Housing Associations

Summary

Mr C complained about rechargeable repairs he was billed for after he vacated his tenancy. Under the terms of his tenancy agreement he was responsible for any damage caused and any items left in the property. He was charged for removal of items, repairs to doors and cleaning and redecoration throughout.

We found that Mr C had been properly advised of his responsibilities. We further found that the condition of the property was beyond what could be considered fair wear and tear. We did not uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C complained about his housing association's response to reports of anti-social behaviour and their response to his request for a repair.

We found that the association had spoken to neighbours and the caretaker to gather more information on Mr C's reports of anti-social behaviour. We also found that the association had appropriately informed Mr C of the outcome of their investigations. However, we were critical that they did not contact Police Scotland to find out what information they held, as Mr C had passed on a police incident number. We upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint.

We found that the repair request was actioned appropriately and we did not uphold that aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

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

• The association should gather all available evidence to inform their response to reports of anti-social behaviour, including records from Police Scotland if necessary.

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 complained about the housing association's handling of his reports of neighbour nuisance behaviour. Mr C said that the association failed to reasonably investigate his reports of anti-social behaviour. In particular, he said that there were delays in investigating his reports and a failure to corroborate the reports he made. He also complained that the association's communication with him was unreasonable, in particular, that one of their letters lacked appropriate empathy.

The association acknowledged that they delayed in recording Mr C's reports about neighbour nuisance. We considered that they also failed to keep accurate records of the action taken and the decisions made in their investigation of these reports. The association acknowledged that there were issues with their communication with Mr C in relation to his complaints about them and a failure to escalate his concerns to a stage 2 investigation when he remained dissatisfied. We also found that the letter Mr C complained about lacked the same level of empathy that earlier correspondence to him had.

Based on the information received, and in light of the failings acknowledged by the association, we upheld both complaints.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Apologise to Mr C for failing to keep appropriate records of the concerns he raised, the actions they took and the rationale for the decisions they made. Further apologise for the poor level of communication with Mr C. This apology should comply with SPSO guidelines on making an apology, available at www.spso.org.uk/leaflets-and-guidance.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Complaints about service should be recorded and escalated to a stage 2 investigation, where appropriate, in line with the Model Complaints Handling Procedure.

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 complained that the housing association did not respond reasonably to the complaints of smoke that he brought to their attention.

We found that the association responded reasonably and in line with the requirements of their Repairs Policy and Complaints Procedure. We also felt that the association were particularly supportive of Mr C's requests for appointments at a time that suited him.

However, we made a recommendation as we considered that the association could be clearer about whose responsibility it is to report concerns about a gas appliance.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• review their repairs policy and consider whether further detail is required regarding the reporting of concerns about gas appliances.

Summary

Ms C made a complaint to her housing association that her neighbour's dog was barking excessively and that this was causing her distress. Ms C advised that she was suffering ill health and was having difficulty sleeping at night due to the dog barking. Ms C raised these concerns with her housing officer but was unhappy with the level of action taken by the housing officer to reduce the impact of the anti-social behaviour.

The association worked with the neighbours to try and ensure that appropriate action was taken. The association were advised by the neighbour's family that the dog was being walked regularly and kept in the bedroom at night. The association also contacted other residents within the building to attempt to corroborate Ms C's complaints. They did not receive any responses. Ms C also became upset when the housing officer included details in a letter to a nurse involved in Ms C's care of an alleged incident where Ms C was said to have shouted and swore at her neighbour. Ms C denied that this happened and was deeply upset that the housing officer included mention of this in the letter.

Ms C complained to us about the housing association's action in response to her complaint of anti-social behaviour, and about their handling of her complaint. We obtained information from the association about their relevant policies and procedures, as well as copies of correspondence and internal case notes. We found that the action taken regarding the complaint of anti-social behaviour was reasonable as the association had spoken with the relevant parties and sought to ensure measures were put in place to reduce the barking. They also sought corroboration from other residents in the building. We did not, however, accept that the details of an alleged incident should have been included in correspondence to both Ms C and her nurse, as the allegation was unsubstantiated. We upheld this part of the complaint.

We were also critical of the complaints handling process, as the association had not identified and separated Ms C's complaint into that of anti-social behaviour, and that of service delivery. As such, the complaint response did not address the latter concerns. We upheld this part of the complaint.

Recommendations

What we asked the organisation to do in this case:

• Write to Ms C and apologise for including negative information that was not relevant in their letter to the nurse involved in her care.
• Write to Ms C and apologise for not dealing with her complaints about their service in line with their complaints policy.

In relation to complaints handling, we recommended:

• Staff at the association should be aware of the complaints policy and know how to distinguish between neighbour complaints and complaints about services provided.

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

Mrs C complained that the housing association responsible for the development she lived in had failed to undertake an appropriate consultation of fellow tenants regarding proposed changes to services. She also complained about the tone of communications and the way some of the meetings were handled by members of staff.

The association responded to the complaint outlining the consultation process and the steps they took to consult with tenants on the proposed changes. They considered that they had carried out an appropriate consultation and that the communications had been tailored to the tenants at the development. With regard to the exchanges during meetings, the association considered that its staff behaved appropriately. Mrs C was not satisfied with the response and brought her complaints to our office.

We obtained information from Mrs C together with evidence from the association. We found that the association had adopted a range of communication methods and offered a number of avenues for tenants to raise any concerns they may have had. We saw evidence that tenants' concerns were considered at a management level. Therefore, we concluded that the association had taken reasonable steps to consult with its tenants on changes to the services within the development.

With respect to the association's handling of Mrs C's complaint, and in relation to the conduct of their staff at meetings, the evidence showed that the association had conducted a proper investigation and had come to an appropriate conclusion regarding Mrs C's complaint. The association had provided a full response to Mrs C within their timescales. We did not uphold her complaints.

Summary

Miss C complained that the housing association failed to respond reasonably to her complaints of anti-social behaviour by other tenants in her tenement block.

We found that the association did not act in accordance with their procedures when responding to Miss C's concerns and we were not satisfied that they made sufficient efforts to respond to her complaints. For this reason, we upheld Miss C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• apologise to Miss C for the failings identified in our investigation;
• ensure that any of Miss C's outstanding concerns about anti-social behaviour are fully investigated and responded to; and
• reflect on the failings identified in this investigation and advise us of the actions they will take to address these.

Summary

Mr C complained that the housing association responded unreasonably to his concerns about the maintenance of the communal garden areas at his home.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the association's response to the concerns he had raised. We found that the association had responded in line with the requirements of their complaints procedure and that, in the main, they had met their guidelines in relation to the work that should be completed in the garden areas. They had shown that they had made efforts to complete a thorough investigation, involving all relevant parties, and they were committed to identifying areas for improvement. We made recommendations to support the improvement of this service.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• complete an improvement plan for the communal garden;
• complete their review of the Estate Management Policy; and
• review their Open Space Maintenance Standard Specification.

Summary

Miss C complained that the association failed to respond reasonably to her reports of the anti-social behaviour of other tenants, including regarding communal areas, and failed to reasonably deal with her subsequent complaint.

We found that the association took appropriate action to investigate and respond to the concerns Miss C raised about anti-social behaviour, including issuing written warnings where corroboration was available. We were satisfied that they acted in accordance with their procedures, and we did not uphold this aspect of Miss C's complaint.

However, we upheld Miss C's complaint about the way her subsequent complaint was dealt with by the association. This is because they failed to respond within the required timescale, an extension was not agreed, and the complaint was not escalated appropriately, in accordance with the requirements of their complaints procedure.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• clarify in their policies and procedures the responsibilities of the organisation as regards the maintenance of communal areas; and
• remind relevant staff of the requirements of the complaints handling procedure.

Summary

Mr C made a complaint against his housing association as he had ongoing problems with damp and water penetration in his property. He first raised a repair request on this matter over two years prior to bringing the case to us. He was of the view that the property needed re-roughcast and re-rendered to resolve the issues. He was not satisfied with the action taken by the association and the length of time it had taken to resolve this issue.

The association apologised for the delay, although they stated that they had completed repairs as requested, in good faith. Part of their investigation uncovered that a redundant chimney stack was the main cause of water ingress in the property. After some further repairs and inspections the association arranged for the chimney stack to be removed. They also apologised to Mr C for the delay and offered compensation, which was declined.

We investigated the case and obtained information from the association. We assessed their response to Mr C's repair requests against their repairs policy and noted that on several occasions repairs were not completed within the set timescales. We also noted that there did not seem to be any measure in place to ensure that repair targets had been met. Mr C was looking for his property to be re-roughcast and the association had said that his house was identified as a property that was due for this type of work but that it was assessed as not being high priority. Given the missed timescales for individual repairs and the overall length of time taken to resolve the problem, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the association:

• ensure that they adhere to the deadlines for repairs as laid out in their repairs and maintenance policy;
• ensure staff check that repairs have been completed within an appropriate timescale; and
• conduct a further survey of Mr C's property to assess the current condition of the roughcast and rendering and to determine what priority rating is currently appropriate.