Housing Associations

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.

Summary

Ms C and her son live in a house owned by the association. After discussions about her son's anti-social behaviour, the association wrote to Ms C saying that she would be re-charged (have to pay for) for damage caused during an incident in 2007 when her son's friend forced the door open.

Because of the amount of money that Ms C owed the association, they served her with notice that they intended to take proceedings to end her tenancy. She then signed a document admitting that she owed £688.88 for repairs and agreed to repay the debt at £5 per week. Over the next three years, Ms C continued to repay the debt, making various arrangements to vary her repayments.

In May 2011, Ms C wrote to the association saying that she was unhappy with the rechargeable repair. She referred to an incident in 2008 when a door was broken, which she believed she was recharged for and which she felt was not her fault. Ms C initially said that her ex-partner had damaged the door and the association asked her to provide a police report detailing what happened. The incident number that she gave was, however, not relevant to the damage that the association had charged her for. Ms C also said that it was actually her son's friend who had kicked the door, not her ex-partner. The association continued to hold Ms C responsible for the cost of the repair.

After Ms C complained, the association's depute director and management committee considered the matter. They took the view that, because of Ms C's varying accounts of the cause of the damage, the fact that she had already had ample opportunity to dispute the charges and had made substantial payments towards the rechargeable repairs, there was no reason to refund the payments she had already paid or to cancel the outstanding balance.

When Ms C complained to us, she told us that she had challenged the charges at the time they were made and had provided crime reference numbers which she believed the association had lost. After careful consideration of the association's files and records, we found no evidence that Ms C was charged for an incident in 2008 or that she had challenged the decision to charge her for the incident in 2007 at any point before May 2011. We considered that the decision not to write off the rechargeable repair was a discretionary one (ie one the association were entitled to take) and that the association had considered Ms C's request in 2011 reasonably, taking into account the relevant factors.

Summary

Mr C bought a share in a property from the association. Shortly after moving in, he found that a new conservatory built by the previous sharing owner was poorly constructed and needed work costing more than £1,500. Mr C complained that the association had failed to enforce the terms of the previous sharing owner's exclusive occupancy agreement and shared ownership handbook by failing to properly inspect the conservatory and put the work right before the sale.

The association admitted that they had taken photographs of the poor workmanship before the sale and had intended to inspect it. However, the inspector did not do so until after the sale took place, by which time the association had decided not to take action, on the basis that the property had changed hands and the previous owner had given the association building and electrical certificates.

The association admitted that it had failed to follow its policy by not inspecting the work and that officers should not have accepted the work based on electrical and building certificates, as these did not guarantee the quality of the work. The association recognised this when dealing with Mr C's complaint, and had apologised for their failings. However, they did not reimburse any of Mr C's expenses on the basis that he had signed an exclusive occupation agreement in which he agreed that the property was in a reasonable state of repair and that he would take full responsibility for its repair and maintenance. The association also said that Mr C had purchased his share in the property based on a market valuation that should have reflected any deficiencies in the property in the sale price.

We upheld Mr C's complaint because of the way in which the association had dealt with the previous owner's conservatory. Our investigation found that they had failed to follow their policy on property inspections, and failed to reach a reasoned, informed decision about whether they would arrange for those works to be remedied. However, because Mr C had purchased the property at a price set by an independent valuer, and had agreed to repair and maintain it, we did not consider that we could reasonably link Mr C's injustice to a direct financial loss. We noted that the association had apologised to Mr C and had made a number of substantial procedural changes to prevent such a problem occurring in the future. We, therefore, did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C completed a tenancy exchange in June 2011. On moving in, they noticed that the floor in the living room slanted steeply. The housing association suggested that a self-levelling compound (a cement-based solution) would solve the problem. A structural engineer confirmed this after a second inspection. Mr and Mrs C were initially given a date in July 2011 for the work to be undertaken and told that they would not be able to access the room for four days to allow the compound to dry. However, when the workers arrived to carry out the work and lifted the carpet they found that the slant was too deep for the compound to fill and that they would have to break up the floor and relay it. They rearranged the job for 1 August. When the engineers began work, however, they found it to be a much larger job than at first thought. It took 11 days to complete.

We found that association staff were not aware of the problem but, when it was brought to their attention, they acted promptly and appropriately and organised the initial investigation and programme of work within a reasonable timescale. Once it became clear that more extensive work was required, the association kept Mr and Mrs C informed of progress and revised timescales. The association paid for the storage of Mr and Mrs C's furniture and had offered to pay for other services, some of which Mr and Mrs C accepted and others they refused. We were satisfied that Mr and Mrs C received the appropriate allowances for disturbance and decorating costs. We took into consideration that Mr and Mrs C had signed a mutual exchange form agreeing to accept the property, including all floor coverings, as agreed with the outgoing tenant. The association have said that none of their previous tenants had alerted them to the fact that the floor was not level and Mr and Mrs C acknowledged that they did not notice it when they inspected the property, probably due to the carpeting being in place.

However, the chief executive acknowledged in a report for the appeals panel that they should have investigated the slope further at the outset and for that reason, we upheld the complaint that the association unreasonably failed to properly plan the work required to sort out the problem. As the association had already identified lessons to be learned from this matter, we recommended only that they apologise to Mr and Mrs C.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• the chief executive write to Mr and Mrs C to apologise for the failure to properly investigate the slope prior to the work commencing.

Summary

Mr C said the housing association had not properly investigated his complaint that he was being harassed by his housing officer. He said that he was being harassed because he had questioned why he had been issued with a warning about anti-social behaviour.

We did not uphold his complaint. We found that the housing association had initially delayed in investigating his complaint but had held two meetings with Mr C to allow him to present any evidence in support of it. The minutes of the meetings showed that Mr C did not provide any evidence to support the allegation of harassment.

Summary

Mrs C was unhappy with the time taken by the housing association to carry out a repair to crumbling sandstone on a parapet above her window. She said that sandstone, mortar and lead flashing were falling down in front of her window. Mrs C complained that scaffolding had been erected for 35 days but debris was still coming down, no repair work had been started and she could not access her garden through the french windows.

We found that the association had erected scaffolding to inspect the matter and to find out what repairs were required. Having done so, they instructed specialist structural engineers to carry out a structural survey. On receipt of their report, the association instructed the engineers to prepare drawings and specifications to put the work out to competetive tender. We did not find any delays in the process and noted that the association had kept all tenants, including Mrs C, informed at every stage of the process. We were also satisfied that, for health and safety reasons, the association had temporarily removed access to the garden and had explained this to Mrs C.

Summary

Ms C said that in July 2011 she had reported to the housing association that the kitchen door in her new property was sticking on the floor when being opened or closed. She assumed the door had 'dropped' and said the housing association had told her it was her responsibility to repair it. When it became more difficult to open or close the door in March 2012, she asked for someone to come out to investigate. It was then identifed that, rather than the door being the problem, the floor had swollen. Several visits took place to search for the cause of the floor swelling and Ms C was eventually asked to lift the floor covering completely. When the floor covering was lifted, it cracked and ripped. Ms C said that the maintenance officers could not identify where the leak had originated but the housing association said it was caused by her washing machine. Ms C was unhappy and said that the association delayed in coming to investigate the problem in the first place, wrongly blamed her washing machine for the water leak which caused the floor to swell up, and refused to replace the floor covering.

We found no evidence to suggest that Ms C had raised the matter of the door sticking before February 2012 and that when she did raise it, the housing association acted promptly to identify the cause. The information provided by the housing association showed that the professional opinion of all concerned was that Ms C's old washing machine was the cause of the water leak as the area affected was drying out since the floor covering had been lifted and there was no evidence of a leak at any of the visits made.

Ms C's tenancy agreement states that, where necessary, she must agree to uplift floor coverings where repairs are being carried out. Compensation payments by the association are normally only offered where there is evidence of inaction or negligence in addressing a matter that was the responsibility of the housing association to resolve and we found no evidence of negligence. We were satisfied that the association acted appropriately in advising Ms C to make a claim on her own home insurance.

Summary

Mr C was unhappy because the housing association told him in late 2011 that they wanted to rewire the property where he lives. He had just finished decorating the house after taking up the tenancy four months earlier. He said the rewiring would affect the decorating he had just done and, in the circumstances, he was not happy with the association's standard offer of a £420 decorating allowance. Mr C said that he should have been made aware, on taking up the tenancy, that a rewiring programme was planned.

We found that the association had been running electrical rewiring contracts since 2007 and that Mr C's property was added to the programme in spring 2011. The association had already acknowledged that they should have checked whether there were any upgrading or modernisation programmes planned before offering him the tenancy and apologised to him. We upheld Mr C's complaint but made no recommendations as we were satisfied with the actions taken by the association to prevent this happening again.

During our investigation, the association told us that they had removed Mr C's property from the rewiring programme and hoped to programme it in again within the next three to five years. We considered this a reasonable resolution to his complaint and were satisfied that the association's offer of a decorating allowance of £420, which is the maximum payable for a property of that size, was also reasonable. We did not uphold this complaint.