Housing Associations

Summary

C complained about the length of time taken by their housing association to carry out repairs on their property and of them subsequently being substandard. C was concerned that the types and number of repairs required were indicative of subsidence and caused the property to fall below the tolerable standard for living. C also complained that the housing association had failed to take these matters into account when assigning points for their housing transfer application. On requesting a review of their transfer application by another organisation, C complained that their housing association failed to handover all of the necessary information.

We found that the housing association made reasonable attempts to timeously carry out the repairs on C’s home and had offered solutions to work around the needs of the tenants. To ease C’s concerns about subsidence, the housing association offered to request an independent survey of the property, however we found that this was not progressed due to difficulties agreeing a suitable time to access C’s home. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We also found that the housing association awarded points for their transfer request in accordance with their policies, and that they appropriately shared the necessary information with the other housing association. As such, we did not uphold these complaints.

Summary

C complained that the association did not respond reasonably to reports of anti-social behaviour.

We found that there was a lack of consistency in the way that C’s reports of anti-social behaviour were recorded and indications that some incorrect information had been recorded in relation to C’s reports. The association’s policy required them to categorise reports of anti-social behaviour but some of C’s reports were not categorised, other cases were categorised in a way that was inconsistent with other evidence available and there was no evidence of how the association had arrived at the categories they had selected in most cases. Concerns about actions taken as a result of reports of anti-social behaviour are difficult to resolve given the restricted amount of information that can be shared with a reporting party or complainant. Therefore, it is important that suitable records are kept to demonstrate, when necessary, that policies were applied consistently, decisions arrived at reasonably and appropriate action taken.

We also found that C had requested to meet association staff to discuss the anti-social behaviour but this request was not acknowledged or responded to. The actions taken by the association were not always consistent with their policy and were occasionally contradictory. In most cases, the association’s records did not reasonably record what factors were considered or taken into account when reaching decisions on action to take.

We considered that the association were not able to demonstrate that their policy was applied consistently and appropriately in the case of C’s reports, and what records there are relating to C’s reports are not uniform and do not reasonably explain inconsistencies in the action the association took. 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 consistent categorisation of reported anti-social behaviour, meeting with reporters of anti-social behaviour, and the clear 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.

Summary

C complained about the decision by their housing association to issue them with a final warning in respect of their tenancy following a decision by the police to charge C with two offences in respect of alleged anti-social behaviour. In particular, C stated that the housing association had failed to follow their own anti-social behaviour policy when issuing the warning in that they had not offered C the opportunity to discuss the incidents prior to the final warning being issued.

The housing association stated that the decision to issue C with a final warning had been made on the basis that C had breached the terms of their tenancy agreement and was already well aware of the likely consequences for their tenancy if they continued to behave in what the housing association considered to be an anti-social manner following a previous meeting to discuss a separate incident. The housing association also advised that C could not have been invited into the housing association's offices to discuss the incidents giving rise to the police charges prior to issuing the final warning due to the coronavirus restrictions in place at the time.

We found that the housing association had failed to follow their policy on antisocial behaviour by proceeding to issue a final warning to C in respect of their tenancy without firstly having offered C the opportunity to discuss the incidents resulting in the police charges. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the association's failure to follow its anti-social behaviour policy prior to issuing them with a final warning in respect of their tenancy. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets.
• Offer C the opportunity to discuss the issue and then, based on any matters discussed, review the decision to issue a final warning in respect of their tenancy.

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

• Staff should act in line with the association's anti-social behaviour policy.

Summary

C complained about the association’s response to anti-social behaviour. C said this had been continual since they moved into their property. It was affecting them and in particular, their child. C said that the association had failed to take meaningful action, or follow up properly on their reports. C believed that they had been misled about what the association would do and the evidence they submitted had been disregarded.

We found that the association had followed their procedures and could evidence the action they had taken in response to C’s complaints. This included liaising with Police Scotland, contacting the tenant responsible and canvassing other residents for corroborating evidence. We found that the association had been restricted by limitations imposed on staff by COVID-19, but that they had responded reasonably and appropriately to C’s concerns. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C also said their complaint had been investigated by members of staff they specifically did not want involved in their complaint. The association had acknowledged this and said this was due to human error on the part of staff who had recorded the complaint. They had failed to note C’s concerns, resulting in the complaint being allocated to the wrong person. We found that the association had taken the appropriate action to address this mistake. We also found that although C had been concerned about this, there was no evidence it had materially affected the investigation of their complaint. Therefore, we did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

Summary

C moved into their property and began experiencing antisocial behaviour from their neighbours. C complained to the association about their handling of C's reports of antisocial behaviour.

We sought information from the association about C's reports. As part of that, we saw evidence which related to C's neighbours but that we could not share for reasons of confidentiality and data protection.

We found that the association took action to investigate each of C's reports. These actions were undertaken promptly. Some contact from the association took longer than their policy specified, however in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, this was reasonable.

Information relevant to the investigations was sought from external agencies and relevant investigations were undertaken by association staff. Staff were not able to corroborate all the incidents reported to them. Sometimes there were no other witnesses to the incidents and sometimes it was determined that the noise was not excessive or antisocial.

We were satisfied that the association had investigated each report of antisocial behaviour made to them and that they had taken appropriate action when those incidents had been corroborated. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

C complained about the condition of the flat that they had moved into and the way the association had handled their reports of disrepair and their subsequent complaint. C felt that they had been pressured into accepting a property which was not fit for human habitation. C said that the association had been obstructive and bullying, ignoring both C and their partner's significant health issues, as well as their new baby.

We found that the association had accepted that the flat C moved into had required work, which should have been identified and carried out while it was empty. The association had apologised for this and paid C £500 compensation. C had also been provided with vouchers to assist with their decorating costs.

We found that the association's actions were reasonable; although it was not disputed the flat's condition had fallen below a reasonable standard, the association had recognised this, met with C, apologised, paid them compensation and arranged for repair work to be carried out within the property. Some of the issues C had raised were not the responsibility of the association, such as pest control and the decoration of the flat internally. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint but made no further recommendations.

Summary

C lived in a property managed by the association. C complained that the property's heating system was inadequate, resulting in high bills despite not heating rooms to an acceptable temperature. C also complained that the property was poorly insulated, suffered from damp, and had a shower that was dangerous to use.

Although the association sent engineers to the property to investigate C's complaints, C remained dissatisfied with the action taken and did not feel able to continue living in the property until the maintenance issues were resolved.

We found that the association responded to each of C's concerns reasonably. Engineers attended the property to investigate any maintenance issues raised, and repairs or upgrades were made where problems were identified. Whilst C remained dissatisfied with a number of amenities within the property, we were satisfied that the association had acted reasonably and appropriately informed C if they were unable to meet C's requests for upgraded facilities. We did not uphold C's complaints.

Summary

C complained about the actions of their housing association. C had moved from one association property to another nearby. Some months after the move, C was presented with a bill for repairs. C disputed both the need for the repairs and the cost which they considered excessive. C also said they had been overcharged rent, by four days, without adequate explanation and that their complaint had been mishandled by the association.

We found the damage had been recorded by the association following a void inspection. While it was not the SPSO's role to assess the extent of the damage, the inspection had been carried out in line with the association's procedures, and they were able to provide evidence showing the damage had been recorded immediately after the vacation of the property, in line with its published procedures. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

C noted the association had agreed to collect the keys from them, but had failed to do so. This had resulted in a four-day delay but C had not been notified this would result in additional rent charges. C noted they had moved out of the property on the day agreed and the only available paperwork supported their positions. The association accepted that they had agreed to collect the keys from C and that they could not provide evidence to show what had been agreed in this respect. They would, therefore, adjust the rent account by the days in dispute. We upheld this aspect of C's complaint.

We found the handling of C's complaint was inadequate. The association had not agreed the complaint with C or discussed it with them. As a result their response had not addressed all the issues C had raised nor obtained all relevant evidence from them. We upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to C for the failure to follow their procedures, the delay in informing them of the void inspection's findings and for failing to follow their complaints procedure properly. The apology should meet the standards set out in the SPSO guidelines on apology available at www.spso.org.uk/information-leaflets
• Confirm to C in writing when their rent account has been adjusted.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff dealing with complaints should be familiar with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure, understanding the importance of communication and the need to demonstrate thorough investigation of the points raised.

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 family member (A) about Hillcrest Housing Association. A had been a tenant of the association and reported various problems with the property some years ago. Following a chartered surveyor's report, which identified several issues, a number of alterations were made to the property.

C disagreed that the association had repaired the property to a tolerable standard.

In recent years, A reported an alleged insect infestation. Various investigations were done, and A was decanted from the property for a temporary period. C disputed the association's view that there was no evidence of an insect infestation. C also complained that the association failed to provide A with alternative accommodation.

We found that there was evidence that the association had followed their decant process when dealing with the concerns that A had raised. We considered that the association took the concerns about infestation seriously and acted reasonably to address allegations of an ongoing pest infestation. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We also found that the association made reasonable efforts to offer alternative accommodation in response to A's ongoing concerns. We did not uphold this aspect of C's complaint.

In terms of repairs to the property, we identified evidence to demonstrate that the association had responded reasonably to the reported concerns. Overall, we found no reason for the association to doubt the professional judgement of those involved. We, therefore, did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Summary

Ms C made several reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) to the Castle Rock Edinvar Housing Association over a number of years. She complained about how her reports of ASB were handled by the association, and particularly that they did not progress action to evict a tenant. We noted that the association sought and considered legal advice, which informed their decision not to commence eviction proceedings. Ms C also complained that the association did not contact the local authority's Family and Household Support Service (FHSS) regarding an Anti-social Behaviour Order (ASBO). We noted that the association had not contacted the FHSS as they had taken the decision that the serving of an ASBO was not indicated. They subsequently contacted the service to discuss Ms C's complaint, and the FHSS appeared content that this was a matter for the association and they did not have to be involved. We considered the association's ASB policy would benefit from being clearer on what the purpose of contact with the FHSS might be and when this might be considered on individual cases. We fed this back to the association. However, we considered that the association managed the situation appropriately and with regard to their policy. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

We noted that the association sometimes referred to reports of ASB as complaints about ASB, and we considered this raised the potential for confusion between reports of ASB and formal complaints of service failure (including how reports of ASB have been handled). Ms C complained that the association failed to treat an email she sent them as a formal complaint. We noted that Ms C had submitted a further report of ASB that the association were looking into, when she submitted her email complaining about their handling of her previous report of ASB. The association did not accept this complaint while their enquiries into the current ASB report were still ongoing. We recognised that Ms C was entitled to raise reports of ASB and formal complaints concurrently. However, we also recognised that simultaneous investigation of these might lead to unnecessary duplication of effort. On balance, we considered that the association's decision to delay acceptance of a new complaint was reasonable in the circumstances. We did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.

Finally, Ms C complained that the association's ultimate response to her formal complaint was unreasonable. We noted that the association's complaint investigation concluded that they had followed their internal processes. As we reached the same conclusion, we considered that their response was reasonable. We saw evidence of a detailed investigation plan and a genuine effort to address Ms C's concerns in full. We did not uphold this aspect of Ms C's complaint.