Housing Associations

Summary
Ms C signed a tenancy agreement for a property owned by a housing association. The property had been inspected by the association before being re-let, and had passed that inspection. We upheld Ms C’s complaint that the decision that the property was in a reasonably habitable condition for re-let was unreasonable. This was because, after Ms C's lease began, a number of works were identified as being required, which should have been carried out before she moved in. These included removing stained floorboards, renewal of a tank cupboard door, a lack of heating and hot water, and fixing exposed electrical wires.

We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint that a contractor failed to complete plastering works, as we found that the need for additional plastering was identified when the first job was completed, and it was reasonable for a sub-contractor to be employed to undertake the second job. We also did not uphold Ms C’s complaint that the décor voucher provided did not cover the actual cost of re-decorating the property. We found that the tenancy agreement said that décor was the responsibility of the tenant, and so found the association’s position that they would provide assistance with this by way of décor vouchers (Ms C having been granted the maximum amount available) to be reasonable.

Recommendation
We recommended that the association:
• amend the post termination inspection report document to include whether the property has passed the void standard and if not, to include details of what further works are required.

Summary
Mrs C was unhappy because the housing association who own the property where she lives were installing new kitchens as part of a refurbishment programme, but were refusing to do so in her property because she had installed a range cooker which was not a standard sized appliance.

The association had also told her that they would not continue to maintain the existing kitchen that had been installed 15 years earlier, as they would not be able to source replacements parts. She was particularly unhappy as she said that other tenants in the area with range cookers had had new kitchens installed.

We found that the association had notified all tenants that as part of the forthcoming kitchen replacement programme, the minimum requirements were to ensure space for standard sized appliances. We found that Mrs C had removed a cupboard and part of a worktop to install her cooker and had not obtained permission to do so, which was in fact in breach of her tenancy agreement.

The association acknowledged that in an earlier phase of the kitchen replacement programme their designer had met with tenants and developed individual layouts but said that this had led to difficulties with new incoming tenants. As a result, the association had decided that in all future phases, only standard appliances would be accommodated in the new kitchen layouts.

We found that the association had acted reasonably in this matter and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C complained that the housing association failed to adequately answer his questions about who was responsible for enforcing the burdens over his and his neighbour's property. (Burdens are conditions relating to the land in question.)

Our investigation found that the initial information they provided was, at times, unclear. However, we also noted that this area of the law is particularly complex and found that a subsequent response from the housing association did provide a detailed and clear explanation of their point, supported by relevant legal information.
 

Summary
Ms C contacted the housing association to discuss the possibility of receiving compensation for the improvements carried out by her mother during her tenancy. The association inspected the property and decided that they could not award compensation. Ms C was unhappy with this and complained to us that the association had failed to deal with her claim appropriately.

Although we do not make rulings on compensation, we looked at the relevant legislation and regulations and concluded that the  association did deal with her claim in a reasonable manner, so we did not uphold the complaint.

Our investigation also found that the minutes of a meeting of the association's sub-committee contained a number of mistakes. We were particularly concerned that they recorded Ms C's mother's name incorrectly and inaccurate information about white goods at the property.

Recommendation
We recommended that the association:
• write to Ms C to apologise for the errors in the minutes of the meeting and, in particular, for using an incorrect name for her mother.

Summary
Ms C was unhappy that she was being charged for the cost of replacing missing radiators in her home when she did not feel that she should be held responsible for these. She complained that the housing association did not take all factors into account when investigating her complaint.

Our investigation found that the association had conducted the investigation properly according to their complaints process, and had taken into account Ms C's representations and relevant documents. However, we made a recommendation relating to the explanations they provide in future.

Recommendation
We recommended that the association:
• review the complaints process to consider making it a requirement that the decision letters give details of how the investigation was conducted and the documents which were taken into consideration in the decision-making.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the association did not help in any way after his cold water mains froze in January 2010. Mr C said his pipe froze again in December 2010 and the association only then identified that sections of it had not been laid at the minimum regulatory depth required.

We established that in January 2010 the association had sent a plumber to Mr C's home address, who had taken action to help thaw the pipe. He also advised Mr C on how to prevent the pipe freezing by keeping the heating on and keeping cupboard doors open at the mains inlet. At the insistence of Mr C, who was concerned that the pipe would freeze again the following winter, the association also inspected a section of the pipe in August 2010. It was found to exceed the minimum depth required.

The association took no further action until the pipe froze again in December 2010, this time affecting many residents. The association carried out further inspections of the pipe work when this happened, and discovered that not all sections met the required depth. Remedial action was taken to lay the pipe at the correct depth but some sections had to be lagged instead due to rock in the ground (which could not be broken up with heavy machinery for health and safety reasons).

Taking all of this into account, we considered the actions that the association took in respect of Mr C's complaints to be reasonable, given the unprecedented weather conditions and the fact that the problem in January had not been as widespread throughout the nearby properties as was the case in December.
 

Summary
Mr C complained that the association failed to deal with his complaint in an appropriate way or within a reasonable timescale. He had previously raised a number of concerns about the noise disturbance to his home caused by the quality of sound proofing between his home and the communal bin areas.

When we obtained the evidence it was clear that the association had taken significant steps to try and resolve the noise problem, including carrying out sound surveys and substantial works to try and improve the sound proofing. However, it was clear from our examination of the case that it took them a considerable time to investigate and respond to Mr C's complaint. For this reason we upheld his complaint.

As, however, the association had already taken steps to apologise, resolve the noise problem, carry out training and review their complaints procedure, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary
Mr C was a tenant of a housing association for approximately 17 months. He complained that during his time as a tenant he had been subjected to racial abuse, intimidation and vandalism to his property perpetrated by other tenants and youths in the area. Mr C felt he had been targeted particularly due to his nationality. Mr C presented as homeless to Glasgow City Council having abandoned his tenancy.

He brought his complaints to us as he felt the housing association had failed to follow their anti-social behaviour policy, and had failed to take any effective action to prevent the abuse he had suffered as a tenant.

It was accepted that Mr C had experienced a serious degree of anti-social behaviour. Having reviewed the information provided by the housing association including complaint logs, minutes of meetings, letters to tenants and a contract between themselves and the GCSS (the Glasgow Community Safety Service), we found the association to have followed their policy in relation to Mr C's complaints, particularly in terms of responding timeously, and classifying his case as category A due to the racial nature of the behaviour. We, therefore, did not uphold the first complaint.

However, we did uphold the second complaint, which referred to the association's failure to take any effective action to prevent the abuse. Although the association had installed CCTV on three separate occasions, unfortunately no perpetrators were ever caught or identified as a result. The remedies within the association's policy could not be enforced due to a lack of evidence and identification of suspects. However, we found that the association had placed a clear burden upon Mr C to gather information himself, and that this burden was unreasonable. He had provided individual addresses on a number of occasions, but the association said because Mr C could not identify particular people for particular incidents, they could not act on this information. We felt further enquiries could have been made on the basis of the information provided by Mr C and we upheld this complaint.

Recommendation
We recommended that the association:
• apologise to Mr C for failing to follow up on the information he gave them in relation to incidents.

Summary
Mr C, a tenant of the housing association, complained that the association had not responded reasonably when he raised issues about excrement in the common areas of their close.

Mr C exhausted the association’s complaints procedure. The final response from the chair of the complaint panel to Mr C explained that it appeared that the excrement had been cleaned from the floor before the initial visit of a housing officer; that during a visit earlier in the year the offending marks had to be pointed out as they were very small and not immediately obvious; that a visit by panel members the previous week had seen nothing on the landing floor and that the panel was satisfied that staff took appropriate steps to address the matters raised. Mr C was dissatisfied with this response and raised his complaints with us.

Our investigation found that the association had reasonably investigated Mr C's complaints and we did not uphold the complaint.

Summary
Mr C took up a tenancy in October 2009. By January 2010 he became aware of problems, particularly an infestation of hide beetles and condensation. Mr C raised these matters with the housing association who inspected the property and took the action they considered to be appropriate. Meanwhile Mr C made other repairs complaints.

Mr C wrote many times to the housing association expressing his dissatisfaction with the way they were dealing with matters. He also, on occasion, refused access, stipulated conditions about access or changed his mind about wanting any works to be done.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint as our investigation did not find that the housing association failed to carry out Mr C's repairs within a reasonable time, nor deal with them effectively.