Housing Associations

Summary

Ms C told us that when she complained about noise from her neighbour's house, the housing association did not deal with the problem. She also said that they did not deal with her complaint in accordance with their published complaints procedure.

Our investigation found that generally the association had acted appropriately and had taken steps to try to resolve the problem, including contacting the council's environmental health department and speaking to the neighbour concerned. We, therefore, did not uphold her complaint that the association did nothing about the noise, but we made a recommendation about one avenue that we considered should be tried again now that we have reviewed the complaint.

We did, however, find that the association had not initially registered her concerns as a complaint. Because of this, they failed to respond within their own stated time limits, and they did not provide Ms C with copies of her complaint files when she asked for them. We also found that, in his efforts to resolve the noise problem, the officer who was eventually asked to investigate both the noise issue and the complaints handling appeared to have overlooked the complaints handling issue altogether. We upheld this complaint and made recommendations to address the failings identified.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• further explore with Ms C the possibility of introducing mediation between her and her neighbour;
• send Ms C a further written apology for failing to follow their complaints handling policy appropriately;
• take steps to ensure that in future they respond to requests for copies of personal information; and
• review their guidance for staff investigating complaints to ensure that each aspect of a complaint is considered and responded to at the appropriate time, and under the appropriate policy. In doing so they should take account of the guidance provided by SPSO’s Complaints Standards Authority.

Summary

Miss C raised a number of issues relating to the association's handling of her request for a higher fence between her property and that of her neighbour. In particular, Miss C believed that the association had unreasonably paid more attention to the demands of her neighbour and had failed to discuss the details of the positioning of the fence with Miss C before starting work, especially as Miss C had indicated that part of the cost of the fence could be met from her son's social work fund. Miss C also raised concerns about the association's handling of the funding for the erection of the fence.

Our investigation found that the association had accepted that they could have progressed this more quickly and, because of the delay, had agreed to meet the full cost of the fence. They also accepted that communication with Miss C could have been better. However, we found no evidence that the association had treated her neighbour more favourably. We also found no evidence of fault in the association's handling of the funding for the fence and were satisfied that they had reasonably explored various avenues of funding.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Miss C for the delay in progressing matters in this case and for the lack of communication with her; and
• consider putting in place a policy on dividing fences.
• 

Summary

Mr C, a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Ms A) who is a tenant of a housing partnership. The flat above Ms A has been let to a charity which houses young people who have been in trouble with the police or who need help with problems. Mr C said the housing partnership did not discuss this with Ms A or her neighbours, and that she has been bombarded by noise, parties and, on one occasion, water coming through her ceiling.

We did not uphold the complaint. Our investigation found that the partnership had followed their own policies and procedures and allocated the property to the charity appropriately. We also found that Ms A had not initially reported any instances of antisocial behaviour and that the partnership had advised her that if she did so, they would take the appropriate action.

Summary

Mrs C complained that, by refusing to repair a divisional fence (a fence that divides the gardens of tenants) and give repair compensation, the housing association were failing to act in accordance with the tenant's handbook she had received when she first became their tenant.

During our investigation the housing association confirmed that they had never carried out repairs to such fences, and we found no evidence that they were failing to act in accordance with their handbook. However, they accepted that their policy in relation to repair and maintenance of divisional fences could perhaps have been clearer and decided to review it. They also, as a gesture of goodwill and without prejudice, agreed to inspect Mrs C's fence and instruct necessary repairs. We were also satisfied that the housing association had demonstrated that the repair reported by Mrs C did not, in terms of their policy, qualify for repair compensation.

Summary

Mr C said that the fence between his and his elderly neighbour's garden blew down during the storms of January 2012. In June 2012 he noticed that other tenants whose fences had blown down at the same time were having these repaired. On making enquiries he said he was told his fence was not going to be repaired at that time. He was unhappy about this and made a formal complaint. Mr C was not happy that he had been assessed as being a priority two for the work, and only tenants assessed as priority one were having their fences repaired at that time. He said he felt discriminated against because the association were repairing fences for other tenants and he considered that the fact he shared his fence with an elderly neighbour meant that it should have been classed as priority one.

We did not uphold the complaint. We found that Mr C's fence was inspected when it was damaged. A works order was immediately raised to remove the damaged fence and gate, as they were a danger to the public, and this was done a week later. The replacement of his fence was, therefore, assessed as being a priority two, as, although the fence was removed for safety reasons, it was decided that renewal would be part of a future fencing programme. At that time, only priority one work was being undertaken. We were satisfied that the association assessed Mr C's priority for the repairs to be undertaken according to their criteria. However, during our consideration of Mr C's complaint the association undertook a review of the type of work they are able to undertake within their repairs service and decided to suspend the renewal of fences until further notice.

Summary

Mr C raised a number of issues about the housing association's handling of his complaint about dampness in his property. In particular, Mr C complained that the housing association had been aware of the problem before they let the property, and that there had been delays in carrying out repairs.

During our investigation we found that before letting the property the association were aware that there was a small area of dampness in a cupboard. They had initially believed this to be a minor issue and had taken action to try to address it. It turned out that the problem in fact related to the whole building, but there was no evidence that the association had been aware of this before letting the property. Once this was known about, as a minority owner within the building the housing association had taken action to try to obtain agreement from the other owners to allow works to be carried out. However, we were concerned at the length of time Mr C had lived with the problem.

The association accepted that he had suffered inconvenience and had offered compensation for this and for the delay in carrying out a repair. We were also concerned that there was no written record of the accompanied viewing that Mr C had of the property before it was let to him. This would have detailed what issues, if any, had been brought to Mr C's attention.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• give further consideration to Mr C's request for housing points should his property show further signs of internal dampness, because of the apparent uncertainty about the completion of the external repairs; and
• retain a note of the accompanied viewing of the property, where a void inspection is not being carried out.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C said they were told in 2010 that their home was to be demolished as part of a regeneration programme and they would be allocated a new-build property. In March/April 2011, the construction company building the new homes went bankrupt and the building site was sealed. Mr and Mrs C said that since then they had been misled as to when they would be re-housed. They also said that they had not been offered suitable temporary accommodation.

We did not uphold their complaints. Our investigation found that the original contractor for the project went into administration in early 2011 which meant that the housing association had to put the contract out to tender again. It was not until April 2012 that a new contractor was appointed. Throughout that period, and up to the date of our investigation, the housing association had regularly written to Mr and Mrs C updating them on the situation. The letters all made clear that the housing association would be back in touch once they had further information, and invited Mr and Mrs C to contact them if they had any questions. We also found that, wherever possible, the housing association gave provisional dates for entry in terms of the information they had at the time.

It was also clear that the housing association told Mr and Mrs C that they could offer temporary accommodation, but that Mr and Mrs C had declined this on the grounds that it would not be practical to move into such accommodation and did not want to be inconvenienced by doing so. There was no evidence to suggest they were offered a specific property that they deemed to be unsuitable.

Summary

Mr C, a housing association tenant, had told the association that he was concerned about the quality of the chimney sweeping undertaken by a contractor on the association's behalf. As a result, a technical inspector from the association accompanied the contractors when Mr C's chimneys were swept.

Mr C complained that this sweep of his chimneys was not carried out to a reasonable safety standard, and that a further test related to his chimneys carried out on the same day had not been undertaken properly. The association investigated Mr C's complaints. They advised that the technical inspector had no concerns about the way the contractors had carried out their tasks but, in recognition of Mr C's concerns, agreed that his sweeps would in future be undertaken top down, weather conditions permitting.

Mr C remained dissatisfied and raised his concerns with us. We decided that we could not consider Mr C's specific complaint to us about the test undertaken at his property, as he had not yet made that properly to the association. On the other matter, we did not uphold his complaint. Our investigation found that the association had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the works carried out on their behalf were of a reasonable safety standard, given the view of the technical inspector and the relevant accreditations of the contractor.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C complained that the housing association failed to include a leaflet of conditions when providing an application form for permission to erect a garden shed. Mr and Mrs C completed the form, then went ahead and bought a shed. However, their application was refused as the proposed shed was larger than the permitted size. After complaining to the association about the lack of information about the conditions, Mr and Mrs C complained to us. They also complained that the association failed to investigate Mr C's allegations that other tenants already had oversized sheds.

Our investigation found that it was not possible to say for sure whether a copy of the conditions leaflet was enclosed with the application form. However, Mr C's support worker had been told that a shed should not be built until permission to do so was given. The form that Mr C completed also explained this and asked him, in signing it, to say that he had read and understood the conditions. We also noted that Mr and Mrs C chose to buy the shed before they had the necessary permission. We found it entirely reasonable that the association applied their own policies in terms of the permitted size of garden sheds.

We were satisfied that Mr and Mrs C were told that they should not construct a shed until permission was granted. As a result of this, and as we did not find any evidence that showed that Mr C had reported other tenants with sheds above the permitted size to the housing association, we did not uphold Mr and Mrs C's complaints.

Summary

Ms C complained to us about her rent account, including that the association refused explain how her rent was calculated; refused to clear her rent account balance to zero; refused to refund payments made for alleged rent arrears; and refused to refund payments made by overcharging her for rent. We found that they had given advice at the outset about how the rent was calculated; and that changes in the rent due were a direct result of a reduction in her housing benefit. Arrears had arisen because she had not paid the shortfall. The association confirmed that if Ms C’s appeal about her housing benefit was successful, and the local council made a refund of backdated benefit, they would act promptly to credit her rent account.

Ms C also said that the association’s welfare rights team failed to provide her with a reasonable service but the evidence showed that they had explained their role, both in emails and in conversations with Ms C. They had explained why they could not help her pursue her complaint that housing benefit had been reduced in error, and confirmed to her that she was pursuing the correct course to appeal about the decision.

Our investigation found that the association had served Ms C with a notice to quit on three occasions, but these were not eviction notices and were served when a tenant was in arrears by a month’s rent. This was in line with the process at the time but we noted that the association changed their practices in July 2011. They now only serve notice to quit when they intend to take legal action.

As part of our investigation, we check whether the body has investigated the complaint in accordance with their own complaints procedure. In this case, we found that they had decided not to offer Ms C the chance to take her complaint to a complaints panel. The association accepted that this was incorrect.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• send a formal apology for not responding appropriately to Ms C's complaint;
• send a letter of explanation and formal apology to Ms C for failures in the handling of her complaint; and
• provide Ms C with an opportunity to take her complaint to a complaints panel, should she so wish.