Housing Associations

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.

Summary

Miss C suffers from a medical condition and lives in an association property served by electric storage heaters. She informed the association that these were not heating her home sufficiently and requested that gas central heating be installed. She said that gas central heating would relieve some of her medical symptoms. The association ensured that the heating system was working correctly and replaced two faulty heaters. They then said that if a medically qualified person recommended gas central heating for Miss C then they would be able to apply for a grant to cover the cost it. The association said that otherwise they had no plans to update the heating in her building for another few years.

Miss C complained that it was unreasonable of the association not to install gas central heating and that they had given her conflicting advice. During our investigation we found that the association had the discretion to decide when and how to upgrade the heating systems. They had fulfilled their responsibilities by ensuring the current heating system was functional and, therefore, we did not uphold this complaint. We also did not uphold Miss C's complaint that she had been given conflicting advice, as we found that the association had suggested reasonable options and investigated possible options presented to them by Miss C.

Summary

Over a period of two years Mrs C complained about the noise coming from a neighbouring property occupied by tenants of the association. She found the noise distressing and explained that it made her and her husband anxious and agitated. Although she had many contacts with the association, she said they did not resolve her complaints satisfactorily.

Our investigation examined all the association's communication with Mrs C, and the actions they took. We did not uphold her complaint, as although there was no corroborative evidence of noise, we found that the association tried to progress options with her to find solutions to the problems she was experiencing. We also found that they responded reasonably to her complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that, although he was awarded backdated housing benefit, the housing association did not refund the overpayment until he wrote to ask about this seven weeks later. He was also unhappy that they continued to take his rent by direct debit for a further month.

We found that the association did not have a procedure in place for instances where a rent account is in credit. They said that, when housing benefit is backdated and a significant overpayment occurs, there is an expectation that housing officers will deal with this quickly. However, this did not happen in Mr C's case.

We found that the association delayed in refunding the overpayment, so we upheld Mr C's complaint. We also upheld his complaint about the further direct debit payment being taken, as we found that there was a delay in notifying the bank that it should be cancelled, due to staff absence.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• consider implementing a procedure for instances where a rent account is significantly in credit; and
• consider contingency plans for the cancelling of direct debits in the event of the absence of the responsible staff member.

Summary

Mr C said that the housing association had not given him accurate information about whether he was liable to pay the spare room supplement (commonly known as 'bedroom tax'). He complained that they had led him to believe he would be liable, and this had caused him considerable distress.

Our investigation found that the association relied on information from the council about an individual's liability to pay the supplement. They provided information to tenants about the proposals and wrote jointly with the council setting out the new rules for tenants under pensionable age. According to the association's records, Mr C had attended a meeting where he was told that, as he was a pensioner, he should not be affected by the supplement, though Mr C disputes this.

In coming to our decision we took several factors into consideration including that the council were the final arbiters on who was liable to pay, and the chief executive's view that it would not have been unreasonable to expect the housing officer to have contacted the council to clarify the matter on Mr C's behalf. However, we also considered that Mr C could have tried to clarify this with the council himself. As the evidence available to us pointed to Mr C having been informed at the meeting that he would not be affected by the spare room supplement we did not uphold his complaint.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy about the time the association took to rewire his property and the time it then took to make the disruption payment he was entitled to. He said the delay caused considerable disruption and that the association had failed to communicate with him during this period.

We found that the project as a whole was delayed and that there were specific delays in dealing with properties like Mr C's where a building warrant was required. As a result, the rewire of all such properties was moved to the end of the project. The association said that Mr C would have been told of the revised date for work to begin in his property, but they were unable to provide us with any evidence to support that. They acknowledged that the project had taken longer than planned, that there had been a delay in making the disruption payment and that the information Mr C received was confusing and that they had not communicated well with him. We, therefore, upheld Mr C's complaints.

During our investigation the association reconsidered Mr C's complaint and offered to pay him an additional disruption payment for the inconvenience he was caused.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• consider the failings we identified and prepare a strategy on how best to communicate with tenants on any future projects; and
• apologise to Mr C for the failings we identified.

Summary

Ms C complained that the association had not responded to her online enquiry form submissions and had not told her what was going to be done about the landscaped area in front of her property. Ms C also said that they had not kept her updated about her status on the housing transfer list or reminded tenants of their responsibility for their pets, following a noise complaint.

The association said that they had had problems receiving online form submissions, and recognised that one of Ms C's emails was received but not acted on. They went on to say that they had new gardening contractors and would be discussing with them the best way to manage the landscaping. The association said that they had sent Ms C reminder letters about her status on the transfer list, but as they were not responded to, they had removed her. They had, however, reinstated her once they became aware she wished to remain on the list. They confirmed that they had sent letters to tenants about their pets.

We found evidence that the association had written to tenants about their responsibilities for their pets, and we considered their actions about the landscaping reasonable. We, therefore, did not uphold these two complaints.

We recognised that the association had experienced problems with how they were managing incoming emails and the steps they had taken to correct that. However, it would have been appropriate for them to have apologised to Ms C for not following up on the email they had received from her. We also found evidence that they had incorrectly sent the transfer update letters to Ms C's previous address. We made recommendations to address these issues.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Ms C for failing to apologise to her in the original complaint response;
• apologise to Ms C for incorrectly addressing her transfer update letters;
• restore Ms C's position on the transfer list to the point she would have been at if she had not been removed; and
• update systems to ensure the correct address is used when issuing letters to tenants.

Summary

Ms C, an advocate, complained on behalf of her client (Miss A) about the way the housing association dealt with her application for housing, including that other tenants had been allocated properties not in accordance with the allocations policy; and that the association did not assess Miss A's medical priority in line with their policy.

Miss A had young children, and lived in a property with stairs. After a pregnancy in 2010, she was advised not to lift anything heavy for three months and to take it easy for a year. She, therefore, found it difficult to carry the childrens' pushchair up and down the stairs. As a result of this, and other medical conditions from which she suffered, Miss A became isolated. In 2011 she applied for a larger, ground-floor property, which was considered under the association's housing allocation policy in force at the time. She was allocated to a queuing group for two- and three-bedroom properties for tenants regarded as living in overcrowded conditions. Ms C was concerned that another tenant, in a similar situation to Miss A, had said publicly that she had been rehoused, and also that other tenants had been rehoused ahead of Miss A in properties suitable for Miss A.

In mid-2012, Miss A also applied for medical priority points but that application was refused. Miss A was, however, advised that if the Department of Work and Pensions approved her application for disability living allowance (DLA) this could be reconsidered. In January 2013 she asked for a review of the decision on her medical priority and as she had been granted DLA in June 2012, the association granted Miss A medical priority points from then. Their housing allocation policy was then revised in April 2013. At the time of making the complaint to us, Miss A had still not been successful in being rehoused.

Our investigation found that Miss A's various applications, including the original application for medical priority, were correctly considered under both the old and current allocations policies. Miss A had correctly been put into a queuing group for tenants waiting for rehousing due to overcrowding. When she was granted medical priority points, her grouping was changed to that for a medical priority. We were unable to comment on the allocations of housing to other tenants but overall found no evidence that Miss A's applications were not dealt with appropriately under the relevant policies.

We were, however, critical of the fact that when at one point the association told Miss A about a housing decision, they gave her insufficient explanation of the reasons for that decision. The association also acknowledged during our investigation that the wording of their policy was not as clear as it could be in some areas and they intended to revise it. Therefore, although we did not uphold the complaint and did not make any recommendations, we asked them to bring the requirement to provide clear explanations for decisions to tenants to the attention of staff making decisions on allocations. We also asked them to let us know when the allocations policy has been revised.