SPSO Individual Decisions

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.

Mrs C's elderly uncle (Mr A) had been a tenant of a housing association for many years. His home is factored by a subsidiary company (the company) of the association. When that association then transferred a large quantity of housing stock to another housing association (the new association) non-common repairs (ie most internal repairs) became the responsibility of the new association. However, common repairs to external stairs and paths remained the responsibility of the company. Mrs C complained about the poor condition of the external stairs leading to the building where Mr A lives and that they were a safety hazard. Mrs C also complained that it took over a year for outdoor handrails to be fitted, and for Mr A’s kitchen drawers to be repaired. She was also unhappy that the new association did not clearly explain their repairs policy nor advise her for over a year that the factoring of Mr A’s home remained the responsibility of the company. We upheld three of Mrs C's four complaints. Our investigation found that the new association had been planning a joint programme of improvement works with the company in relation to the stairs. We also found that the new association did not know, at the time of Mrs C’s complaint, that the company factored Mr A’s building and so were responsible for installing the handrails. As a result of this, there was a long delay in the matter being referred to the company. We found that the records of the internal repair were misleading in that they showed that it was complete when in actual fact it remained outstanding for over a year. In addition, although the new association had been undergoing a period of change in terms of their housing stock, they should have identified that the company were the factors for Mr A’s building. We made three recommendations because of these failings. However, we took the view that the new association had made reasonable attempts to respond to Mrs C’s questions about their repairs criteria an