Housing Associations

Summary

Miss C, a tenant of the association, complained that they told her to remove a caravan and a satellite dish from her property. She had been granted permission to site a caravan there, but did not actually do so until several years later. We found that the tenancy agreement said that caravans were not to be parked on association land, and the fact that Miss C was granted permission at the time was clearly an exception to this. In addition, one of the conditions of the permission was that the association had the right to ask Miss C to remove the caravan at any time. She disagreed with the association's reasons for asking her to remove it, but the fact that she disagreed did not mean that the association had done anything wrong.

Miss C said that she applied for permission to install a satellite dish but was refused. At the time, the association's policy was to refuse permission, but they later changed this, to allow satellite dishes to be installed under certain conditions if permission was requested in writing. There was, however, no evidence that Miss C asked for permission in writing after the policy change.

We concluded that the association had acted reasonably in both matters and we did not uphold Miss C's complaints. During our investigation, however, we found that the association's policy on satellite dishes was not clear about a tenant's right to bring a complaint to us and we made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• change the wording of the relevant paragraph of their Policy on Satellite Receivers and External Aerials to make clear that a tenant can bring a complaint to us.

Summary

Mr C accepted a tenancy with the association but, because he had concerns about the property, he ended the tenancy and returned the keys a few days later. He then made enquiries with the association about taking on a new tenancy, but found out that there were arrears outstanding from the first tenancy. Mr C did not believe that he should pay these given his concerns, and he complained. He was unhappy with the association's response to his complaint so he brought the matter to us.

The association said that Mr C was liable to pay rent for the notice period, in line with the information in the tenancy agreement. We reviewed the evidence available, which showed that they had explained to Mr C that he would still have to pay rent even though he ended his tenancy after a few days. We did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Miss C complained that the association delayed in processing her application to buy her home. It took seven months for them to issue her with an offer, which should have been issued within two months. In addition, as the association said they did not receive Miss C's acceptance of the offer, the process was delayed by a further three months. Miss C said she handed the initial acceptance in to the association and received a receipt. She provided a copy of the receipt but it did not specify what it was for. The association were not able to suggest what else it might have been for, and confirmed that they had since tightened up their mail logging process.

We found that the initial delay was due to the time taken to establish details of Miss C's tenancy. The association should have refused the application within one month of receipt if they disputed her right to purchase, or within two months if they considered her application to contain incorrect material information. In the absence of a refusal, they were required to issue an offer within two months of receiving the application. After this time, Miss C was entitled to serve notice on them, giving them a further month to issue their offer, after which the purchase price would be reduced by the amount of rent paid between then and the eventual issue of the offer. We saw no evidence of the association having told Miss C this, or referring her to her solicitor for information. We also found that the association should have instructed a valuation of the property within three days of receiving the application but this did not happen for almost four months. They should also have instructed a solicitor to issue the offer but it was issued by a housing officer and the association did not contact their solicitors until after the acceptance was received. We concluded that the delays in this case were unreasonable.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• review their process to ensure that future right to buy applications are handled in line with the guidance;
• refund Miss C eight months' rent payments in recognition of the delay in processing her application to buy her home; and
• apologise to Miss C for the failings we identified.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that they were having ongoing problems with their central heating and boiler, and that they incurred extra costs in their heating bills as a result of the problems not being fixed. They said that although a significant number of call-outs were made and different faults were addressed, the system was still not working properly.

During our investigation the association provided details of the repair history for the property. While it was clear that Mr and Mrs C had made a number of calls to the association about the heating system, we found that the association had responded to reports of faults and that remedial action had generally been carried out in good time. The association had explained that the heating system had been checked on a number of occasions and was found to be working properly. There had been a delay in work being carried out to reposition the thermostat but this would not have prevented the heating system operating properly. There had also been a delay in a leaking radiator being fixed. The association had apologised for these delays. Based on the available evidence, we found that Mr and Mrs C had only once been left without heating for more than a few hours, when they were provided with temporary heaters. The association had also obtained a second opinion about the heating system and had requested an investigation into any cause for higher than normal heating bills.

Summary

Mr C, who is a resident of the association, lived in a bedsit but wanted to move to a one bedroomed flat. He was originally allocated overcrowding points in respect of his application, but in April 2013, the association changed their housing policy. This meant that from then on a single person living in a bedsit was considered to be adequately housed and did not have priority. Mr C complained that they did not tell him in advance that the policy was being changed and that, in their response to his complaint, the association failed to specify what part of the housing legislation they were referring to. Further, Mr C complained that the association failed to provide feedback when his expressions of interest about available accommodation were not successful.

We found from our investigation that, although the changes to their policy had affected how Mr C's housing need was viewed, the association provided satisfactory evidence that they took action to notify all of their tenants in advance of the proposed changes, and gave them an opportunity to consider and give feedback on the policy whilst it was in draft. We found it reasonable that the association did not provide more specific information about legislation when they responded to Mr C's complaint, but we noted that it would have been helpful if they had referred him to the relevant section about priority on the housing list and allocation of housing. We found that there was a period just after the change in policy when there was a problem with a lack of feedback to tenants. However, this had been resolved, and we saw no evidence that the feedback which was given by the association was incorrect.

Summary

Miss C complained that she had been inappropriately billed for rent arrears on her former tenancy. She noted that she had not received the bill until seven months after the tenancy was terminated. She also said that she received a cheque from the association at the end of the tenancy for money they owed her and she questioned why any arrears were not deducted from this amount. The association apologised to her for the confusion surrounding the arrears but said they were unable to write them off. Miss C was unhappy about this and brought her complaint to us.

We asked the association for more information on the arrears and when they reviewed Miss C's account they found that they had made a mistake. The account was actually in credit so they issued her with a refund, along with an apology for the poor service they had provided. They outlined what they had done to improve their processes to try to avoid the same thing happening again. In the circumstances, we upheld the complaint but, in light of the remedial action taken by the association, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained about the housing association's handling of his representations about an incident that led to action being taken against him. He complained that they had failed to take into account his version of what had happened. Mr C also complained that they did not consider his complaint within the timescales set out in their complaints procedure.

During our investigation we found that the association had obtained corroboration of the incident from an independent source. They had spoken to Mr C to obtain his account of what had happened and to seek information from him before deciding to take action against him. As they had acted appropriately, we did not uphold this element of Mr C's complaint. We did, however, uphold his complaint about their complaints handling. While we were satisfied that the association dealt with the majority of his complaints within the complaints procedure, we found that on two occasions they failed to meet the timescales set out in their procedure. We did not make any recommendations, as the association had already apologised to Mr C for this.

Summary

Miss C complained to the housing association about their responses to her requests for repairs. The association investigated her complaints and advised her of their conclusions. In some cases they said their responses had been reasonable and in others they found their actions could have been quicker or more effective, and they apologised to Miss C where they felt necessary.

Miss C was dissatisfied with the association's response and complained to us. We examined the available evidence and found that, though there were areas where the responses could have been better, overall they had been reasonable.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy that the association failed to provide him with sufficient information when he signed his tenancy agreement. They disagreed and said that they did provide him with enough information.

We explained to Mr C that the association were not required to go through his tenancy agreement, word for word, at the signing. Our investigation considered what information Mr C was given and whether this was in line with the relevant procedures. We found that the allocation policy and sign-up procedure applied to Mr C's situation and that both had been followed accurately. This meant that the association had done as they should have and had provided sufficient information, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained that her daughter (Ms A) had been complaining for a number of years about the dampness affecting her flat but the association had not attended to the problem properly. She also complained that, unlike other tenants, Ms A's front door was not replaced.

We found that Ms A had complained to the association about water penetration during periods of bad weather in the winter. Necessary work was carried out within a month. After an incident in January 2013, the association took the view that it would probably be appropriate to remove the chimney head. They wrote to other owners in the building asking them for permission to do this and to confirm that they would contribute to the cost. The association received no replies and as the work was not deemed to be an emergency, they could not go ahead without permission from the other owners. In January 2014, there was another leak and this time the association decided that the repairs could be considered an emergency. They removed the chimney head at their own cost. Meanwhile, Ms A had complained that her front door lock was faulty and it was repaired. Although Mrs C said that other tenants had had their front doors replaced, Ms A's door had been made lock fast and there was no evidence to show that was not serviceable.