Housing Associations

Summary

Ms C complained that the association had failed, over a period of three years, to investigate fully and resolve her complaint about a continuing strong smell of sewage in her home. When Ms C brought the complaint to us, she said that the association had eventually used a camera to inspect the drainage pipework, and had found a burst pipe in the bathroom which had been fixed, and had later replaced a section of piping in the kitchen, which was also found to be cracked. However, Ms C maintained that there was still a smell, and she was unhappy that the association would not agree to her request for her garden to be dug up to investigate further.

Our investigation found that there was evidence that the association had done what they could to resolve the matter, and that their actions and decisions about carrying out work had been reasonable. There was, however, evidence that they had not followed up on a request they made to Scottish Water to inspect the communal public drainage system, to check for any further blockages, and so we made a recommendation about this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• follow up with Scottish Water the action they have taken in relation to their email request, and let Ms C know the outcome.

Summary

Mrs C lives in a house that had electric night storage heaters, using an economy meter with a reduced tariff. Following public meetings with their tenants, the housing association decided to implement a programme of external wall insulation and replace night storage heating with an air source heat pump system. After the necessary consents were obtained, work started in November 2012, in phases of groups of houses. Tenants were advised of timescales and the start date, and were told that external works were weather dependent.

The internal work was completed in Mrs C's house the following February, during what turned out to be an extremely cold winter, but it was not until May that the external insulation was completed and scaffolding was removed. Mrs C complained that the information and advice she was given about the new heating system was inadequate, and that the association did not complete works within the specified timescales.

Our investigation found that the association had had a lot of contact with tenants to explain what would be involved. They had not, however, made it clear to Mrs C that she would lose her economy meter and would have to negotiate a new tariff for electricity with her energy supplier, and so we upheld her complaint about this. We did not uphold her other complaint as the association had made it clear in advance that external insulation works were weather dependent.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for failing to advise Mrs C of the need to make early contact with her energy supplier;
• consider whether they should reimburse Mrs C for any unavoidable costs incurred between the removal of the economy meter and the application of the new tariff and confirm the outcome; and
• apologise for the confusion caused to Mrs C by a letter stating that the scaffolding had at that time been removed.

Summary

Miss C complained to a housing association about a foul smell in her property. She told us the smell was so bad she had to sleep in her living room and throw away clothes and bedding that the smell had permeated. Miss C said that this was not properly investigated in a reasonable timescale and she believed that she should have been rehoused whilst the problem was investigated.

Our investigation found that the association had made reasonable efforts, albeit unsuccessfully, to identify the source of the smell by involving drainage specialists, environmental health and a pest controller. The smell went away after a period of three weeks. We found the time taken by the association was reasonable. We also found that they had decided, as they were entitled to, that whilst unpleasant the property remained habitable and so there was no requirement to help Miss C find alternative accommodation.

Summary

When Ms C moved to a new house she experienced problems of noise, harassment and intimidation and reported to the association matters that she considered contravened the secure tenancy agreement. She reported matters to the police as well and over a two-year period instructed solicitors, contacted elected representatives and the council, and latterly had help from an advocate in making a formal complaint to the housing association. She complained that the association failed to take appropriate action in response to her complaints of antisocial behaviour; took an unreasonably long time to deal with her formal complaints and did not provide an adequate response; and failed to respond appropriately to correspondence from her GP and to advise on the medical assessment reached.

Our investigation found that there was a lot of documentation, but only two specific antisocial incident files that were opened as a result of contact from Ms C. It was clear that the housing association had not met Ms C's expectations that they would strictly enforce tenancy conditions, but we did not find evidence to uphold her complaint that they had failed to take appropriate action, although we did make a recommendation about letting Ms C know what they would do in future. Our investigation also found that the responses to the complaint were timely and adequate. We did uphold her third complaint, as we found that they had not taken appropriate action in respect of a particular GP letter, and again made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• confirm to Ms C that they will continue to investigate her complaints of antisocial behaviour on their merits, and provide her with written reasons of action taken or why they do not intend to act further; and
• apologise to Ms C for not seeking earlier a copy of a letter from a GP, and for inaccuracies in their stage two complaint response to her advocate.

Summary

Mr C raised his concern about the housing association's handling of his complaint about antisocial behaviour by a neighbour. He complained that the association had failed to follow their policies and procedures for dealing with antisocial behaviour.

We upheld the complaint as during our investigation we found that the association had considered the matter to be a neighbour dispute, and while they had been in contact with Mr C in response to his complaint they had failed initially to fully investigate his concerns in line with their policy. They had subsequently investigated the complaint appropriately, and had suggested organising a meeting with the two parties in an effort to resolve the dispute.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• remind staff of the need to comply with the association's antisocial behaviour policies; and
• consider whether any lessons can be learnt from the handling of this case.

Summary

When Mrs C raised concerns about shadowing that had appeared on her living room and kitchen ceilings, the association investigated and took action to resolve the problem, and did so again later, when the shadowing reappeared. More recently, they carried out further investigations and work in response to Mrs C's concerns that the shadowing was reappearing, and recommended that the affected areas were periodically washed down with soapy water. Mrs C complained to us that while the association had taken some action to resolve the problem, she was not satisfied they had done so effectively. She was also unhappy with the response to her complaints, as she felt they had dismissed her concerns, failed to look at the problem, and created a biased and misleading narrative of events which portrayed her in a negative light.

Our investigation found that the association had acted appropriately, including bringing in equipment to check humidity levels, inspecting the insulation and ventilation in her loft and having an external specialist inspect the property. After making a number of checks over a period of time, during which they had not been able to identify any specific problems, the association said that they found Mrs C's property to be structurally sound with no damp and that they would take no further action. We found that the association's actions and their handling of the complaint were reasonable, and that they had taken Mrs C's concerns seriously.

Summary

Mr C is a tenant of the association. The association installed a lift in his neighbour's property adjacent to the party wall. Mr C complained that noise from the lift disturbed him and his family. He questioned whether the lift had been installed correctly and raised a number of further concerns about the association's response to his complaints about fire safety, roof tiles coming loose and flood and trip hazards in his garden.

Our investigation found that the association had no previous experience of installing lifts in their properties. However, they had appropriately placed the installation and pre-installation planning in the hands of the local council's occupational therapist and the lift company. Although we found no evidence that the level of insulation between the properties had been considered as it should have been, we were generally satisfied that the association took appropriate steps to ensure the lift was installed correctly and in line with national guidance. We also found that the association had appropriately investigated Mr C's complaints about the noise, and had decided to have the local noise enforcement officer measure the extent of this. He concluded that the noise could not be considered a nuisance. We did not consider that the association were obliged to do anything more than this, but noted that they had also taken steps to implement a number of Mr C's suggestions.

With regard to Mr C's other complaints, in each case we found that the association sought the opinion of an appropriate professional and acted on the advice obtained. We considered this to be good practice.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the way the housing partnership handled complaints about antisocial behaviour. Mrs C complained on numerous occasions about the behaviour of her upstairs neighbours. The partnership investigated all the complaints that were reported directly to them, based on their antisocial behaviour policy. They twice took action against Mrs C's neighbour, and monitored the situation over a prolonged period. During this time Mrs C made further complaints about antisocial behaviour, but the partnership did not think there was enough evidence to take further action.

Our investigation reviewed the evidence from the partnership, and found that there were occasions when staff could have investigated reported antisocial behaviour more promptly, when it was not reported directly to them. There were also occasions when there was some evidence of antisocial behaviour of a minor nature that was not addressed. In particular, we found that the partnership lacked an antisocial behaviour procedure for staff dealing with ongoing issues such as those reported by Mrs C. They also failed to provide Mrs C with enough information about what they had done about some of her complaints, and did not explain sufficiently what other action she could take.

Recommendations

We recommended that the partnership:

• develop a clear procedure to assist staff in handling persistent antisocial behaviour and for addressing situations where information is not corroborated, and share this procedure with SPSO; and
• apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified in this complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained to us that after his father died, the housing association unreasonably pressurised him to clear the house and hand back the keys in an unacceptable timescale. When the association investigated Mr C's complaint, they found that their staff had not dealt with the matter in accordance with their policy, which said that when a tenant died and there was no-one else with a right to take on the tenancy, they would allow the relatives one week after the funeral to clear the property, or two weeks in total from the date of the tenant's death, whichever was more appropriate. The association apologised to him and took action to address the failings of their staff. Mr C was dissatisfied with the association's investigation of the matter and outcome, as no financial redress had been offered, which he said he had discussed with the association's director.

We found from our investigation that the association had conducted a thorough investigation, and that the outcome was appropriate. However, we upheld the complaint as there had been an error by the association staff who had asked about the return of the keys far too early, in fact on the day Mr C's father had died. Mr C had eventually been given ten days to clear the house, and although he complained that he had asked for longer, there was no evidence that this was the case. There had been discussion about financial redress which had been considered, but although Mr C had complained to the association that he had not had time to remove some items, he had not made a claim.

Summary

Miss C complained that the association had not dealt with the problem of smoke/nicotine odour in her flat. Our investigation, however, found that they took her concerns seriously and fully investigated the matter. They had sealed pipes from the flat downstairs and had visited to try to see if they could do more, as well as having an architect look at the layout of the flat, but could not find any source for the odours. We were satisfied that their actions were reasonable and in line with procedures. It was for the association as landlord to decide what work was needed to the property, and we saw no evidence of anything going wrong in their decision making process.