Housing Associations

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association did not investigate his complaints of damp in line with their obligations. He also complained that the association delayed taking action to address the issues of damp which he reported. The association responded by advising that they were seeking to install passive vents in the property, drill into the internal walls to measure moisture levels, and install data loggers to monitor any difference or improvement when the vents were installed. Delays occurred before this was done, with the association advising they could not obtain access to the property. Mr C disputed this.

We gathered information from Mr C and the association. We found that Mr C had raised this issue and that the initial inspection from the association was within the timescales set out in their repairs and maintenance policy. The association then cited problems accessing Mr C's property to carry out installation work and more intrusive inspections. We had no way of determining whether Mr C was or was not allowing access to his property. However, given the continuing engagement between both parties, and the non-urgent nature of the damp problem, we were of the view it was reasonable that the association continued to correspond with Mr C rather than forcing entry to the property as their repairs policy allows. Based on the initial, prompt response to the repair request, and given that we could not resolve the dispute between both parties over access to the property, we did not uphold either of Mr C's complaints.

Summary

Miss C complained to the housing association that, prior to her agreeing to take up a tenancy, they failed to fully disclose the extent of the neighbours' anti-social behaviour, specifically relating to their barking dogs. She also complained that the association failed to take appropriate steps to address her complaints of anti-social behaviour by neighbours.

In their response to Miss C's complaint, the association explained that she was advised of the neighbouring dogs causing a nuisance, but that they had no other information or complaints regarding the extent of the dogs barking prior to her taking up the tenancy. They outlined that they had advised her that the neighbour was a private tenant and as such they had no power to take action.

Miss C was not satisfied with the association's response to her complaint. She considered that the association should have done more to manage the problems with respect to the barking dogs and associated disturbances with her neighbours. She brought her complaint to us.

We did not find any evidence that, prior to Miss C taking up her tenancy, the association had received complaints regarding barking dogs at neighbouring properties. Consequently, we did not consider that the association had unreasonably failed to provide her with important information prior to her taking up the tenancy.

In relation to the handling of Miss C's complaints, we found that Miss C was offered appropriate advice that the council were the appropriate body to take action in relation to disturbances relating to barking dogs. We considered that the association had provided Miss C with appropriate advice in the circumstances.

We found that the association had investigated Miss C's complaints of anti-social behaviour appropriately, in line with their anti-social behaviour policy, and had advised Miss C of the outcome on each occasion. As a result, we considered the association had carried out appropriate investigations.

We did not uphold Miss C's complaints.

Summary

Due to raised levels of carbon dioxide in her home, Miss C was decanted to a new permanent home by the housing association. She complained to us that the association failed to manage her decant in line with their policy and that they failed to communicate with her in an appropriate manner throughout the process.

The association told us that, at an early stage of the carbon dioxide incident arising, they identified that they did not have a policy on decant and home loss allowances which covered an incident the scale of that experienced by Miss C. They took steps to put one in place and confirmed that they took guidance for the amounts to offer for home loss and furnishings from Shelter (a charity which offers advice and advocacy regarding poor housing) and other housing associations. The association also explained that they agreed with Miss C what work they would complete in her new home. In addition, Miss C received the appropriate home loss payment and she also received additional payments for replacing her floor coverings and curtains. The amounts Miss C received were in line with the allowances set out in the association's decant policy. As such, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint that the association failed to manage her decant in line with their policy.

We also did not identify any evidence to suggest the association failed to communicate with Miss C in an appropriate manner throughout the process. We saw evidence that staff had taken reasonable steps to keep in contact with Miss C throughout the process. In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Miss C's complaint about the association's communication with her throughout the process.

Summary

Due to raised levels of carbon dioxide in her home, Mrs C was decanted to a new permanent home by the housing association. She complained to us that the association failed to manage her decant in line with their policy and that they failed to communicate with her in an appropriate manner throughout the process. In particular, Mrs C was unhappy because she did not feel that she was given enough money to buy or replace what she already had in her previous home. She said that she was told by the association that her new property would be finished to the same standard as her previous home, but that this had not been the case. Mrs C said she also received conflicting information from the association in relation to what they would pay for and what she would be expected to pay for. She described staff attitude and communication as being poor throughout.

The association told us that, at an early stage of the carbon dioxide incident arising, they identified that they did not have a policy on decant and home loss allowances which covered an incident the scale of that experienced by Mrs C. They took steps to put one in place and confirmed that they took guidance for the amounts to offer for home loss and furnishings from Shelter (a charity which offers advice and advocacy regarding poor housing) and other housing associations. The association also explained that a number of alterations were carried out in Mrs C's new home, all to her specification. In addition, Mrs C received the appropriate home loss payment and she also received additional payments for replacing her floor coverings and curtains. The amounts Mrs C received were in line with the allowances set out in the association's decant policy. As such, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint that the association failed to manage her decant in line with their policy.

In relation to Mrs C's concerns about the association's communication with her, we did not identify any evidence to suggest she was given conflicting information in relation to what the association would pay for and what she would be expected to pay for. The information available confirmed that payments were made to Mrs C in line with the allowances set by the policy. We also saw evidence that staff had taken reasonable steps to keep in contact with Mrs C throughout the process. In light of the evidence available, we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint about the association's communication with her throughout the process.

Summary

Ms C complained about the housing association's response to her reports of damp in her property.

The association investigated and they found no evidence of damp. They said that the problems were caused by condensation and they gave advice about heating and ventilation. We were satisfied that the association had taken reasonable action to investigate the issues and that they had provided the appropriate advice. As such, we did not uphold Ms C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a community activist who supports and acts on behalf of people in his local area, complained about the housing association's investigation of a complaint that he had made on behalf of a neighbour (Mr A) regarding a housing officer. The association confirmed that they had arranged a meeting between Mr A and the housing officer, during which the concerns which Mr C had raised were discussed. We considered that this was a reasonable response and we did not think that any further investigation was necessary. We did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the association's communication with him was unreasonable. In particular, he considered that the area housing manager should have met with him after he requested a meeting to discuss the complaint mentioned above. He also complained that a letter from his MSP was not properly dealt with. After Mr C raised concerns about the area housing manager's failure to respond to his concerns in full, the area director responded to him. We considered it appropriate for matters to have been passed to the area director, and considered that the director's response to Mr C was reasonable. We noted that after Mr C's MSP contacted the association they arranged a meeting with the MSP and Mr C, but this was cancelled at Mr C's request. We considered the association's actions to have been reasonable and did not uphold this complaint.

Mr C also complained that the association had requested photographic identification with representation mandates. He said that he had never been asked for identification before and that he thought the association were trying to be obstructive. The association said that previous guidance to staff had confirmed that photographic identification was required, but advised Mr C that they had changed their process and apologised for any upset or inconvenience caused. The association provided us with a copy of the staff guidance in place at the time, showing that photographic identification was required. We did not uphold this complaint.

Summary

Mrs C complained to the housing association that her neighbour had been making noise for a substantial period which was preventing her from sleeping. She also complained that her previous complaints regarding the anti-social behaviour of her neighbours had not been taken seriously. The association responded to Mrs C outlining that they were unable to take action against her neighbours on the basis of the evidence they had in relation to previous complaints. They also clarified communications with Mrs C and apologised if they had been misinterpreted. The association committed to publishing information in their newsletter regarding anti-social behaviour and how this would be managed. Mrs C was not satisfied with the response and complained to us that the association's response to her complaints had been unreasonable.

The association provided us with their complaints file. It was clear that there had been many complaints with respect to anti-social behaviour and estate management issues, dating back a number of years. On reviewing the response by the association we found that they had, on the whole, properly investigated Mrs C's complaints and had communicated with her. However, with respect to the response to her recent complaint, whilst we found that the association had properly investigated matters, we found that they did not properly communicate the outcome to Mrs C. We also found that they did not properly communicate about the delay in providing their response to Mrs C. These failings were not in line with the association's complaints procedure and so we upheld Mrs C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Provide a written apology for the failings in the complaints response. This apology should comply with the SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at https://www.spso.org.uk.leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff should be aware of the requirements of the association's complaints procedure and should be reminded of the requirements to communicate with complainants where there is a delay in providing a response.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.

Summary

Mr C, who is a local councillor, complained on behalf of his constituents (Mr and Mrs A) who are tenants of the housing association. Mr C complained that the association failed to fully reinstate the tenants' garden following repairs to a water pipe that was carried out in their back garden. Mr C also complained the association failed to fully investigate their complaint and to contact them to discuss their concerns at the final stage of the complaints procedure.

The association repaired the section of the garden they damaged by reseeding and laying down extra chips. However, the grass died away and the garden became muddy. The association inspected the garden and concluded that it was likely that the broken pipe was acting as a drain away system for the rainwater, and now the pipe was repaired, the garden was more likely to flood. The association confirmed that they would not carry out any further remedial works.

We found that the association carried out the appropriate level of repairs to the garden and that the garden flooding was not a direct result of their repairs. We did not uphold this complaint. The association acknowledged that they should have contacted Mr and Mrs A to further discuss their complaint at stage two of their investigation. We upheld this complaint and provided some feedback for the association to note.

Summary

Mr C complained to the housing association that they were not responding to his complaint and that they would not let him keep a dog in his tenancy. Mr C asked for a variation to his tenancy agreement as he wanted a dog for therapeutic reasons to assist with an existing health condition. The association stated that they were not aware that he had any existing health condition and that, should he provide evidence of this, they would consider his request for a dog. The association did not respond to his stage one complaint due to staffing issues and referred his stage two complaint to their solicitors as they deemed the complaint to be of a detailed and complex nature. Following the final response to his stage two complaint, Mr C remained unhappy and brought his complaints to us.

Mr C told us that he had advised staff at the association of his health condition during a meeting. However, the association had no record of this meeting. As we could not determine if this meeting occurred due to a lack of evidence, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that the association had unreasonably refused to allow him to keep a pet dog.

Regarding the way the association had responded to Mr C's complaints, we noted that incorrect timescales had been provided to Mr C and that the association's responses did not signpost to us. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint. However, as the association had already apologised for not responding to Mr C's stage one complaint, we did not make any recommendations.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association unreasonably delayed in repairing his windows after he reported a draught coming from them. Mr C said that he experienced delays due to contractors failing to turn up and difficulties in arranging a mutually convenient time for contractors to visit his property. In response to Mr C's complaint, the association visited him and offered him a monetary voucher as a form of redress for their delay in completing the repairs. Mr C also complained that the offer of redress was inadequate.

The association explained to us that they had to go through a process of elimination to find the source of the draught and that this led to the repairs taking longer than they anticipated. We were not critical of the association for this. However, we found that the delays in completing the repairs were also due to the association failing to inform Mr C that their maintenance officer was on sick leave and could not attend his appointment. The association also acknowledged that they failed to ensure that the contractors shared their sense of urgency about the repairs. We found that there was little evidence to illustrate that the contractors made reasonable efforts to contact Mr C to arrange a suitable time to visit his property. We also found that the association's calculation of the offer of redress applicable to Mr C was not entirely accurate and was not entirely in line with their Redress Procedure. We upheld both aspects of Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• The association should make a more appropriate offer of redress, in accordance with their Redress Procedure.

What we said should change to put things right in future:

• The association should review their internal procedures to ensure that, when a member of staff is unexpectedly absent from work, their appointments are contacted and rescheduled within a reasonable timescale.
• The association's maintenance staff and contractors should be reminded of their obligations towards tenants regarding repairs and the timescales they are required to work within.

We have asked the organisation to provide us with evidence that they have implemented the recommendations we have made on this case by the deadline we set.