Housing Associations

Summary

Ms C complained about dampness issues on behalf of her client (Ms A). Ms A had downsized from a larger housing association property and signed a new tenancy agreement for a smaller home. She pointed out issues with dampness within the property and the association agreed to carry out works. Ms A had not yet given up the tenancy on her original home and continued to live there while work was undertaken. The association charged Ms A for rent for the new property whilst the works were being carried out. Ms C complained that the association had not ensured that the property was in a reasonable condition for Ms A to move into and that they had unreasonably charged her rent when repairs were being carried out.

We found that there had been issues with water ingress previously at the property, which work had been done on, and that the association had expected areas of damp to dry out once the house was occupied. However, this was not noted on the inspection report and we considered that there was a lack of evidence that the association had taken areas of damp in the hallway and living room into account when determining whether the property was in a habitable condition. We upheld Ms C's complaint about this.

We also upheld Ms C's complaint about rent charges. We found evidence that the association had advised Ms C's office that Ms A would not be charged rent for the property until it was ready for occupancy. We made a number of recommendations to the association.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• remove any rent charges for the property covering the period from when Ms A signed the tenancy agreement to when the association notified her that she could collect the keys for the property;
• consider having an independent professional assessment of any dampness at the property; and
• consider whether a further reduction in rent would be appropriate on the basis of any ongoing dampness at the property.

Summary

Mrs C gave notice to the housing association to terminate her tenancy. An end of tenancy letter was issued by the association detailing her responsibilities prior to moving. A pre-end of tenancy inspection was carried out. The association issued Mrs C with a further letter advising that no rechargeable repairs had been identified. The letter did, however, make it clear that rechargeable repairs could be found on further inspection after she had moved out. Mrs C was subsequently recharged for a redecoration allowance, plaster repairs and emptying wheelie bins at the property. Mrs C complained that the recharges should not have applied, and that she understood from her tenants' handbook that estimates should have been issued before any work took place.

After investigating Mrs C's concerns, we did not uphold her complaint about the redecoration allowance. We found it was clear that the property was to be left in good decorative order and that the association had evidence to support their position on its condition. Similarly, we considered that the association had taken reasonable steps to make Mrs C aware that she would be liable for any damage, such as that caused to plasterwork. Again, the association had evidence to support their position on the condition of the plasterwork. We upheld Mrs C's complaint about recharges for the emptying of wheelie bins as we found no evidence that it had been made clear that outgoing tenants were unable to leave rubbish in the wheelie bins. During our investigation, the association advised that it is not their policy to issue estimates prior to recharging for works in these circumstances. However, they acknowledged that their tenants' handbook did imply that this would happen. Consequently, we upheld Mrs C's complaint about estimates. We also upheld her complaint on the association's handling of her concerns as we found some issues had not been addressed. We made a number of recommendations in relation to our findings. One of these related to clarifying the wording of compensation offers, as we found an offer made to Mrs C was not clear in its scope.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• remove the charge for emptying wheelie bins from Mrs C's account;
• review all relevant policies and guidance to determine if any amendments are required to clarify tenants' responsibilities in terms of emptying wheelie bins at termination;
• review the tenants' handbook and other information provided to tenants to ensure it accurately reflects their policy on estimates;
• issue Mrs C with a written apology for the failure to address all her concerns in their response to her complaint; and
• consider reviewing how compensation offers are worded so that the scope and intention is clear to tenants.

Summary

Miss C complained about the housing association. They were holding her responsible for works required to repair damage to the kitchen after she had exchanged her property with the tenant of another housing association. She disputed this as, a couple of months before she moved, her property had been inspected as satisfactory and approved for a transfer. On investigation, it became clear that the association had failed to follow their procedure for carrying out a final inspection. This did not take place until after the new tenant took up residence, meaning there was no evidence to prove who was responsible. We also found that the new tenant had signed a declaration accepting responsibility for all outstanding tenant repairs. As such, we found that Miss C should not be held responsible for the repairs and upheld her complaint.

Miss C also complained about the standard of communication she received from the association regarding these issues. After reviewing the correspondence against all the evidence provided, it became clear that the association had made a number of statements that contradicted the evidence available. We also found instances where they had stated unsubstantiated third party information as fact, without giving Miss C the opportunity to respond. We also upheld this aspect of her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Miss C for the failings our investigation found; and
• write off the debt they were pursuing Miss C for and refund her rent credit.

Summary

Ms C, who is an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) that the housing association failed to adequately respond to Ms A's concerns that her flat was not secure.

Ms A said that she had phoned the association in January 2014 to ask them for repairs to be carried out to her windows but they did not respond. In early July 2014, Ms A was taken into hospital where she stayed for a number of months. She said despite immediately raising her concerns about the security of her windows with a member of the association's staff, nothing was done. It was not until later in July 2014 that the association responded to a phone call and secured the windows from the outside. A few weeks later, the flat was broken into and some of Ms A's property was stolen.

We investigated the complaint, and considered evidence from the association and from Ms A. This confirmed that Ms A had made a phone call in January 2014 to the association. However, the problem reported by Ms A and dealt with by the association had not been about her windows. Similarly, we found that although Ms A said she had reported a problem with her windows (which she said could not be closed) as soon as she was admitted to hospital, the conversation with the member of staff was noted in the association's records as being in August 2014. The evidence confirmed that as soon as she reported that her windows were faulty at the end of July 2014, staff attended and made the premises as secure as possible. Ms A believed that the association should have accepted a key from her and boarded the windows from the inside, but this was not their practice from a security point of view. The association considered that boarding the windows from the outside was a reasonable response to her concerns.

Our investigation found that as soon as Ms A contacted the association about her windows at the end of July 2014, they responded immediately taking appropriate and reasonable action, so we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that when she terminated her tenancy she was only paid compensation for some of the improvements she had made to her former home. In particular, the housing association told her that the conservatory she had erected did not qualify for compensation.

Our investigation found that conservatories were not listed as being an improvement qualifying for compensation in either the legislation (Housing (Scotland) Act 2001) or in the association's internal guidance based on the legislation. Mrs C maintained that she had been told verbally by more than one employee of the association that she would receive compensation. However, there was no written evidence of this. The letter giving Mrs C permission to erect the conservatory did not make any reference to compensation.

When Mrs C submitted her claim for compensation the association considered it in light of the legislation and guidance. They also took legal advice on whether the conservatory would qualify for compensation. Our view was that the association took reasonable action to consider Mrs C's claim, and so we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that he had been unreasonably asked for rent in advance and pursued for this by the housing association, which caused him stress and anxiety. He also complained that the association had not carried out adaptations to his new property as recommended in an occupational therapist's report. Although these matters were addressed, he complained that the association had taken a long time to resolve them.

We found that while the association had accepted in 2014 that Mr C should not have been asked to pay his rent in advance, when he initially complained about this matter in 2013 the association had incorrectly advised him that he was required to pay rent in advance. We found that had the correct information been given in 2013, Mr C would not have had to raise this matter in 2014.

We were satisfied that, prior to moving into his new property, the association had arranged for an occupational therapy assessment to be carried out to determine the suitability of the property for Mr C. The assessment determined that his new property was suitable for his needs. On that basis he had been offered the property. In response to Mr C's continuing concerns, the association arranged for another assessment. The new assessment recommended some adaptations, which the association agreed to carry out where technically possible in an effort to address Mr C's concerns. While some of the adaptations were carried out, some were not suitable for his new property. We were satisfied that the association had taken action based on the professional advice given by the occupational therapy service.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• remind relevant staff of the need to adhere to the rent in advance guidance and the importance of providing accurate advice to tenants on this matter.

Summary

Ms C complained about the housing association after they refused to grant her priority under their exceptional housing need category. She felt that they had failed to properly consider her request. We found that their procedure for assessing requests under this category was unclear. It was difficult to tell how, and by whom, requests were supposed to be progressed and decided. We also found, in her case, that they had failed to show how, why, or by whom the decision had been made. They accepted that they had not followed the procedure in Ms C's case, even though the procedure clearly stated that it was to be used for all requests of this kind. As such, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Ms C for the failings identified by our investigation;
• review their exceptional housing need procedure to clarify when a request will or will not be considered, how decisions will be made at each stage of the process, and who will make those decisions; and
• reconsider Ms C's request under the revised procedure.

Summary

Mr C complained about the association after they decided to suspend his housing application due to rent arrears with his current landlord. We found that the association had acted correctly, following all relevant policies, procedures, guidance and legislation. Their policy clearly stated that they may suspend an application when an applicant has housing debt greater than one month's rent payment, and when the applicant has not stuck to a repayment agreement for at least three months.

The tenancy reference they received from Mr C's landlord clearly stated that his rent arrears were greater than one month's rent payment, and that there had been a shortfall in his last payment. We found that they had the discretion to decide whether to suspend Mr C's application in these circumstances, and did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C said that the housing association did not give him clear and consistent information about boundary fencing. We found that Mr C had raised the issue over a period of years and had spoken to different members of staff. We found that the development was open plan in design with open front gardens and enclosed rear gardens. We found that Mr C and the association did not agree about where the boundary was between Mr C's garden and an area of common ground. Ultimately we found that it was for the association (as Mr C's landlord) to say what the extent of the garden was. We found that there had been a lack of clear and consistent information from Mr C in terms of what he wanted, and when he was asked to complete the association's alterations form to clarify his request, he did not do so. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Miss C rents a property from the housing association. Over a number of years she experienced problems with the plumbing in her kitchen which affected her washing machine. She said she had to replace five washing machines at a substantial cost. She complained that, although the association ultimately fixed the problem, it took them several years to do so, and they refused her request for reimbursement of the cost of the replacement washing machines. Miss C also complained about the standard of other maintenance work carried out at her property. She said that this left her family unable to use the bedrooms. She felt that her rent should be reduced as a result of this.

We found that Miss C first raised the problem with her plumbing in 2011. We accepted that this was not resolved after two visits from a plumber, however, she did not raise the matter with the association again until 2014. As such, we were not critical of the association for failing to carry out further investigations until 2014. The cause of the plumbing problem was identified, but it was not resolved for five months due to an administrative error. We were satisfied that the association acknowledged and apologised for this oversight, and offered compensation in line with their policy. As Miss C did not provide evidence of her out-of-pocket expenses or the damage to her washing machines, we found it reasonable for her claim to be rejected.

We acknowledged that Miss C had found the other maintenance works to be disruptive, however, we were satisfied that the association considered whether temporary relocation to another property was required. We also found that work was carried out in line with their repairs and maintenance policy, and that the minimum standards expected of them were met.