Housing Associations

Summary

Ms C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of a tenant of the housing association (Mrs A). She said that the association had failed to take action to resolve problems with the sewerage and septic tank that Mrs A shared with three other properties, two of which were privately owned.

Our investigation found that the association had obtained professional advice on the matter. They considered that major renovation work was necessary to improve the sewerage system and septic tank, but this would require the consent of Mrs A's neighbours. The neighbours refused to agree and so the association were unable to arrange for the work to be carried out.

Ms C also complained that the association had blamed Mrs A for the problem by referring to the disposal of inappropriate items. We found that the association had evidence to show that some of the problems might have been caused by inappropriate use of the system. In response to this, they gave advice to all residents about how the system could be better used. We considered that it was appropriate for the association to tell residents about this. This position was supported by the council's area environmental health manager, who considered that the system could be managed by careful use and regular flushing.

Ms C's final complaint was about the association's failure to adequately respond to Mrs A's complaint. We found that the association's response did not confirm that it was a response to the complaint or how Mrs A could take the matter further. We also found that they had delayed in taking some of the action they said they would take, and had failed to keep Mrs A updated. Our investigation found that the association's letter was not an adequate response to Mrs A's complaint, therefore, we upheld this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• remind staff that responses to complaints should include information about how the complainant can pursue the matter should they remain dissatisfied; and where appropriate, complainants should be kept informed of the progress in relation to a matter; and
• issue an apology to Mrs A for their failure to adequately respond to her stage one complaint.

Summary

Ms C lives in a block of four flats managed by the association. She and other tenants raised a number of complaints about the level of sound insulation between upper and lower properties. Although Ms C had raised concerns about the sound insulation since the properties were built in 2007, she told us that it took four years before any action was taken. The association agreed to lay an additional soundproofing layer between the properties, but Ms C complained that this was ineffective as it was laid incorrectly. After pursuing her complaint with the association's management committee, Ms C found that, although they accepted that noise levels were excessive, they would not spend the money required to resolve the situation.

We found that the association took too long to begin investigations into the cause of the poor sound insulation. Once these started, they were actively progressed, but we found that the association took too long to address the problem. We were, however, satisfied that the association listened to Ms C's complaints that the new sound-proof flooring was laid incorrectly. They were able to demonstrate that it had been laid in line with the manufacturer's guidelines. We found no evidence to suggest that their management committee found the noise levels at the flat to be excessive and were satisfied that they only decided not to carry out further remedial works after carefully considering a range of relevant information from a number of sources.

We upheld Ms C's complaint that, after an appeal panel hearing, the association's director failed to comply with the chairman's request to meet with tenants to discuss what other options might exist to help improve or solve the matter.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Ms C for the failures identified by our investigation.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that they were unreasonably held liable for a month's rent by a housing association because they did not give the required notice of their intention to leave the property. They said that they gave notice to leave by handing in a letter to the association's reception desk. They also complained that the association failed to tell them about arrears about which they were eventually made aware by a third party.

The association said they had no record of receiving a letter. Mr and Mrs C provided us with a copy of the letter they said they handed over, but had no receipt to show that it had been delivered or accepted. The member of staff to whom Mr and Mrs C said they gave the letter could not remember receiving it. Mr and Mrs C also said that staff knew they were leaving but the information gathered during the investigation of the complaint indicated that the association were not aware of Mr and Mrs C's intention to leave until the day they handed in their keys.

There were differing accounts of what happened, and we could only use the available evidence to reach our decision. Although, therefore, we did not disbelieve Mr and Mrs C's account of events, as there was no independent evidence to support their position we could not uphold their complaint. We also found that the association acted in line with their policy and procedures.

Summary

Mr C, who is a councillor, wrote to the housing partnership on behalf of a tenant (Mr A) who was unhappy with their handling of his complaint about the way he was treated by a staff member. Mr C complained that he was given inaccurate information about the partnership's complaints procedure and had wrongly been told that there were no further stages through which to pursue his complaint.

Our investigation found that the partnership had not handled Mr C's complaint in line with their complaints policy. The policy says that service users have a right to complain about the behaviour of staff members if they consider the behaviour to be unacceptable. The policy also sets out the three stages of the complaints process, which end in referral to our office.

During our investigation, the chief executive of the partnership wrote and apologised to Mr C. She explained that she had decided that his complaint would not be handled under their complaints policy, and acknowledged that he should have been told that. She also agreed that the complaint should have been handled in line with the complaints policy, in which case he would have been able to come to us if he remained dissatisfied with the partnership's final response. She apologised for these failings. We, therefore, upheld the complaint but did not make any recommendations because of the action that the partnership had already taken.

Summary

Mrs C complained. She said that her husband (Mr C) was in poor health, and they had been on the transfer list for a new property for two years. Initially the housing association had awarded Mr C medical points, and they were listed for houses, bungalows and ground floor flats. However, the housing association then removed Mr C's medical points, which meant they could only be allocated ground floor flats or bungalows. Mrs C complained that this was unreasonable, and explained that Mr C's GP had provided medical evidence that he should not be housed in another flat due to the impact of noise levels upon him. However, as Mrs C then withdrew her complaint to us, we did not reach a decision on it.

Summary

Mrs C said she had applied to the association for permission to erect a suitable shelter or shed for her mobility scooter and later decided that a shed would be more suitable. She said that all the sites the association suggested were not suitable. The association, however, said that her preferred location was not possible as there was a communal access path leading to the rear of the terrace of houses at that point. Mrs C was also unhappy about the outcome of a tenants' meeting held by the association to discuss the matter of private rear gardens. She also said the association had ignored their own complaints process in dealing with her complaint and delayed in responding to her.

We found that the association had properly considered all the circumstances and Mrs C's views on the location of the shed and put forward two options that they considered would satisfy both Mrs C and all their current and future tenants. With reference to the tenants' meeting we found that the association had acted correctly in this matter. During our consideration of Mrs C's complaint the association acknowledged that they had not fully complied with their complaints policy. We, therefore, did not uphold Mrs C's complaints about the location of the shed or the outcome of the tenants' meeting but did uphold her complaint about the way the association had dealt with her complaint to them.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for their failure to deal with the complaint in line with their complaints policy.

Summary

Following a complaint from a member of staff, the housing co-operative served a notice of proceedings against tenants Mr and Mrs C. This notice was cancelled when Mr and Mrs C appealed, as the appeal panel said the notice was too harsh.

Mr and Mrs C then complained that the co-operative had not followed their procedures when deciding to issue the notice, that there was no apology for their actions; and they did not give proper notice when they wrote to Mr and Mrs C requesting them to attend the meeting to discuss the matter.

We found that the co-operative did not follow its own procedures and did not apologise, so we upheld these complaints. We also found that the procedures and guidance provided, in relation to how policies should be implemented, were unclear. We did not uphold the complaint about not receiving proper notice of the meeting as we found that enough information was supplied to make Mr and Mrs C aware of the circumstances.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified; and
• consider conducting a review of the procedures in place that support the implementation of their antisocial behaviour and harassment policy and dignity at work policy, to ensure clarity and consistency in their application.

Summary

Mr C owns one-third of a house occupied by his mother (Mrs B). The association notified him that they had awarded his mother a grant for adaptations to the house and they were assisting her with the work. They asked for his consent to a number of conditions attached to the work. Mr C replied with a number of questions about the work, and said he was withholding his consent until they were answered.

On the advice of the local council, the association proceeded with the work with only the consent of the other two owners. Mr C considered that the association should not have continued with the work without his consent and should have communicated with him better. He also thought that the association misrepresented his position to the council.

Our investigation found that although it was the council's decision to proceed with the work, the association had failed to properly communicate with Mr C. They had also failed to properly progress his initial complaint. However, as the association had already addressed these matters in the complaint correspondence, we made no recommendations about this. We did not find that they had misrepresented his position, particularly as we noted that the council also had access to a note from Mr C explaining his views.

Summary

Following the end of his tenancy, Mr C wrote to the housing association to complain about being charged for necessary repairs after he vacated the property. He also wanted to claim compensation for damage to his personal property, which was caused by a flood. The association investigated Mr C's complaints and agreed to write off the charges for the repairs, but did not offer compensation for the damage to personal property.

Mr C brought his complaint to us because he was dissatisfied with how it was handled. He said that a complaints committee meeting was held at a time he could not attend; that all the available information was not taken into account; and that the association had refused to return documents to him.

We did not uphold any of these complaints. Our investigation found that Mr C was not required to attend the committee meeting and that he was not invited. The association were free to make this decision as was clearly stated within their policy. We also found that the committee had extensive information available to them, and the minutes of the meeting showed that it had been considered. There was no evidence to suggest that documents had not been returned as requested.

Summary
Mrs C was unhappy that the housing association did not make tenants keep their bins in the designated area at the side of a block of flats and instead allowed them to keep them at the entrance. She said that there was often litter strewn over the path and road and it was unsightly, smelly and offensive. We initially found that her complaint had come to us too early, as she had not completed the housing association’s full complaints process.

When Mrs C brought her complaint back to us having completed the complaints process she raised a number of issues about this, and about how the association had handled her complaint. We did not uphold her complaints as there was no evidence of service failure or maladministration. Mrs C simply disagreed with the housing association's decision.