Housing Associations

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.

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.