Housing Associations

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.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the association did not provide appropriate information on how to use her heating system. She reported that this led to higher than necessary heating bills. She said that the heating system went wrong on several occasions, and she considered that there was a systematic problem which was not being addressed by the association.

Our investigation reviewed the information given to Mrs C about her heating system, from the manufacturer and the association. The manufacturer visited Mrs C's property three years after she moved in. They did not find a systematic fault but they did provide additional information to Mrs C about the operation of her heating system. They showed her seasonal adjustments which would have reduced her electricity bills. However, the association said that this information was not available at the time Mrs C moved into her tenancy. Given the evidence available in relation to the heating system and the actions of the manufacturer, we considered it likely that the information relating to seasonal adjustments had not been available to the association when Mrs C moved into her property. We concluded that the association provided reasonable information at the start of the tenancy, given the information available to them, but that they could have done more to explore the impact of the lack of information when Mrs C complained.

We were given information about the staff training provided in relation to the operation of Mrs C's heating system. We also noted the involvement of other professionals to fix the heating system at different times, who did not raise any concerns about the overall operation of the heating system. The evidence we saw indicated that maintenance staff had the appropriate skills to maintain Mrs C's central heating system.

We reviewed the evidence in relation to the problems which Mrs C experienced with her heating system, and the actions taken by the association. We reviewed the customer care policy to identify what action they should have taken, and could not find any faults with the association's responses to the problems that arose. They responded promptly and took into account Mrs C's availability when arranging for repairs. All repairs were completed within the expected timescales.

Mrs C also complained about the way her complaint had been handled. She had expected to discuss her complaint with staff before they investigated. We concluded that it would have been in line with their complaints handling procedure to have discussed the complaint prior to an investigation. However, we noted that amendments would be made to the association's complaints handling procedure which would clarify the situation in relation to such discussions in future complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• consider putting a case to the manufacturers of the heating system for compensation for the excess cost of electricity paid by Mrs C as a result of insufficient information from them on the running of the exhaust air heat pump.

Summary

Mr C was a former tenant of the association. After moving out of his property, he was sent a bill for rechargeable works, which were identified during an empty property inspection and carried out by a contractor on behalf of the association. This included removing laminate and vinyl floor coverings from the property and disposing of personal belongings left in the back court. Mr C disputed the charges, saying that he was not aware that he was responsible for removing the flooring and that he had asked a friend to have the items collected from the back court. He complained that the association had not made him aware of his responsibilities before the end of his tenancy, had not told him about the rechargeable works before invoicing him and had not treated his case sensitively.

After investigating Mr C's complaints we found that, at an inspection before he moved out, the association had not made a clear record of any advice he was given on removing flooring or of any works he should carry out before the end of his tenancy. Although they had written to Mr C about his responsibilities before he moved, he told us that he had not received this, and we noted that his postcode was not included in the address. We did, however, find that the tenancy agreement made it clear that all belongings had to be removed and we took the view that he should have been aware of his responsibilities in relation to the items left in the back court.

On balance, we found that the association did not take reasonable steps to give Mr C formal notice of his responsibilities to remove the flooring and we upheld this element of his complaint. We found that they had taken reasonable measures to ensure that he was aware of the rechargeable works and we did not uphold this part of his complaint, as a detailed letter was issued the day after he moved out. We upheld the last aspect of Mr C's complaint as we found that his concerns were not treated as a complaint at an early stage and that the tone/language of some of the association's letters was not sensitive to his situation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• highlight the need for staff to complete the pre-end-of-tenancy inspection form appropriately to avoid confusion for tenants;
• deduct all costs associated with the removal and disposal of floor coverings from the outstanding bill;
• remind staff of the complaints handling procedure guidance on the identification of a complaint; and
• apologise for the way that Mr C's complaint was handled.

Summary

Miss C and her children lived in overcrowded conditions, as recognised by the association. She said she had been waiting for ten years for an offer of a suitable three-bedroom property, and that she had not been offered properties in areas where she could live. When she complained that she had not been offered any suitable properties, the association did not uphold her complaints.

In our investigation we reviewed Miss C's waiting list positions, the previous and current housing allocation policy, application records, and communication between the association and Miss C, as well as the offers of viewing made to her. We found that the association had reasonably investigated her complaints by reviewing their procedures, the records of discussions with her, documentation on offers made to view, amendments made by Miss C and her decisions not to view properties. It was clear from the documents we saw that the association had recognised Miss C as a priority and followed their allocation policy. There was also evidence that they made reasonable attempts to accommodate her preferences, discuss her housing issues and give advice about maximising her chances of an offer of a three-bedroom property. Although Miss C had not been offered a property that she was willing to consider, she was not treated unfairly.