Housing Associations

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.

Summary

Mr C complained that a housing association staff member had given confidential information about him to a neighbour, and complained about this to the association. The manager who responded to his complaint was, however, one of the staff members who Mr C alleged had disclosed this information. Mr C felt that this was not appropriate. Also, as part of the investigation, the manager contacted the neighbour to ask if he had knowledge of the confidential information. Mr C felt that this gave the neighbour knowledge of who had made the complaint.

We were unable to uphold the complaint about disclosure of confidential information because we could find no evidence to support one version of events over another. However, the association acknowledged that they could have handled their investigation of Mr C's complaint better. They agreed that it should have been conducted by another member of staff and they should have contacted Mr C to seek his permission to contact the neighbour. As they also said they would apologise to Mr C for this and assure him that they had identified areas in their complaints handling procedure that they will take steps to improve, we did not need to make any recommendations.

Summary

Ms C complained about the length of time that the housing association took to complete repairs to her flat. She had moved into her property in December 2012 and had been in contact with the association from then on about repairs, before eventually making a formal complaint some three months later. At that point the association agreed to the works to be done and closed Ms C's complaint. However, Ms C then submitted a new complaint that her home had not met the standards that the association set for their properties. Because of this she said she wanted a refund of her rent up until that time.

The association upheld this complaint and acknowledged the delays in carrying out repairs. They offered Ms C a lesser amount of compensation but Ms C did not feel that this was appropriate. She told the association about the difficulties the delays had caused her in her particular circumstances and maintained that she should be entitled to a full rent rebate. Although the association's final response confirmed their earlier decision to uphold Ms C's complaint, confirmed that her home had not met their standards, and increased their offer, they did not agree to refund the rent in full.

We found evidence that the delays in having the repairs completed were unreasonable and so we upheld Ms C's complaint. However, we do not have the legal power to question the association's decision of how much compensation to award, unless there is some evidence of fault, omission or failure on their part in making that decision. We did not find this in Ms C's case, as the association had made their award based on the 'right to repair' regulations.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• confirm to us that any repairs outstanding from Ms C's complaint have been completed.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C were unhappy that the housing association had refused to repair or replace their draughty living room windows. We found that the association had assessed the windows in question and determined that they were not in a state of immediate disrepair, and would be replaced as part of a forthcoming window replacement programme. Because of this, we did not uphold the complaint.