Body:Linstone Housing Association Ltd
Outcome:Not upheld, no recommendations
Subject:repairs and maintenance
Ms C, who is an advocacy worker, complained on behalf of her client (Ms A) that the housing association failed to adequately respond to Ms A's concerns that her flat was not secure.
Ms A said that she had phoned the association in January 2014 to ask them for repairs to be carried out to her windows but they did not respond. In early July 2014, Ms A was taken into hospital where she stayed for a number of months. She said despite immediately raising her concerns about the security of her windows with a member of the association's staff, nothing was done. It was not until later in July 2014 that the association responded to a phone call and secured the windows from the outside. A few weeks later, the flat was broken into and some of Ms A's property was stolen.
We investigated the complaint, and considered evidence from the association and from Ms A. This confirmed that Ms A had made a phone call in January 2014 to the association. However, the problem reported by Ms A and dealt with by the association had not been about her windows. Similarly, we found that although Ms A said she had reported a problem with her windows (which she said could not be closed) as soon as she was admitted to hospital, the conversation with the member of staff was noted in the association's records as being in August 2014. The evidence confirmed that as soon as she reported that her windows were faulty at the end of July 2014, staff attended and made the premises as secure as possible. Ms A believed that the association should have accepted a key from her and boarded the windows from the inside, but this was not their practice from a security point of view. The association considered that boarding the windows from the outside was a reasonable response to her concerns.
Our investigation found that as soon as Ms A contacted the association about her windows at the end of July 2014, they responded immediately taking appropriate and reasonable action, so we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.