SPSO Individual Decisions

Ms C signed a tenancy agreement for a property owned by a housing association. The property had been inspected by the association before being re-let, and had passed that inspection. We upheld Ms C’s complaint that the decision that the property was in a reasonably habitable condition for re-let was unreasonable. This was because, after Ms C's lease began, a number of works were identified as being required, which should have been carried out before she moved in. These included removing stained floorboards, renewal of a tank cupboard door, a lack of heating and hot water, and fixing exposed electrical wires. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint that a contractor failed to complete plastering works, as we found that the need for additional plastering was identified when the first job was completed, and it was reasonable for a sub-contractor to be employed to undertake the second job. We also did not uphold Ms C’s complaint that the décor voucher provided did not cover the actual cost of re-decorating the property. We found that the tenancy agreement said that décor was the responsibility of the tenant, and so found the association’s position that they would provide assistance with this by way of décor vouchers (Ms C having been granted the maximum amount available) to be reasonable. Recommendation We recommended that the association: • amend the post termination inspection report document to include whether the property has passed the void standard and if not, to include details of what further works are required. Related reading View Decision Report 201102919 as a PDF (22.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was a tenant of a housing association for approximately 17 months. He complained that during his time as a tenant he had been subjected to racial abuse, intimidation and vandalism to his property perpetrated by other tenants and youths in the area. Mr C felt he had been targeted particularly due to his nationality. Mr C presented as homeless to Glasgow City Council having abandoned his tenancy. He brought his complaints to us as he felt the housing association had failed to follow their anti-social behaviour policy, and had failed to take any effective action to prevent the abuse he had suffered as a tenant. It was accepted that Mr C had experienced a serious degree of anti-social behaviour. Having reviewed the information provided by the housing association including complaint logs, minutes of meetings, letters to tenants and a contract between themselves and the GCSS (the Glasgow Community Safety Service), we found the association to have followed their policy in relation to Mr C's complaints, particularly in terms of responding timeously, and classifying his case as category A due to the racial nature of the behaviour. We, therefore, did not uphold the first complaint. However, we did uphold the second complaint, which referred to the association's failure to take any effective action to prevent the abuse. Although the association had installed CCTV on three separate occasions, unfortunately no perpetrators were ever caught or identified as a result. The remedies within the association's policy could not be enforced due to a lack of evidence and identification of suspects. However, we found that the association had placed a clear burden upon Mr C to gather information himself, and that this burden was unreasonable. He had provided individual addresses on a number of occasions, but the association said because Mr C could not identify particular people for particular incidents, they could not act on this information. We felt further enquiries could have been m

Mr C lived in a sheltered housing with support services run by a housing association which is regulated by Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS). He complained to SCSWIS that the housing association had continuously and improperly refused to provide him with full details of allegations made against him by another resident until he received the outcome letter, which he believes deliberately 'framed' him. He said senior managers had displayed serious professional misconduct. SCSWIS told him they had no remit to investigate his complaint about the conclusion and decisions the housing association made. We found that SCSWIS' responsibilities are set out in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 . The Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (Requirements for Care Services) Regulations 2011 set out the housing association's statutory obligations for the health, welfare and safety of service users. Our reading of both these documents confirmed SCSWIS' view that Mr C's complaint does not fall within their responsibility. Their responsibility is to ensure that the housing association has a procedure by which a person, or someone acting on a person's behalf, may make complaints in relation to the provision of a care service, or about the provision of a care service generally. They can investigate complaints about the complaints procedure but not complaints about any conclusions and decisions made using the procedure. There was, therefore, no responsibility for SCSWIS to investigate Mr C's concerns and so we did not uphold his complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201100995 as a PDF (14.4 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C lived in a sheltered housing with support services provided by a housing association which is regulated by Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (SCSWIS). He complained to SCSWIS that the housing association were seriously failing in their duty of care towards him by reinstating a member of staff, the housekeeper, who he said had been suspended following an earlier complaint made by him. Mr C complained that SCSWIS unreasonably said they had no remit to address his concerns about his safety and wellbeing at the hands of an employee at the complex where he lived. We found that SCSWIS' responsibilities are set out in the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. The Social Care and Social Work Improvement Scotland (Requirements for Care Services) Regulations 2011 set out the housing association's statutory obligations for the health, welfare and safety of service users. Our reading of both these documents confirmed SCSWIS' view that Mr C's complaint did not fall within their responsibility. SCSWIS' responsibility is to ensure that the housing association has a procedure by which a person, or someone acting on a person's behalf, may make complaints in relation to the provision of a care service, or about the provision of a care service generally. They can investigate complaints about the complaints procedure but not complaints of a contractual nature. There is, therefore, no responsibility for SCSWIS to investigate Mr C's complaint about the decision made by the housing association to reinstate one of their employees. Related reading View Decision Report 201100996 as a PDF (14.42 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C had been renting her property from a housing association for eight years when she was notified that her rent was reducing. She was told that this was because the association had decided to withdraw their Tenants Improvement Scheme (the scheme) which allowed tenants to ask for improvements to their properties and pay a supplementary rent. The previous tenant had asked that the bath be replaced with a shower. This had been done under the scheme, so Mrs C's rent included an additional charge for the shower. Mrs C said she was not aware of this, and did not think she should have to pay for an improvement requested by a previous tenant. We found that the association had complied with the Housing Scotland Act, their own Rent Setting Policy and the scheme. In addition, we found that the Tenancy Agreement that Mrs C had signed made clear that the rent she was asked to pay reflected the standard of housing she was being offered and the fixtures and fittings within the property. Related reading View Decision Report 201100132 as a PDF (13.84 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C's mother moved into a sheltered property run by a housing association. Mr C said that she had had been promised that there would be no reduction in the services and faciliites available to her. He also said he had been told the property would be altered to meet her needs. Mr C alleged that the association had failed to make the alterations and that his mother was not being provided with basic services and facilities. He later acknowledged that some of the adaptations requested had been carried out, and said his major concern was that the association had not arranged for a ramp to be installed. He said this meant that his mother could not be taken out of the house by her care provider for shopping and outings. We found that the adaptations promised by the association had all been installed, and one of the main items mentioned was in fact moveable, so Mr C himself could have been expected to arrange for it to be taken to his mother's new home. We also found that responsibility for providing a ramp lay with the council's social work services and that the association had explained this to Mr C. Related reading View Decision Report 201003938 as a PDF (13.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C, a housing association tenant, was unhappy about the effect of a major road development close to her home. She said that the council did not investigate her concerns about the effect that the disruption associated with the work has had on her health, her quality of life and her human rights. Both Mrs C and the housing association were formally told some six years earlier about the planning application to build the road, but neither objected at the time. There was also a public enquiry into the plans, although Mrs C did not know about this until after it happened. After the work began, Mrs C complained to the council about excessive noise and hours of working, apparent cracking in her building and rat infestations, all of which she said were the result of the road works. Unfortunately, the works did take a long time and we recognise that Mrs C clearly experienced considerable disruption because of them. However, our investigation found that when she complained to the council they responded to her concerns and appropriately investigated the issues that she raised. Related reading View Decision Report 201003290 as a PDF (13.93 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C lives in a flat owned by a housing association in an area where a number of council-owned properties have been demolished. After the demolition she complained to the council that she was experiencing increased vibration in her home and that cracks had appeared. She said that the vibration was caused by passing trains, that it was a statutory nuisance and that the demolition work was responsible for this. She applied to the council to be rehoused and felt that in the circumstances she should receive priority status for this. She did not receive this status, and she was not rehoused although she remains on the waiting list. She asked us to investigate as she was unhappy with how the council investigated her concerns about the vibrations and how they handled her housing application. She felt they failed to consider all the circumstances when they refused to award her priority status. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaints. We found that the council and the landlord appropriately investigated the vibrations and cracking. Their engineers made joint inspections, and the landlord accepted that the vibrations and cracking did not result from demolition. The council also explained the steps they had taken to try to assess the effect the vibrations were having, so that they could decide whether to review Ms C’s housing priority. They could not measure these at the time as they did not have the appropriate equipment and decided not to take this further (although they placed an order for equipment). We took the view that they were entitled to decide this and that their actions in the circumstances were not unreasonable. As a result of our enquiries, however, they also agreed to make an objective measurement of the vibrations, although not with a view to taking environmental enforcement action. The outcome will instead be fed to their Property Services Division to assist them in assessing whether they should reprioritise Ms C’s housing application. Related reading View Decisio