Housing Associations

Summary

Miss C complained that the association failed to respond reasonably to her reports of the anti-social behaviour of other tenants, including regarding communal areas, and failed to reasonably deal with her subsequent complaint.

We found that the association took appropriate action to investigate and respond to the concerns Miss C raised about anti-social behaviour, including issuing written warnings where corroboration was available. We were satisfied that they acted in accordance with their procedures, and we did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

However, we upheld Miss C's complaint about the way her subsequent complaint was dealt with by the association. This is because they failed to respond within the required timescale, an extension was not agreed, and the complaint was not escalated appropriately, in accordance with the requirements of their complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• clarify in their policies and procedures the responsibilities of the organisation as regards the maintenance of communal areas; and
• remind relevant staff of the requirements of the complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint against his housing association as he had ongoing problems with damp and water penetration in his property. He first raised a repair request on this matter over two years prior to bringing the case to us. He was of the view that the property needed re-roughcast and re-rendered to resolve the issues. He was not satisfied with the action taken by the association and the length of time it had taken to resolve this issue.

The association apologised for the delay, although they stated that they had completed repairs as requested, in good faith. Part of their investigation uncovered that a redundant chimney stack was the main cause of water ingress in the property. After some further repairs and inspections the association arranged for the chimney stack to be removed. They also apologised to Mr C for the delay and offered compensation, which was declined.

We investigated the case and obtained information from the association. We assessed their response to Mr C's repair requests against their repairs policy and noted that on several occasions repairs were not completed within the set timescales. We also noted that there did not seem to be any measure in place to ensure that repair targets had been met. Mr C was looking for his property to be re-roughcast and the association had said that his house was identified as a property that was due for this type of work but that it was assessed as not being high priority. Given the missed timescales for individual repairs and the overall length of time taken to resolve the problem, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• ensure that they adhere to the deadlines for repairs as laid out in their repairs and maintenance policy;
• ensure staff check that repairs have been completed within an appropriate timescale; and
• conduct a further survey of Mr C's property to assess the current condition of the roughcast and rendering and to determine what priority rating is currently appropriate.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Mrs A) that the housing association discriminated against her when awarding her housing allocations points.

One of Mrs A's sons has autism and Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) said it would be beneficial for him to have his own room and access to a secure garden. Mrs A subsequently made an application to the association which was assessed and awarded ten overcrowding points. Mrs A asked for this to be reviewed as her son was disabled but was told that as her son had no accessibility issues he had not been awarded any points in recognition of this. In terms of the association's policy, she appealed further and was awarded points for overcrowding, the lack of a garden and for children living in flats and 30 Family and Social Points (these were based on the amount of support needed by Mrs A's son). The association explained that the maximum points for someone with accessibility issues was 100, whereas the maximum level of points for someone with a disability without accessibility problems was 90 points. The association said that this was to ensure that ground floor accommodation was retained for physically disabled people whereas other disabled people were not restricted to any type of accommodation.

Mr C said that this practice was unfair and Mrs A's application had not been reasonably assessed.

We took independent advice from an equalities adviser and found the association's housing allocations policy was not unfair or discriminatory. Mrs A's application had been assessed correctly in terms of the association's current policy. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Miss C said that the housing association failed to take reasonable action when she reported nuisance and anti-social behaviour by her neighbour. Miss C also said that the association failed to provide reasonable responses to her complaints and other correspondence.

We upheld Miss C's complaints. We found that the association took steps in line with their procedures by making contact with Miss C and her neighbour. When Miss C further complained to the association, they noted that not enough had been done to investigate Miss C's concerns, and undertook to investigate further. However, we found no evidence of any further investigation having been carried out or of further action taken.

We found faults in respect of the handling and defining of Miss C's complaints, including recording these. We also found that some responses to Miss C lacked sufficient detail.

However, we noted that the association did in general communicate according to Miss C's preferences. The association found that they were unable to dedicate staff time to the detail of Miss C's replies to their communications. We found this to have been reasonable as the association was entitled to manage their own staff resources in providing a service.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for a failure to adequately recognise and investigate complaints about the operation of a business, anti-social behaviour and sub-letting; and
• take steps to ensure staff are aware of the definitions of stage 1 and stage 2 complaints and the need to record and investigate these properly.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Mrs A) that the housing association failed to take reasonable action to address the anti-social behaviour of Mrs A's neighbour. Mr C said that as a consequence Mrs A been left distressed and upset.

We found that in dealing with Mrs A's case, the association had followed their own policies and the advice of their solicitors. A legal process was entered and this was lengthy. However, as this was not within the control of the association, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C contacted the housing association regarding the behaviour of his neighbour, who was their tenant. He said that a number of incidents had caused him and his wife to become stressed and upset. A few months later, he raised a formal complaint with the association expressing his unhappiness at what he considered to be their lack of action. However, the association replied to the effect that they were actively seeking an anti-social behaviour order against the neighbour but that the legal process involved was a lengthy one.

Mr C said that he wanted the tenant evicted but that the association had so far failed to take reasonable action.

We found that the association had responded promptly to Mr C's concerns about his neighbour and that legal proceedings were underway.

Taking the association's actions into account, we found that they acted reasonably in the circumstances and that the length of time taken for the legal proceedings to progress is outwith the association's control. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the housing association failed to reasonably investigate and respond to complaints she raised about her exclusion from a communal area within the residential development in which she lived.

We found evidence that the association carried out a suitable investigation after Mrs C complained about the decision. We found the association had taken sensible and sensitive steps to bring about a resolution. We did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association failed to respond appropriately to his reports of problems with his boiler and then also failed to make reasonable arrangements to address water damage caused to his laminate flooring from a leak from his heating system. He was also unhappy with the way the association then dealt with his subsequent complaint.

We found that the association properly categorised Mr C's repair requests and attended within the required timeframe. We noted that any damage to Mr C's flooring was something he should raise with his insurer but that, in this case, Mr C was offered a small goodwill payment by the association's contractor, in relation to which we have made a recommendation. We were satisfied that the association acted in accordance with their procedures and we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint.

However, we did uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the association dealt with his subsequent complaint. This is because they failed to contact Mr C at an early stage to discuss his concerns with him, and also failed to provide him with a reasonable explanation for their decision.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr C for failing to provide a full and detailed response to his complaint; and
• contact their contractor and ask them to reaffirm their offer of a goodwill payment.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association were unreasonably seeking to recover monies from him following his termination of the tenancy. The association were claiming monies to carry out repairs to the property and to redecorate. In addition, they had applied charges for cleaning both the inside of the property and the garden. Mr C was also unhappy that the association had not refunded rent he paid in advance at the commencement of his tenancy.

The association had explained that when Mr C terminated his tenancy, they had inspected the property and noted that he had not cleared the property, as he was required to do, that a number of doors needed replacing and that the entire property required redecoration. As Mr C was required to leave the property in reasonable condition at the end of his tenancy, the association were seeking to charge the costs of these repairs to him. They also advised that they did not intend refunding any rent to him.

We noted that the property was in a very poor condition when Mr C departed. We noted that he had accepted that the property was in a good condition when he took on the tenancy and we also considered Mr C's responsibility, under the tenancy agreement, to ensure that the property was in a reasonable condition when the tenancy was terminated. We were satisfied, on the basis of the evidence, that he had left the property in a poor condition and that the association were entitled to seek to recover these reasonable costs from him. We also noted that there was a credit balance on his rent account but that the association intended to apply this to the outstanding charges. As we were satisfied that the association had acted reasonably in attending to this matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the housing association as they had refused to repair her broken shower. The association advised that it was not within their responsibility to repair under the terms of her tenancy agreement. However, Mrs C provided a copy of her tenancy agreement, which clearly stated that the association would be responsible for such repairs.

Following our enquiries to the association, they accepted that there had been some confusion about their responsibilities as Mrs C's tenancy agreement pre-dated the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001, when the association had introduced a new tenancy agreement with slightly altered repairs responsibilities. They accepted that they were responsible for the repairs, offered Mrs C a payment of £30 in recognition for the inconvenience she had suffered, and explained steps they intended to take to ensure staff were trained to avoid similar mistakes in future.

Mrs C was satisfied that this represented a reasonable resolution to her complaint, as were we. As such, we decided that no further action was necessary.