Housing Associations

Summary

C complained about how the association had responded to reports of antisocial behaviour and remained dissatisfied at the conclusion of the association's complaint procedure. C sought an acknowledgement of failings, an apology and steps to be taken to ensure the association's handling of reports of antisocial behaviour was improved.

The association agreed to provide an acknowledgement and apology and had undertaken action to improve their handling of reports of antisocial behaviour. Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved.

Summary

C complained about the condition of their adult child (A)'s property. C said that the house was impossible to heat, and constantly cold and damp. Following our decision to move the case to investigation, the association offered A a new flat. C was happy with this outcome and we closed the complaint as resolved.

Summary

C complained that the association did not reasonably address reports of antisocial behaviour. C is the Chief Executive of a charity who owns a property in a block where other properties are owned by the association. The charity's tenant complained of antisocial behaviour from one of their neighbours and the charity reported this to the association. A few weeks later, C complained that these reports of antisocial behaviour had not been addressed. C did not receive a response until they followed it up some months later. The association explained that they considered their policies and procedures had been followed. C was dissatisfied and raised their complaints with SPSO.

We found that the association did not progress the reports of antisocial behaviour in line with their antisocial behaviour procedure. They did not update C regarding the situation and did not advise C when the case was closed. We found that the association did not keep full and accurate records of telephone calls and verbal discussions regarding an investigation which contributed to the association making an inaccurate statement to the charity. The association also failed to update the relevant recording system in relation to a report of antisocial behaviour, failed to categorise the report or to consider whether the report was substantiated as the antisocial behaviour procedure required.

We found that the association did not recognise some of their failures when investigating and responding to C’s complaint. Therefore, they missed the opportunity to take steps to ensure that there could be no recurrence of this at a time when this could have been effective for A and the other residents at the property. We upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to the charity and, via the charity, their residents that that they did not take reasonable action in response to reports of antisocial behaviour. The apologies should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

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

• The association should follow their antisocial behaviour procedure in responding to reports of antisocial behaviour.

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

C complained that the association did not respond reasonably to their requests for repairs. After an initial acknowledgement of C’s concerns there were periods over the following months where the association did not respond or follow up on the matters that C had raised.

We found that in some cases the association exceeded their stated timescale for repairs and did not advise C of the delays or respond to their enquiries. We upheld this part of C's complaint.

C also complained that a response from the association incorrectly stated that a contractor's report regarding leaks at C's property noted that "any leaks were likely caused by installations made by C".

We found that there was no firm, supportable evidence of what the contractor reported to the association. The association acknowledged that this information was received during undocumented, informal discussions. We found that it was unreasonable to describe information given in undocumented, informal discussions with a contractor as being information that ‘the contractor’s report notes’. This form of words suggests a contemporary written report, either directly from the contractor or a record of a discussion verified as accurate by the contractor. We upheld this part of C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C that they did not respond reasonably to C’s requests for repairs and that they made an inaccurate statement about a contractor’s report in their response to C’s complaint. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

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

• The association should respond to requests for repairs, and importantly record information regarding these, in line with their Repairs and Maintenance Policy.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The association’s complaint responses should be accurate. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.

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

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) who is a tenant of the housing association. C complained that the association did not undertake roughcast render works at A’s property within a reasonable timescale. A was concerned about the condition of the roughcast render at their property after some had fallen. An inspection carried out found that repairs were required.

Over six months later, no work had been undertaken and more roughcast render fell from the property. A complained to the association about the length of time it had taken for the roughcast render works to be undertaken. The complaint was upheld and the association said they were in the process of procuring a contractor which they estimated would take four to six weeks.

When this time had elapsed, C escalated A's complaint with the association to stage 2 of their complaints procedure. The association reiterated their previous apology and that they were in the process of appointing an alternative contractor. The association said that they hoped works could begin within a month and that dampness and mould would be treated once those works had been completed. They said that they would provide an update when the programme of works was ready to commence. C was unhappy with this response and raised their complaint with this office.

We found no evidence of a proper assessment of the scale of the required works until approximately five months after the need for repairs was confirmed. We also found no evidence of the association taking action to appoint a contractor until more than six weeks after their stage 2 response to C. The association did not assess the urgency of the required works, nor did it consider how failing to undertake them had impacted, or could impact, A’s living conditions. There was also no evidence of structured or consistent action being taken to progress the matter. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to A that they did not did not take reasonable steps to have roughcast render works progressed and completed at A’s property within a reasonable timescale. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.
• The association should contact C to ensure any outstanding roughcast render and associated works repairs are completed within a reasonable timescale, and that the progress of these are reasonably monitored.

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

• The association carry out repairs within a reasonable period of becoming aware that they are needed, in line with the terms of the Scottish Secure Tenancy Agreement.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The association’s complaint responses should make clear whether the complaint has been upheld and complainants are updated as promised. The association should take action to address areas for improvement identified in their investigation of complaints. The association should proactively monitor and follow up on actions promised in complaint responses. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.

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

C complained to us that the housing association unreasonably failed to investigate and repair defects in relation to the doors, windows and the heating system in their home. We found that that the length of time C waited for replacement radiators, repairs to the windows and a replacement door was unacceptable. The housing association did not carry out the repairs within a reasonable period of them becoming aware that they were needed. We therefore upheld this aspect of C’s complaint.

C also complained that the housing association failed to communicate reasonably with them regarding the repairs. We found several examples of C requesting a call back, of long intervals between receiving a response and of C having to chase a response, over the 14 month period we considered. Many of these occurred after the housing association’s initial response to their complaint and promise of improvements. We therefore also upheld this aspect of C’s complaint. We also identified some failures in the handling of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the specific failings identified in respect of the complaints. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/meaningful-apologies.

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

• The association should communicate effectively with customers and ensure that calls are returned or emails responded to within a reasonable timeframe.
• The Housing Association should carry out repairs within a reasonable period of time of becoming aware that they are needed.

Summary

C complained that the association did not respond reasonably to their reports of anti-social behaviour from a neighbour. We found that the association unreasonably concluded that a number C’s reports did not amount to anti social behaviour (ASB). We also found that the reports that the association did consider to include ASB were not dealt with in line with the guidance and policy documents that the association provided. This included failures to acknowledge reports, reasonably complete forms, undertake checks of previous incidents, undertake (or make proper records of) interviews and log reports within a reasonable time.

We found that the association provided inaccurate information to C about their use of CCTV footage in the investigation of reports of ASB and did not reasonably respond to C’s complaints about the handling of the ASB reports. We upheld this part of C’s complaint.

C complained that the association did not take reasonable action to address issues regarding an allocated parking bay for their property. When C accepted their tenancy they understood it included a dedicated disabled parking bay but this was being regularly used by others.

The association told C that numbered parking bays are not included or detailed as part of individual tenancies but continued to explore options to indicate the bay was for C’s use.

We found that the association took an unreasonable length of time to substantively respond to the parking bay issues C raised. We upheld this part of C’s complaint.

C complained that the association did not take reasonable action to address issues with their heating and hot water systems.

We found that the length of time C waited for repairs to the heating and hot water system was unacceptable. We also found that the association had unreasonably concluded C’s complaints had been resolved before the effectiveness of an intended repair had been confirmed. We upheld this part of C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failings identified. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• The association respond to reports of ASB in line with their guidance and policy documents.
• The association carry out repairs within a reasonable period of becoming aware that they are needed.
• The association respond or take action following tenant’s raising of issues within a reasonable timescale.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• The association respond reasonably to complaints. We offer SPSO accredited Complaints Handling training. Details and registration forms for our online self-guided Good Complaints Handling course (Stage 1) and our online trainer-led Complaints Investigation Skills course (Stage 2) are available at https://www.spso.org.uk/training-courses.
• The association retain records in line with the relevant circumstances and the MCHP.

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

C, a tenant of Albyn Housing Society Ltd, reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring family who were also tenants of the association. The ASB related to an overwhelming and pervading smoke and smell as a result of the neighbouring family’s cannabis smoking. The association reported having visited the family and the volume and frequency of smoke and smell reduced. Over the next several months, C made three further reports of the same ASB recurring, including reporting deterioration in their own and their family’s respiratory health. On each occasion the association reported visiting, or attempting to visit, the neighbouring family it resulted in temporary reductions in the volume and frequency of smoke and smell.

When C complained that the association had not responded reasonably to the reports, the association’s response indicated that they considered that they had taken reasonable action. C felt that they had no option but to end their tenancy and raised their complaints with SPSO.

We found that the association did not progress matters in line with a number of parts of their ASB Procedure regarding administration, categorisation and investigation of reports of ASB, subsequent review of progress, consideration of possible solutions to the reported ASB, or taking into account how the situation had developed over a number of months. The association did not explain to C that evidence and corroboration was required to enable them to take action, and they did not follow through with their belated requests that C keep a log of dates and times when issues arose. The association also failed to keep reasonable records of the actions that they did take or pursue and fulfil actions they indicated they intended to take. We upheld C’s complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C that they did not take reasonable action in response to C’s reports of ASB from neighbouring tenants. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• The association’s actions in response to reports of ASB are in line with their ASB Procedure, including actions being reasonably or consistently recorded and reasonably considered including consideration of progression within the ASB Procedure when further reports about the same matters are made.

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

C complained that their housing transfer application had been unreasonably handled by the housing association. In particular, C complained that they had not been offered a transfer when suitable new build housing had become available. C explained that a restriction had been placed on their transfer application without them being informed as they had declined a property with four flights of external stairs, which their partner could not manage due to their health condition. C explained that external stairs were a problem for their partner, however, they could manage one flight of internal stairs as they could control the temperature inside the property. Despite C explaining this, the restriction had remained in place as the association’s allocation policy did not distinguish between internal and external stairs. C considered this to be discriminatory.

The association confirmed that their allocation policy did not distinguish between internal and external stairs, and it remained their view that a property with stairs would not be appropriate for C’s partner, noting that they would still have difficulty managing internal stairs when their health condition flared up.

We found that the association had reasonably considered C’s transfer application request in line with their policy. While we explained to C that this office cannot determine whether equalities legislation has been breached in reference to their concerns of discrimination, we can consider whether an organisation has taken the relevant legislation into account. On review, we considered that the association had reasonably demonstrated having taken their legislative requirements into account, particularly at the point of reviewing their allocation policy. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained that the association did not respond reasonably to reports of anti-social behaviour C made about a neighbouring tenant (B).

The association and the police jointly visited B, discussed the reports and agreed an acceptable behaviour contract. C raised further complaints of anti-social behaviour by B. The association undertook action following consideration of these complaints. C raised further complaints and C left their property temporarily to get away from the stress and exhaustion they had experienced. C also requested the tenancy of another property. The association issued B with a warning letter and C moved to another property. C complained to the association regarding B's history of anti-social behaviour and the association's action in response to these reports. In their response, the association said they believed their actions had complied with the relevant tenancy agreements and their Anti-Social Behaviour and Harassment Policy.

We found that the association were not able to demonstrate that C's reports of anti-social behaviour were categorised in line with their Anti-Social Behaviour and Harassment Policy. We also found that the association did not record all of the reports they received from C, did not record what information or other factors were taken into account when reaching their decisions on C's reports and did not record the reasons why they reached the conclusions they did on what the most appropriate action to take in relation to the reports were. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to respond reasonably to reports of anti-social behaviour. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.

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

• The association should follow their anti-social behaviour procedures when handling all reports of anti-social behaviour, including the categorisation of reported anti-social behaviour, the recording of reports of anti-social behaviour, the investigation of reports of anti-social behaviour and the recording of decision-making in relation to reports of anti-social behaviour.

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.