Housing Associations

Summary

Mr C complained to us that the housing association failed to undertake a reasonable pre-inspection check on a damaged asbestos cement panel in his home. He was unhappy with the results of an asbestos survey and asked the council to remove the panel completely, which they did.

We were able to establish that the damage to the panel was only discovered following the work carried out by an energy supplier and no work was carried out on the panel by the association after Mr C took up the tenancy. As such, we considered there to be no evidence that the association failed to undertake a reasonable pre-inspection check on the asbestos cement panel in Mr C's property. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

When Ms C moved to a new property, she suffered from anti-social behaviour and felt that this was related to the previous tenant. During our investigation we noted that the housing association was not aware of any reason why Ms C might experience anti-social behaviour. We therefore did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained that Shettleston Housing Association had unreasonably excluded him from grant funding, unreasonably charged him a £150 administration fee and unreasonably processed additional funding for 26 other home owners. Mr C said he was the owner of his home and had made a contribution to the works being carried out on his property, for which the association had informed him he was entitled to a rebate. The association had told him that work had been completed too late on his property for it to qualify for the highest level of rebate. Additionally, a second group of 26 properties had then been put forward for funding after the original deadline. Mr C had not been included in this group either. Mr C felt this was unfair, as he had received a smaller rebate than other property owners. Additionally, he disputed the dates provided by the association for completion of works on his property.

The association said that work on Mr C's property had not been completed in full until March 2013. Unexpectedly they had received a further offer of grant funding in April 2013, but had only been asked to submit 26 properties for consideration. The association emphasised that the funding for the rebate was provided as a grant by a third party and the administration of it lay outside the association's control. As a grant it was not an entitlement for residents but something the association sought to access on their behalf whenever possible. The association did not accept that Mr C had been treated unfairly.

We found evidence that Mr C's property was not ready for submission within the initial deadline due to additional work being carried out to treat rot within the property. The offer of an extended deadline was not under the association's control, nor was the restriction on the number of properties which could receive it. The association had sought to maximise grant funding for residents, but had not been able to achieve equal funding for all residents. The association's imposition of an administration charge had not been clearly explained, but was not of itself unreasonable. We therefore did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C (for whom English is not his first language) complained that the association had failed to provide him with translations of his tenancy agreement and information about rent increases. While we were investigating we became aware that the matters subject to investigation had been considered in court, when the association applied for a repossession order. Under the terms of our act we cannot investigate matters where the person has or had a remedy by way of proceedings in court, and so we closed the complaint without making a finding.

Summary

Mr C complained about the housing association after they failed to carry out adjustments to improve soundproofing in his property. As Mr C has a disability which heightens his sensitivity to noise, he stated that normal living noise from his neighbour below was causing him a great deal of stress. He felt that as he was at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without his disability, this meant the association had a duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and suggested the installation of soundproof matting. However, the association refused his request.

On investigation, we found that the association had failed to explain their decision to refuse his request. Instead, they had made reference to a previous response they made to an unrelated request for a reasonable adjustment. They also failed to fully explain their decision in response to our enquiries. As such, we upheld this element of the complaint.

Mr C also complained that, throughout the four years of his tenancy, the association had failed to provide him with sufficient tenancy management support.

On investigation, we found that an early offer of support had been made to Mr C, but that this had not been repeated despite clear indications that Mr C was struggling to manage various aspects of his tenancy. We also found no evidence that the association had carried out a detailed assessment of Mr C's support needs to ensure that they were meeting their responsibility to provide suitable support, either internally or through external agencies. Finally, we found that the association had no policies directly relating to the provision of tenancy support, and despite making a number of enquiries on the subject, we were not clear on the extent of the support they aimed to provide to their tenants, either internally or externally, or how and when referrals to these services were triggered. For these reasons, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint as well.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr C for the failings identified;
• reconsider Mr C's request for reasonable adjustments in the form of auxiliary aids to reduce noise disturbances in his home and provide clear explanation of a robust, evidenced decision;
• share the findings of this investigation with all staff responsible for responding to requests for reasonable adjustments;
• carry out a full assessment of Mr C's current support needs and take reasonable steps to ensure suitable support is made available going forward;
• consider implementing a policy/procedure that clearly defines: the extent of the support the association aim to provide internally; which external agencies are available to provide any additional support required; and how and when referrals to both internal and external services will be triggered; and
• provide training to relevant staff on how to identify and assess support needs.

Summary

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his sister (Miss A), a housing association tenant. He complained that the association unreasonably withdrew an offer of housing from her.

We found that the association had asked Miss A to contact them as she was being considered for a property. When Miss A contacted the association she told them that her circumstances had changed. The process was therefore stopped at that point – without an offer of housing being made – so that Miss A could let the association know about these changes and allow them to be assessed.

As there were was no evidence of an offer being made we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C's washing machine failed and caused a flood to their downstairs neighbour's flat. Both Mr and Mrs C and the tenant below them are tenants of the housing association.

Mr and Mrs C's contents insurer said that as Mr and Mrs C had not been negligent, they would not cover the cost of repairing the damage. The association rectified the problems in the tenant's flat below and charged Mr and Mrs C for the cost of this.

Mr and Mrs C complained that this was unreasonable. We considered this complaint carefully and asked some specific questions of the association. Following this, the association decided that without a clear policy and legal guidance around these types of situations, they had not acted reasonably. We agreed a number of steps the association could take to resolve the matter to Mr and Mrs C's satisfaction.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C, demonstrating that they have reflected on their complaint and their actions and identified failings;
• refund Mr and Mrs C all monies paid and cancel any outstanding amount; and
• provide us with a copy of their policy, covering these sorts of situations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association had not acted reasonably in relation to a series of anti-social behaviour incidents that he reported.

After investigation, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found no evidence that the association had not acted in line with their policy and procedure for dealing with anti-social behaviour.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association was failing to ensure that their contractors provided a reasonable stair-cleaning service in the communal areas of his home. He had reported a number of issues to them about poor cleaning.

The association acknowledged that there had been problems but noted that they had acted when Mr C raised concerns. They had either inspected the communal areas and found them to be in a reasonable condition or instructed their contractors to carry out further cleaning.

We found that the association had taken Mr C's complaints seriously and responded to each of his communications. As we found no evidence of administrative failings in the way they had dealt with this matter, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Ms C, who works for an advocacy agency, complained on behalf of her client (Mr A) that the housing association had not done enough to deal with the anti-social behaviour that Mr A had reported and did not reasonably manage his request to be rehoused.

Mr A had experienced anti-social behaviour from a previous neighbour. When he began experiencing it again from the next tenant, he requested a management transfer (a special transfer not based on the normal points system).

We found that the association had been unable to corroborate Mr A's allegations of anti-social behaviour, despite visiting the property and installing noise monitoring equipment. As such they were limited in how much action they could take. We also found they had assessed Mr A's request to be rehoused in line with their normal allocations policy and did not consider a management transfer to be appropriate; this was a discretionary decision they are allowed to take. For these reasons, we did not uphold Ms C's complaints.