SPSO Individual Decisions

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201701597 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C complained about the housing association on behalf of Mr A, a former tenant, regarding charges he had received for repairs required after he had left his property. He accepted that he had been asked at a pre-termination inspection to re-paint two walls but disputed the amount being requested, as he suspected that the amount was for further works that he was unaware of and had no opportunity to rectify. Our investigation found that the association's communication with Mr A had been poor, with little information or justification given for the charges he was being asked to pay. We also found that the association's records showed that the works Mr A was being charged for were the painting of an entire room, including the ceiling and woodwork, even though only wall painting had been recorded as required on the inspection sheet signed by him and an inspector. Therefore, we upheld the complaint.

Miss C rents a property from the housing association. Over a number of years she experienced problems with the plumbing in her kitchen which affected her washing machine. She said she had to replace five washing machines at a substantial cost. She complained that, although the association ultimately fixed the problem, it took them several years to do so, and they refused her request for reimbursement of the cost of the replacement washing machines. Miss C also complained about the standard of other maintenance work carried out at her property. She said that this left her family unable to use the bedrooms. She felt that her rent should be reduced as a result of this. We found that Miss C first raised the problem with her plumbing in 2011. We accepted that this was not resolved after two visits from a plumber, however, she did not raise the matter with the association again until 2014. As such, we were not critical of the association for failing to carry out further investigations until 2014. The cause of the plumbing problem was identified, but it was not resolved for five months due to an administrative error. We were satisfied that the association acknowledged and apologised for this oversight, and offered compensation in line with their policy. As Miss C did not provide evidence of her out-of-pocket expenses or the damage to her washing machines, we found it reasonable for her claim to be rejected. We acknowledged that Miss C had found the other maintenance works to be disruptive, however, we were satisfied that the association considered whether temporary relocation to another property was required. We also found that work was carried out in line with their repairs and maintenance policy, and that the minimum standards expected of them were met. Related reading View Decision Report 201402759 as a PDF (11.46 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C brought a complaint to us on behalf of Mr A, who had complained to his landlord (the association) that he was experiencing verbal harassment, and racial and homophobic abuse. He said that this had happened on various occasions over several months, and that he did not feel that they had taken sufficient action. We found that the association had taken steps to address this issue with Mr A's neighbour (who was also their tenant) on each occasion when they considered anti-social behaviour to have occurred. There were some occasions when they did not consider the behaviour could be categorised as anti-social, and we were critical that on these occasions the association did not do enough to inform Mr A why they were unable to take further action. We also noted that, while the association were limited in what action they could take against Mr A's neighbour, they did not do enough to communicate this to Mr A, and explain why. This was in line with what the association's investigation had identified, and we acknowledged that they had made changes to improve communication with tenants in such circumstances. Mr A also complained that his complaint had not been handled in line with the association's complaints handling procedure. The association had already identified failings in this area, had apologised and had made changes to ensure it did not happen again. We agreed with this assessment.

Mr C complained about the housing association's handling of his representations about an incident that led to action being taken against him. He complained that they had failed to take into account his version of what had happened. Mr C also complained that they did not consider his complaint within the timescales set out in their complaints procedure. During our investigation we found that the association had obtained corroboration of the incident from an independent source. They had spoken to Mr C to obtain his account of what had happened and to seek information from him before deciding to take action against him. As they had acted appropriately, we did not uphold this element of Mr C's complaint. We did, however, uphold his complaint about their complaints handling. While we were satisfied that the association dealt with the majority of his complaints within the complaints procedure, we found that on two occasions they failed to meet the timescales set out in their procedure. We did not make any recommendations, as the association had already apologised to Mr C for this. Related reading View Decision Report 201305159 as a PDF (11.08 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

When Ms C moved to a new house she experienced problems of noise, harassment and intimidation and reported to the association matters that she considered contravened the secure tenancy agreement. She reported matters to the police as well and over a two-year period instructed solicitors, contacted elected representatives and the council, and latterly had help from an advocate in making a formal complaint to the housing association. She complained that the association failed to take appropriate action in response to her complaints of antisocial behaviour; took an unreasonably long time to deal with her formal complaints and did not provide an adequate response; and failed to respond appropriately to correspondence from her GP and to advise on the medical assessment reached. Our investigation found that there was a lot of documentation, but only two specific antisocial incident files that were opened as a result of contact from Ms C. It was clear that the housing association had not met Ms C's expectations that they would strictly enforce tenancy conditions, but we did not find evidence to uphold her complaint that they had failed to take appropriate action, although we did make a recommendation about letting Ms C know what they would do in future. Our investigation also found that the responses to the complaint were timely and adequate. We did uphold her third complaint, as we found that they had not taken appropriate action in respect of a particular GP letter, and again made a recommendation.

Mrs C complained about the way the housing partnership handled complaints about antisocial behaviour. Mrs C complained on numerous occasions about the behaviour of her upstairs neighbours. The partnership investigated all the complaints that were reported directly to them, based on their antisocial behaviour policy. They twice took action against Mrs C's neighbour, and monitored the situation over a prolonged period. During this time Mrs C made further complaints about antisocial behaviour, but the partnership did not think there was enough evidence to take further action. Our investigation reviewed the evidence from the partnership, and found that there were occasions when staff could have investigated reported antisocial behaviour more promptly, when it was not reported directly to them. There were also occasions when there was some evidence of antisocial behaviour of a minor nature that was not addressed. In particular, we found that the partnership lacked an antisocial behaviour procedure for staff dealing with ongoing issues such as those reported by Mrs C. They also failed to provide Mrs C with enough information about what they had done about some of her complaints, and did not explain sufficiently what other action she could take.

Mr C was unhappy with the housing association's response to complaints he had brought to them of antisocial behaviour and noise nuisance. He complained that the association had failed to respond appropriately to his complaints. Our investigation found that over a period of four years, Mr C had complained four times about noise nuisance and antisocial behaviour by his neighbours. In addition, he made a complaint to the council on one occasion, who shared this information with the association in a joint working arrangement. Our investigation found that each of these complaints was appropriately dealt with, but that the association could have given Mr C more information about what they were doing to resolve each situation. They had already identified this themselves, however, and had made changes to ensure that this did not happen again. Related reading View Decision Report 201200055 as a PDF (11.06 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr and Mrs C said they were told in 2010 that their home was to be demolished as part of a regeneration programme and they would be allocated a new-build property. In March/April 2011, the construction company building the new homes went bankrupt and the building site was sealed. Mr and Mrs C said that since then they had been misled as to when they would be re-housed. They also said that they had not been offered suitable temporary accommodation. We did not uphold their complaints. Our investigation found that the original contractor for the project went into administration in early 2011 which meant that the housing association had to put the contract out to tender again. It was not until April 2012 that a new contractor was appointed. Throughout that period, and up to the date of our investigation, the housing association had regularly written to Mr and Mrs C updating them on the situation. The letters all made clear that the housing association would be back in touch once they had further information, and invited Mr and Mrs C to contact them if they had any questions. We also found that, wherever possible, the housing association gave provisional dates for entry in terms of the information they had at the time. It was also clear that the housing association told Mr and Mrs C that they could offer temporary accommodation, but that Mr and Mrs C had declined this on the grounds that it would not be practical to move into such accommodation and did not want to be inconvenienced by doing so. There was no evidence to suggest they were offered a specific property that they deemed to be unsuitable. Related reading View Decision Report 201202123 as a PDF (11.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, a housing association tenant, had told the association that he was concerned about the quality of the chimney sweeping undertaken by a contractor on the association's behalf. As a result, a technical inspector from the association accompanied the contractors when Mr C's chimneys were swept. Mr C complained that this sweep of his chimneys was not carried out to a reasonable safety standard, and that a further test related to his chimneys carried out on the same day had not been undertaken properly. The association investigated Mr C's complaints. They advised that the technical inspector had no concerns about the way the contractors had carried out their tasks but, in recognition of Mr C's concerns, agreed that his sweeps would in future be undertaken top down, weather conditions permitting. Mr C remained dissatisfied and raised his concerns with us. We decided that we could not consider Mr C's specific complaint to us about the test undertaken at his property, as he had not yet made that properly to the association. On the other matter, we did not uphold his complaint. Our investigation found that the association had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the works carried out on their behalf were of a reasonable safety standard, given the view of the technical inspector and the relevant accreditations of the contractor. Related reading View Decision Report 201201336 as a PDF (11.28 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201105355 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201200078 as a PDF (11.34 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

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. Related reading View Decision Report 201102919 as a PDF (22.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018