Housing Associations

Summary
Mr C lived in what he described as a 'rough, troubled and vandalised estate' and asked for a move to another area. He was moved to a new-build property but complained that a month after he moved there the housing association took the decision to demolish the block where he had lived and pay a home loss allowance to all tenants who were displaced. He believed he should have been entitled to the allowance.

We found that the housing association had acted correctly. Irrespective of Mr C's belief that they had already been considering demolishing the property when he was allocated the new property, it was clear that the decision to do so was taken a month after he moved house. In coming to our decision we took into consideration that Mr C had requested the move to another area and that, by his own account, he had been moved from an undesirable area to a new-build property.
 

Summary
Mrs C had been renting her property from a housing association for eight years when she was notified that her rent was reducing. She was told that this was because the association had decided to withdraw their Tenants Improvement Scheme (the scheme) which allowed tenants to ask for improvements to their properties and pay a supplementary rent. The previous tenant had asked that the bath be replaced with a shower. This had been done under the scheme, so Mrs C's rent included an additional charge for the shower. Mrs C said she was not aware of this, and did not think she should have to pay for an improvement requested by a previous tenant. We found that the association had complied with the Housing Scotland Act, their own Rent Setting Policy and the scheme. In addition, we found that the Tenancy Agreement that Mrs C had signed made clear that the rent she was asked to pay reflected the standard of housing she was being offered and the fixtures and fittings within the property.
 

Summary
Mrs C complained that the housing association had delayed in carrying out a repair to her property. During consideration of this complaint, Mrs C raised a number of additional issues that had not been considered under the association's complaints process. This meant that the complaint had come to us too early. As a result, we closed it, to allow Mrs C to raise the additional issues with the association.
 

Summary
Mr C's mother moved into a sheltered property run by a housing association. Mr C said that she had had been promised that there would be no reduction in the services and faciliites available to her. He also said he had been told the property would be altered to meet her needs. Mr C alleged that the association had failed to make the alterations and that his mother was not being provided with basic services and facilities. He later acknowledged that some of the adaptations requested had been carried out, and said his major concern was that the association had not arranged for a ramp to be installed. He said this meant that his mother could not be taken out of the house by her care provider for shopping and outings. We found that the adaptations promised by the association had all been installed, and one of the main items mentioned was in fact moveable, so Mr C himself could have been expected to arrange for it to be taken to his mother's new home. We also found that responsibility for providing a ramp lay with the council's social work services and that the association had explained this to Mr C.
 

Summary
Mrs C owns and rents out a house. She and her tenant have a right of access via a garden path. This is a mutual path shared with her neighbour, who is a tenant of WHM. Over a period of time Mrs C experienced problems with access, and the neighbour also blocked pedestrian access to the rear of the property. Mrs C asked WHM to enforce the terms of their tenancy agreement. WHM reminded their tenant that there was a communal right to access and suggested that Mrs C report relevant incidents to the police, which she did. WHM also arranged mediation but this failed when the tenant concerned withdrew from it. Mrs C continued to experience problems with access and at one point the neighbour locked the gate to the back of the property. Meanwhile both she and the neighbour concerned gave different accounts of events and made various allegations about the other. Mrs C eventually complained to us that WHM delayed in handling her complaint, failed to keep her updated and did not take appropriate action to resolve the problem.

We upheld all Mrs C’s complaints. When we investigated we found that, although WHM initially responded quickly to Mrs C’s complaint, delays occurred after the idea of mediation was introduced. Where mediation is agreed to try to resolve a complaint, it should be conducted as soon as practicable. That did not happen here. However, as a result of her complaint Mrs C received an apology from WHM’s chief executive, and an assurance that improvements had been put in place to try to ensure that such delays do not happen again. We therefore made no recommendations about this.

We did, however, recommend that WHM improve their telephone record policy. On keeping Mrs C updated, we found that WHM replied to her concerns and questions when she contacted them. However, we found no evidence that they tried to keep her updated on what was happening while they tried to arrange mediation.

Finally, in terms of the action they took to resolve the problem, we found that WHM’s policy said they should arrange a meeting with the parties concerned within five days of receiving a complaint. Although we found no evidence to suggest WHM did not take Mrs C’s complaints seriously and clearly tried to resolve them, we upheld this complaint as they should have followed their policy of meeting with both parties at an early point. We, therefore, made  recommendations aimed at improving communication and handling complaints about anti social behaviour.

Recommendations
We recommended that Weslo Housing Management:
• take action to improve their record-keeping with proper recording of phone notes and ensure that appropriate guidance is given to staff about timescales of the arrangements for and conduct of mediation;
• review their procedures to ensure that they make provision for suitable prompts about when it is appropriate to send updates; and
• remind their staff of the requirement under the Anti-Social Behaviour or Nuisance Policy to visit within five working days of the complaint being made.
 

Summary
Mr C is a tenant of Albyn Housing Society Ltd (the Society). He moved from one of
their properties to another. He said that before he moved out they inspected the house he was leaving and did not find any problems. After he moved, they carried out a further inspection and decided that the kitchen and bathroom needed a ‘hygiene clean’.  They did this and billed him for the cost. Mr C complained that the Society did not give him the chance to question the decision to clean the house. He also said they applied inconsistent standards as the property to which he moved was not cleaned to a similar standard.

We asked the Society for their complaint file, relevant documents and  procedures.  After seeing these, we decided not to uphold Mr C’s complaint. We took the view that the Society were entitled to use their professional judgment to make the decision to charge for the cleaning and there was no evidence that they had not followed the proper process when doing so. Nor did the Society need to tell him in advance about the decision to clean the house. Mr C had signed a document acknowledging that this would happen and that he would be charged if he did not leave the property in a suitable state. As the same officer carried out the post-inspection reports on both properties, we also believed that it was unlikely that different cleaning standards had been applied.

Mr C also said that the Society did not act appropriately on financial aspects of the cost of cleaning and did not handle his complaint properly, including not telling him the date of his appeal. We upheld both of these complaints. We found that the Society did not provide all relevant information about charges and that they should have checked their invoice before sending it to him. They also took payment of the amount due by deducting it from rent that Mr C had overpaid, rather than offering him the opportunity to repay it in another way, and they had not repaid a small amount that they agreed to refund after considering his appeal. There were delays in complaints handling and they did not contact Mr C about his offer to attend the appeal meeting, nor tell him when it was to be held.

Recommendations
We recommended that the housing association:
• put steps in place to ensure that they check, approve and, where appropriate,
clarify the charges on invoices before they send them to tenants. Any additional
information obtained should then be passed on to tenants;
• put steps in place to ensure that they contact tenants before they deduct monies
due to them from refunds that are due to tenants. They should offer tenants the
opportunity to make the payment by another method;
• refund a small sum in mileage charges that they agreed Mr C should not have to pay; and
• write to Mr C to apologise for failing to contact him about his offer to attend the
Complaints Committee and for failing to provide him with enough detail about the
Committee’s decisions.