Housing Associations

Overview

The complainant, Mr C, complained that Viewpoint Housing Association Ltd (the Association) had implemented a decision to withdraw a meals service provided to his mother-in-law (Mrs A) contrary to the terms of her tenancy agreement.  He also complained that his complaint to the Association about this had not been adequately responded to.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Association:

• (a) removed the provision of a full meals service contrary to the terms of Mrs A's tenancy agreement (upheld); and
• (b) failed to adequately respond to Mr C's complaint of March 2006 (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Association:

• (i) apologise to Mrs A for varying her agreement without adequate consultation;
• (ii) ensure that future tenant consultations are meaningful and properly recorded; and
• (iii) apologise to Mr C for their failure to adequately respond to his complaints.

The Association have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised a number of concerns against New Shaws Housing Association (the Association), regarding the property (the Property) they let to him from August 2004 onwards.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Association:

• (a) failed to warn Mr C of the presence of asbestos in his flat (no finding);
• (b) failed to provide Mr C with a well maintained flat in good order (not upheld);
• (c) failed to take action against anti-social neighbours (not upheld); and
• (d) let the Property to Mr C when they were aware there was a history of anti-social behaviour and neighbourhood nuisance (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Association consider ways of recording the information and leaflets provided to tenants by their Housing Offices at the point of completing missives and report back to the Ombudsman.

GHA on behalf of the Association has accepted the recommendation and have confirmed the Association will action in it accordingly.

Overview

The complainants (Mr and Mrs C) were unhappy with how Dumfries and Galloway Housing Partnership (DGHP) had dealt with water ingress to their home.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are:

• (a) failure by DGHP to ensure that Mr and Mrs C's home was wind and watertight, and failure to deal with repairs and redecoration appropriately (not upheld); and
• (b) poor communication within and from DGHP, including handling of eviction proceedings and complaint handling (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that DGHP:

• (i) review their decision on whether or not to waive the three months rent (see paragraph 27); and
• (ii) inform her of the outcomes of the possible solutions identified to communication problems i.e. how the problems have been resolved (see paragraph 18).

Since the recommendations were drafted, DGHP offered Mr and Mrs C £398 for redecoration costs.  In addition, they have provided information to demonstrate that the problems identified in paragraph 18 have been resolved.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) raised two main issues:  whether or not housing association staff informed a prospective tenant (Mr A) about anti-social behaviour problems; and, how the housing association's parent organisation responded to the complaint.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the alleged failure of Link Housing staff to inform Mr A about anti-social behaviour problems in the area of the property (no finding); and
• (b) the investigation conducted by Link Group Limited (Link Group) was flawed and not in accordance with the complaints policy (partially upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that Link Group consider:

• (i) seeking external advice, for example from the Information Commissioner's Office, on how to deal with disclosure of information on third parties who are responsible for anti-social behaviour;
• (ii) amending the checklist used at sign-up so that it clearly shows that information on their anti-social behaviour policy has been passed to the tenant. Link Group might also wish to consider a free-form section on the checklist so that staff can note other relevant or specific issues that have been discussed. Link Group should remind its staff that the checklist must be signed by their staff and the tenant in all cases;
• (iii) making a record of interviews with staff that are conducted as part of an internal investigation; and
• (iv) what is meant by 'full and fair' as stated in their complaints policy.

Link Group have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) was concerned that North Glasgow Housing Association Ltd (the Association) unfairly excluded him from their offices, in response to a community website being set up by residents to highlight the lack of support they felt they were receiving from their landlord.  The website had originally been registered in Mr C Mr C's name but was subsequently registered to someone else.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that the Association unfairly excluded Mr C Mr C from their offices, in response to a community website being set up by residents to highlight the lack of support they felt they received from their landlord (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Association carry out a further review of their Customer Care Policy to ensure that it sets out the types of behaviour that are considered to be unacceptable and that, prior to deciding to restrict contact with a customer, those who are considered to be behaving inappropriately are explicitly warned of the consequences of continued inappropriate behaviour under the Customer Care Policy.

The Association have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C)'s property was damaged by water ingress and she believed that Glasgow Housing Association (the Association) should compensate her for redecoration costs.

Specific complaint and conclusion

The complaint which has been investigated is that Mrs C believed that the Association were responsible for repairing and redecorating damage to her home caused by water ingress (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make.

Overview

The complaint concerned Castle Rock Edinvar Housing Association (the Association)'s failure to replace the complainant (Mrs C)'s daughter (Ms C)'s garden shed with a larger one in order to house her electric wheelchair.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)      the Association failed to replace Mrs C's daughter's garden shed with a larger one in order to house Ms C's electric wheelchair (not upheld); and
• (b)      Mrs C's daughter was never told she would have to bear the cost herself (not upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman has no recommendations to make in this case.

Overview

The complainant (Mrs C) was concerned that she was no longer receiving regular visits from a local representative and that Trust Housing Association (the Association) had introduced a protocol to regulate her contact with them.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that the Association:

• (a)      had unfairly introduced a protocol to regulate Mrs C's contact with them and, as a result, she no longer receives visits from a local representative and has difficulty booking guest rooms (not upheld); and
• (b)      had not handled Mrs C's complaints about this appropriately (upheld).

Redress and recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the Association provide Mrs C with a copy of their new complaints procedure and any changes to the Persistent and Vexatious Complaints policy made as a result of their current review.

The Association have accepted the recommendations and will act on them accordingly.

Overview

The complainant (Mr C) said that he had been appointed to a Southside Housing Association (the Housing Association) Sub-Committee and then excluded from meetings.  He was also concerned that his complaint had not been heard at the final stage of the Housing Association's procedure.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a)       Mr C was appointed to a Housing Association Sub-Committee and then excluded from meetings (not upheld); and
• (b)       the Housing Association did not consider his complaint at their appeal stage (not upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the Housing Association clarify in information given to complainants the time limits for appeal and that they will not consider an appeal outwith the agreed timescales unless the complainant can provide good reasons for any delay.

The Housing Association have accepted the recommendation and will act on it accordingly.

Overview

The complaint concerns the withdrawal of an offer of housing, which the complainant (Ms C) alleged was both unfair and inflexible and not in compliance with the West Highland Housing Association Ltd (the Association)'s allocations policy.

Specific complaints and conclusions

The complaints which have been investigated are that:

• (a) the offer was unfairly rescinded for reasons that did not comply with the Association's allocations policy (upheld); and
• (b) the Association discriminated against Ms C and treated her inflexibly (upheld).

Redress and recommendation

The Ombudsman is satisfied that the Association's offer of housing provided a suitable remedy to the complaint.  Therefore, she has no recommendations to make.