Housing Associations

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.

Summary

Ms C was unhappy with the heating system in the property she rented from a housing association. She complained that it was ineffective, unreliable and expensive to run. She also complained that the association had failed to carry out repairs or to deal with her complaint appropriately.

Our investigation found that the heating system was chosen by the previous tenant, and there had been difficulties with it that had taken months to resolve. We were concerned that the association had not assessed Ms C's medical information before offering her the property. We also found that although she had been told the location of the property's Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), which had indicated that the efficiency of the main heating was very poor, the EPC and the potential running costs of the heating system had not been explained to her. We found no evidence that general repairs had not been carried out, or that the association had failed to investigate Ms C's concerns about dampness but we were concerned that it took some months before the heating system was repaired, especially as the problems had occurred during the winter.

We, therefore, upheld Ms C's complaints that the system was inappropriate and that the association did not carry out repairs appropriately. We found no evidence, however, that they failed to deal with Ms C's complaints.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• issue Ms C with an apology for the failings identified in the complaint;
• ensure that both a copy and a full explanation of the EPC is provided to prospective tenants before a tenancy agreement is signed; and
• ensure that when they receive a completed Health and Housing Need form from a prospective tenant that this is assessed and taken into account before a tenancy agreement is signed.

Summary

One of Mr C's children is severely disabled, and the family home was not suitable for his family's needs. He had for several years been awaiting the offer of a suitable house. When local builders submitted planning applications for part of a new housing association development, Mr C's child was twice assessed by a council occupational therapist for the adaptations that would be needed for one of the new houses to meet their specific needs. These adaptations were to be funded by the council and would be communicated in a particular design brief to the builders. Mr C was provided with a copy of the then current plans, which showed the proposed house to be detached. Mr C attended a meeting with the association in the late summer of 2010, and in response to queries he raised in email correspondence was informed that several of the points could be postponed to a subsequent detailed design stage. After planning consent was given for the development, the plans were amended without further consultation with Mr C or the council's occupational therapist. When Mr C saw the amended plans, he said that these showed a semi-detached house and that there were other significant differences in the proposals.

Mr C made two complaints - firstly that the association unreasonably altered the plans, and that this meant that the house would not meet his child's needs; and secondly that the association failed to inform him or consult with him about the amended plans. We did not uphold Mr C's first complaint as there was no unequivocal evidence that the association had instructed the amendments. When they learned that changes had been made, they had rectified matters by instructing further changes to ensure that the house, when completed, would meet Mr C's child's needs. The association agreed, however, that there had been a breakdown of communication with Mr C and so we upheld that complaint and made a recommendation.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• liaise with relevant senior officers in the health partnership now responsible for Occupational Therapy input, to look into the issues of communication in this case to better identify the specification of needs in new build projects and to manage family expectations.

Summary

Mr C needed a lot of support with housing matters. He was asked to go to his local housing office about a rent matter and called in, expecting to see one of two officers he had dealt with before, but they had both retired. He was introduced to his new housing officer, but was not happy with the way the interview went.

Mr C complained about the association’s investigation into his complaint about the housing officer, and also that the association delayed in providing him with the support of another officer.

Our investigation found that, although Mr C was unhappy with the association’s investigation of his complaint, they had treated it seriously and dealt with it properly, and gave him appropriate information in their responses. We also found that, after he complained, Mr C was allocated a different housing officer (Officer 2). However, Mr C told the association that he would rather deal with another he knew and was comfortable with (Officer 1).

Although we understood why Mr C requested this, he had at that point had no contact with Officer 2, so we did not consider it reasonable to ask the association to change arrangements, given that there had been no problems and that support was available to him.

As part of our investigation, we discovered that Officer 1 did not have capacity to support Mr C. However, we also noted that Mr C had not received a reply to his request to be allocated that officer, and we made a recommendation to address this.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for failing to respond to Mr C's request to have a particular housing officer assigned to his case.

Summary

Mrs C is Ms A's mental health support officer. She complained on behalf of Ms A about the association's actions after water came into Ms A’s property. Mrs C said the association failed to assist Ms A, who is a vulnerable tenant, in cleaning up the damage, replacing goods and redecorating, resulting in Ms A having to live in a damp property with unrepaired walls and damp and mouldy carpets. She also complained that the association delayed in passing an insurance claim to their insurers and did not respond to Mrs C’s letters of complaint, or follow their complaints procedure.

Our investigation found that the association offered to move Ms A to another property while her home dried out, in accordance with their normal procedures, but this was declined because of Ms A’s mental health problems. The association provided dehumidifiers to help dry out the property and paid for the running costs. We accepted Mrs C’s contention that she had to bring up the issue of the running costs with the association but there was insufficient evidence for us to say that Mrs C also had to ask for the dehumidifiers to be provided. The evidence also suggested that the association did not delay in providing these.

On the matter of replacement goods, our investigation found that the association acted appropriately by initially suggesting Ms A apply for a crisis loan to replace the damaged items. However, had the association passed her claim to their insurers within a reasonable time, this would have meant that money for replacements would have been available to Ms A much earlier.

In terms of the association helping redecorate Ms A's property, we were unable to say with certainty that no offer to redecorate was made. We accepted that it would not have been reasonable for them to redecorate Ms A’s property until liability had been determined, but the delay in the association concluding their internal investigation meant that it took more than two and a half months for them to decide that they were in a position to make any offer to redecorate.

The evidence showed that the association unreasonably delayed in forwarding the claim to their insurers and failed to follow their own procedures when investigating the claim. We agreed with the remedial action that they had already taken on this, but we made a recommendation about recording such assessments, as there were none on file in this case.

Our investigation found that, given what Mrs C said in her initial letter to the association, it was reasonable that they started their claims process. However, it was clear that Mrs C’s letter also contained statements of dissatisfaction about the support provided and the handling of Ms A's case. We considered that the association should have explained in writing the points being dealt with as an insurance claim and those that could be considered under their complaints procedure, then dealt with these appropriately. The evidence also showed that the association failed to respond appropriately to Mrs C’s further communications on the complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• provide Ms A with a written apology for unreasonably failing to assist her by failing to offer to pay for the dehumidifier running costs and for failing to ensure that replacement goods and any offer to redecorate could have been made at an earlier date;
• revise their procedure to include a requirement for staff to detail their assessment of liability and conclusions;
• provide Mrs C and Ms A with a written apology for failing to deal with this complaint properly; and
• feed back our findings to the staff involved.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association retrospectively granted their tenant, one of his neighbours, permission to keep a dog which he considered represented a danger to children. Mr C said that after this happened, objections were registered. These were heard at an appeal and upheld, and the association revoked the permission. However, when the neighbour appealed against this decision, permission for her to keep the dog was reinstated. Mr C complained that the association inappropriately granted this permission and took too long to go through the appeal process, which he said also caused confusion. He also complained that the association had failed to ensure that a suitable fence was erected in the neighbour's garden.

We carefully considered this complaint, and reviewed all the correspondence and photographs provided by Mr C. We made detailed enquiries of the association, examined how they dealt with Mr C's concerns, and reviewed their investigations into his complaint. We also examined relevant policies and procedures including the Dangerous Dog Act 1991 (and Amendment Act 1997) and the association's 'permission to keep a pet' policy.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the association had appropriately granted permission for the neighbour to keep the dog, and had carried out both the first and second appeal processes appropriately and with transparency. In recognition of Mr C's concerns, they had attached provisions to the granting of the permission. We also found that, once the relevant planning permission had been obtained, the association had installed appropriate fencing.

Summary

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Ms A) that her housing association had unreasonably refused to install a level access shower at her home. The association explained that they were unable to fund such a major adaptation to a property where a new bathroom had recently been installed. They explained, however, that Ms A could carry out the works herself, at her own cost, providing they met the association's specification. As an alternative, they said that she could apply for a transfer to a suitably adapted property in the same block.

We reviewed the association's policies as well as government guidance on adaptations. We found that the association did not have a duty to provide this adaptation. We noted that they had considered Ms A's request for the adaptation and clearly explained why they felt they could not provide it in her case. We also noted that they had tried to assist Ms A by providing her with alternative options. As the association did not have a responsibility to provide this adaptation and as they had tried to work with Ms A to find solutions to her access difficulties, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C's elderly uncle (Mr A) had been a tenant of a housing association for many years. His home is factored by a subsidiary company (the company) of the association. When that association then transferred a large quantity of housing stock to another housing association (the new association) non-common repairs (ie most internal repairs) became the responsibility of the new association. However, common repairs to external stairs and paths remained the responsibility of the company.

Mrs C complained about the poor condition of the external stairs leading to the building where Mr A lives and that they were a safety hazard. Mrs C also complained that it took over a year for outdoor handrails to be fitted, and for Mr A’s kitchen drawers to be repaired. She was also unhappy that the new association did not clearly explain their repairs policy nor advise her for over a year that the factoring of Mr A’s home remained the responsibility of the company.

We upheld three of Mrs C's four complaints. Our investigation found that the new association had been planning a joint programme of improvement works with the company in relation to the stairs. We also found that the new association did not know, at the time of Mrs C’s complaint, that the company factored Mr A’s building and so were responsible for installing the handrails. As a result of this, there was a long delay in the matter being referred to the company. We found that the records of the internal repair were misleading in that they showed that it was complete when in actual fact it remained outstanding for over a year. In addition, although the new association had been undergoing a period of change in terms of their housing stock, they should have identified that the company were the factors for Mr A’s building. We made three recommendations because of these failings. However, we took the view that the new association had made reasonable attempts to respond to Mrs C’s questions about their repairs criteria and to explain that repairs to the stairs would form part of a wider plan involving those residents across the estate who owned their homes.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• review how the initial repair request for the drawer was handled, with a view to ensuring clear records are made and outstanding repair work is not recorded as complete without good reason;
• make a time and trouble payment to Mr A; and
• apologise to Mrs C and Mr A for all the failings identified in our report.