Housing Associations

Summary

Ms C's home was included in a housing upgrade programme by the housing association, as part of which there were to be extensive improvements to the kitchen and electrics. Ms C complained that the housing association failed to advise her that as a result, some of her electrical appliances may not work. She also said that they failed to fit a new kitchen worktop as agreed, and that their contractor failed to communicate adequately.

Our investigation found that as part of the works, new electrical circuit breakers were installed. These were extremely sensitive and Ms C's cooker did not work with them. While notice of an electrical upgrade was given to tenants, there was no evidence that the association mentioned that there may be compatibility issues and some electrical equipment may not work. Accordingly, we upheld this part of Ms C's complaint.

However, we did not find evidence to suggest that the association's contractor did not communicate adequately or that the kitchen worktop had not been fitted as agreed. There were issues with a secure wall fixing for the worktop and an alternative solution was found which was properly finished to the association's standards of acceptability.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• make a formal apology for their failure in this matter; and
• confirm that in the future any documentation will make the situation clearer.

Summary

Mr C was a tenant of the housing association and, in 2012, he and his family applied for a larger house. In order to be put on the list for a larger property, Mr C needed to carry out some work to the property he was living in to bring it up to a lettable standard. Mr C was finally offered a larger house and the move took place in 2014. Following the move, Mr C was sent a bill for repairs for his previous property and a bill for a further two weeks' rent. The extra rent was because the association had held the rent account open to allow Mr C to carry out the works, although he did not do so.

Mr C complained that the charges for the repairs and rent were unreasonable. Mr C said that during the pre-termination inspection no further repairs were noted. Mr C also said that, although the association had said they wrote to him to tell him of the option to carry out the repairs himself after the tenancy terminated, he never received the letter. When Mr C did see the letter, it did not mention anything about further rent charges.

We found that the association should have completed a pre-termination inspection form, which would have noted all the works that Mr C needed to carry out. The association had not done this and, in the absence of any other evidence, it was clear Mr C was not given a reasonable opportunity to carry out the works himself. We also found that, during the complaints process, the association had altered and reduced charges as Mr C disputed them. We were concerned that they had not checked the evidence available to them before issuing invoices to Mr C. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations.

We also considered it unreasonable to charge Mr C a further two weeks' rent. Regardless of whether or not the letter was received, it did not mention that Mr C would face further rent charges. Therefore, we upheld this complaint and made recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• cancel the outstanding invoices;
• provide feedback to staff regarding the importance of checking evidence available before responding to complaints;
• remind staff of the pre-termination procedure and the importance of thorough record-keeping;
• cancel the additional two weeks' rent charge;
• apologise for the failings identified; and
• reflect on how to inform tenants of possible recharges and further rent charges after termination.

Summary

Ms C complained that when she had taken up her tenancy, her flat had been suffering from water ingress. She said the association had been aware of this problem prior to the allocation of the property. She also complained that although it had been agreed that she should not pay rent until the problem was resolved, she had been forced to pay, with only a small reduction in rent offered by the association. Throughout her tenancy, the association had failed to return her calls and had failed to attend appointments without explanation, causing her inconvenience and unnecessary expense.

Our investigation found the association had responded reasonably to Ms C's complaint of water ingress. There was also no evidence that the association were aware of the problem prior to allocation. We also found there was no evidence of any agreement that Ms C should withhold her rent, or evidence that she had formally informed the association that this was her intention. We did find that the association, whilst acknowledging the poor communication with Ms C, had failed to demonstrate they had taken action to improve their responsiveness to residents, so we upheld Ms C's complaint about their communication.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• provide evidence of the implementation of the association's communications improvement project; and
• apologise to Ms C for the failure to communicate appropriately with her.

Summary

Ms C brought a complaint to us on behalf of Mr A, who had complained to his landlord (the association) that he was experiencing verbal harassment, and racial and homophobic abuse. He said that this had happened on various occasions over several months, and that he did not feel that they had taken sufficient action.

We found that the association had taken steps to address this issue with Mr A's neighbour (who was also their tenant) on each occasion when they considered anti-social behaviour to have occurred. There were some occasions when they did not consider the behaviour could be categorised as anti-social, and we were critical that on these occasions the association did not do enough to inform Mr A why they were unable to take further action. We also noted that, while the association were limited in what action they could take against Mr A's neighbour, they did not do enough to communicate this to Mr A, and explain why. This was in line with what the association's investigation had identified, and we acknowledged that they had made changes to improve communication with tenants in such circumstances.

Mr A also complained that his complaint had not been handled in line with the association's complaints handling procedure. The association had already identified failings in this area, had apologised and had made changes to ensure it did not happen again. We agreed with this assessment.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr A for their lack of timely communication and the impact this had on him.

Summary

Ms C made a request for consideration under the special circumstances clause of the housing association's allocation policy. This was refused but Ms C felt the reason she received for this decision contradicted the wording of the policy. She then made a formal complaint and the association reviewed their decision, but again refused her request. The reason given in the final complaint, which signposted Ms C to the SPSO, was that they felt the points available through this clause would have been excessive in her circumstances. She then complained to us about this decision, and that they had failed to respond fully to her complaint.

The association told us that the clause was intended to be totally discretionary, and that they felt they had acted correctly in exercising this discretion. However, on reviewing the policy, we found that the wording did not grant them the discretion to deem the points to be excessive. We therefore upheld Ms C's complaint, and also found that the association had not responded fully to her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Ms C for the failings identified in this investigation;
• review the wording of the special circumstances clause in their allocation and transfer policy to clarify its intended function;
• reconsider Ms C's application for special circumstances points and provide a response giving detailed reasons for their decision; and
• respond fully to Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that her housing association had failed to process her Right to Buy application properly. As a result, she had been charged four months' rent unnecessarily. The association had offered her a refund of two months' rent, in recognition of the delay in completing the Right to Buy process.

Our investigation found that the delay was due to a problem with the documentation of Ms C's property. This was unforeseeable and could not be attributed to a failure by any party. We also found that the association had kept Ms C's solicitors fully informed of the issue. The association had also suggested a way of mitigating any delays, however, Ms C's solicitors had refused to agree to this, which had extended the process. Ms C's solicitors had accepted the offer of two months' rent in recognition of the delay and it was, therefore, reasonable for the association to consider that Ms C was content with their offer. We found on the basis of the evidence available that the association had acted reasonably, and that there was no basis for Ms C receiving further compensation for the delay she had experienced.

Summary

Miss C said that she and her mother (Mrs C) had lived in their house for more than 35 years but that, in 2012, they began to suffer noise nuisance from their neighbours. Despite complaining at the time and since, they said that no action had been taken. Miss C complained that the housing association's housing officer did little to assist them and also provided misinformation about Mrs C's rehousing prospects. She also complained that no action had been taken on complaints of dampness.

Our investigation showed that Mrs C first raised concerns about noise nuisance in May 2013 but that at that time she did not wish to pursue matters. A few weeks later, as the problem was persisting, the association arranged for Mrs C and her neighbour to enter into mediation but the neighbour subsequently changed her mind. No further reports of noise were made although Miss C expressed herself dissatisfied with the association's actions. In the meantime, in September 2013, Mrs C was awarded medical priority and she was unhappy not to have been rehoused. However, it appeared that the type of property she wanted rarely became available. There were others who had longer-standing priority and her application was being treated in accordance with the association's allocations policy. With regard to outstanding repairs about dampness, this had only been mentioned in November 2014 and the association had responded appropriately. There was no evidence to suggest that the housing officer had acted unreasonably.

Summary

Miss C complained that the association had not communicated with her about her rent arrears. Miss C said that she requested a breakdown of the arrears when she left her tenancy in February 2014 but did not receive one. In July and October 2014 Miss C was sent letters about her arrears. She contacted the association in October but she did not receive a reply to her email. Miss C said she contacted them in December by email as well. Miss C contacted them again in March 2015 and the association sent her a breakdown of the arrears.

The association said they could not find any evidence of an email sent in December. However, they did acknowledge that they had not responded to the October email and apologised for this. They explained that they had changed their procedures to ensure this does not happen again.

We upheld the complaint as the association did not reply to the email that Miss C sent them in October. However, we found no evidence that Miss C had requested a breakdown of the arrears in February or December. In light of the action already taken by the association, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the housing association's invoice for repairs to his former property. The charges related to work done after he had moved out, but Mr C felt he had left the property in a good condition which meant he was not liable for the full amount.

Our role was to consider whether the evidence pointed to maladministration by the association. Our investigation found that, from an administrative perspective, the evidence showed that Mr C was responsible for certain repairs. Either he could carry them out or the association could, and they would charge him. This was detailed in letters they sent him, their tenant handbook and also the relevant policy. They also provided a copy of their inspection worksheet (completed after Mr C left the property) and it reflected the repairs that were ultimately charged for.

Although Mr C disputed the invoice, the evidence available was limited. The paperwork showed the association had taken Mr C's concerns into account and reduced the invoice after he provided evidence that certain issues should not have been charged. However, the remaining evidence, on balance, did not support his claim that the additional charges were incorrect or that there had been maladministration. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the housing association had considered his complaints about anti-social neighbours. He did not think they had taken appropriate steps to investigate his concerns about the noise two separate neighbours were making.

Our role was to consider whether the evidence pointed to maladministration by the association. This meant we compared the steps they had taken against the steps their policy said they should have taken for such matters. However, it was not for us to assess whether, or to what extent, Mr C was suffering from anti-social behaviour.

The evidence indicated that, although Mr C was unhappy, the association had acted in line with their policy. Mr C had wanted noise monitoring equipment to be installed, but the evidence showed they had contacted the council about this on Mr C's behalf. However, the council said it would be their decision – not the association's – as to whether equipment would be installed. We recognised the significance of this matter for Mr C, but we did not consider the evidence showed that the association had not believed Mr C as he had alleged, or that they failed to investigate matters appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint.