Housing Associations

Summary

Miss C complained that, despite knowing that she had been paying the rent for and planned to take over the tenancy of her sister's property, the association had refused to allow her to do so and she was now homeless. She was also unhappy with the way a housing officer dealt with the matter.

We found that the association's housing allocation policy says that if a tenant moves out of their home the association will consider assigning the tenancy to a member of the household. The applicant must, however, have had permission to live there and to have had it as their only or principal home for at least 12 months before they can apply for this. The policy also says that, with the association's written permission, tenants may sublet their property if they are absent on a temporary basis. However, the sublet property will always remain in the name of the tenant, and the person subletting it cannot succeed to the tenancy. All this information was included in the tenancy handbook that Miss C's sister would have received when she took up the tenancy.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Our investigation found that Miss C had not obtained permission to live in the property, so she could not be considered to be assigned it, nor could her sister have sublet the property as she was not going to be absent on a temporary basis. We also found no evidence to suggest that a member of staff acted in an unprofessional manner.

Summary

After Mrs C raised concerns with the association about the moisture levels in her home, they carried out dry lining works in two bedrooms to prevent further problems. Mrs C said that she was promised that the cost of wallpaper and paint would be reimbursed on a like-for-like basis after the work was finished.

Our investigation found that Mrs C was told that the re-plastered walls should not be covered with wallpaper for between four and six months to allow them to dry out, that she was offered vouchers in line with the association's decoration policy and that, as a goodwill gesture following her complaint, the association offered to send one of their approved painter contractors to paint the affected areas. We found no evidence either in a policy document or in a letter to Mrs C, to confirm her claim that she would be reimbursed on a like-for-like basis.

Summary

Miss C's property is served by a communal heating system, which failed to provide heating to her home on several occasions over a number of years. She corresponded with and complained to the housing association about this. At the end of the complaints procedure Miss C complained to us.

While we were considering Miss C’s complaints, she accepted a full and final settlement from the association in relation to this. We decided that because she had accepted the settlement, there was no practical outcome that we could achieve, and that we would not consider this further.

Summary

Ms C's grandmother (Ms D) had lived in accommodation owned by the association, but moved to a nursing home. When the tenancy ended, Ms C visited and arranged for a courier to pick up some of her grandmother's possessions. These were items of sentimental value that Ms C wanted to put in storage, as she lived overseas. The association arranged to have the flat cleared and when the courier arrived, some of the items Ms C had hoped to keep were no longer in the flat.

Ms C said that she had made the association aware of the items she wanted to keep, and so they had known these were being kept separately in a cupboard. However, the association said that the lease made it clear that it was the tenant's responsibility to clear a flat (although they could arrange this for a charge) and that they had not known how many items were to be retained. They also said that it was not their responsibility to ensure that Ms C's courier was able to pick these up.

Although the paperwork did indicate that the association knew Ms C wanted to keep some items, we found that this had been based on a verbal discussion. In addition, our investigation found that the association's policy confirmed that it was a tenant's responsibility to clear their property. Although we sympathised with Ms C's position and recognised her loss, we did not uphold her complaint. However, in light of the difficulties that Ms C indicated she had contacting the association from overseas, we made two recommendations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• take steps to document (for example, a brief internal note), in appropriate circumstances, that they have explained that they cannot be responsible for items left in a property following a tenancy's termination; and
• take steps to ensure, if practical with their staffing arrangements, that their coordinator's email 'out of office' reply details a named point of contact in his/her absence.

Summary

Ms C said that when she experienced antisocial behaviour (ASB) from her neighbour, the association did not follow the relevant policies and procedures in relation to this. In particular, she complained that the association did not keep her updated as they should.

We requested the complaint file from the association and noted from their final complaint response that they accepted they had made mistakes and apologised to Ms C for this. We also noted that they had learned lessons from Ms C's complaint and, as a result, have made improvements to the way they deal with ASB complaints. Having carefully considered all of the information available it was clear that the association had taken Ms C's complaint seriously, fully investigated it and made improvements to their procedures. We considered this to be reasonable in the circumstances and did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

When Mr C took a tenancy with the housing association he was unhappy with the state of the kitchen tiling and replaced it himself, after telling a housing officer he intended to do so. Six months after he moved in, he suffered a lighting and power failure on a winter night and called out the association's emergency electrician service. He received an invoice and reminders for this call-out, with which he disagreed. He complained about this and about dampness in his property. When he felt this was not resolved to his satisfaction, he gave notice that he was terminating his tenancy, and moved out, without paying the invoice. As he left the property before handing in the keys, there was no pre-termination inspection and he left no forwarding address. Five days after he handed the keys back, the association inspected the property and said that the work Mr C had done was of unsatisfactory quality. They instructed plasterboard and tiling repairs and work to replace sockets damaged by grout. After receiving the invoices for this work, and without contacting Mr C at his known email address, the association instructed debt recovery agents to pursue Mr C for the sums they said he owed. He eventually found out about the debt through a relative.

Mr C complained to us that the association were unreasonably seeking to charge for the emergency electrician visit and for works carried out after he left the tenancy, and that they put the matter in the hands of debt recovery agents without first contacting him. Our investigation found that the association had unreasonably sought to recover the charges, as there was no evidence to show that they had raised concerns about the quality of the tiling at any time before Mr C vacated the property. We also found that they had not considered whether it was in fact reasonable for Mr C to call out the electrician under the circumstances, and that they could have first contacted him by email about the debt recovery.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• review their advice to tenants on use of the out-of-hours service and the circumstances where tenants may or will be re-charged;
• consider reducing the recharges sought to recognise the administrative failings identified;
• share the decision with staff involved in this matter to ensure that in future appropriate records are kept of discussions held with tenants;
• remind staff that, where applicable, written permission for carrying out repairs/improvements to a property is provided to tenants as per the tenancy agreement; and
• give consideration to amending their processes so that, where a request has been made by the association for a tenant to bring repairs carried out themselves up to an acceptable standard, an inspection is subsequently carried out to ensure that this has been done.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association had not dealt properly with his complaint about parking problems at a site where he rented a garage. He said that 'no parking' signs were removed while refurbishment work was being carried out close by, but that they were not reinstated in the same places as before. Mr C said that vehicles were now parking in a way that prevented him from accessing his garage. He also told us that the association had not responded to his correspondence and complaints about the matter.

We found that the association had the right to decide where the signs should be, and that they had taken all reasonable steps to resolve the problem including putting up signs and placing road markings, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the parking. They had, however, acknowledged that they had not dealt appropriately with Mr C's correspondence and complaints. They had apologised to him and explained what they had done to ensure that in future they would deal with complaints in line with their policies and procedures. We upheld his complaint about the association's complaints handling but, because of the action they had already taken, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C had on occasion recorded phone conversations with members of the housing association's staff. He was, however, then told that, while calls from customers were recorded, the association's guidance said that staff should decline requests from customers wishing to record calls. Mr C complained that this was unreasonable, and also said that a complaint he had raised was dealt with by a member of senior staff, rather than being escalated to the chief executive.

After investigating this, we did not uphold Mr C's complaints. The association confirmed that there was such guidance for customer service staff, but that the decision was generally left to their discretion. However, they had decided that there was a need to unify practice, and said they would review their policy about members of the public recording phone conversations. Once this was completed, customers would be informed. We found this reasonable. We also found that the complaint had been dealt with in accordance with the complaints procedure, and that a designated senior member of staff had replied to Mr C's complaint at the final stage, and signposted Mr C to the SPSO.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Ms A). Ms A left her housing association property in January 2010. Some months later the association sent her a bill for rechargeable repair work (work carried out by the association that the tenant/former tenant has to pay for). Mr C said his brother phoned the association at the time to query the bill but nothing further was heard. The association sent Ms A two further letters, then nothing more until March 2013 when they sent a statement of account pointing out that the bill remained unpaid. Mr C phoned the association to query the bill and told them that he was to be the contact for his mother's account, as she suffered from health problems. He said he did not receive a response. The debt was then passed to a recovery company who wrote directly to Ms A, which she found distressing. Mr C complained to the association about their handling of the bill, then to us that the association delayed unreasonably in pursuing Ms A for the debt.

Our investigation found that in 2010 the association contacted Ms A three times about the debt. While we accepted that there was a long period during which there was no contact, they had pursued the debt more than once in 2010, which was within a reasonable time. We considered that it would have been reasonable for Mr C (or his family) to have taken steps at that time to ensure that the matter was resolved. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, and we also noted that the association had already apologised for the time taken, provided an explanation and reduced the bill. However, we did highlight to them that they should consider how they pass information to their recovery company as it appeared that the association did not tell the company that correspondence should be with Mr C, who was acting on behalf of Ms A.

Summary

Ms C had a single bedroom tenancy. Her adult son had come to live with her in February 2013, while he was awaiting housing. Ms C wanted to move elsewhere, but did not want to immediately give up the tenancy, as she was taking up her new housing arrangement on a trial basis. She emailed the housing association in late April to ask if she could sublet to her son. A housing officer called her the same day and said that with her son resident she was creating an overcrowded situation, and that she would not be given permission to sublet. The housing officer followed this up by sending her son forms to update his housing application, and writing to Ms C saying that her son should leave within two weeks and make contact with the local council’s homelessness officer. Ms C then made a written request for permission to sublet the tenancy to her son and complained about the housing officer’s actions. This resulted in the association granting Ms C permission to sublet for a temporary period of four months, and apologising.

Ms C sublet the house to her son and moved away. In August 2013 she told the association that she wished to terminate her tenancy and make her move permanent. She asked whether the tenancy could be assigned to her son. For this to be allowed, however, the association needed to establish that her son had lived there for six months. He had been asked for evidence, but had no documentary proof. Ms C supplied evidence that when her son came to stay with her she had told the council that she was no longer eligible for single person’s council tax discount, but the housing officer said that this did not in itself confirm her son’s residence. Ms C complained again. The chief executive responded to her complaint, and also invited her to withdraw her request to terminate the tenancy, so that she could ask for it to be assigned to her son.

Ms C made three complaints to us about this. We did not uphold her complaints that the association had failed to follow the correct processes and procedures when she first told them that her son was living with her or that they had unreasonably failed to deal with her enquiries, as we found no evidence that the association had done anything wrong in respect of these. We did uphold the complaint that she was initially told that she could not sublet to her son, but as the association had already apologised for that and had given permission for the sublet, we did not make any recommendations.