on the learning from this case to inform the review of the rechargeable repairs procedures they have advised us that they are undertaking.

Summary

Ms C said that since her neighbour moved next door, she had been disturbed and upset by her neighbour's anti-social behaviour. She complained that while she had brought her concerns to her landlord (the housing association), they had failed to reasonably respond to her concerns.

We found that although many complaints had been made, they were denied by Ms C's neighbour. The association was unable to confirm that anti-social behaviour had taken place because there was no independent evidence of such behaviour. This was despite the association having involved third parties such as the police and the council in their investigation. The evidence showed that throughout, the association had followed their policy on anti-social behaviour complaints - they had interviewed both parties, attempted to obtain independent verification and used noise monitoring machinery. They had also offered a mutual exchange of house to the parties involved. No proof of anti-social behaviour had been found. In these circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.