Housing Complaints

Summary of the Complaint

Service

Outcome and how the complainant was resolved (if applicable)

Quarter 1 & Quarter 2 2024

Q1 1^st April – 30^th June 24

Stage 1

Owner Occupier sought compensation for a repair that they paid for due to a water pipe leak within the shared water supply. They were also unhappy with the lack of communication and action.

Property Service Manager

24-25-185

Partially Upheld – Wealden is liable for 3/8 of the cost of works as it still owned 3 of the properties that shared the water supply. Customer refunded 3/8’s of the cost.

.

Customer is unhappy with the explanation as to why their monthly rent has been increased by 24%. They feel they should have been informed of the error once it was discovered and are concerned over clearing the debt.

Housing Services Team Leader

24-25-009

Upheld – Explanation given as to why this error occurred. Customer has been informed that it will not affect their credit rating.

It has been agreed as a service failure and all tenants affected by this error will receive a credit onto their account.

Customer is unhappy that the council requested access to their property after communicating that they would not be available on the said date. Also unhappy with the suggestion that a third party provide access to the property in their absence.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-013

Not upheld – Smoke alarm testing is done annually and is a requirement. Tests are carried out by a third party and had been arranged for said date.

Customer felt that communication regarding them moving was poor and lead to confusion when the moving date had been delayed 10 days.

Housing Options and Strategy Manager

24-25-016

Upheld – Customer was offered a £50 payment to their rent account in recognition of communication that could have been improved.

As a result of the council’s failure to stop their neighbours bullying and harassment and to deal with the anti-social behaviour the customer complained that their physical and mental health had declined.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-017

Not upheld – Evidence was reviewed and found that the Housing Officers have been working with complainant to resolve the anti-social behaviour as best as they can with the powers available to them.

Customer is unhappy with the new front doors, explaining they are heavy and difficult to close. In addition, believes that another resident is treated more favourably.

Property Services Manager and Housing Services Manager

24-25-019

Not Upheld – The new doors are fire doors and are an integral component of fire protection in buildings.

Properties that are yet to have their front doors replaced are being considered and investigated.

Customer complaint that communication was confusing and that they had been led to believe their moving date would be imminent, yet there have been several delays.

Due to these delays, the customer has expressed that this has impacted their mobility because of packed items around the property.

Property

Services Manager and Housing

Services Manager

24-25-020

Upheld – Compensation offered to Customer of £50 payment to their rent account.

Customer made a written request to Wealden requesting insurance documentation for their leasehold property, however they had not receive an acknowledgement for this request.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-022

Not Upheld – Insurance documentation is sent to leaseholders once it has been received by the insurers. Complainant had been advised of an anticipated date of when this document will be with the leaseholder.

Customer is questioning the legality of the £6 charge towards the sinking fund. The customer believes that the £6 is not eligible for Housing Benefit under the Housing Benefit regulations 2006.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-024

Not Upheld – The charge is correct. An additional contribution ensures that the fund is healthy, and this reduces the impact upon leaseholders. The charge has been applied to all leaseholders regardless of whether the leaseholder is in receipt of Housing Benefit.

Customer is unhappy with the levels of mould and damp within the property.  They are unhappy with the lack of communication and action.

Housing Services Manager and Property Services Manager

24-25-028

Not Upheld – A fungicidal washdown was offered but was cancelled a few times by complainant.  Advice was given from Housing Officer on how to prevent mould and damp relating to the property.

Arranging for a Senior Surveyor to inspect property to determine if the flat is still showing signs of dampness and if there is any work that is required.

Customer is unhappy with the work carried out at their property. They believe that as a result in poor workmanship the pipes were incorrectly sealed in the bathroom, resulting into a leak that continued for a year.

Property Services Manager

24-25-029

Upheld – Offered a reimbursement cost incurred of £220.00.

WDC Officer visiting to discuss any further outstanding work.

Customer undertook a mutual exchange. They felt that the property that they moved into was unsanitary and in poor condition.

Housing

Services Manager and Property Services Manager

24-24-30

Not Upheld – The incoming tenant effectively takes on the tenancy of the previous occupant with the liabilities and responsibilities that come with that.

A full inspection was carried out which the complainant was present for, and a considerable number of repairs have been undertaken since their occupation.

Customer has made several complaints regarding anti-social behaviour. They are unhappy with how these complaints have been investigated.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-032

Not Upheld – All points raised were responded to.

No evidence to substantiate the allegations made.

Customer believes neighbour to have planted a Virginia Creeper. They have asked the Council to remove the invasive plant.

Housing Service Manager

24-25-033

Not Upheld – Housing Officer contacted neighbour and established that the newly planted is a Wisteria and not a Virginia Creeper – which poses no threat of encroachment.

Customer does not believe that Wealden should have been awarded the Plain English or disability confident accreditation due to conflicting advice from customer services and a letter received from Planning department.

Information Governance Manager

24-25-034

Not Upheld – Letter that customer sent had no one addressed to it; subsequently it was sent to the wrong department due to the content. The response letter was reviewed and the text was simple and easy to read and planning terminology cannot be changed.

Customer has stated that there have been periods of time where a Retirement Living Court Manager has not been available or has been shared with other courts. They believe that they are eligible for credit on their service charges as a result.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-039

Not Upheld – Content of the letter appears to be a statement of opinion and a request for explanations. This is not appropriate to deal with under the complaints process.

Customer complaint about the front and side gutters were still overflowing, despite reporting this problem before.

Customer states there is interior mould, water damage and moss, which is becoming a concern to health.

Property Services Manager

24-25-044

Upheld – Surveyor inspected property following the letter of complaint. The surveyor noted the gutters had open joints which would be the main cause of the water cascading from the guttering. Weather conditions were also adding to the condition. An order has been raised for the joints to the gutters to be repaired. Additional works to the roofline will be added to the capital works programme.

Inspection of the internal side of the property, particularly the bathroom has been offered, but customer advised they did not wish for an internal inspection and would treat and paint themselves.

Apologies have been made to customer and thanks have been given for contacting us and making us aware of the situation.

Replacement window works started within said time, yet customer is unhappy that the work remains unfinished despite being advised it would only take 5 days. Customer is also unhappy that the contractors have not yet turned up to finish the job.

Property Services Manager

24-25-046

Upheld – The contractor has acknowledged that their communication and execution has not been of the standard that they aspire to, mainly due to the volume of work. The work has now been appointed to a dedicated site foreman to oversee and ensure effective communication.

Apologies and thanks have been made to customer for their patience and understanding. This window project was the first time they had incorporated the additional work to install cavity closures around the windows, which differ to standard window replacements.

Customer is unhappy with the communication from the Allocations Team, after their email had stated they would respond by said date. Medical evidence has been given to the Allocations Team, and customer is unhappy that their housing account has not been updated to reflect the urgency of a relocation and change of banding.

Housing Services Manager and Housing Options and Strategy Manager

24-25-040

Partially upheld – The Allocations Team did fail to respond to the Customer within the timescale allotted. This has since been followed up.

The customer was advised that their complaint about banding cannot be treated as a complaint under this procedure, as they are matters which are under consideration by another function of the Council – through a reviews process.

Customer feels that they should not be charged £17 for an additional communal door key.

Property Service Manager

24-25-043

Not Upheld– The provision of an additional key to operate the secondary access doors, which have been requested, is an additional cost and is therefore liable on the resident to pay. This is the same for any resident, should they require an extra key.

An application for a HUG2 grant was submitted towards the end of last year, and only received acknowledgment from this application a month after it had been submitted.

Customer is unhappy with the lack of communication between the contractors/Wealden and is unhappy with chasing the request about the cavity wall requirements for more than 6 months.

Property Services Manager

24-24-056

Not Upheld – HUG2 scheme is a government led scheme which is under strict guidelines and criteria. Any application and works carried out for which is government funded must be done in strict accordance with PAS 2035 Process. Whilst Wealden District Council has the funding for the scheme in principle, no works can be undertaken until the governments Department for Energy, Security and Net Zero has fully scrutinised and agreed the retrofit scheme and cost for each individual property under application.  This makes the process long and protracted, also out of Wealden’s control. However, evidence showed that there had been numerous emails, voicemails and telephone calls from the contactors to the customer.

Stage 2

Customer does not agree with the outcome of the investigation carried out by the Housing Services Manager. They believe that a certain Council Officer is unable to carry out their duties impartially.

Head of Housing

24-25-017

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information.

Complaint had been fully and appropriately responded to previously.

Customer believes the stage 1 complaint ‘Legality of £6 service charge’ was not handled in accordance with the Complaints Procedure or the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance.

Head of Housing

24-25-06

Not Upheld – All points raised were responded to.

Customer did not provide any relevant or new information. Complaint had been fully and appropriately responded to previously.

Customer believes the Council is failing to deal with the root cause of damp and mould issues within the building and a fungal wash will not be an adequate solution.

Head of Housing

24-25—28

Not Upheld – Building has been inspected further and a full report has been made about the findings.

All points raised were responded to appropriately.

Customer is unhappy with the work carried out at their property. They believe that as a result in poor workmanship the pipes were incorrectly sealed in the bathroom, resulting into a leak that continued for a year.

Head of Housing

24-24-029

Not Upheld –  complaint had already been comprehensively investigated by the department involved and the complaint upheld.

Customer did not agree with the outcome of investigation carried out by the Property Service Manager. Customer had been refused permission to install a door of their choice, as they did not want a brown door installed. Customer has stated they will not be paying for the door provided from the Council.

Head of Housing

24-25-043

Not Upheld – The complaint has been comprehensively investigated by the department involved and satisfied that the complaint has been appropriately responded to. Customer has not provided any relevant or new information, after reviewing the original complaint and response from the Council.

The door is not permitted to be replaced in a different colour – it can only be replaced in accordance with the planning permission approved for replacements for the Court.

All points raised were responded to appropriately and further information was provided.

Customer did not agree with the outcome of the investigation. Customer feels that the Council have not considered everything the customer had to deal with regarding a neighbour.

Head of Housing

24-182

Not Upheld – The complaint has been comprehensively investigated by the department involved and satisfied that the complaint has been appropriately responded to. Customer has not provided any relevant or new information, after reviewing the original complaint and response from the Council

Customer did not agree with the outcome of the Investigation carried out by the Housing Options Manager regarding the lack of actions from Housing Officers, failing to stop their neighbours from bullying and harassment.

Head of Housing

24-145

Not upheld – Documentation provided from customer was reviewed. Appropriate advice was given to.

A payment of £50 was offered as a gesture of goodwill, not recognition of any service failure.

Customer did not agree with the outcome of the investigation carried out by the Property Services Manager. Customer states that their car was damaged whilst parked in the road.

Noise levels from work have caused anxiety and that extra dirt cause by the works on site adjoining to their property has caused noticeable dirt to their hall carpet.

Head of Housing

24-25-029

Not Upheld – The complaint has been comprehensively investigated and the complaint has been appropriately responded to. Customer has not provided any relevant or new information, after reviewing the original complaint and response from the Council.

Q2 1^st July – 30 September 24

Stage 1

Lack of communication from the Housing Allocations Team, missing hand-delivered documents and banding.

Housing Services Manager and Housing Options and Strategy Manager

24-25-040

Partially upheld – Since a response was not received within the timeframe given. Advised of the right to request a review of their banding.

Customer believes the grass cutting in 2024 was not carried out in accordance with the specification.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-60

Not upheld – As has been mentioned in the past, there has to be a degree of pragmatism with the grounds maintenance contract to take account of issues such as adverse weather conditions rather than rigid enforcement of the contract. In the opinion of the Contract Monitoring Officer, the contractor meets the requirements of the contract, and the grounds are in good condition.

Due to the anti-social behaviour from neighbours a complaint has been made. Customer states that neighbours have been walking up and down at night and can hear loud noises coming from the loft. Voices can be heard after 11pm.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-64

Not upheld – The Council will contact the Residents Association and ask them to encourage all residents to be vigilant. Walking up and down the stairs and along corridors, as well as talking loudly would be domestic noise rather than anti-social behaviour.

Customer unhappy about receiving conflicting information regarding a fence installation. Customer believes the Council are showing signs of victimisation.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-083

Not Upheld – Housing Officer was unaware of the fencing arrangements within the area. The fencing plan does not include installing a new fence on a previously open plan garden and the height of the fence requested would not be permissible.

Fencing plan has been followed and cannot find evidence to support the allegations of victimisation.

Customer unhappy with the council as they have failed to progress the plan to install a ramp and electronic door to communal entrance. Customer feels that they have been continually chasing the council with this request and no one has taken responsibility for this.

Property Services Manager

24-25-096

Partially Upheld – Under the Councils Aids and Adaptations Policy, all major adaptations to our homes are required to follow the statutory Disabled Facilities Grant process (DFG). This ensures that all adaptations delivered meets the requirements for all disabled occupants regardless of tenure and follow a set process.

Referrals have been made to ASC and OT and the customer had been advised of this lengthy process. This case would be compounded by the need to consult with the other residents, as this could affect the communal entrance to the building.

The council has followed its processes, the request has progressed, and work has been agreed, estimated and approved. Contractors have been instructed to manufacture the doors, as these doors are not off the shelf standard doors.

Apologies have been made regarding the delay at the start of the process due to staff sickness.

Customer felt there was a contradiction regarding the weekly welfare checks carried out in Retirement Living between what was in the strategy and correspondence sent by the council.

N/A

24-25-097

Not accepted as a complaint since it was identical in nature to a complaint already dealt with in October 2023.

Customer complaint about property maintenance issues – heating system, damp and mould and replacement windows.  Additionally, the customer has not been able to get in contact with the council to get an update on their housing band since it was lowered, due to three refusals.

Property Service Manage & Housing Options and Strategy Manager

24-25-098

Not Upheld – A full inspection of the property was undertaken found to be in a good order and state of repair. At the time of inspection, there was no damp present within the property but there were some minor spots of mould on and around the window. An order was raised with our contractors to install an additional trickle vent to the window and to service the bathroom extract fan. A fungicidal wash had been offered to customer, but declined and stated they would clean the mould themselves.

Wall insulation have been surveyed and would benefit from an extract and refill of insulation – this work is proposed within the next 12 months.

All points raised were responded to appropriately.

At the recent Resident Association (RA) AGM, a council officer advised she would undertake the role as Secretary. Customer believes that this is in breach of point 3 of the RA constitution.

Housing Policy & Partnerships Manager

24-25-069

Not upheld – A secretary was appointed but had concerns over her ability due to her IT skills and lack of PC. The officer provided support and helped type up the minutes taken by the appointed secretary.

There was no breach of the constitution as the elected roles were filled and now occupied by residents of the court.

Customer complaint on behalf of another resident regarding a fence being funded for a private resident. Customer is also unhappy with the lack communication and lack of actions taken by the council to fix paving repairs on behalf of another resident. These appointments have been cancelled twice.

Housing/Property Services Managers

24-25-075

Not upheld – Regarding the fence, communication was made to customer about the placement of the fence. This was to ensure the two gardens are separated given the anti-social behaviour reported.

The work on the paving was pushed back due to weather conditions but will continue once the ground conditions are better.

Customer has been advised to speak and engage with their Housing Officer. It was also stated that they could approach the Housing Services Team Leader if they do not wish to speak with their Housing Officer about said issues.

Customer unhappy with the Allocations Team not dealing with their need to move to a more suitable accommodation and has resulted in stress. They are unhappy with the lack of actions taken from the allocations team and the lack of communication.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-083

Not Upheld – Have spent a significant amount of time being excluded from the Council’s Housing Register due to their actions which include making threats and being abusive towards staff.

Advice has been given on a mutual exchange that could have taken place, but as stated previously, there is no guarantee of success.

Communications have been made to customer as soon as the council was able to.

Customer believes that the valuation of their property for insurance purposes has been overinflated and has impacted the annual premium for building insurance. It has increased from £109.76 to £240.45. Customer feels there has been no explanation for this.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-088

Not Upheld – The estimate of insurance costs has been explained thoroughly to customer before complaint was made.  The Council has no control over the insurance valuations nor control over the insurance market. The Council had chosen the most favourable terms for leaseholders.

Customer has been advised if they would like to dispute their service charge, they should recourse to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Customer wishes to register a complaint about estimated service charges and made several statements on how customer believes certain charges have been calculated.

Housing Services Manager

24-24-089

Not upheld – Observations cannot be dealt with by way of a complaint, as the complaints procedures states a number of matters that will not be treated as a complaint.

Customer has been advised if they would like to dispute their service charge, they should recourse to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Customer complaint about a neighbour unable to store their mobility scooter in the communal facility due to lack of space. Customer states that reasonable adjustments have not been made in accordance with Reasonable Adjustments Policy and Equalities Act.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-093

Not Upheld – The Council did advise that there would be no space available for a mobility scooter before accepting the property and that they would be placed on a waiting list.

Since this complaint, space has now become available for said neighbour to store their mobility scooter.

Customer unhappy as they signed a tenancy agreement on said date and stated that there were an unreasonable amount of repairs that needed to be fixed. These still have not been resolved and customer feels this should have been taken care of whilst the property was void. 

Property Service Manager

24-25-104

Partially Justified – The property was inspected as part of the Councils void process and was deemed to meet void standards. Apologies have been made to customer regarding the lack of attention to detail from the Voids Team, a full inspection should have taken place. This has been flagged to prevent reoccurrences.

Large amounts of work has been completed since this complaint.

Customer believes that a council officer lied about the ASB reports made against them by a neighbour at their previous property.

Non 24-25-105

Not taken as a complaint because the Complaint’s procedure states that matters that the complainant knew about more than 12 months before the complaint are outside the scope of the policy.

Customer is unhappy that a garden fence was removed from neighbours’ property to install bases for heat pumps but despite repeat requests, this still has not been replaced. This is causing the neighbour distress as other tenants are now using their garden as a short cut.

Property Services Manage

24-25-112

Partially Justified – Resident withdrew permission for the change to the air source heat pump system, after the bases were installed.

The fence was not reinstalled initially to allow the resident time to reconsider. Accepting the timescale that has now elapsed since its removal, it has been requested that the fence is to be reinstated as soon as possible.

Customer complained that the council had failed to take appropriate action to resolve bullying and harassment.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-099

Not Upheld – The Council have been engaged in trying to resolve the difficulties that the customer has experiences. The case had also been taken to Court but the Court made the decision that it was not reasonable to grant possession of the property.

The provision of emergency accommodation had been discussed with them and support is ongoing from the Council.         

Customer was ready to move to new property on said date but received an email 5 days before the move stating the property is no longer suitable.

Customer is unhappy that they have spent money on clearing the property and paid a non-refundable deposit for a hire van.

Housing Services Manager and Housing Options Manager

24-25-106

Upheld – Due to staff absence, one important check was not carried out before the nomination was approved and this was the suitability of the property given the Customers circumstances.  The customer was notified as soon as possible.

Apologies have been given to Customer and have been made fully aware the upset this must have caused. £50 has been offered in recognition of this service failure. If Customer is able to provide receipts of the non-returnable van deposit, WDC will refund this amount as well.

Customer is unhappy with the increased service charge for cleaning. The customer cannot understand why this year’s charges were not correct when leaseholders were notified of the current changes within said date.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-111

Partially Upheld – The contract had been retendered as the old contract was due to expire, and the weekly charges for the current year are higher than would normally be the case. This is to recover the undercharge for the service charge for the early part of 2024-25, and to allow the Council to recover the full charge in line with the ruling of the Tribunal.

As the Council had made an error initially, the decision was made not to charge leaseholders for the under-recovery of the cleaning charge in 2023-24. Consequently, the complaint is partially upheld as the Council could have made leaseholders aware that the service charge could increase.

Customer is unhappy with the lack of actions taken from WDC in trying to resolve the anti-social behaviour from another tenant.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-114

Not Upheld – The Council is aware of serious issues involving said court/tenants. Measurements are usually put in place such as Mediation, Community Protection Warnings etc, however these measures are not considered to be appropriate in the present circumstances.

Legal action can be a lengthy process and Council Officers have engaged with the tenant and the tenant’s families to resolve the issue. The Court has had several meetings with third parties to seek resolution to the problems, but these have been cancelled on short notice.

Under GDPR and Data Protection Act, the Council has a legal obligation when handling personal data and to safeguard individuals’ privacy. The Council cannot discuss matters concerning the tenant’s health or the agencies involved. The Council is not misusing and has not misused data protection legislation and has not unnecessarily delayed taking action.

Customer is unhappy with the communication from the council regarding their fence. The customer believes they are being treated unfairly.

Housing Services Manager

24-25-118

Not Upheld – As a Council tenant, you must obtain permission to put a fence up. If permission is not requested or granted, the tenant must remove the fence.

An Appointment was made for Customer to meet with the Housing Officer to discuss this further, which was cancelled by Customer. As the fence was not removed, an NOSP was issued warning to the tenant that they need to comply with their Tenancy Conditions

The customer did speak with a Planning Officer and appropriate advice was given regarding this issue.

Stage 2

Customer does not agree with the outcome of the investigation carried out by the Housing Services Manager regarding the whether the council intends to credit residents for any period where Retirement Living Court Manager post/posts are vacant.

Head of Housing

24-25-039

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information. Complaint had been fully and appropriately responded to previously.

Customer does not agree with the outcome of the investigation carried out by the Housing Services Manager. Customers complaint about Key Safe and Plain English Communications.

Head of Housing

24-25-034

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information. Complaint had been fully and appropriately responded to previously.

Offered installation of one key safe by the Council at no cost but has permission to install a second key safe at their own cost.

Customer was dissatisfied with response to your stage 1 around the handling of a neighbour nuisance issue and lack of resolution

Head of Housing

24-25-64

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information. Complaint had been fully and appropriately responded to previously.

Customer did not agree with the outcome of the investigation and have evidence that they are allowed a fence. They believe they are being treated differently and have evidence for this too.

Head of Housing

24-25-083

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information. The Council has already comprehensively investigated the situation and is satisfied the complaint has been appropriately responded to.

Customer did not agree with the outcome of the investigation carried out by the Property Service Manager regarding external insulation and advice on the cavity wall requirements. Customer would like the council to provide an answer to why it has taken 6 months.

Head of Housing

24-26-056

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information. The Council has already comprehensively investigated the situation and is satisfied the complaint has been appropriately responded to.

Customer did not agree with the outcome of the investigation carried out by the Housing Options Manager, Housing Service Manager and Property Service Manager. Customer states that the Council have paid to have a fence put up around said property, which is privately owned.

Head of Housing

24-24-075

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information. The Council has already comprehensively investigated the situation and is satisfied the complaint has been

appropriately responded to.

Customer has been referred to Section 9 of the Councils Fencing Plan, which is available online.

Customer did not agree with the outcome of the Investigation carried out by the Housing Service Manager.

Customer feels they did not receive an adequate response to their points raised, namely that; The work that was completed was not carried out in accordance with the specification.

Head of Housing

24-25-60

Partially Justified – Due to an administration error, only the first page of the Customers complaint had been scanned and forwarded onto the appropriate department – Apologies have been given.

The contents of the letter have been reviewed and the points raised are considered matters of opinion rather than material evidence to suggest a breach of performance of the ground’s maintenance contract. Council is satisfied the complaint has been appropriately responded to.

Customer did not agree with the outcome of their Stage 1 complaint and felt that they had been provided with a lack of support

Head of Housing Services

24-177

Not upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information and the complaint has been fully and appropriately responded to.

Q3 – 1^st October – 31^st December 24

Stage 1

Customer is unhappy with the actions taken/not taken by the Council regarding the mould within their property and the lack of support regarding their request to move.

Customer is unhappy with the anti-social behaviour around their property.

Housing Services, Housing Options and Strategy and Property Services Manager

Not Upheld – Customer sought confirmation that their position on the Councils Housing Register had ended at their request and wanted all data to be deleted. Customer has been advised that if they wish to re-apply for a transfer, they should contact Housing Allocations Team.

The Maintenance Inspector has been liaising with customer about mould treatment and customer has been advised about the importance of using extractor fans and allowing proper ventilation throughout the property. Works have been carried out over several short appoints, rather than all at once due to the Customers Requirements.

Regarding Anti-Social Behaviour, signs have been put in place to stop people climbing on the car park wall.

Residents were contacted to be available in their homes on said date so an engineer could repair the meter. Residents were not advised that the issue had been fixed without needing to enter their properties, resulting in a wasted day.

Housing Services Manager

Upheld – Apologies have been given and on reflection the Council should have contacted all residents to advise that the fault had been rectified and did not require access to any properties.

Customer complaint about an unresolved mould and damp issue that had been ongoing since they had moved into the property. Customer feels the Council have not communicated effectively.

Property Services Manager

Upheld– Apologies had been given, and Customer was offered £250 compensation for the prolonged delays in timescale. Customer has been advised that funding has been secured for the retrofit programme and the extract and refill of the cavity wall insulation is to be booked in as soon as possible.

Customer had been issued a Community Protection order, because of not being able to clear their garden. The customer feels harassed, and this has impacted their mental health, they are seeking an apology and for a record to be made to prevent further actions.

Housing Service Manager

Not Upheld – Matter had been raised before the order was served and the customer had agreed to clear the garden. As this has not been complied with a Community Protection Order has been issued. Customer was advised to speak to their Housing Officer in the future so that they could offer support and guidance.

Customer believes that there is a breach of the Qualifying Long-Term Agreement in respects of the communal cleaning.

Housing Services Manager

Not Upheld – The 1.5 hours down on the cleaning will be corrected in November. This does not warrant an investigation by either the Court Manager or the Monitoring Officer.

All leaseholders were given the opportunity to inspect the specification during the consultation period, the laundry pads were never a significant part of the contract, this was not a significant change to the contract.

Customers complaint due to the Council deciding to separate the ‘development’ sinking funds into two separate funds. The Customer believes this is a breach of lease terms and is financially detrimental to them.

Housing Services Manager

This was not treated as a complaint, but an observation. Since the letter, the Legal Services team have confirmed that the relevant funds should be combined.

Customers feels there has been inadequate level of financial information provided, which failed to allow leaseholders to determine their personal legal liability costs for major works.

Property Services Manager

Not Upheld – The letter stated was a notice of intention to conduct works under a long-term qualifying agreement. This is the third stage of the process for specific works. The costs are in accordance with the procured contractor as detailed in stage 1 and 2 of the consultation process.

Customer wishes to register a complaint about the incorrect calculations of the 50% financial assistance contributions to leaseholders from the development sinking fund balance.

Property Services Manager

Not Upheld – The Leaseholders are only being asked to contribute a lower amount.

Customer believes that the Section 20 procedure adopted by Wealden was incorrect.

Property Services Manager

Not Upheld – The works in question have already been completed. The Section 20 had been withdrawn, and leaseholders were informed that they would therefore be charged the standard flat rate of £250 for works.

Customer believes the ‘imposition’ of the weekly £6 sinking fund charge is a breach of the Housing Benefits Regulations 2006.

Housing Services Manager

Not Upheld – Issue has been fully addressed in previous complaints and Customer has not raised any new matters regarding this.

Customer complaint about a visit from the ASB Officer regarding the number of dogs they have at their property. Customer feels that the ASB Officer was rude and did not communicate effectively.

Housing Services Manager

Not Upheld – Customer has permission for three dogs, but when the ASB Officer arrived at the property there were six dogs.

Customer had been seen to be verbally abusive and threatening towards the ASB officer and would not allow them into the flat.

Customer undertook a mutual exchange. Since which time, they have experienced mould, damp, and wood lice in the kitchen. The previous tenant had reported this, but no action had been taken.

Property Services Manager

Not Upheld – The property had been previously visited and the surveyor reported very minor mould spores in the coldest points of bedroom two and living room. The boiler was broken at the time of visit.

The Council did try to contact the new tenant to check how things were going but received no response after leaving a message. Officers called again, but tenant terminated the call. A letter was written to ask them to contact the Council if the issue persisted.

Since the complaint, the Council has inspected, and appropriate works orders have been raised.

Customer raised concerns about renting a private property without an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) or which is registered as having Private Rented Sector (PRS) exemption. Customer feels they have been ignored by their landlords and have escalated this future.

Customer feels that the Council has failed to act and communicate effectively.

Property Services Manager

Not Upheld – A Private Housing Officer did email the Customer back by return that day and offered advice regarding the actions that the Council can take regarding a Housing Health and Safety Rating System Inspection under the Housing Act 2004.

The Private Housing Team undertook considerable research to seek further evidence on the structural makeup of the property, and its compliance/exemption from the need of an EPC.

The findings were given to the landlord who had been responsive. They have obtained a draft EPC and had proposed improvement works to the property to for the heating and repairs. The Customer has asked for the works to be delayed.

Complaint due to the Councils lack of effective communication and actions throughout a mutual exchange process.

Housing Service Manager

Not Upheld – Having reviewed the situation and information available, the mutual exchange had been completed within the statutory time frame and the procedure had been followed correctly.

Complaint due to the Councils lack of effective communication and actions throughout a mutual exchange process.

Housing Service Manager

Not Upheld – Having reviewed the situation and information available, the mutual exchange had been completed within the statutory time frame and the procedure had been followed correctly.

Customer feels they have not received an acknowledgement or response to their application regarding a service charge 0% loan or a non-commercial low-interest rate loan.

Housing Services Manager

Not Upheld – A response to the application was sent within 6 weeks of receipt of the claims. As explained within the letter sent to the Customer, their claim does not fall within the scope of this legislation.

Complaint due to the lack of response or acknowledgement from the Council regarding their Service Charge Waiver query, customer has complained.

Housing Services Manager

Not Upheld – A response to the letter was sent within 6 weeks of receipt of the claims. As explained within the letter sent to the Customer, their claim does not fall within the scope of this legislation

Customer was expecting a call within two weeks from Housing Solutions Team, but this did not happen.

Housing Options & Strategy Manager

Upheld – It had been agreed that the customer would get a fortnightly call regarding any housing application updates. The Council did try to contact the customer by telephone without success on two occasions, to avoid delay the council chose to write a letter.

Due to incorrect personal information on a letter, the customer believes that this has affected their transfer request which was closed without any communication.

Housing Options & Strategy Manager

Upheld – Having reviewed the situation and information available, the Council were disappointed to learn that the customer received a letter addressed to a different person. This provision of a name to a third party is considered a data breach and the Council have notified the Councils Data Protection Officer of the incident.

Complaint due to the customer having to provide all the information requested for their transfer application three times in the last six months.

Housing Options & Strategy Manager

Not Upheld – It appears that it has been necessary to make repeat and supplementary requests as the information that the customer had supplied had either been out of date or the information provided raised further enquiries.

Customer complaint as the investigations team had not communicated effectively or fairly to discuss the matters of their finances and affordability before rejecting their application to join the housing register.

Investigations Manager

Not Upheld – Having reviewed the situation and the information available, records show that the correct processes had been followed, and communication was sent on said date to explain why the application had been declined.

Complaint due to the time being taken to receive a response from the Housing Allocations Team.

Housing Options & Strategy Manager

Not Upheld – Customer had previously been written to, explaining that the Council is required to have a scheme for determining priorities and a procedure that must be followed in allocating housing accommodation. As well as being informed that Applications to join the housing register will take up to sixteen weeks to process from the point the Council receives all the supporting information.

Customer feels that the Wealden Council did not set up their rent account or electric account correctly, resulting in missed payments.

Housing Services Manager

Not Upheld – In this case despite the Councils Legal Section sending a blank Direct Debit mandate to the solicitors for completion with their clients, which was done neither the Legal Services nor Housing Income section received a completed Direct Debit mandate.

The Council cannot accept responsibility for the customer’s account falling into arrears.

Following a bath leak resulting in mould, the customer is unhappy with the service they received from the Council.

Property Services Manager

Not Upheld – Contractors attended the same day of bathroom leak being reported and fixed the issues. They used a wet vax to clear up any water that was left.

Following concerns of mould, three inspections were made by different individuals which are all in agreement that the property is dry, and the stain mentioned are not mould related.

Customer had complained about the behaviour of an engineer who attended their property.

BSW Heating Limited

Apologise have been made to customer about the situation and BSW will ensure that the engineer complained about will not attend their address again.

Customer is unhappy with the Housing Options Team and the assistance they have provided to their tenants.

Housing Options & Strategy Manager

Not Upheld – Whilst the Council recognise the frustration, regrettably it is not possible to share the information they are seeking, due to the protections of personal data set by Data Protection legislation.

The Customer has been informed that as a landlord, they must follow the legislative process to end a private rented tenancy and has been given details on where this information can be found online.

Customer is unhappy with the Housing Income team and the service they provided.

Housing Services Manager

Not Upheld – It is a tenant’s obligation to ensure that rent is paid on time and arrears do not accrue. The Council did request a direct payment from Universal Credit which was accepted.

Emails that went unanswered were due to annual leave, but the customer was responded to immediately upon their return.

Stage 2

Customer does not agree with the outcome of the investigation in stage 1. Customer is unhappy with the actions taken/not taken by the Council regarding the mould within their property and the lack of support regarding their request to move.

Customer is unhappy with the anti-social behaviour around their property.

Head of Housing Services

*Currently being investigated

Customer does not agree with the outcome of the investigation conducted by the Housing Services Manager.

Customer believes there has been a potential breach of lease terms due to the separation of the sinking funds.

Head of Housing Services

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information.

Complaint had been fully and appropriately responded to previously.

Customer does not agree with the outcome of the investigation conducted by the Housing Services Manager.

Customer feels unhappy with lack of response from the Council regarding their change in circumstances form and they were also unhappy paying the sinking fund charge.

Head of Housing Services

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information.

Complaint had been fully and appropriately responded to previously.

Customer does not agree with the outcome of the investigation conducted by the Property Services Manager.

Customer is unhappy with the standard of property following a mutual exchange and feels that Wealden Council was cutting corners and did not communicate effectively.

Head of Housing Services

Not Upheld – Customer has been advised that the minor mould they are experiencing would be alleviated and minimised by managing condensation within the property.

Work has been raised to ensure there is no risk of water penetration, repairs to the windows and installation of environmental sensors.

Customer did not provide any relevant or new information.

Complaint had been fully and appropriately responded to previously.

Customer does not agree with the outcome of the investigation conducted by the Property Services Manager regarding inadequate provision of EPC and PRS guidance.

Head of Housing Services

Not Upheld – Customer did not provide any relevant or new information.

Complaint had been fully and appropriately responded to previously.

Summary of the Complaint

Service

Outcome and how the complainant was resolved (if applicable)

Quarter 1 – 1^st April to 30 June 2023

Stage 1

Detail

Team within Housing

Outcome

Leaseholder complaint about differing cost for cleaning services and why we had consulted

Housing Management

Not upheld

Differing costs were due to the fact that one was estimated and the other the final cost.

A section 20 consultation was required because if the agreement is for more than 12 months and at least one leaseholder will pay more than £100 in any one year, there is a legal requirement to consult.

Complaint regarding the lack of response to enquiries regarding some of the leaseholder service charge payments for 2021-022

Housing Management

Not upheld

Complainant is subject to vexatious status and as such has been advised on the restriction on responses.

Complainant disagreed with the Council’s response regarding anti-social behaviour

Housing Management

Not upheld

Concern raised had been investigated but there was no evidence to support the allegations made. The complainant was not willing to explore mediation.

Complaint about a Residents Association meeting which was considered to have been non quorate and in breach of the constitution

Housing Policy & Partnerships

The matter fell outside the scope of our Corporate Complaints Procedure since Wealden District Council is not responsible for Resident Associations who are independent bodies.

Complaint about damp and mould and lack of action

Property Services

Partially justified due to delays following the departure of an Officer and because communication should have been better.

Complaint about delays to a mutual exchange resulting from a mistake when transferring the property from a joint to sole tenancy many years earlier

Housing Management

Upheld. The Officer who had made the transfer of tenancy had wrongly interpreted the court order at the time. This was identified during the mutual exchange leading to delays.

£50 compensation was awarded.

Complaint about a private rented tenant who had secured the property through Letsure (financial assistance from the Council)

Housing Options & Homelessness

No upheld. The tenant was a private tenant who had secured the property directly from the landlord

Complaint regarding a water leak, damp and mould and lack of action

Property Services

Not upheld. All works had been completed at the property. There was no damp or mould present.

Complaint regarding broken heating system over winter, damp and mould and delays replacing the cavity wall insulation 

Property Services

Justified as the repair had taken longer than we would normally expect.

Complaint regarding an outstanding water leak and missed appointment

Property Services

Justified as the repair initially had failed to be logged.

Complaint regarding a change of banding because of refusing a property.

Housing Options & Homelessness

Not upheld as the decision had been based on information provided at the time. However, based upon the new evidence this decision will be reviewed.

Complaint regarding the lack of response to Section 21 consultation about lift servicing and refurbishment

Housing Management

Not upheld since Stage 1 of the consultation for section 21 notices does not require us to respond to any observations within 21 days.

Complaint about the lack of support from an Officer.

Housing Policy & Partnerships

Not upheld. Evidence highlighted the extent of the support provided; the allegations made against the officer were not supported by a third party also present. 

Stage 2

Detail

Team within Housing

Outcome

Repairs and clean up works following the repair

Property Services

Not escalated as no relevant new information had been provided and the Stage 1 had been fully and appropriately responded to.

Quarter 2 2023-2024: July, August and September 2023

Stage 1

Detail

Team within Housing

Outcome

Complaint with the service received by a contractor – repairs not being carried out.

Property Services

Not upheld.

Concerns about guttering and downpipe had been investigated and responded to. An agreement was made for the cleaning of green algae growth on wall surrounding downpipe. 

Complaint about unsuccessful bids on properties, loss of medical notes on council files, and bids showing as ‘rejected’ despite not being offered properties.

Housing Options

Partially upheld.

All medical notes had been received and supporting evidence reviewed.

Records showed that a property offered had been refused and unsuccessful bids were in line with the Housing Allocations Policy, but with one administrative error which we cannot now reverse as the property had been let.

Complaint about council’s decision on disqualification to join the housing register and wrongful allocation of a property to another individual.

Housing Options

Not upheld.

After the council had notified the complainant that they did not qualify to join the register. They asked for a review, which was carried out, but they were found not to meet the eligibility criteria. There is no further right to a review/appeal.  

The complaint falls outside of the scope of the Corporate Complaints Procedure.

Complaint follows previous recorded complaint.  That the council’s reviewer made wrongful interpretations and judgement, affecting the handling of case.

Housing Options

Not upheld.

Concurred with the council’s original findings and decision.  Reiterated that the complaint falls outside of the scope of the Corporate Complaints Procedure.

Complaint about service provided as part of the Warm Home Check Scheme, and not being informed by the council that they were no longer on the list to receive funding for insulation.

Property Services

Not upheld

A referral form was completed and signposted by a member of council staff using The Winter Home Check Service website, which is managed by Hastings Borough Council and a service provided by East Sussex County Council. 

Advice given to raise a complaint with Hastings Borough Council regarding no longer being on the list. 

Complaint on the council’s refusal to further explain a letter regarding the Disabled Facility Grants despite being advised about autism and requiring assistance.

Property Services

Not upheld.

Multiple efforts had been made verbally, in person, over the phone, in writing and by email, to explain the DFG process and reasoning for grant not being feasible.  

Complaint from owner occupier about the council’s failure to maintain a property that had resulted in a pest infestation.

Property Services

Not upheld.

All identified work following an earlier survey inspection of the property had been completed, including pest treatment.

Complaint about the council’s handling of an application for housing.

Housing Options

Not upheld.

Applicant was not eligible for homelessness assistance but would be in another Local Authority where they had a local connection so referred to them. This assessment was correct. Any request for a review falls outside the scope of the Corporate Complaints Procedure.

Complaint about the lack of communication from the council, on reported damp and mould.

Property Services

Upheld.

Failure of communication on updates identified.  This was partly due to a period of staff shortages during a very busy period.

As a result of the complaint a senior surveyor was allocated to the case, an inspection was made, and remedial actions placed.

Complaint on outstanding items on a fire risk assessment.

Property Services

Not upheld.

Complaint identified and considered as a request for a service.  As a result, the required work was passed on for actioning.  

Complaint about the council asking unreasonable number of questions and time taken to consider and refuse a homelessness application. 

Housing Options

Not upheld.

Applicant’s circumstances changed throughout the process, and it had been difficult to get the evidence needed, contributing to delay in the council’s decision. 

Complaint with decision made on not qualifying to join the register falls outside of Corporate Complaints Procedure.

Complaint about unreasonable time taken to fix communal lights.

Property Services

Upheld.

Repairs to lights were not straight forward however, the repairs did take longer than the council would consider acceptable.

Complaint about council not sticking to original agreement that increase in banding to happen after 1 year of living in accepted accommodation.

Housing Options

Upheld.

Increase in banding was meant to have been offered. This incentive was part of a Local Letting Plan that had came to an end before the 1 year came to completion.  The agreement should have been kept to as a legacy to the original arrangement.  Subsequently, increase in banding has been arranged.

Complaint about brick shed remaining damp despite a report and repairs recommendations. Also, noise from water tanks despite numerous repair attempts.

Property Services

Not upheld.

Works undertaken to make the shed as watertight as possible within restrictions of its construction – the shed is not designed to be watertight without extensive improvement works to the wall structure.  Shed is not a habitable space of the dwelling, therefore level of expenditure to achieve this is not achievable or practical. 

Works to water tank had been completed.  No further reports received since works were completed. A service request raised for further investigation. 

Stage 2

Council’s decision on disqualification to join the housing register and wrongful allocation of a property to another individual.

Housing Options

Not upheld.

No new information provided.  Stage 1 complaint fully and appropriately responded to.

About outstanding items on a fire risk assessment, that this should not have been dealt with as a service request, and as such contrary to the council’s complaint procedure.

Property Services

Not upheld.

The council’s complaints procedure allows determination of what can be deemed a service request.  The officers had dealt with all correspondence in the correct manner and satisfied procedures. 

Complaint about unreasonable time taken to fix communal lights, and that the response was factually incorrect.

Property Services

Not upheld.

No new information provided further to complaint at stage 1, complaint found to be fully and appropriately responded to.

Quarter 3

Summary of the Complaint

Service

Outcome and how the complainant was resolved (if applicable)

Stage 1

Complaint overview

Team within Housing

Outcome

Timescale undertaken to alleviate condensation and mould. Offence caused by comments made by staff in emails. Councils’ decision on banding.

Property Services

Upheld

Due to various factors the timescale for works took longer than the council had hoped to reach a satisfactory resolution.  Comments/remarks made in information released has resulted in customer service training and the matter being brought to the attention of the council’s contractors. 

Banding review evidence had now been undertaken and has resulted in an increase of banding.

Electricity to communal aerial connected to complainant’s electricity supply and had been done so without consent or knowledge. 

Housing Services

Upheld

The connection happened back in 2013 following agreement with the previous tenant.

An initial reimbursement was provided for having connection to the complainants supply however, this did not happen in subsequent years as a matter of course, and requests had to be made.

This has been identified as a service failure and a payment of £50 has been offered to the complainant.

Inadequate Annual Budgeting for Repairs and Maintenance for leaseholders since 2016-17.

Housing Services

Not upheld

Complainant made a number of observations on the differences between estimated and actual costs.   

Housing Repairs and Damp issues

Property Services

Upheld

External repairs were passed over to the council’s contractor.  The contractor had decided to hold off carrying out works to encompass them as part of planned works in the Energy Efficiency workstream.  This should not have been the case.  Arrangements were made to have the work undertaken as soon as possible.

Officer Behaviour

Housing Options

Partially Upheld

Much of the dissatisfaction with the service received fell outside the scope of the Corporate Complaints as there is a separate legal appeal process.

No evidence that the officer did anything other than try to establish the facts of the case. 

So that an outcome can be reached, another female Housing Options Officer was been reallocated the case.

The Council were at fault with initial processing of case; which should have been dealt with as a Homelessness Application.

Council’s failure to respond to Observations on Major Works

Housing Services /Property Services

Not upheld

The specific letter from complainant was examined again and they were asking for further information on payment options, which had been provided.  

Condition of Property and Complaint Handling

Property Services

Partially Upheld

A full inspection on the complainant’s property was carried out, followed by a letter advising of the repairs that were required and that works would be carried out within 28days of them being raised with the council’s contractor.

The contractors were unable to carry out repair works due to the complainant exhibiting abusive behaviour and the refusal to allow access to their property when they turned up.

However, there was a failure to follow up after first attempt to make repairs.

Council’s failure to respond to observations provided on a Green Energy Consultation

Housing Services

Not Upheld

There was no undertaking when seeking residents views that a response would be provided by a specific date.  Complainant was advised that a response to all residents would be provided in the next newsletter and Spring edition of Threshold.

Council’s failure to respond to request on Window Replacement – Loans and Payment Methods

Housing Services /Property Services

Not Upheld

Complainant submitted complaint prior to them and other leaseholders receiving a letter from the council, advising that once information is available, individual calculations will be provided.

Impact on recovery of previous service charge years underpayments

Housing Services

Not Upheld

Observations made by complainant that in five out of seven years, the service charge has been insufficient to recover the cost resulting in underpayment.   

These observations were not dealt with by way of a complaint. [1]

Overcharging of Service Charges due to the Council’s incorrect financial calculations

Housing Services

Not Upheld

Complainant implied that the council’s method in calculating the recovery of service charges may not be legal.  This appeared to be an observation and not a complaint. The questioning of the legality in the calculation asserted was not accepted.

These observations were not dealt with by way of a complaint.   

Underpayment of Service Charges brought forward from 2021-22

Housing Services

Not Upheld

Complainant considered an underpayment to be incorrect and did not understand why there was a large underpayment for leaseholders compared to tenants.

These observations were not dealt with by way of a complaint.

Timeframe for Repairs

Property Services

Not Upheld

Complaint that the council should prioritise tenants with families and who are vulnerable when it involves heating and water.  Additionally, the emergency line was not working over a weekend when there is no other way to report an issue.

Telephone system identified that the complainants initial call was abandoned by the complainant and no message left requesting call back.  The complainant then called back 2 days later and was offered an appointment within 48 hours – which although was outside the council’s target of 24 hours, was due to high demand and high number of calls over a weekend.

Closure of Residents Car Park

Property Services

Partially Upheld

Residents were not advised of the closure of the car park.  Complainant requires a parking space close to their property due to disabilities however, spaces unavailable by the time they arrive home after work. 

Although works and their impact were discussed in detail with residents, they were not discussed with the wider community – which includes the complainant.  An assumption was made that there would be a minimal impact to neighbouring residents, which has been identified as incorrect.

Complaint about an  Officer in Housing

Housing Services

Not Upheld

Complaint about lack of wellbeing checks, concerns not being followed up, Housing Officer behaviour due to complainant’s ethnicity and the Council failing its duty of care.

Welfare visits had been identified as being undertaken. Letters to complainant showed that the Housing Officer had tried to respond to the complainant’s concerns. 

Complainant’s daughter has been charged with assault and awaiting trial.  As the complainant is responsible for the behaviour of visitors and guest to her property, a notice had been served on the complainant for the breach of tenancy conditions.  This is not discriminatory behaviour.

Complainant advised that can approach the Housing Servies Team Leader if they feel that they are not being supported by their Housing Officer.

Quarter 4

Summary of the Complaint

Service

Outcome and how the complainant was resolved (if applicable)

Stage 1

Complaint overview

Team within Housing

Outcome

Housing Officer failed to address issues raised on anti-social behaviour complaints made about two neighbours.

Housing Services

Not Upheld

ASB Officer had visited the address on several occasions to ascertain evidence of cannabis smell and use – of which no evidence was found. The Officer also tried to make arrangements to visit the complainant, however, this was unsuccessful.  Complainant was strongly advised to make contact with Officer.

Housing Officer failed to advise that a witness would be required for the signing of a mutual exchange deed of assignment.

Housing Services

Upheld

Complainant alleged that they had not been advised that a separate person was needed to witness their signature on the deed. This resulted in the complainant having to arrange for a solicitor to provide this service.

There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether the information had been provided. £50 was awarded in recognition of the service failure.

Housing Officer failed to start a mediation process with the complainant’s neighbour regarding noise.  

Housing Services

Not upheld

Exhibits of noise diaries from the complainant was noted to have referred to the time that the ASB Officer intervened. Records showed that the ASB Officer met with the complainant and followed up; complainant advised that the noise had subsided and did not return a message left later by the ASB Officer.

ASB Officer to contact both complainant and neighbour to make a referral to the mediation service, if agreed by both parties.

Inadequate support and assistance from officers – impacting mental health, when handling the complainants Homelessness Application.

Housing Options

Not Upheld

Officers who had investigated complainants’ application had gone through a vigorous test involving statutory criteria and guidance, but the applicant did not meet the homelessness test.

The complainant also did not consider it acceptable having to deal with a male officer – due to them being a victim of domestic violence. The complainant did not make this request, and only mentioned wanting to change officers much later in the application. The Council has now allocated a female officer to the case.

Dissatisfied with allocated banding from Housing Application; Concerns over moving back into an underpinned property (requiring repairs) and other poor living conditions.

Housing Services and Property Services

Not Upheld

The part of the complaint on banding application unable to be treated as a complaint under the Council’s complaints procedure instead a request for review of banding has been made.

The property that had been decanted from has been twice underpinned and the complainant does not wish to move back as they feel there will be problems in the future.  First underpinning was 25 years ago, and it is not possible to predict ground conditions over this period.  Regular stock condition surveys are undertaken; there is no reason to assume that there will be any concerns following completion of this current work. Additionally, the complainant is entitled to make a request for a transfer or carry out a mutual exchange. Advice has been provided on what is needed to secure a permanent move.  

A lack of communication and conflicting messages and remedies proposed to rectify dampness in property.

Property Services

Partially Upheld

Complainant had not allowed work to be undertaken when contractors attended as they alleged that they had been advised that this would not resolve the problem.

A separate issue of damp in the property had been noticed and likely the caused by a leak from the flat above, however, access to this flat had been difficult.    

An investigation into the potential leak from above flat has been made; Further investigation due to alleged new damp presentation to be carried out to find out whether further extensive works are required.

Acceptance that communications could have been better in this case.

Accommodation not being offered by the Council despite being street homeless for some time.

Housing Options

Not Upheld

Complainant assessed as ‘not priority need’ inline with criteria set out within the homelessness assessment determined by the Homelessness Act 2017.

Complainant did not receive money to travel to different areas to look for work, as the Council does not provide this assistance.

Allegation that Council staff had been rude and unhelpful.  Complainant had made repeated enquiries however, had refused to accept what was being advised – resulting in staff needing to assertively explain that there was little else that the Council could do.

Request for complaint to be escalated to Stage 2, however registered as a stage 1 due to additional matters being brought forward that had not been covered in the previous Stage 1.

Property Services

Partially Upheld

Ongoing works to a block of flats adjacent to property had allegedly caused damage to the complainant’s car. No evidence to show that damage had been made by anyone attending or delivering to the site.

Concerning noise levels from the work causing anxiety and stress.  Every effort has been taken to minimise the noise impact; measuring of peak continuous noise levels within acceptable limits carried out; reduction in time period within the day when the noisiest work is undertaken. Furthermore, deliveries will be scheduled for after 8am and operatives instructed not to leave their vans running when arriving for work waiting to access the site.

Concerning dirt left on carpet due to the type of works being undertaken. As a result, the complainant’s hall carpet will be cleaned once works are completed.

No running water, shower or washing facilities for months and the Council failing to carry out repairs.

Property Services

Not Upheld

Initial repair work to a shower drain pump was unable to be tested to check if it was working due to complainant not having electricity credit on the meter to test the pump – delaying initial action. Investigations and attempts to unblock the drain were unsuccessful as the blockage was too far down the line – subsequent parts for the shower were ordered.  Over the following weeks unsuccessful attempts were made to access the property to undertake the repairs to the shower, which delayed the works. During which time, the property had full running water.  The only facility that was unavailable was the shower.

Large increase in service charges – higher that the rate of inflation. The Council had not provided any justification for the level of increase or calculation.  

Housing Services

Not Upheld

Complainant had already identified in the complaint that there was a significant under-recovery from the previous year that is being recovered in the current year, subsequently accounting for the large proportion of service charge.

Complaints and requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act had explained how the service charge was calculated.

Managers Comments Regarding Wi-Fi Installation in Retirement Living Court

Housing Policy and Partnership

Not Upheld

Initial consultation with residents exploring the level of interest for Wi-Fi installation, resulted with the majority not wanting this service. The management of the premises made a comment in a newsletter about the potential benefits of Wi-Fi  and that the initial decision made by residents could be overturned should they change their minds.  Complainant felt they should not have canvassed further opinion.  The Council have respected the wishes of the residents in not installing Wi-fi, however officers have a duty to ensure residents are aware of the advantages/disadvantages and options moving forward.

The Council has created disabled parking bays for some tenants but not for the complainant.  The Council has left handrails at a dangerous height.

Property Services

Not Upheld

It has been made clear to residents that there is not allocated parking and that anyone with a disabled badge is entitled to park in the disabled parking bays. 

The Council had completed work to increase the height of handrails. 

Cleaning Service (in communal flat) is below the expected standard.

Housing Services

Not Upheld.

Complainant believed that the cleaners make excessive noise and that the service provided is below standard.

The only time the cleaning was found to be below the required standard is when the cleaners left after the complainant confronted them with unpleasant language and aggressiveness – about the apparent noise they were making when cleaning the railings.  Of which would inevitably create noise but no different to how it had been cleaned before.  The complainant had already accepted that they could have handled the situation better when speaking to the Council’s contract supervisor.

Stage 2

Correction to Council’s summary of Stage 1 complaint.  The complainant felt discriminated against due to ethnicity, beliefs, and gender as a result the Council had not fulfilled its service standards. 

Head of Housing

Partially Upheld.

The Council were unable to response to the complainants concerns in a timely manner due to staff sickness, a goodwill payment of £25 was offered as a result of this. 

Dissatisfied with outcome from Stage 1 with Concerns over moving back into an underpinned property (requiring repairs) and other poor living conditions.

Head of Housing

Not Upheld.

No new relevant information provided by complainant.  The complaint in Stage 1 had been fully and appropriately responded to.

Additional issues raised relating to mould and damage to personal possessions, delayed repairs, silverfish, issues with scaffolding, CO2 levels, ASB – noise from neighbours and insufficient communication and tone of communication received.

Head of Housing

As per Stage 1 request it was upheld and £250 compensation awarded. Apologised for service received including tone and language of some communications.

Dissatisfied with outcome from Stage 1 re closure of car park and impact on ability to park

Head of Housing

As per Stage 1 request it was partially justified. The complaint in Stage 1 had been fully and appropriately responded to. The new matters raised that were not part of the original complaint, have been raised as a new stage 1 complaint.

Complaint about the Housing Officer and failure to deal with Antisocial behaviour.

Head of Housing

Not upheld. A payment of £50 was offered as a gesture of goodwill. The new matters raised that were not part of the original complaint, have been raised as a new stage 1 complaint.

Damage to car, noise and dirt caused by construction work to neighbouring property.

Head of Housing

Not progressed as no new relevant information provided. Original stage 1 outcome upheld.

Summary of the Complaint

Service

Outcome and how the complainant was resolved (if applicable)

Did the complaint escalate to Stage 2? and the outcome

Stage 1

Complaint about Homemove website, lack od disability housing and food vouchers.

Housing Options

Not upheld as the concerns had been addressed fully in previous communications

No

Complaint regarding incorrect apportioning of service charges.

Housing Services

Not upheld – calculations were correct.

No

Complaint re sharing of contact details.

Housing Services

Not upheld

No

Complaint regarding grass cutting and damages to goods.

Housing Services

Not upheld

No

Complaint was received from the Housing Ombudsman on behalf of the customer.

Concerned suitability of accommodation, request to transfer, restrictions on his contact with officers and request for a dedicated point of contact.

Housing Options

Not upheld – but a single point of contact has been established.

No

Complaint about the minutes of a Resident Group Meeting.

Housing Policy, Involvement & Standards

Not upheld – our e complaints policy does not cover the words or actions of residents for whom the Council have no control over.

Yes, but not escalated as complaint was fully responded to at Stage 1.

Complaint re bathroom flood and discriminatory treatment.

Housing Services & Property Services

Partially upheld – on investigation it was found that work to the bathroom had been undertaken in 2018, arranged by the Disabled Adaptations Team.

No

Complaint about the ability to access the Housing Register.

Housing Options

Upheld – as mistakes were made by a former officer.  

No

Complaint regarding a council officers’ behaviour.

Housing Services

Not upheld – as the advice provided by the officer has been sensible and in line with Council expectations.

No

Complaint regarding resolution of anti-social behaviour and tone of officer dealing with it.

Housing Services

Not upheld. mediation offered to the complainant and her neighbours.

No

Complaint regarding a Disabled Facilities Grant and delays to works.

Property Services

Upheld – revised recommendations had not been picked up.

Yes, but not escalated as complaint was fully responded to at Stage 1.

Complaint regarding the dealings of a deceased leaseholder’s property.

Housing Services

Partially upheld – there were delays within the process and administration. £100 compensation made in recognition.

Yes – Offer of £100 compensation unacceptable and contested some of the statements made in the Stage 1 response.

Not escalated as complaint was fully responded to at Stage 1. However, a greater explanation was provided to the points raised.

Complaint regarding condition of the property and noise of the boiler.

.

Property Services

Not upheld

No

Complaint about lack of support provided.

Housing Services

Not upheld- Help and advice provided within the response with regards to the specific issues raised.  

No

Complaint about lack of communication around repair works.

Property Services

Upheld – due to the level of communication falling short of expectations.

No

Complaint regarding delays to repair works.

laminate flooring.

Property Services

Partially upheld – due to delays and miscommunication.

Yes, not escalated as complaint was fully responded to at Stage 1.

Complaint regarding information provided.

Housing Options

Not upheld – the process regarding joining the Housing Register had been followed in line with the Allocations Policy.

Yes, not escalated as no new evidence was provided to justify Stage 2.

Complaint around the suitability of accommodation.

Housing Options

Not upheld. At the time of allocation there was opportunity to dispute the offer, but this was not pursued.

No

Complaint about the damage caused by overgrown trees and debris.

Property Services

Not upheld – trees have been inspected and found to be healthy so are part of non-urgent work to be completed in early 2023.

No

Complaint about the condition of the property moved into via a mutual exchange.

Housing Services/ Property Services

Not upheld – part of mutual exchange and therefore did not go through a void process.

No

Complaint about lack of support and conflicting information.

Housing Options

Not upheld – as the advice given has been correct.

No

Complaint about various aspects of their housing situation.

Housing Options

Not Upheld – all points raised were responded to.

Yes, not escalated as no new evidence was supplied and the original response was correct. However, further information regarding the allocations policy has been provided.

Complaint about lack of repairs.

Property Services

Upheld – footpath repairs needed for health and safety reasons.

Yes, not escalated as no new information provided and no fault was found with the original investigation. Offered further explanation.

Complaint about the running of a Resident Association.

Housing Policy, Involvement & Standards

Upheld – due to inconsistency in the publication of agendas, minutes and future dates of meetings.

No

Complaint regarding roof repairs and timing of these over the Christmas period.

.

Property Services

Complaint placed on hold at the request of the complainant and not reinstated.

No

Complaint regarding condition of neighbour’s garden.  

Housing Management

Upheld – due to the length of time taken to rectify the situation.

No

Complaint over delays to repair boiler.

Property Services

Upheld – there had been difficulty on obtaining parts and as a result works had been delayed.

No

Complaint relating to banding decision and level of customer service.

Housing Options

Not upheld – there were emails to the contrary.

Yes, partially Justified due to fault in some aspects of the review handling.

.

Complaint relating to standard of repairs to a tenant’s home and impact on the household.

Property Services

Upheld – £500 compensation offered due to significant delays.

Yes, not upheld – however a more detailed explanation was given.

Complaint relating to charging of utilities.

Housing Services

Not upheld – Although the standing charge is higher than last year the charge is significantly lower than the Energy Price Cap.

Yes, not upheld – fully responded at stage 1.

Complaint relating to lack of response to previous letter.

Housing Services

Not upheld – letter had not been received.

No

Complaint relating to rent deposit scheme.

Housing Options

Upheld – Although it was not the intention to act as guarantors the guarantor box had been ticked and so it was agreed to pay the £600 guarantor sum.

 No

Complaint relating to rent payment overcharge.

Housing Services

Not upheld – Benefits had been covering the rent in full.

Yes, not upheld – fully responded at stage 1.

Complaints with handling of anti-social behaviour and the policy not being complied with.

Housing Services

Not Upheld – due to evidence to the contrary.

No

Complaint regarding negligence and unsatisfied temporary accommodation.

Housing Options

Not upheld – evidence to the contrary – all policies and procedures had been followed.

No

Complaint about property faults including damp, mould, dripping guttering and inadequate heating.

Property Services

Upheld – due to a lack of insulation and £500 offered to cover heating costs.

Yes, not upheld. However, a more detailed explanation and named officer provided for further contact.

Complaint regarding the lack of information of the time scales required to ask for a valuation of his property to be reconsidered as part of the Right to Buy Process.

Housing Services

Upheld

No

Complaint regarding the contents of a letter from the council with regards to the condition of the property.

Property Services

Upheld – works had been delayed.

No

Complaint regarding damp and mould issues within the property.

Property Services

Partially upheld – one email was not responded to.

No

Complaint regarding level of management at a retirement living court. 

Housing Services

Not upheld – no changes to the level of service.

No

Complaint about tree management.

Housing Services

Partially Upheld – due to a lack of communication.

No

Complaint regarding ongoing damp and mould.

Property Services

Not Upheld – work had been done and solutions offered.

Yes, Stage 2 complaint withdrawn by the customer.

 Complaint received from the Local Government Ombudsman on behalf of the customer. regarding the lack of available garages.

Housing Services

Not Upheld – the information provided was correct and is based on demand and supply.

No

Complaint regarding leaks at the property.

Property Services

Upheld –our communication had not been acceptable.

No

Complaint was about the language used and unhelpfulness of officers.

Property Services

Upheld – poor advice and information had been provided.

No

Complaint regarding soffits cleaning.

Housing Services

Not Upheld – The customer was correctly advised.

No