Housing Associations

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.

Summary

Mr C suffers from a chronic, degenerative back condition and had since 2009 been in contact with housing partnership about draughts in his home, water coming in around his front door and the replacement of his solid fuel heating system. He provided evidence from his occupational therapist and GP that he was unable to cope with his heating system and the cold, draughty conditions in his home. The partnership attended Mr C’s property on a number of occasions to carry out repairs to the windows and doors. Mr C considered, however, that the repairs carried out were inadequate and temporary. He said that the partnership should have replaced his windows to resolve the problem.

The partnership told Mr C that they had a programme of replacement windows and heating systems for all of their stock and that his home was on their list for renewal. However, they advised that they would not be able to do either piece of work until after 2015. During the course of his correspondence with the partnership, Mr C had also asked them to resolve a number of issues for him, including making a number of minor disability adjustments to his home, providing flooring and giving him an immediate transfer and moving costs. The partnership carried out a number of adaptations at the request of his occupational therapist, and placed him on their transfer register with medium priority. However, they refused to immediately transfer him, pay for his moving costs or pay for floor coverings.

We upheld Mr C's complaint about the heating system as our investigation found that the partnership’s funding arrangements allowed them to consider replacing the system as a disability adaptation, but that they had failed to consider this. We did not uphold his other complaints as we found that the partnership had taken appropriate steps in relation to repairs to the property and in response to Mr C’s needs. We did not consider that it was reasonable for the partnership to carry out the further changes that Mr C had requested.

Recommendations

We recommended that the partnership:

• review the current practice for dealing with requests for heating replacement under aids and adaptations funding, to ensure that such requests are dealt with taking into account relevant funding guidance; and
• consider Mr C's request for a replacement heating system as an aids and adaptations referral taking into account the relevant funding guidance.

Summary

Mr C had complained to the housing association about cleaning and repairs. He was unhappy with the way the association then dealt with his appeal to their appeals panel. He said they had not presented all the evidence that he forwarded as part of his complaint, and had allowed a named member of staff, whom he said had blocked his attempts to make his complaint, to remain in the room while the panel were considering his complaint.

We found that Mr C had presented DVDs, containing a large volume of colour photographs and correspondence, which he asked to be given to each of the panel members. The association had produced the photographs in black and white for the panel members but on the day of the panel meeting had made available a ring binder containing the colour photographs. We found that the association had only included relevant correspondence in the pack made up for the panel members, which we considered to be reasonable.

The association's guidance for panel members sets out who will be asked to leave a panel hearing while the matters are discussed, and we found that the named member of staff was entitled to be in attendance.

Summary

Ms C said that she moved into her property in 2007 and early in 2008 reported a water mark on the ceiling in the hall and was told it was from an old leak. Despite reporting every so often that the mark was getting bigger, no action was taken until she reported the matter again in June 2011. An inspection found that there were cracks in her neighbour’s chimney, which was determined to be the likely cause of the damp patch. The chimney was eventually taken down in November 2011. The association’s insurers refused to pay Mrs C's redecoration costs as they said there was no evidence that she had told the association about the problem before 2011.

We found no evidence to support Ms C's claim that between 2008 and June 2011 she had reported the mark on the ceiling getting bigger. Because the chimney was communal, and the other owner shared the responsibility of the cost of any work, the association were required to seek the owner's agreement to the repairs. We also noted that the owner initially agreed to arrange for a repair to the chimney, but because they did not do so, the association eventually had to appoint a contractor to demolish the chimney and reinstate the roof.

We were satisfed that the association responded within a reasonable time when Ms C reported the matter. We did not consider the delay to be excessive, taking into consideration that the owner had initially agreed to take the lead on arranging the repair.