Housing Associations

Summary

Ms C, who is a tenant of the association, complained to us about four issues. Firstly, she complained that the property she rented from the association was not in a tenantable condition. However, the association demonstrated that inspections took place before Ms C moved into the property which indicated that no work was required, and that it was in excellent condition and decorative order. We also found evidence that, by signing her tenancy agreement, Ms C had agreed that the property was in a good and tenantable condition. We were satisfied that the association let the property in a tenantable condition and, therefore, did not uphold the complaint.

Ms C was also unhappy that information on service charges was not reasonably clear. The association accepted that they should have provided Ms C with a Service Charge Schedule which would set out the charges that tenants should expect. Although we upheld this complaint we were happy with the association's attempts to resolve this matter prior to our involvement, so we did not make any recommendations.

We told Ms C that we could not uphold her complaint about the association breaching confidentiality because this was a matter for the Information Commissioner's office, who we signposted her to. We did, however, criticise the association because we found that their staff opened and discussed correspondence in an area that was open to members of the public.

Ms C's final complaint related to an allegation that a housing and maintenance officer was unprofessional towards her. The association disputed this and said that their staff member was professional in her dealings with Ms C. As we could not establish the facts beyond what was said in the two differing accounts of what happened, we did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mr A was a tenant of the association. Mrs C, who is a support worker, complained on his behalf that the association did not deal competently with his complaints about gas safety concerns. From the evidence we saw, however, we were satisfied that the association acted appropriately to deal with these.

Mrs C also complained that the association did not provide adequate and appropriate assistance to Mr A when there was no heating or hot water in his home over a weekend in October. They had offered Mr A a small amount in recognition of the inconvenience caused to him, which he had not accepted. Our investigation found that Mr A had undergone surgery, which required him to be careful about his personal hygiene, and he also had temporary care of his young son. The association were aware of his personal circumstances and Mrs C had raised concerns with them about the lack of heating or hot water in Mr A’s property that weekend. The association’s response was to suggest that Mr A should contact family or friends to see if he could stay with them and/or use their washing facilities or use the local swimming pool over the weekend. They also supplied him with two temporary heaters.

Given the time of year, Mr A’s state of health and the fact that he had his son in his care, we considered Mr A’s situation to be an emergency. We found that the association had failed to properly appreciate the adverse effects the problem had on him and his son and had not taken all reasonable action to help him, and the recommendations we made reflect this.

Mr A also claimed reimbursement for additional gas usage, which the association refused based on the evidence he gave them. We were satisfied that this decision was reasonable, although we made a recommendation as we thought that the association should have been more proactive in communicating the findings to Mr A or Mrs C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• review how they communicated with Mr A and ensure any improvements identified are taken forward when dealing with tenancy repairs;
• issue Mr A with an apology for the failings identified; and
• pay Mr A the the maximum amount payable under their policy for unreasonable delay in completing an emergency repair.
• 

Summary

Ms C complained that the association had not reasonably investigated her complaint or offered her support during a neighbour dispute about noise disturbance. During our investigation we found that the association had not thoroughly investigated Ms C's complaint as they had not spoken to all the parties involved. We, therefore, upheld this part of Ms C’s complaint.

We found, however, that the association had followed their policy in supporting Ms C by offering her mediation and suggesting a practical solution, and we did not uphold this part of her complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• take steps to ensure that in future they keep better records to justify their decisions; and
• apologise to Ms C for the failings we identified.

Summary

Mr C said his home suffered from rising damp, which he said was affecting his family's health. He complained that the association had told him the problem was not rising damp but was caused by condensation and had provided advice on how to control and manage that. He was concerned when, after a visit to his property, he received a letter from the council's land and environmental services saying they could find no evidence of condensation dampness but they believed there might be an issue of rising dampness due to a defective pipe at the front of the property.

We found, however, that after this letter was sent, the association had arranged for the drainage to be checked, and that no fault had been found. They had also arranged for a specialist rot company to inspect the property. The company had found no evidence of rising damp but did note the presence of condensation, and the association had clarified this with Mr C. It turned out, therefore, that the way that the council's letter was worded had led Mr C to wrongly believe that there was a problem with rising damp.

Summary

Miss C complained that the association had acted unreasonably when they charged her for repairs they carried out after she moved out of her property. Our investigation found that the association inspected the property after she moved out, and the report completed then showed that some repairs were needed. Although it would have been useful if photographs had been taken of the damage, we were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence for them to pursue the cost of the repairs.

Miss C said that she was not given the opportunity to have the work done herself, and that other former tenants had received inspection visits before ending their tenancy. We found that the association were not obliged to do this prior to Miss C moving out, although we noted that doing so might have helped to avoid the problem. They also told us that they would have visited the property if she had contacted them about possible charges. That said, the repairs bill they sent Miss C referred to an incorrect address and did not provide her with information about the repairs she was being charged for. Miss C contacted them about this but the association then did not provide her with a written breakdown of the costs (although they did provide this during our investigation). Although this was a finely balanced decision, in view of these specific failings we upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• issue a written apology to Miss C for failing to provide sufficient information and for quoting an incorrect address on the original bill;
• consider reviewing their policy for rechargeable repairs in relation to the evidence required, the information given on the bill and whether a survey should be carried out for all tenants before they move out of a property; and
• consider whether it would be appropriate to reduce Miss C's bill for rechargeable repairs further in view of the administrative failings identified.

Summary

Mr C, who is an MSP, complained on behalf of two housing association residents (Ms A and Mr B). The residents were unhappy that, having been told that it would not be possible to have gas central heating installed, the association had not consulted them on what they preferred instead.

Our investigation found that, due to technical and legal concerns, the association could not fit gas central heating as they had originally planned. Most of the tenants who had responded to a survey at the start of the consultation process had preferred this option. When the technical and legal issues came to light, and it was clear that gas central heating could not be installed, the system was re-designed for a wet electric system. Tenants were invited to a meeting before work on the upgrading programme began and the association considered this to be part of the consultation process. However, some tenants were unhappy as they felt that the decision had already been made and they had no opportunity to put forward their concerns or have their views considered.

We took the view that, given the very limited alternatives available when the problems came to light, the association's decision to replace the intended gas system with an electric system was reasonable. However, we were critical that they did not consult with tenants before inviting them to the meeting. We were aware that their policy on consultation with tenants promoted and encouraged consultation, but gave the association the power to make the final decisions in any cases with a financial and/or technical element. We also took on board that at the meeting the association made members of their staff available to discuss the tenants' concerns, as well as staff from the heating system designers and contractors. However, the tenants' only options at this stage were either to accept the proposed wet electric system or remain with the existing inefficient storage heater system. Several tenants, including Ms A and Mr B, in fact chose not to allow access to install the new system. We were also critical of the association's apparent assumption that because only a minority of the tenants invited to the meeting attended, those who did not attend either had no concerns about the new proposal or implicitly approved of it.

In replying at the second stage of the association's complaints process, the chief executive had written a comprehensive letter explaining the problems and the reason for the decisions taken. He acknowledged that communication could have been better in the early stages and partially upheld the tenants' complaint. The association told us that they had learned from the complaint and would in future ensure that proposed options were viable before putting these to tenants. The association also said that they would review their practice for the future. In view of the technical circumstances the association faced, and their assurance that they had learned from these events, although we upheld the complaint we made no recommendations.

Summary

Mrs C wanted to buy her home under the right to buy legislation. She complained that her association were unreasonably refusing her request, and that they gave inconsistent reasons for their refusal. The association explained that when Mrs C left her previous tenancy she had entered into an assured tenancy, under which she had no right to buy. Her tenancy was then changed to a Scottish secure tenancy under the Housing (Scotland) Act 2001. Under this kind of tenancy, she (technically) accrued a modernised right to buy after five years. However, the council had already suspended the right to buy in the area, and had then asked for a further suspension, which the Scottish Government granted. This meant that Mrs C would not be able to exercise the modernised right to buy until 2022.

We considered all the information provided by Mrs C and the association. We also reviewed the law which determines the right to buy, and the relevant government guidance. Having done so, we were satisfied that the association had complied with their responsibilities in terms of Mrs C's right to buy. We also noted that, throughout this process, the association had given her clear and consistent explanations about why her application was refused.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when the co-operative restricted his contact with them using their unacceptable actions policy. They did this because they said they found the volume and content of his emails unacceptable. Mr C disagreed, saying that he only responded to what they sent him, and he did not think his correspondence was generally out of order.

We explained to Mr C that we would not give a view on whether his correspondence was inappropriate as that was a matter for the co-operative - we would only look at how they implemented the policy. Our investigation considered how the decision was taken, how it was communicated and how it was recorded and reviewed. We found that they had explained the decision, outlined the contact arrangements, confirmed how long restrictions would be in place, and recorded all this on their computer system. This meant that the co-operative had done as they should have and had implemented their policy reasonably, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us about poor service and the length of time that it took the association to deal with various complaints about lighting in his close. He also said that the association had not kept him properly informed of progress over a number of months.

After reviewing the association's complaint file and their comments, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. We found that they repaired the close lighting in a timely manner and handled his complaint appropriately.

Summary

Ms C complained that the association had not responded reasonably when she reported noise nuisance from her neighbour, or when another neighbour replaced a section of her boundary fence without prior warning. She also said that an officer had contacted her on her mobile phone without prior agreement that she was happy with this means of contact.

We did not uphold Ms C's complaint about noise. We found that the association had followed their policy on neighbour relations and had worked with Ms C's neighbour and family to try to mediate. They had referred Ms C to the council's noise team, and explained that they could not take action against her neighbour without corroborated evidence, and that they had no evidence of excessive noise. They clearly explained how and to whom excessive noise should be reported when it was happening.

We also found that their response about the fence was reasonable. The neighbour had not told the association or Ms C that they intended replacing some storm-damaged fencing. When Ms C reported that there were workers in her garden she had not expected, but did not receive an immediate response. The association were not, however, required to respond immediately. They did later check the new section of fencing and establish that it was of a sufficient standard, and they offered to have it painted to match the existing fence.

We did uphold the complaint about the phone call. We found that the association should have checked that Ms C was happy for them to use the phone number in question and whether she was expecting a return call. As they had already acknowledged that Ms C had not asked for a return call, upheld her complaint and apologised to her, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.