Housing Associations

Summary

Mr C complained about the way the housing association had considered his complaints about anti-social neighbours. He did not think they had taken appropriate steps to investigate his concerns about the noise two separate neighbours were making.

Our role was to consider whether the evidence pointed to maladministration by the association. This meant we compared the steps they had taken against the steps their policy said they should have taken for such matters. However, it was not for us to assess whether, or to what extent, Mr C was suffering from anti-social behaviour.

The evidence indicated that, although Mr C was unhappy, the association had acted in line with their policy. Mr C had wanted noise monitoring equipment to be installed, but the evidence showed they had contacted the council about this on Mr C's behalf. However, the council said it would be their decision – not the association's – as to whether equipment would be installed. We recognised the significance of this matter for Mr C, but we did not consider the evidence showed that the association had not believed Mr C as he had alleged, or that they failed to investigate matters appropriately. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr and Mr C complained about a programme of improvement works carried out by a contractor on behalf of their landlord (the housing association). They complained about the information they were given ahead of the works, and about issues with the quality of the work and damage to their property. They also complained about the way the association and the contractor had handled their complaints.

Our investigation found that the association and the contractor had provided reasonable information ahead of the works taking place, though there was a last minute delay in one element of the work, which was unacceptable. The association had already apologised for this and paid compensation.

We reviewed the time taken to resolve the range of defects at Mr and Mr C's property, and were critical of the time taken to resolve these issues. In particular, we were critical that a meeting to resolve these issues only appeared to take place because Mr and Mr C had brought their complaint to us.

Mr and Mr C complained to both the association and the contractor on different occasions. We found that the responses they received were not proactive and did not reflect the on-going difficulties Mr and Mr C were having. The association went on to conduct a 'lessons learned' exercise, based partly on Mr and Mr C's complaints. This identified several areas of service improvement, though it is not clear that any of these issues would have come to light if Mr and Mr C had complained to us. We were critical of this approach. We were also concerned about the lack of integration between the association's complaints procedure and that of its contractors.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr and Mr C for the delay in correcting defects at their property following window replacement and cladding works, and for the failings identified in their complaints handling;
• provide evidence that the improvements identified in the lessons learned exercise have been implemented; and
• provide evidence of the improvements in complaints handling.

Summary

Miss C was awarded housing points following a series of reports of anti-social behaviour. These points placed Miss C higher on the waiting list for an appropriate property. When the co-operative introduced a new housing points scheme, Miss C's points were removed. Miss C complained that she had not been informed her points could be removed.

We found that the co-operative had informed tenants of the change of policy by sending a summary of the policy and instructions about how to re-apply for points. To apply for the sort of points Miss C had, she had to submit supporting evidence. When Miss C submitted her application form, she did not supply supporting evidence and so her points were removed. For these reasons, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C and her family had experienced problems of serious anti-social behaviour from a neighbour who was also a tenant of the same housing association. She complained to us that the association had unreasonably failed over a period of years to take appropriate action, had unreasonably failed to help her with an offer of transfer to another house, and had unreasonably required her to pay rent arrears before agreeing to a mutual house exchange.

Following our investigation, we found that although Mrs C told us that complaints had been made by others to the association about the family of the neighbour who was the subject of her complaint over the course of several years, she had not complained to the association until 2014 about this. The evidence confirmed that the association had dealt with her complaints about anti-social behaviour reasonably and within the relevant policy. Further, when we looked at the association's handling of Mrs C's request to them to move, and her application for mutual exchange, although she complained that she had been required to pay rent up to when she moved out, this complied with their policy. Furthermore, Mrs C's complaint that the association had not offered her a payment plan to pay off her arrears rather than demand these were paid before the mutual exchange could be agreed was not unreasonable as this again was a matter of policy. We recognised that the situation had been stressful for Mrs C and that the move was something she felt she had to pursue. However, in their handling of the matter, we found that the housing association had acted correctly.

Summary

Miss C experienced problems with her boiler after a service carried out by the housing association's contractor. The problems were not immediately resolved and, after receiving advice from the association, she decided to turn off her boiler and the association decided that a new boiler should be installed. She said she did not have full tenancy as she was restricted to one room because inadequate heaters were supplied and she had no heating until the installation was carried out over a week later. As she was without adequate heating and hot water for a period she complained that she was entitled to withhold her rent. The association did not uphold her complaint.

Our investigation considered all correspondence between Miss C and the association, the tenancy agreement and the association's complaints handling procedure and their investigation. We found that the association had responded promptly to the issues Miss C had raised and had thoroughly investigated her complaints. Their decision that Miss C was not entitled to withhold part of her rent was reasonable as they had not failed in their obligations to her as a tenant when she decided to turn off her boiler contrary to advice she was given.

Summary

Ms C damaged central heating pipework under her floor. She did not dispute the fact that the cost of the repair should be recharged to her. Her concern was about the amount she was being charged and that it had not been properly explained to her. We found that Ms C had been charged for three hours of work. One hour was for the Friday night out-of-hours call when a contractor attended to make the leak and boiler safe. A further two hours were charged for the replacement of a small section of pipework the following day and for making sure the boiler was working as it should be after the repair was finished.

We upheld Ms C's complaints. The association had not asked the contractor about his arrival or departure times from Ms C's property and so were not in a position to say whether the amount charged was reasonable or not. The repair works order which should have contained this information was incomplete. We asked the association to reduce the rechargeable amount by one hour. We also asked them to apologise to Ms C and asked them to carry out a review to ensure invoices and repair orders are appropriately filled in.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• reduce the amount to be recharged by the agreed amount;
• review the process to ensure that invoices and repair orders, particularly those which will be recharged to tenants, are appropriately filled in; and
• offer Ms C an apology for the shortcomings identified.

Summary

Mr C told us that his landlord, the housing association, did not take reasonable action when he reported noise from loose floorboards in the flat upstairs. While Mr C’s home was not as well sound-proofed as a newly built property would be, there was no evidence that it did not meet the Scottish Housing Quality Standard. The association had offered to come and have a final look at the floorboards to see if there was anything further they could do. We found there were some failings on the part of the association in concluding Mr C’s complaint in a timely manner, but they did all they could to improve the level of noise Mr C had been experiencing. They carried out repairs on three occasions and also did acoustic testing. While communication from the association could have been better, during the handling of Mr C’s complaint and after remedial work was completed, the actions taken were reasonable ones.

At the time of our decision they were having difficulty arranging a mutually agreeable time between Mr C and his upstairs neighbour. We explained to Mr C that the association had no control over his availability or that of his neighbour and that they had a limited amount of resources both in financial terms and in respect of the amount of time they could reasonably be expected to devote to this issue. We suggested to Mr C he agree to an appointment being arranged around his neighbour’s availability and at their convenience in order to allow the association the best chance of arranging an appointment.

We noted that the association had offered Mr C the option of being re-housed. Given that the evidence from previous remedial works was that the works had not offered a permanent solution to the disruption he experienced, we suggested he gave the association’s offer careful thought.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association forced entry to his flat, although he had contacted them before he left to tell them he would be away. He said they then unfairly charged him for replacing the locks and for draining the central heating system.

The association said that Mr C had not arranged for the water systems to be drained down, although they had asked him to do this when he first told them of his plans about a month before. He had called the association several times in the week before he left. However, they were able to provide recordings of most of these conversations, which showed that Mr C's son called about repairs to the stove handle, and not to arrange the draining down. As Mr C's first language was not English, we asked whether his tenancy agreement had been provided or explained in his own language. The association said it was not, but gave us a copy of a questionnaire that Mr C had completed, in which he had indicated that he was happy to receive information in English.

Our investigation found that, under the tenancy agreement, it was Mr C's responsibility to arrange for the water systems to be drained down, and there was no evidence that he had done this. We also found that the association were entitled to charge him for the drain down. They had initially offered to do this free of charge (as was their practice, although there was no policy or formal requirement for them to do so) but had decided to charge Mr C as they had to force entry to his house. We considered it was reasonable for them to charge in this case, given that Mr C had failed to arrange the work as required.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the association had unreasonably charged her for repairs to her property and the removal of rubbish from the property, when she vacated it at the end of her tenancy. Mrs C said she had made all the necessary repairs and arranged for an uplift from the council for the rubbish left. Mrs C also questioned why it had taken the association three months to issue her with the bill for these works.

Our investigation found the association had been clear with Mrs C regarding the condition to leave the property in. They had also told her that if the property was not in a satisfactory condition then she was liable to have the costs of returning the property to such a condition recharged to her. While the council had uplifted some of the rubbish, Mrs C was told by the association that there was further rubbish outstanding. Furthermore, while the bill for the works was not sent for ten weeks from the date Mrs C vacated the property, she had been told before the bill was sent that the property was not in a satisfactory state and that charges were likely. For these reasons, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who had been a housing association tenant, was evicted from his property. He complained that, around the time of his eviction, the association disposed of his belongings before he had a chance to collect them. We told Mr C that we would not look at the eviction itself, as this is outwith our jurisdiction, but we would look at whether the association gave him enough warning and enough time to arrange to collect his possessions before they disposed of them.

We found that at the end of a tenancy it is the responsibility of the tenant to make arrangements beforehand for the removal of their possessions. The association would, therefore, have been within their rights to take action on the date of eviction in accordance with the warrant of the court.

We also noted that the association told Mr C several times that he needed to get his belongings ready for the eviction date and what would happen to them if he did not. Although we recognised the distress caused, the evidence showed that Mr C had 13 weeks from the date of decree for eviction being granted to prepare for the removal of his belongings. We found that the association had handled this reasonably, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.