SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained on behalf of their parent (A) who is a tenant of the housing association. C complained that the association did not undertake roughcast render works at A’s property within a reasonable timescale. A was concerned about the condition of the roughcast render at their property after some had fallen. An inspection carried out found that repairs were required. Over six months later, no work had been undertaken and more roughcast render fell from the property. A complained to the association about the length of time it had taken for the roughcast render works to be undertaken. The complaint was upheld and the association said they were in the process of procuring a contractor which they estimated would take four to six weeks. When this time had elapsed, C escalated A's complaint with the association to stage 2 of their complaints procedure. The association reiterated their previous apology and that they were in the process of appointing an alternative contractor. The association said that they hoped works could begin within a month and that dampness and mould would be treated once those works had been completed. They said that they would provide an update when the programme of works was ready to commence. C was unhappy with this response and raised their complaint with this office. We found no evidence of a proper assessment of the scale of the required works until approximately five months after the need for repairs was confirmed. We also found no evidence of the association taking action to appoint a contractor until more than six weeks after their stage 2 response to C. The association did not assess the urgency of the required works, nor did it consider how failing to undertake them had impacted, or could impact, A’s living conditions. There was also no evidence of structured or consistent action being taken to progress the matter. Therefore, we upheld C's complaint.

Mr C, who is homeless, applied to view properties advertised as being immediately available to let. Mr C considered that the properties were not in a condition to be advertised as being immediately available to let.. In relation to the first property, we found that the electric meter had been read during the void period and therefore it was reasonable for the association to expect that it was working when the property was advertised as being immediately available to let. In relation to the second property, the association offered a paint pack as an incentive to rent this property, and we found that this was in accordance with their policy for properties where décor affected the ability to let the property. We did not uphold these complaints. Mr C also complained that he was advised that he could obtain immediate entry after viewing the properties and signing the tenancy agreement. We found that in relation to the first property this information was not clear on the website and it would have been reasonable to expect that this would be explained at the outset, given that prospective tenants looking to rent a property immediately may be living in stressful circumstances. We therefore upheld this complaint. Mr C also complained that he was suspended from the property register because he refused two properties. We found that whilst Mr C understood that he had been suspended, the records did not show that he had and this should have been explained to him. We therefore upheld the complaint.

Mr C complained that the association did not respond within a reasonable timescale to his reports of water ingress in his home. We found that the association's repairs policy states that emergency repairs should be responded to within four hours, urgent repairs within three working days and routine repairs within 20 working days. The association provided no evidence to support how Mr C's reports were categorised, however, it took two months for investigations to be carried out to Mr C's reports of a fault, outwith all timescales. Therefore, we upheld Mr C's complaint.

Ms C complained that the housing association failed to complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe. Ms C was required to move to allow the repairs to be actioned, but did not believe that the association were following their decant policy correctly as she was on the waiting list for a bigger property, but they were going to decant her to one the same size as her current home. The main outcome she was seeking was to be moved to a new property, which she was aware was about to be let. We agreed to investigate Ms C's complaints and notified the association. Their reply included confirmation that Ms C had bid for the property she wanted to move to and had been successful, with a move in date having been set. We attempted to contact Ms C to confirm if this fully resolved her complaint, but could not make contact with her despite several attempts by phone. We contacted her by email with a deadline for response. As we did not hear back from Ms C, we closed the complaint as resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 201706293 as a PDF (11.05 KB) Updated: December 2, 2018

Mr C complained that the housing association failed to respond appropriately to his reports of problems with his boiler and then also failed to make reasonable arrangements to address water damage caused to his laminate flooring from a leak from his heating system. He was also unhappy with the way the association then dealt with his subsequent complaint. We found that the association properly categorised Mr C's repair requests and attended within the required timeframe. We noted that any damage to Mr C's flooring was something he should raise with his insurer but that, in this case, Mr C was offered a small goodwill payment by the association's contractor, in relation to which we have made a recommendation. We were satisfied that the association acted in accordance with their procedures and we did not uphold these aspects of Mr C's complaint. However, we did uphold Mr C's complaint about the way the association dealt with his subsequent complaint. This is because they failed to contact Mr C at an early stage to discuss his concerns with him, and also failed to provide him with a reasonable explanation for their decision.

Ms C complained about the housing association after they refused to grant her priority under their exceptional housing need category. She felt that they had failed to properly consider her request. We found that their procedure for assessing requests under this category was unclear. It was difficult to tell how, and by whom, requests were supposed to be progressed and decided. We also found, in her case, that they had failed to show how, why, or by whom the decision had been made. They accepted that they had not followed the procedure in Ms C's case, even though the procedure clearly stated that it was to be used for all requests of this kind. As such, we upheld Ms C's complaint.

Miss C and her children lived in overcrowded conditions, as recognised by the association. She said she had been waiting for ten years for an offer of a suitable three-bedroom property, and that she had not been offered properties in areas where she could live. When she complained that she had not been offered any suitable properties, the association did not uphold her complaints. In our investigation we reviewed Miss C's waiting list positions, the previous and current housing allocation policy, application records, and communication between the association and Miss C, as well as the offers of viewing made to her. We found that the association had reasonably investigated her complaints by reviewing their procedures, the records of discussions with her, documentation on offers made to view, amendments made by Miss C and her decisions not to view properties. It was clear from the documents we saw that the association had recognised Miss C as a priority and followed their allocation policy. There was also evidence that they made reasonable attempts to accommodate her preferences, discuss her housing issues and give advice about maximising her chances of an offer of a three-bedroom property. Although Miss C had not been offered a property that she was willing to consider, she was not treated unfairly. Related reading View Decision Report 201201266 as a PDF (11.19 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained that the association had acted unreasonably when they charged her for repairs they carried out after she moved out of her property. Our investigation found that the association inspected the property after she moved out, and the report completed then showed that some repairs were needed. Although it would have been useful if photographs had been taken of the damage, we were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence for them to pursue the cost of the repairs. Miss C said that she was not given the opportunity to have the work done herself, and that other former tenants had received inspection visits before ending their tenancy. We found that the association were not obliged to do this prior to Miss C moving out, although we noted that doing so might have helped to avoid the problem. They also told us that they would have visited the property if she had contacted them about possible charges. That said, the repairs bill they sent Miss C referred to an incorrect address and did not provide her with information about the repairs she was being charged for. Miss C contacted them about this but the association then did not provide her with a written breakdown of the costs (although they did provide this during our investigation). Although this was a finely balanced decision, in view of these specific failings we upheld Miss C's complaint.

Mr C complained that the housing association had not dealt properly with his complaint about parking problems at a site where he rented a garage. He said that 'no parking' signs were removed while refurbishment work was being carried out close by, but that they were not reinstated in the same places as before. Mr C said that vehicles were now parking in a way that prevented him from accessing his garage. He also told us that the association had not responded to his correspondence and complaints about the matter. We found that the association had the right to decide where the signs should be, and that they had taken all reasonable steps to resolve the problem including putting up signs and placing road markings, so we did not uphold Mr C's complaint about the parking. They had, however, acknowledged that they had not dealt appropriately with Mr C's correspondence and complaints. They had apologised to him and explained what they had done to ensure that in future they would deal with complaints in line with their policies and procedures. We upheld his complaint about the association's complaints handling but, because of the action they had already taken, we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201203592 as a PDF (11.17 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained on behalf of his mother (Ms A). Ms A left her housing association property in January 2010. Some months later the association sent her a bill for rechargeable repair work (work carried out by the association that the tenant/former tenant has to pay for). Mr C said his brother phoned the association at the time to query the bill but nothing further was heard. The association sent Ms A two further letters, then nothing more until March 2013 when they sent a statement of account pointing out that the bill remained unpaid. Mr C phoned the association to query the bill and told them that he was to be the contact for his mother's account, as she suffered from health problems. He said he did not receive a response. The debt was then passed to a recovery company who wrote directly to Ms A, which she found distressing. Mr C complained to the association about their handling of the bill, then to us that the association delayed unreasonably in pursuing Ms A for the debt. Our investigation found that in 2010 the association contacted Ms A three times about the debt. While we accepted that there was a long period during which there was no contact, they had pursued the debt more than once in 2010, which was within a reasonable time. We considered that it would have been reasonable for Mr C (or his family) to have taken steps at that time to ensure that the matter was resolved. We did not uphold Mr C's complaint, and we also noted that the association had already apologised for the time taken, provided an explanation and reduced the bill. However, we did highlight to them that they should consider how they pass information to their recovery company as it appeared that the association did not tell the company that correspondence should be with Mr C, who was acting on behalf of Ms A. Related reading View Decision Report 201303792 as a PDF (11.46 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C complained that the housing association delayed in carrying out repairs to her property. She was unhappy about various issues, but her main concern was the noise that she could hear from another flat. The association had previously given general advice on noise reduction, and fitted insulation between the flats, but this did not resolve the problem to Ms C's satisfaction. They then arranged for a sound test to be carried out and reported to them. In line with the report's recommendations, they agreed that they would carry out more work. However, this was before they checked whether a building warrant would be necessary. When it turned out that a warrant was in fact needed, the cost of the proposed work drastically increased and the association told Ms C that they could no longer go ahead with it. Although we could not question the decision not to proceed with the work, as the association had provided Ms C with a reasonable explanation of that decision, we upheld her complaints. The problems had been ongoing for some time and we took the view that the association should have been aware that a warrant might be necessary and should have checked this before telling Ms C that the work would proceed. They had also not kept Ms C updated as matters progressed, and there was confusion about whether her concerns were treated as complaints or enquiries.

Mr C, who is a solicitor, complained on behalf of his client (Ms A) that her housing association had unreasonably refused to install a level access shower at her home. The association explained that they were unable to fund such a major adaptation to a property where a new bathroom had recently been installed. They explained, however, that Ms A could carry out the works herself, at her own cost, providing they met the association's specification. As an alternative, they said that she could apply for a transfer to a suitably adapted property in the same block. We reviewed the association's policies as well as government guidance on adaptations. We found that the association did not have a duty to provide this adaptation. We noted that they had considered Ms A's request for the adaptation and clearly explained why they felt they could not provide it in her case. We also noted that they had tried to assist Ms A by providing her with alternative options. As the association did not have a responsibility to provide this adaptation and as they had tried to work with Ms A to find solutions to her access difficulties, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201203928 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018