Housing Associations

Summary

Ms C complained to the housing association about various types of antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. She complained that the association had failed to deal appropriately with her complaints and had unreasonably failed to carry out their promise to fix her neighbour’s flooring to limit household noise causing disturbance to her.

We examined diaries kept by Ms C, together with the association’s files on their contact with her and the investigation of her complaints. The evidence showed that housing officers had carried out appropriate enquiries, had explored the possibility of mediation and had told Ms C the outcome of their enquiries and why they were unable to pursue matters. We could not establish whether Ms C was given promises that flooring repairs would be done, but we found that housing officers had agreed that a survey should take place, and that repairs were later carried out. We did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association unreasonably delayed reimbursing the credit balance on his mother-in-law (Ms A)’s rent account. The account had been closed because Ms A was moving house and it had a credit balance, both of payments that Ms A had made herself and benefits that the council had paid directly to the association. Although the association had refunded the payments that Ms A had made, they had not refunded the remaining amount.

After Mr C complained, the association contacted the council to ask what they should do. The council explained that they had made a discretionary housing payment (DHP) into Ms A’s rent account. After the DHP had been made, they explained that Ms A’s entitlement to housing benefit increased and this combination had left the account in credit. They also explained that, in general terms, their guidance said that overpayments would ordinarily only be recovered if there was misrepresentation by the claimant. As this had not been the case, the council confirmed that the association should reimburse the money to Ms A.

The council said this again in later correspondence with the association but, in light of their concerns over what they perceived to be public money, the association returned the money to the council and not Ms A. The association’s handling of the matter resulted in the money being transferred months later than it might otherwise have been. Although we recognised that this may have been an unusual situation for the association, we considered that their handling of the matter was unreasonable, viewed as a whole, and given Ms A's personal circumstances (she was quite unwell and had the inherent stress of a house move).

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Ms A for their handling of the matter.

Summary

Miss C complained about the wet electric heating system that the housing association installed. She complained that it was too expensive to run, and that the high bills were putting her in debt. She reported that she had adjusted her lifestyle so that she was using the cheaper rate of electricity, but was still having difficulty heating her home and this was causing dampness and mould.

In response to Miss C's complaints, the association checked the boiler to make sure it was functioning properly, and surveyed her property to assess whether it met their minimum energy efficiency standards. They also identified ways of reducing dampness in her home, and sought energy advice on her behalf, to identify if there was another provider that she could use to reduce her bills.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaint, as we found that the association had met the requirements of their policies and procedures in the way they handled the difficulties she identified with her central heating system. Beyond this, they also sought advice on her behalf to assist with her bills.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy when, after he exchanged tenancies with his father, he could not exercise his entitlement to buy his home through the modernised right to buy scheme. He complained that, as a result of the information the housing association gave him, he was unaware before he exchanged tenancies that the scheme had been suspended. He also said that he did not know that this suspension was extended for another ten years after he and his father completed the exchange. This meant that Mr C could not purchase the property as he had hoped to do.

During our investigation, the association could not demonstrate that they had advised Mr C about the suspension at the time of the exchange. They showed us evidence that the extension of the suspension of the scheme was not confirmed until after the tenancies were swapped, but the leaflet provided to Mr C at the time of the exchange did not mention the suspension at all. It said that a preserved right to buy would be lost when the properties were exchanged, but that someone in Mr C’s position would qualify for the modernised right to buy scheme.

We upheld Mr C’s complaint because the scheme was in fact suspended at the time of the exchange, and the association could not show that they had made Mr C aware of this. This meant that their administrative procedure fell below a reasonable standard. Although we recognised that the association could not give assurances to tenants over what would happen in the future, as there was already a suspension in place we took the view that they could have alerted Mr C to the possibility of this being extended.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr C for their handling of the matter;
• update all relevant staff and paperwork to reflect the existing suspension of modernised right to buy and the potential for it to be extended; and
• consider making an appropriate ex-gratia payment to Mr C in light of their administrative shortcoming in this matter.

Summary

Ms C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of her clients (Mr and Ms A) about the way they had been treated when they complained to the housing association about anti-social behaviour from their neighbours. She said the association failed to follow their processes and procedures and that a member of staff was rude to her clients during a phone call.

Our investigation found that the housing association had in fact taken effective, appropriate action to resolve various incidents that had been complained about over a long period. There was evidence to show that they were in regular contact with Mr and Ms A, and involved other agencies as appropriate, and that they had dealt with formal complaints as set out in their complaints policy and procedures. On the matter of the phone call, as the association do not record calls, there was no objective evidence on which we could base a decision.

Summary

Ms C complained about the time it took for the housing association to carry out repair work to address damp and drainage problems affecting her home. Ms C felt that the housing association had ignored the concerns she had raised both individually and collectively, and was unhappy with the way in which the complaint was handled. Ms C raised the matter with a parliamentary minister because she was dissatisfied at having to constantly phone and write letters in order to gain the housing association's attention.

The association explained that the problems identified were significant and a timescale for completion of the work was difficult to provide because more investigative work was required, but they accepted that they could have communicated better with Ms C. They also acknowledged the information she had provided and offered her an ex-gratia (voluntary) payment as an apology. In addition, they introduced a new customer care centre to improve communications.

It did take around nine months for the damp and drainage problems to be addressed, but the association provided evidence that during that time they were actively working to address extensive problems that affected the whole building. We agreed that the circumstances were exceptional, and that their actions were reasonable.

We found that the association's responses became more informative as work progressed, but on occasion it seemed that Ms C had to ask for information rather than this being proactively given and we upheld her complaint about communication. We concluded, however, that their response to the complaint and offer of redress were reasonable.

Summary

Ms C complained on behalf of her neighbour (Mr A) about the time it took for the housing association to carry out repair work to address damp and drainage problems affecting his home. Mr A felt the association had ignored concerns he had raised both individually and collectively and was unhappy with the way the complaint was handled. Ms C raised the matter with a parliamentary minister because she was dissatisfied at having to constantly phone and write letters in order to gain the association's attention.

The association explained that the problems identified were significant and a timescale for completion of the work was difficult to provide because more investigative work was required, but they accepted that they could have communicated better with Mr A. They also acknowledged the information Ms C had provided, and had offered an ex-gratia payment to her and to another neighbour as an apology. In addition, they introduced a new customer care centre to improve communications.

It did take around nine months for the damp and drainage problems to be addressed, but the association provided evidence that during that time they were actively working to address extensive problems that affected the whole building. We agreed the circumstances were exceptional, and that their actions were reasonable.

We found the association's responses became more informative as work progressed, but on occasion it seemed that Ms C had to ask for information rather than this being proactively provided. We also upheld the complaint about communication. Overall, we found that their response to the complaint was reasonable, but we took the view that Mr A should have been offered the same redress as his neighbours.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• offer a redress payment to Mr A.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C live near tenants of a housing association. Over a number of years, they told the association about continuing antisocial behaviour by their neighbours. They were dissatisfied with the time the association took to respond, the actions taken to address their concerns, and the way the executive committee conducted their investigation of the complaints.

We found that on numerous occasions the association did not interview Mr and Mrs C as they should have done, in line with their antisocial behaviour policy. They had not, therefore, responded appropriately to their concerns, so we upheld the complaint about responses and made four recommendations. We were generally satisfied that the association's other actions were reasonable, although we made two further recommendations in relation to monitoring.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for failing to meet their published timescales in relation to Mr and Mrs C's reports of antisocial behaviour;
• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for failing to respond to a statement about maintenance of their neighbours’ garden;
• review their training and procedures to ensure that relevant staff are aware of the commitment to hold interviews in relation to reports of antisocial behaviour, and the timescales for these;
• review their procedures to ensure actions taken in relation to reports of antisocial behaviour are properly recorded;
• review their procedures to ensure that performance in relation to timescales for action following reports of antisocial behaviour is monitored and that the results of this monitoring are fed back to senior management on a regular basis; and
• review their procedures to ensure that any monitoring of garden maintenance beyond bi-annual walkabouts is properly recorded and the records retained for a reasonable period.

Summary

Ms C complained that the housing association delayed in carrying out repairs to her property. She was unhappy about various issues, but her main concern was the noise that she could hear from another flat. The association had previously given general advice on noise reduction, and fitted insulation between the flats, but this did not resolve the problem to Ms C's satisfaction. They then arranged for a sound test to be carried out and reported to them. In line with the report's recommendations, they agreed that they would carry out more work. However, this was before they checked whether a building warrant would be necessary. When it turned out that a warrant was in fact needed, the cost of the proposed work drastically increased and the association told Ms C that they could no longer go ahead with it.

Although we could not question the decision not to proceed with the work, as the association had provided Ms C with a reasonable explanation of that decision, we upheld her complaints. The problems had been ongoing for some time and we took the view that the association should have been aware that a warrant might be necessary and should have checked this before telling Ms C that the work would proceed. They had also not kept Ms C updated as matters progressed, and there was confusion about whether her concerns were treated as complaints or enquiries.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Ms C for the delay and confusion in their handling of the matter;
• review their process so that staff are proactive in confirming the need for building warrants with the council; and
• confirm that the outstanding repairs have been addressed and explore alternative sound proofing options between the flats.

Summary

Mr C raised concerns about the way in which the association dealt with a leak from his flat into his downstairs neighbour's property. He said they failed to identify the real cause of the leak as a broken pipe and unreasonably issued him with an invoice for the repairs. In reaching our decision on this complaint, we considered only whether the association followed their procedures and whether their actions were reasonable (as it was not for us to determine what caused the leak into the downstairs flat).

The evidence showed that, in determining the cause of the leak, the association considered various evidence, including a statement from the plumber who investigated the problem. The wood under the tiles on Mr C's bathroom floor was found to be soaking wet, including in areas where there were no pipes. Although Mr C thought that the plumber found a leak behind the sink, the association explained that the plumber said that this happened during his investigation on his final visit and he had fixed it within 15 minutes. He found no existing leaks in the pipes, and the association concluded that the damage had been caused over time by the way Mr C was bathing. They also provided six photographs showing water leakage over much of Mr C's bathroom floor. We found that as the association had decided that the cause of the water entering the downstairs property was excessive water being spilt on Mr C's bathroom floor, and not a leak from a pipe, their decision to invoice him for repair costs was in line with procedure. We did not uphold his complaint as the evidence showed that the association followed their procedures and that their actions were reasonable. We did, however, make a recommendation as the association did not have a record of all the repairs visits made to Mr C's property.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• feed back our decision on this complaint to their staff in order to ensure better record-keeping in future.