Housing Associations

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.

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.