Housing Associations

Summary

Mrs C complained that the housing association failed to follow their allocations policy by allocating a flat, which was adapted for wheelchair access, to a couple, rather than to her mother (Mrs A), who had a higher medical priority. She said that, despite her complaint, the association failed to put a hold on the tenancy and, when it was established that they had indeed made a mistake, they unreasonably delayed in arranging a mutual exchange with the couple who had moved into the property and who were willing to exchange with Mrs A.

The association identified, when carrying out their own investigation into the complaint, that they had failed to follow their allocations policy. We also found that they had missed a number of opportunities to rectify this mistake before the tenancy agreement was signed, and we upheld this complaint.

However, we did not uphold the complaint that they failed to put the tenancy on hold when Mrs C complained as, by this stage, the tenancy agreement was signed and could not be revoked. In addition, it was clear from our examination of the housing association's actions following this complaint that they had acted appropriately by trying to resolve this unfortunate situation in the best interests of all parties. We found no evidence that they unreasonably delayed in arranging a mutual exchange.

Summary

Mr C’s son (Mr A) had died, leaving a widow and young family. Mr A and his widow were tenants of the housing association. After Mr A died, Mr C handled matters, including contacting the association within days of his son's death. Mr C complained that the rental direct debit was taken for the following two months, despite Mr C having been assured that it had been cancelled. In addition, representatives of the association visited the property with paperwork that was still in joint names, inappropriate rent reminder letters were sent and correspondence continued to be issued in joint names. This was already a very difficult time for Mr C and his family and he told us that this added unnecessarily to their upset and distress. Mr C complained that the association, on being told of his son’s death, did not internally communicate this appropriately to staff. He also felt that they should have had a specific policy in place to handle such matters.

We upheld Mr C’s complaint that the association's internal communication had failed. The association had explained that the local housing officer who would normally have handled such matters had left her post suddenly. We noted that Mr C had taken this into account and had contacted the housing association directly, rather than trying to do so through that officer. We noted that the association had apologised for and explained their mistakes, and had offered some redress to Mr A's widow. Having considered all the evidence and taken account of the fact that the retired officer was soon to be replaced, we did not uphold his complaint that they should have a specific policy in place.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• confirm that a replacement housing officer is in place; and
• confirm that steps will be taken to ensure that bereavements are communicated more effectively.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C, who are housing association tenants, arranged for the association to work on their heating system. This work required the removal and refitting of carpet.

Mr and Mrs C complained that the association unreasonably damaged their carpet and failed to refit it properly following the works. They complained that newspapers beneath the carpet and underlay had been removed but not replaced, and that sections of carpet were removed when it was refitted. They were particularly concerned that sections of underlay, which they said was of a special type, were removed at the doorways. Although this had been an upsetting matter for Mr and Mrs C, the original carpet fitter's manager stated that the underlay had actually been of a standard kind.

The association had also obtained advice from an independent carpet retailer about appropriate practice for underlay and thresholds. This advice confirmed that underlay should not be fitted beneath a threshold bar as had originally been done and that the carpet fitter, when refitting the carpet, had followed accepted practice. Sections of the carpet were removed as part of the 'stretching' process when relaying the carpet, something that the association indicated had not been done when the original carpet was laid.

While noting that it would have been reasonable for the carpet fitter, in anticipation of Mr and Mrs C's potential concerns, to have explained what he was doing, our investigation found no evidence to indicate that anything other than accepted practice had been followed. As such, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mrs C had been decanted twice for work to be undertaken to her house after flooding. She complained that she had to be decanted a second time because the original works were not undertaken properly. Mrs C was concerned with the delay in undertaking the repairs. She also complained that the association were acting unreasonably in refusing to carry out work that she believed was necessary to ensure that the flooding problem would not return. Mrs C complained too that when she had been decanted the first time, the association had paid for redirecting her mail, as well as the gas and electricity in the decant house, but were refusing to do this for her current decant.

Mrs C told us that to resolve her complaint she wanted the works carried out by the association independently checked. We explained that we did not have the expertise to do this and it was not part of our role. However, as part of our investigation, we explored with the association whether they would be prepared to arrange for Mrs C's house to be checked independently. They agreed to this, and also that Mrs C could have a say in which firm would be used, and could be present when the property was checked. We decided that this would resolve the complaint. In coming to this decision, we took into account evidence we were given by the association that showed that Mrs C had signed a decant agreement, which confirmed that she would pay for gas and electricity, and that the disturbance allowance they gave her should be used to cover redirection of mail.

Summary

Miss C complained that a housing association had unreasonably refused to allow her to widen her driveway by allocating her land from her neighbour's driveway. She had asked for this for mobility reasons. Under the terms of the Equality Act 2010, the association have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid putting people with disabilities at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who are not disabled.

Our investigation found that the association had considered, from a number of viewpoints, the possibility of extending Miss C's driveway. These included other available options for access to a vehicle, the current and future implications of extending her driveway and the impact that the agreed removal of a bin store would have on the space available for vehicle access.

In investigating this complaint we noted, however, that it was for the association to decide whether a proposed adjustment is reasonable. We decided that what the association had done represented a reasonable consideration of the proposed adjustment and that they had, therefore, made their decision appropriately.

Summary

Mrs C complained about the housing association's response to a request that her mother's designated parking space be altered. The association considered the request but decided that, taking everything into account, the alteration could not be made.

Mrs C complained to us that the association had not taken her mother's personal circumstances into consideration. We found, however, that there was clear evidence that they had considered her mother's circumstances and, based on these, had taken a decision that they were entitled to take. As there was no evidence of anything having gone wrong in the taking of that decision, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Ms C complained that the housing association failed to offer a suitable resolution to her complaint about the condition of her garden. Our investigation found that the association investigated Ms C's concerns and explored what steps could be taken to improve the condition of her garden. They advised Ms C of their proposed solution but she was unhappy with that. However, we were satisfied that the association were entitled to decide what action to take in an effort to improve the condition of Ms C's garden. The fact that Ms C did not like the solution offered was not evidence that the association had failed to offer a suitable resolution and, because of that, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

In addition, Ms C complained that the association failed to deal with her complaint appropriately. However, after reviewing all of the evidence available, we were satisfied that the association took Ms C's complaint seriously and investigated the matter appropriately.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy with the housing association's response to complaints he had brought to them of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance. He complained that the association had failed to respond appropriately to his complaints.

Our investigation found that over a period of four years, Mr C had complained four times about noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour by his neighbours. In addition, he made a complaint to the council on one occasion, who shared this information with the association in a joint working arrangement. Our investigation found that each of these complaints was appropriately dealt with, but that the association could have given Mr C more information about what they were doing to resolve each situation. They had already identified this themselves, however, and had made changes to ensure that this did not happen again.

Summary

Mrs C is a housing association tenant. The association arranged to treat dampness in the kitchen of her property, and offered her a contribution towards the costs of redecorating the affected area. Mrs C refused this offer, as she considered it insufficient to cover the full redecoration costs. The association explained that the tenant was responsible for redecoration costs, and that it was not their policy to pay the full costs unless they had been negligent in carrying out the works.

As this was the third time in six years that repair works had been carried out on the same area, Mrs C took the view that the association were at fault in not fixing the problem sooner. The association said that each repair job had addressed a different problem and it was only by coincidence that all three were in the same area. Mrs C also felt that the recent works should have been carried out before her new kitchen was installed, and the association accepted that this had been an oversight on their part. However, as this would have meant the repair would have been considered part of routine improvement works, which do not attract any redecoration allowance, they took the view that Mrs C had in fact benefited from the oversight.

Our investigation reviewed all the available evidence, and we were satisfied that the association had given appropriate consideration to the information from their contractors when assessing the nature and quality of works carried out. We found no evidence to suggest that Mrs C had suffered because of any negligence on the part of the association and, as the level of redecoration allowance offered was in accordance with the criteria set out in their policy, we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C was a tenant of a housing association. There was a leak from the flat upstairs into his house. His bathroom ceiling partially collapsed and it had to be taken down and replaced. Mr C complained that the association delayed in dealing with the collapsed ceiling. He also felt that they unreasonably took down part of the collapsed ceiling without testing for asbestos in the artex coating of the ceiling. Mr C’s flat had been rewired a number of years ago and he also complained that the association had left him exposed to live wires.

To investigate these complaints we asked the housing association for documentary evidence of what had happened. We reviewed this, and as we found that the association did take too long to fix the collapsed ceiling, we upheld that complaint. However, we also found that the association had apologised to Mr C and made him a financial payment, and had undertaken to give staff training to ensure that the situation would not happen again. We, therefore, made no recommendations.

We did not, however, uphold Mr C's other complaints. The association supplied us with evidence that showed that they had been aware of the existence of asbestos. They were, however, also able to demonstrate that they had undertaken the work with asbestos appropriately, and had carried out atmospheric tests before and after the work to ensure that no fibres had been released. The association also explained that the area of electrical wiring about which Mr C complained was not part of the rewiring work that they had undertaken. Once they were aware of the problem, they rectified it. They then undertook an independent electrical test of his house to reassure him, which confirmed that it was safe.