Housing Associations

Summary

Mr C, who is a councillor, wrote to the housing partnership on behalf of a tenant (Mr A) who was unhappy with their handling of his complaint about the way he was treated by a staff member. Mr C complained that he was given inaccurate information about the partnership's complaints procedure and had wrongly been told that there were no further stages through which to pursue his complaint.

Our investigation found that the partnership had not handled Mr C's complaint in line with their complaints policy. The policy says that service users have a right to complain about the behaviour of staff members if they consider the behaviour to be unacceptable. The policy also sets out the three stages of the complaints process, which end in referral to our office.

During our investigation, the chief executive of the partnership wrote and apologised to Mr C. She explained that she had decided that his complaint would not be handled under their complaints policy, and acknowledged that he should have been told that. She also agreed that the complaint should have been handled in line with the complaints policy, in which case he would have been able to come to us if he remained dissatisfied with the partnership's final response. She apologised for these failings. We, therefore, upheld the complaint but did not make any recommendations because of the action that the partnership had already taken.

Summary

Mrs C complained. She said that her husband (Mr C) was in poor health, and they had been on the transfer list for a new property for two years. Initially the housing association had awarded Mr C medical points, and they were listed for houses, bungalows and ground floor flats. However, the housing association then removed Mr C's medical points, which meant they could only be allocated ground floor flats or bungalows. Mrs C complained that this was unreasonable, and explained that Mr C's GP had provided medical evidence that he should not be housed in another flat due to the impact of noise levels upon him. However, as Mrs C then withdrew her complaint to us, we did not reach a decision on it.

Summary

Mrs C said she had applied to the association for permission to erect a suitable shelter or shed for her mobility scooter and later decided that a shed would be more suitable. She said that all the sites the association suggested were not suitable. The association, however, said that her preferred location was not possible as there was a communal access path leading to the rear of the terrace of houses at that point. Mrs C was also unhappy about the outcome of a tenants' meeting held by the association to discuss the matter of private rear gardens. She also said the association had ignored their own complaints process in dealing with her complaint and delayed in responding to her.

We found that the association had properly considered all the circumstances and Mrs C's views on the location of the shed and put forward two options that they considered would satisfy both Mrs C and all their current and future tenants. With reference to the tenants' meeting we found that the association had acted correctly in this matter. During our consideration of Mrs C's complaint the association acknowledged that they had not fully complied with their complaints policy. We, therefore, did not uphold Mrs C's complaints about the location of the shed or the outcome of the tenants' meeting but did uphold her complaint about the way the association had dealt with her complaint to them.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise for their failure to deal with the complaint in line with their complaints policy.

Summary

Following a complaint from a member of staff, the housing co-operative served a notice of proceedings against tenants Mr and Mrs C. This notice was cancelled when Mr and Mrs C appealed, as the appeal panel said the notice was too harsh.

Mr and Mrs C then complained that the co-operative had not followed their procedures when deciding to issue the notice, that there was no apology for their actions; and they did not give proper notice when they wrote to Mr and Mrs C requesting them to attend the meeting to discuss the matter.

We found that the co-operative did not follow its own procedures and did not apologise, so we upheld these complaints. We also found that the procedures and guidance provided, in relation to how policies should be implemented, were unclear. We did not uphold the complaint about not receiving proper notice of the meeting as we found that enough information was supplied to make Mr and Mrs C aware of the circumstances.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the failings identified; and
• consider conducting a review of the procedures in place that support the implementation of their antisocial behaviour and harassment policy and dignity at work policy, to ensure clarity and consistency in their application.

Summary

Mr C owns one-third of a house occupied by his mother (Mrs B). The association notified him that they had awarded his mother a grant for adaptations to the house and they were assisting her with the work. They asked for his consent to a number of conditions attached to the work. Mr C replied with a number of questions about the work, and said he was withholding his consent until they were answered.

On the advice of the local council, the association proceeded with the work with only the consent of the other two owners. Mr C considered that the association should not have continued with the work without his consent and should have communicated with him better. He also thought that the association misrepresented his position to the council.

Our investigation found that although it was the council's decision to proceed with the work, the association had failed to properly communicate with Mr C. They had also failed to properly progress his initial complaint. However, as the association had already addressed these matters in the complaint correspondence, we made no recommendations about this. We did not find that they had misrepresented his position, particularly as we noted that the council also had access to a note from Mr C explaining his views.

Summary

Following the end of his tenancy, Mr C wrote to the housing association to complain about being charged for necessary repairs after he vacated the property. He also wanted to claim compensation for damage to his personal property, which was caused by a flood. The association investigated Mr C's complaints and agreed to write off the charges for the repairs, but did not offer compensation for the damage to personal property.

Mr C brought his complaint to us because he was dissatisfied with how it was handled. He said that a complaints committee meeting was held at a time he could not attend; that all the available information was not taken into account; and that the association had refused to return documents to him.

We did not uphold any of these complaints. Our investigation found that Mr C was not required to attend the committee meeting and that he was not invited. The association were free to make this decision as was clearly stated within their policy. We also found that the committee had extensive information available to them, and the minutes of the meeting showed that it had been considered. There was no evidence to suggest that documents had not been returned as requested.

Summary
Mrs C was unhappy that the housing association did not make tenants keep their bins in the designated area at the side of a block of flats and instead allowed them to keep them at the entrance. She said that there was often litter strewn over the path and road and it was unsightly, smelly and offensive. We initially found that her complaint had come to us too early, as she had not completed the housing association’s full complaints process.

When Mrs C brought her complaint back to us having completed the complaints process she raised a number of issues about this, and about how the association had handled her complaint. We did not uphold her complaints as there was no evidence of service failure or maladministration. Mrs C simply disagreed with the housing association's decision.

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.