Housing Associations

Summary

Ms C complained about the time taken to remedy problems with her heating system. Ms C had experienced a number of problems with her heating system over a period of several months.

We found that some issues, while related to the heating system, were new and distinct from earlier problems and that a number of issues were responded to promptly. However, we also found occasions where engineers failed to attend and repairs took too long. On balance, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

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

• The association should consider if there is anything further they can do, or put in place, to minimise the risk of these problems recurring.

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 complained that the association took an unreasonable amount of time to fix problems she reported about her windows. After Ms C reported an issue, the association attended a number of times, with the contractor, over the next 11  months.

We found that there was poor communication with Ms C about what progress was being made to remedy problems with the windows. Ms C had to chase up responses and at the point of reaching a decision on her complaint, there was still disagreement about whether the windows had been fixed properly. Therefore, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Ms C for taking an unreasonable amount of time to remedy problems she reported with her windows. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.
• Arrange for a suitably qualified person (independent of the contractor) to attend to assess the windows and for any remedial action required to be promptly taken.

Summary

Mr C complained that the association had responded unreasonably to his complaints of anti-social behaviour and his request to move home in response to this.

We found that the association had not followed procedures as set out in their anti-social behaviour and allocation policies. In relation to the complaints of anti-social behaviour, we found that timescales were not met, there was no evidence that Mr C was supported or a resolution sought and Mr C was not communicated with reasonably. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

The association failed to respond reasonably to Mr C's request to move home. It was found that Mr C was not informed of the outcome of his request to move, there was no evidence that the request was discussed with the Area Housing Manager or Area Director as was procedure, or that Mr C was notified of the decision to refuse his request. Therefore, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not following the Anti-Social Behaviour policy and the Management Transfer process, including not informing him of their decision in regard to his management transfer request. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• The association should follow the relevant procedure when responding to reports of anti-social behaviour.
• The association should follow process when responding to requests for a management transfer.

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 about the lack of response from his housing association to concerns he raised that second hand smoke from a neighbouring property was entering his home. Mr C was unhappy that the issue had been ongoing for over a year without any action being taken against his neighbour. The association advised that they had attended Mr C's property, met with his neighbour, arranged for the local authority's environmental health services to conduct an inspection and hired a private company to conduct a further inspection. The association advised that none of these actions had been able to provide evidence to support Mr C's complaint about noxious fumes in the property.

We found that the association responded appropriately to Mr C's initial complaint about the fumes. We noted that following this, Mr C had identified that the fumes were strongest during the evening and through the night and, therefore, any daytime inspections are unlikely to find evidence as the odours will have dispersed. We found that it took the association a further seven months before an inspection of the property was arranged and a further five months before the environmental health service attended the property at night. The findings of the night inspection were that no fumes were observed and the matter was considered closed. We accepted that the investigation had been unable to find evidence to support Mr C's complaint of noxious smells. However, we considered that the inspection should have been carried out much sooner. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to inspect his property sooner and for the additional stress this caused him. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leafletsand-guidance.

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

• Review existing procedures to determine if more clarity should be included (e.g. in correspondence sent to tenants) to explain how an issue is being treated (i.e. a repair, anti-social behaviour, general enquiry).

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 association did not respond within a reasonable timescale to his reports of water ingress in his home.

We found that the association's repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be responded to within four hours, urgent repairs within three working days and routine repairs within 20 working days. The association provided no evidence to support how Mr C's reports were categorised, however, it took two months for investigations to be carried out to Mr C's reports of a fault, outwith all timescales. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for not responding to his reports of a fault with the roof within a reasonable timescale. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• Ensure processes are followed to respond to reports of a fault.
• Ensure repairs are categorised as either emergency, urgent or routine.

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

Miss C is a housing association tenant. There was a serious fire at her property a few years ago and the repairs and refurbishment took some months. When she returned to the property she made complaints about various aspects of the repairs and refurbishment. The association accepted that windows had been incorrectly installed without vents and rectified this. A year later, Miss C experienced electrical issues and raised these with the association. They were resolved but Miss C complained about the time that it had taken to do this. She was also dissatisfied with the association's responses to her reports of electrical problems and brought her complaints to us.

We found that the association had reasonably repaired and refurbished her property and that she had been aware that some windows still had to be replaced when she decided to move back in to the property. We found no evidence to support Miss C's views that she had been promised the radiators would be replaced or that the radiators and walls had not been properly cleaned. We also found that the association had acted reasonably in responding to her reports of electrical problems. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the advisory disabled parking spaces outside the multi-story flat where he lived, were repeatedly impeded by other cars that were parked inappropriately. Mr C was unhappy as he was unable to get in and out of the spaces freely and he believed that his housing association were not doing enough to ensure that they were making reasonable adjustments for his disability. He also stated that inappropriate parking was a breach of the tenancy agreement.

The association responded by stating that the spaces were only advisory and, therefore, they did not have enforcement powers due to the spaces being on land privately owned by them. They made enquiries to the council about obtaining a traffic regulation order, which would allow them to take appropriate enforcement action. They explained that this would involve a long consultation process and at a significant cost to the association and, therefore, they were still in the process of considering this matter going forward. In the meantime, they advised that residents had been lettered highlighting that the spaces in question were to be kept for blue badge holders and that people should park courteously. They also asked concierge staff to monitor the situation and ask people if they would move.

Mr C felt that the matter was still ongoing and brought his complaint to us. He was concerned that the association were not taking all the action available to them. We acknowledged that the association did not have legal powers to enforce the spaces. However, we noted that the association's litigation team had accepted that people subject to the tenancy agreement were breaching its terms by parking inappropriately, that they could be advised of this breach and that further action may be forthcoming. We found that a reasonable adjustment by the association would be to require people to move their cars and take appropriate follow-up action. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for the distress and inconvenience he experienced with regards to parking problems. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at https://www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

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

• The association should revisit their responsibilities in making reasonable adjustments under the Equalities Act 2010 and take action to ensure disabled parking spaces are free from obstruction from inconsiderate parking.

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.