Housing Associations

Summary

Mr C complained that the association did not respond reasonably to his requests for repairs to his heating system. Mr C reported the failure of his heating system and the association considered several options including repairing the existing system, replacing it with a new system and disposing of the property altogether. The results of an inspection recommended that the system be replaced. This same recommendation had also been made the previous year, before Mr C had made his complaint. The association replaced the heating system seven months after Mr C made the complaint and responded to his complaint a couple of months after the matter was resolved. Mr C was unhappy with this response and brought his complaint to us.

We found that the association took longer than was reasonable to repair Mr C's heating, did not communicate effectively during this period and did not respond to Mr C in line with their complaints procedure. We upheld Mr C's complaint. However, we noted that the association made offers to Mr C that were roughly equivalent to his rent liability for the period he was without heating.

Recommendations

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

• Consideration should be given to whether the association effectively co- ordinate and monitor the progress of repairs. This consideration should include the allocation of responsibility for completion of repairs, the assessment of the history of the property, the severity of the required repair, the timescale for completion, and the managing of customer expectations.
• Consider whether it would be more efficient and effective to use only one contact record system.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Remind all complaints handling staff of the requirement to respond to complaints in line with the Customer Contact, Complaints Handling and Compensation – Scotland Procedure.

Summary

Miss C complained about the way that the housing association handled her application to transfer to another property. She also complained that the association failed to take appropriate action in response to her reports of mice in her home.

We found that the association had reasonably followed their allocations policy and had used their discretion appropriately, taking into account the demand for available housing. We did not uphold this part of Miss C's complaint.

Regarding the mice in Miss C's property, we found that the association had liaised with the council's environmental health team to resolve the infestation, and that they had taken repair action to fill gaps as requested. We considered that they had responded reasonably, and we did not uphold this part of Miss C's complaint. However, we found that the association had misinterpreted advice that was given to them by the council's environmental health team, which influenced policy changes to remove the need for a case by case assessment of habitability in cases of mouse infestation. We, therefore, recommended that they revisit these changes to ensure that they are appropriate.

Recommendations

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

• Any report of mouse infestation should be individually assessed to ensure the property remains habitable whilst the problem is addressed.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the housing association unreasonably failed to inform her of future service change when they offered her a tenancy. Mrs C signed a tenancy agreement for sheltered accommodation run by the association. Shortly after moving into the accommodation she was advised that the service provision was likely to change due to changes to funding provided by the local council. Mrs C complained that the association was aware of this change when she was offered her tenancy agreement.

We found that the change to funding provision was confirmed three working days before the offer of tenancy was made to Mrs C. A plan on how to communicate the new circumstances was agreed on the same day the offer of tenancy was made. Mrs C signed the tenancy agreement two days later. Given the short timeframe between the confirmation of change of funding, the initially unknown impact on what the future service provision would look like, and the need for the association to communicate the change to staff before tenants and prospective tenants, we found that the actions of the association were reasonable. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint. We noted that, in recognition of the upset the situation had caused, the association had agreed to make a donation to a charity of Mrs C's choice.

Mrs C also complained that a letter addressed to her was unreasonably opened by a member of staff. In their response to the complaint the association advised that, as they did not have evidence that the letter was addressed specifically to Mrs C, they could not uphold the complaint. In the course of our investigation a copy of the letter was provided which showed that it was addressed specifically to Mrs C. We upheld the complaint, though as the association had already revised their decision, upheld the complaint and apologised, we made no further recommendations.

.

Summary

Mrs C complained that she had been experiencing issues with the heating system in her home for a considerable length of time and that the actions taken by the housing association to resolve the situation were inadequate. Mrs C complained to the association on four occasions in a two year period as at times the heating system was not providing hot water or heating, or at other times was providing uncontrollable heat. The association responded within timescales to her reports of faults, however the repairs carried out did not resolve the issues. Mrs C's final complaint was escalated to senior management and the entire heating system was replaced. The association acknowledged that it had taken too long to fix the problem and upheld her complaint. Mrs C remained dissatisfied and brought her complaint to us.

Whilst we acknowledged that there were elements of the response to the faults that were outwith the association's control, we considered that the responsibility for managing the issues and co-ordinating a response ultimately lay with the association. We acknowledged that during the process the association had provided good customer service; providing an alternative heating supply, installing an electric shower, offering a good will payment and reimbursing Mrs C for her extra energy costs. However, on balance, we upheld this part of the complaint as we found that it had taken the association too long on the whole to fix the problem.

Mrs C also complained about the response she had received from the association to her complaints. We found that the association had provided a reasonable explanation regarding the actions taken to resolve the heating system issues, mitigated the financial impact of the problem and apologised to Mrs C. We did note that the association failed to signpost Mrs C to the next stage of the complaints process on a number of occassions. However, on balance, we did not uphold this part of Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

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

• Update their repairs policy to have a process for considering escalating repairs where issues have recurred three times or more.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Provide information about how to escalate complaints at the end of every complaint response and stage.

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 housing association had failed to take adequate steps to address cold and damp in her property. She also said that they had failed to handle an insurance claim properly and that they had not responded to her complaints approriately.

We found that Mrs C wanted us to investigate issues with the association dating back a number of years and it was explained to her that this was not possible. We found that Ms C's latest complaint had been responded to fully and timeously, including a meeting with the association's Depute Director. Some of the issues Ms C was raising pre-dated the introduction of the model complaints handling procedure, and the association were able to evidence that their practice and policy had changed substantially in this regard. The association acknowledged delays in the handling of Ms C's insurance claim, however, they were able to show that these were down to failings on the part of the insurance company and the length of time which had passed before Ms C made the claim. The investigation showed that the association had pursued the claim diligently, including raising formal complaints about the delay. Overall we found the association had acted reasonably. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the housing association failed to complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe.

Ms C was required to move to allow the repairs to be actioned, but did not believe that the association were following their decant policy correctly as she was on the waiting list for a bigger property, but they were going to decant her to one the same size as her current home.

The main outcome she was seeking was to be moved to a new property, which she was aware was about to be let. We agreed to investigate Ms C's complaints and notified the association. Their reply included confirmation that Ms C had bid for the property she wanted to move to and had been successful, with a move in date having been set. We attempted to contact Ms C to confirm if this fully resolved her complaint, but could not make contact with her despite several attempts by phone. We contacted her by email with a deadline for response. As we did not hear back from Ms C, we closed the complaint as resolved.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the association about problems with insects in her home and the water quality, after it was confirmed by the provider that there were high levels of lead in the water. The association responded to the complaint about insects by instructing specialists, who reported that there was no infestation but carried out preventative treatments. With respect to water quality, the association said that they checked internal pipework and confirmed there was no lead present. They also contacted the water provider and, following a re-test of the water supply, it was confirmed that the levels of lead were now at safe levels. The association considered that there was nothing else they could do on the matter. Mrs C was unhappy with this response and brought her complaint to us.

We found that the association had acted reasonably in instructing proper inspections of her property which confirmed that there was no insect infestation. There was a delay with respect to organising preventative treatments, however, these were not the fault of the association. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

In relation to the problems with respect to the water quality, the association had taken appropriate steps to liaise with the water provider and had undertaken checks with respect to the pipework which was their responsibility. The association made reasonable enquiries with respect to the cause of the initial high lead readings and acted on the advice of the water provider. We found the actions of the association were reasonable and did not uphold this aspect of Mrs  C's complaint.

Mrs C also complained about how the associaton handled her complaint. We found that there had been a small delay in responding to her complaint, however, the association's reponse provided a detailed account of the actions they were taking to understand and address the complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about the service he received from his housing association. He had experienced ongoing issues with his sleep and mental health as a result of noise generated by an extractor fan in the bathroom of the property below him. The property below was privately owned and rented out to tenants. Mr C complained that the housing association unreasonably declined to take appropriate action to address the noise and that the service provided by the association deteriorated after he disclosed his mental health issues to them.

We found that the association liaised with Mr C, the property's owner and the council's noise and environmental health teams to try and reach a solution. The setting of the extractor fan was adjusted but Mr C said that the noise was still impacting on him. The owner of the flat below decided not to allow any further access to the property as the council's environmental team found no issues with the fan. The association no longer had access to the flat below and stated that there was no further action that they could carry out. We considered that the association had taken reasonable steps to resolve the situation and that the owner of the flat below was within their rights to deny access. We also noted that the association's property maintenance manager had inspected the ventilation system and found no faults. Therefore, we considered that the housing association had acted reasonably and did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

In relation to the service provided by the association, we found no evidence to suggest that the service had deteriorated after Mr C disclosed his mental health issues. We did not uphold this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained on behalf of her late mother (Ms A) that the housing association failed to take reasonable action or provide an appropriate level of support in response to reports of anti-social behaviour. Ms A had made a number of complaints about anti-social noise caused by her upstairs neighbour. The association issued a warning to the neighbour after one report but did not take any further action following others. Mrs C felt that the association's lack of action in response to anti-social behaviour caused Ms A to complete suicide.

We found that the association had taken action against the neighbour on the one occasion that they had evidence of anti-social behaviour occurring. Given the type of anti-social behaviour, we considered that an initial warning was appropriate and in line with the housing association's internal policies. The association attempted to corroborate other reports of anti-social behaviour but were unable to do so. Therefore, we considered that it would not have been appropriate for them to take further action on these occasions. We also noted that the reports of anti-social behaviour increased within a relatively short timeframe and we found no evidence to suggest that the housing association would not have escalated the measures taken and offered further support had the incidents continued. We considered that the housing association had acted reasonably and in line with relevant procedures. Therefore, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about how the housing association had dealt with her reports of anti-social behaviour and that there had been failures in their communication with her.

We found that, although the association were unable to share the details of the actions they had taken when Mrs C reported anti-social behaviour, they had followed their anti-social behaviour policy and taken appropriate action. We did not uphold this aspect of complaint.

The association acknowledged occasions when their communication was poor and apologised for this. We upheld this aspect of the complaint but did not make any recommendations.