SPSO Individual Decisions

Miss C is a housing association tenant. There was a serious fire at her property a few years ago and the repairs and refurbishment took some months. When she returned to the property she made complaints about various aspects of the repairs and refurbishment. The association accepted that windows had been incorrectly installed without vents and rectified this. A year later, Miss C experienced electrical issues and raised these with the association. They were resolved but Miss C complained about the time that it had taken to do this. She was also dissatisfied with the association's responses to her reports of electrical problems and brought her complaints to us. We found that the association had reasonably repaired and refurbished her property and that she had been aware that some windows still had to be replaced when she decided to move back in to the property. We found no evidence to support Miss C's views that she had been promised the radiators would be replaced or that the radiators and walls had not been properly cleaned. We also found that the association had acted reasonably in responding to her reports of electrical problems. We did not uphold Miss C's complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201707615 as a PDF (23.85 KB) Updated: December 19, 2018

Mrs C complained that the housing association responsible for the development she lived in had failed to undertake an appropriate consultation of fellow tenants regarding proposed changes to services. She also complained about the tone of communications and the way some of the meetings were handled by members of staff. The association responded to the complaint outlining the consultation process and the steps they took to consult with tenants on the proposed changes. They considered that they had carried out an appropriate consultation and that the communications had been tailored to the tenants at the development. With regard to the exchanges during meetings, the association considered that its staff behaved appropriately. Mrs C was not satisfied with the response and brought her complaints to our office. We obtained information from Mrs C together with evidence from the association. We found that the association had adopted a range of communication methods and offered a number of avenues for tenants to raise any concerns they may have had. We saw evidence that tenants' concerns were considered at a management level. Therefore, we concluded that the association had taken reasonable steps to consult with its tenants on changes to the services within the development. With respect to the association's handling of Mrs C's complaint, and in relation to the conduct of their staff at meetings, the evidence showed that the association had conducted a proper investigation and had come to an appropriate conclusion regarding Mrs C's complaint. The association had provided a full response to Mrs C within their timescales. We did not uphold her complaints. Related reading View Decision Report 201606290 as a PDF (11.33 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained to us on behalf of his sister (Miss A), a housing association tenant. He complained that the association unreasonably withdrew an offer of housing from her. We found that the association had asked Miss A to contact them as she was being considered for a property. When Miss A contacted the association she told them that her circumstances had changed. The process was therefore stopped at that point – without an offer of housing being made – so that Miss A could let the association know about these changes and allow them to be assessed. As there were was no evidence of an offer being made we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201600684 as a PDF (10.87 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C complained about the housing association after they failed to carry out adjustments to improve soundproofing in his property. As Mr C has a disability which heightens his sensitivity to noise, he stated that normal living noise from his neighbour below was causing him a great deal of stress. He felt that as he was at a substantial disadvantage compared to someone without his disability, this meant the association had a duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 and suggested the installation of soundproof matting. However, the association refused his request. On investigation, we found that the association had failed to explain their decision to refuse his request. Instead, they had made reference to a previous response they made to an unrelated request for a reasonable adjustment. They also failed to fully explain their decision in response to our enquiries. As such, we upheld this element of the complaint. Mr C also complained that, throughout the four years of his tenancy, the association had failed to provide him with sufficient tenancy management support. On investigation, we found that an early offer of support had been made to Mr C, but that this had not been repeated despite clear indications that Mr C was struggling to manage various aspects of his tenancy. We also found no evidence that the association had carried out a detailed assessment of Mr C's support needs to ensure that they were meeting their responsibility to provide suitable support, either internally or through external agencies. Finally, we found that the association had no policies directly relating to the provision of tenancy support, and despite making a number of enquiries on the subject, we were not clear on the extent of the support they aimed to provide to their tenants, either internally or externally, or how and when referrals to these services were triggered. For these reasons, we upheld this aspect of Mr C's complaint as well.

Ms C said that since her neighbour moved next door, she had been disturbed and upset by her neighbour's anti-social behaviour. She complained that while she had brought her concerns to her landlord (the housing association), they had failed to reasonably respond to her concerns. We found that although many complaints had been made, they were denied by Ms C's neighbour. The association was unable to confirm that anti-social behaviour had taken place because there was no independent evidence of such behaviour. This was despite the association having involved third parties such as the police and the council in their investigation. The evidence showed that throughout, the association had followed their policy on anti-social behaviour complaints - they had interviewed both parties, attempted to obtain independent verification and used noise monitoring machinery. They had also offered a mutual exchange of house to the parties involved. No proof of anti-social behaviour had been found. In these circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201503760 as a PDF (11.07 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C, who had been a housing association tenant, was evicted from his property. He complained that, around the time of his eviction, the association disposed of his belongings before he had a chance to collect them. We told Mr C that we would not look at the eviction itself, as this is outwith our jurisdiction, but we would look at whether the association gave him enough warning and enough time to arrange to collect his possessions before they disposed of them. We found that at the end of a tenancy it is the responsibility of the tenant to make arrangements beforehand for the removal of their possessions. The association would, therefore, have been within their rights to take action on the date of eviction in accordance with the warrant of the court. We also noted that the association told Mr C several times that he needed to get his belongings ready for the eviction date and what would happen to them if he did not. Although we recognised the distress caused, the evidence showed that Mr C had 13 weeks from the date of decree for eviction being granted to prepare for the removal of his belongings. We found that the association had handled this reasonably, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305770 as a PDF (11.13 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C works for a company providing care services to people who rented accommodation individually from a housing association. The company had use of a room on the premises, where staff could stay overnight when helping residents. The valuation assessor had categorised the premises as residential, apart from the room, which had a commercial rateable value. Ms C complained that Business Stream applied charges for water and waste water services on the basis of a care home. Her company was charged for all water passing through the shared water meter, whether it was used for domestic or non-domestic purposes. She argued that the domestic water was already covered by council tax for the residential parts of the premises, and that the company should only be charged on the small rateable value of the commercial element. Business Stream had applied their dual-use policy, used where a single property has both residential and commercial components. This requires commercial residents to ask domestic residents to cancel the water charges from their council tax and pay the company for water that they use. However, Ms C said that the residents were exempt from council tax (and, therefore, water charges). Business Stream challenged the charges with Scottish Water on Ms C's behalf, but Scottish Water said that they were correct. We upheld Ms C's complaint as we had a number of concerns about this approach. Scottish Water considered the premises to be a care home, implying that all water was used for the operation of the care home. Under such circumstances, the dual-use policy would not be applicable. The fact that they had applied this policy reflected the fact that the assessor differentiated between the domestic and non-domestic parts of the premises. The dual-use policy also made no provision for the fact that the residents were not liable for council tax. We considered it unreasonable to expect the company to ignore this and charge the residents for water (at the hig

Mr and Mrs C live in a housing association property. There was a history of noise and other antisocial behaviour from neighbours, and Mr and Mrs C had reported this many times. Mr and Mrs C complained that the council, who were partners in a protocol along with the association, did not respond reasonably to reports of noise nuisance over an 18-month period. They also complained that the council failed to respond reasonably to a letter expressing dissatisfaction with how their complaint had been dealt with. A local councillor had earlier raised Mr and Mrs C's concerns with the association and with council officers, and asked if noise monitoring equipment might be provided in their home. Mr and Mrs C were, however, asked to contact the police when noise nuisance arose and noise monitoring equipment was not provided until after they had formally complained to the council. We did not, however, uphold this complaint because the council explained why they had not installed the equipment, and we found that their actions had otherwise been reasonable. We also found that the council had handled Mr and Mrs C's complaint appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201302076 as a PDF (11.09 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C had had to leave her accommodation, and was looking for a tenancy, when she learned that she was pregnant. The council provided short-term accommodation and assessed her as being unintentionally homeless, in priority need with a local connection and entitled to settled accommodation. Meanwhile, she was offered temporary accommodation. After her child was born Ms C received two offers of permanent housing, one from the council and one from a housing association. She refused both. The council did not accept that Ms C’s refusal of the second offer was reasonable. However, because of issues in handling her appeal, they, unusually, made a further offer, which Ms C also refused. The council again regarded her grounds of refusal to have been unreasonable. They said that they had discharged their duty to Ms C as a homeless person and that she would have to leave the temporary accommodation. She complained to us that the council had failed to take appropriate account of the representations she made in appealing the third offer. Our investigation found, however, that the council had given full consideration to Ms C’s representations. In particular, they had ensured that these had been properly assessed, by both an external agency and by them, using a multi-agency assessment matrix. We did not uphold Ms C’s complaint, but in view of her circumstances, we did make a recommendation.

Mr and Mrs C live near tenants of a housing association. Over a number of years, they told the association about continuing antisocial behaviour by their neighbours. They were dissatisfied with the time the association took to respond, the actions taken to address their concerns, and the way the executive committee conducted their investigation of the complaints. We found that on numerous occasions the association did not interview Mr and Mrs C as they should have done, in line with their antisocial behaviour policy. They had not, therefore, responded appropriately to their concerns, so we upheld the complaint about responses and made four recommendations. We were generally satisfied that the association's other actions were reasonable, although we made two further recommendations in relation to monitoring.

Mr C complained that a housing association staff member had given confidential information about him to a neighbour, and complained about this to the association. The manager who responded to his complaint was, however, one of the staff members who Mr C alleged had disclosed this information. Mr C felt that this was not appropriate. Also, as part of the investigation, the manager contacted the neighbour to ask if he had knowledge of the confidential information. Mr C felt that this gave the neighbour knowledge of who had made the complaint. We were unable to uphold the complaint about disclosure of confidential information because we could find no evidence to support one version of events over another. However, the association acknowledged that they could have handled their investigation of Mr C's complaint better. They agreed that it should have been conducted by another member of staff and they should have contacted Mr C to seek his permission to contact the neighbour. As they also said they would apologise to Mr C for this and assure him that they had identified areas in their complaints handling procedure that they will take steps to improve, we did not need to make any recommendations. Related reading View Decision Report 201301787 as a PDF (11.14 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Miss C complained to a housing association about a foul smell in her property. She told us the smell was so bad she had to sleep in her living room and throw away clothes and bedding that the smell had permeated. Miss C said that this was not properly investigated in a reasonable timescale and she believed that she should have been rehoused whilst the problem was investigated. Our investigation found that the association had made reasonable efforts, albeit unsuccessfully, to identify the source of the smell by involving drainage specialists, environmental health and a pest controller. The smell went away after a period of three weeks. We found the time taken by the association was reasonable. We also found that they had decided, as they were entitled to, that whilst unpleasant the property remained habitable and so there was no requirement to help Miss C find alternative accommodation. Related reading View Decision Report 201301768 as a PDF (11.02 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C was unhappy with the heating system in the property she rented from a housing association. She complained that it was ineffective, unreliable and expensive to run. She also complained that the association had failed to carry out repairs or to deal with her complaint appropriately. Our investigation found that the heating system was chosen by the previous tenant, and there had been difficulties with it that had taken months to resolve. We were concerned that the association had not assessed Ms C's medical information before offering her the property. We also found that although she had been told the location of the property's Energy Performance Certificate (EPC), which had indicated that the efficiency of the main heating was very poor, the EPC and the potential running costs of the heating system had not been explained to her. We found no evidence that general repairs had not been carried out, or that the association had failed to investigate Ms C's concerns about dampness but we were concerned that it took some months before the heating system was repaired, especially as the problems had occurred during the winter. We, therefore, upheld Ms C's complaints that the system was inappropriate and that the association did not carry out repairs appropriately. We found no evidence, however, that they failed to deal with Ms C's complaints.

One of Mr C's children is severely disabled, and the family home was not suitable for his family's needs. He had for several years been awaiting the offer of a suitable house. When local builders submitted planning applications for part of a new housing association development, Mr C's child was twice assessed by a council occupational therapist for the adaptations that would be needed for one of the new houses to meet their specific needs. These adaptations were to be funded by the council and would be communicated in a particular design brief to the builders. Mr C was provided with a copy of the then current plans, which showed the proposed house to be detached. Mr C attended a meeting with the association in the late summer of 2010, and in response to queries he raised in email correspondence was informed that several of the points could be postponed to a subsequent detailed design stage. After planning consent was given for the development, the plans were amended without further consultation with Mr C or the council's occupational therapist. When Mr C saw the amended plans, he said that these showed a semi-detached house and that there were other significant differences in the proposals. Mr C made two complaints - firstly that the association unreasonably altered the plans, and that this meant that the house would not meet his child's needs; and secondly that the association failed to inform him or consult with him about the amended plans. We did not uphold Mr C's first complaint as there was no unequivocal evidence that the association had instructed the amendments. When they learned that changes had been made, they had rectified matters by instructing further changes to ensure that the house, when completed, would meet Mr C's child's needs. The association agreed, however, that there had been a breakdown of communication with Mr C and so we upheld that complaint and made a recommendation.

Mr C's young daughter (Miss C) suffers from a number of medical conditions and has serious mobility problems. She uses either a wheelchair or a gait trainer, both of which need a lot of space for turning. After a number of years during which the family waited for a suitable house, a housing association, in conjunction with the local council, agreed to provide a new house. In relation to this, an occupational therapist from the health board assessed Miss C's housing needs and liaised with the housing association. Mr C complained that the occupational therapist did not properly assess Miss C and ensure that the house being built met her needs. He alleged that when he complained to the board about the situation, they did not properly investigate it. Our investigation found that the procurement process for the house being built to meet Miss C's needs was not straightforward. There were a number of agencies and organisations involved and the role of the occupational therapist was to assess Miss C's needs in order to properly facilitate them in the development of the properly. The occupational therapist provided her professional opinion of what these needs were. However, during the complicated construction and development, the housing association contacted the occupational therapist about a number of design changes, which she agreed without speaking to Mr C. If followed through, one of these changes would have had serious repercussions for Miss C's mobility. We also found that Mr C had first complained to the council, who passed him on to the health board, but then the board took too long to reply to him. We, therefore, upheld his complaints about these matters, but not about the assessment of his daughter's needs, in which nothing had gone wrong.

Mr C’s son (Mr A) had died, leaving a widow and young family. Mr A and his widow were tenants of the housing association. After Mr A died, Mr C handled matters, including contacting the association within days of his son's death. Mr C complained that the rental direct debit was taken for the following two months, despite Mr C having been assured that it had been cancelled. In addition, representatives of the association visited the property with paperwork that was still in joint names, inappropriate rent reminder letters were sent and correspondence continued to be issued in joint names. This was already a very difficult time for Mr C and his family and he told us that this added unnecessarily to their upset and distress. Mr C complained that the association, on being told of his son’s death, did not internally communicate this appropriately to staff. He also felt that they should have had a specific policy in place to handle such matters. We upheld Mr C’s complaint that the association's internal communication had failed. The association had explained that the local housing officer who would normally have handled such matters had left her post suddenly. We noted that Mr C had taken this into account and had contacted the housing association directly, rather than trying to do so through that officer. We noted that the association had apologised for and explained their mistakes, and had offered some redress to Mr A's widow. Having considered all the evidence and taken account of the fact that the retired officer was soon to be replaced, we did not uphold his complaint that they should have a specific policy in place.

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

Miss C complained that a housing association had unreasonably refused to allow her to widen her driveway by allocating her land from her neighbour's driveway. She had asked for this for mobility reasons. Under the terms of the Equality Act 2010, the association have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to avoid putting people with disabilities at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who are not disabled. Our investigation found that the association had considered, from a number of viewpoints, the possibility of extending Miss C's driveway. These included other available options for access to a vehicle, the current and future implications of extending her driveway and the impact that the agreed removal of a bin store would have on the space available for vehicle access. In investigating this complaint we noted, however, that it was for the association to decide whether a proposed adjustment is reasonable. We decided that what the association had done represented a reasonable consideration of the proposed adjustment and that they had, therefore, made their decision appropriately. Related reading View Decision Report 201204147 as a PDF (11.2 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C was a tenant of a housing association. There was a leak from the flat upstairs into his house. His bathroom ceiling partially collapsed and it had to be taken down and replaced. Mr C complained that the association delayed in dealing with the collapsed ceiling. He also felt that they unreasonably took down part of the collapsed ceiling without testing for asbestos in the artex coating of the ceiling. Mr C’s flat had been rewired a number of years ago and he also complained that the association had left him exposed to live wires. To investigate these complaints we asked the housing association for documentary evidence of what had happened. We reviewed this, and as we found that the association did take too long to fix the collapsed ceiling, we upheld that complaint. However, we also found that the association had apologised to Mr C and made him a financial payment, and had undertaken to give staff training to ensure that the situation would not happen again. We, therefore, made no recommendations. We did not, however, uphold Mr C's other complaints. The association supplied us with evidence that showed that they had been aware of the existence of asbestos. They were, however, also able to demonstrate that they had undertaken the work with asbestos appropriately, and had carried out atmospheric tests before and after the work to ensure that no fibres had been released. The association also explained that the area of electrical wiring about which Mr C complained was not part of the rewiring work that they had undertaken. Once they were aware of the problem, they rectified it. They then undertook an independent electrical test of his house to reassure him, which confirmed that it was safe. Related reading View Decision Report 201202755 as a PDF (11.49 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C is a housing association tenant. The association arranged to treat dampness in the kitchen of her property, and offered her a contribution towards the costs of redecorating the affected area. Mrs C refused this offer, as she considered it insufficient to cover the full redecoration costs. The association explained that the tenant was responsible for redecoration costs, and that it was not their policy to pay the full costs unless they had been negligent in carrying out the works. As this was the third time in six years that repair works had been carried out on the same area, Mrs C took the view that the association were at fault in not fixing the problem sooner. The association said that each repair job had addressed a different problem and it was only by coincidence that all three were in the same area. Mrs C also felt that the recent works should have been carried out before her new kitchen was installed, and the association accepted that this had been an oversight on their part. However, as this would have meant the repair would have been considered part of routine improvement works, which do not attract any redecoration allowance, they took the view that Mrs C had in fact benefited from the oversight. Our investigation reviewed all the available evidence, and we were satisfied that the association had given appropriate consideration to the information from their contractors when assessing the nature and quality of works carried out. We found no evidence to suggest that Mrs C had suffered because of any negligence on the part of the association and, as the level of redecoration allowance offered was in accordance with the criteria set out in their policy, we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201202888 as a PDF (11.49 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C rented a property from a housing association. She claimed housing and council tax benefit from the council. Ms C thought that she was charged too much rent because the housing benefit department did not include an amount for a service charge on her tenancy. She said that she had asked for an explanation of her rent but they did not provide it. In early 2010, the council carried out a joint investigation with the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which found that Ms C was not entitled to all the benefits she had been receiving. This meant that the DWP wanted to recover incapacity benefit, and the council wanted to recover housing and council tax benefit from her. Ms C told us that she wrote to the council saying that she wanted to appeal, and they said that they would pass this to the tribunal service. However, they did not do so, as they said that the DWP could not confirm that Ms C had appealed the incapacity benefit decision. The council said that, as it was the primary benefit, Ms C needed to appeal it first before appealing the other benefits. They began recovering overpayments of housing and council tax benefit. Ms C had, in fact, appealed the DWP decision but they had overlooked this until November 2010. In December 2010, it went in front of an appeal tribunal, which upheld the original decision. In May 2011, however, the council found that the DWP had accepted a further appeal out-of-time. On that basis, the council suspended the recovery of housing and council tax benefit. Ms C asked them to make a discretionary housing payment to write off these two benefit overpayments, but the council told her that they could not consider a discretionary payment for this purpose. Ms C made a further application for a discretionary housing payment in September 2011, as she was suffering hardship. The council did not respond as they were waiting for the outcome of Ms C's incapacity benefit appeal before making a decision. In January 2012, the inca

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

Ms C complained on behalf of the residents of a new housing development, which consisted of a number of buildings. Planning permission had been approved for the development on the basis that one parking space would be provided for each property. However, due to a mistake by the developer’s architect, there was a shortfall in the number of available spaces. The developer submitted a further application, changing the proposal for one of the buildings so that underground parking that was originally planned would not be provided. Ms C complained that the council approved the second planning application without considering the impact that this had on the overall parking provision for the development. We found that it was appropriate for the second application to be considered separately and on its own merits. However, our planning adviser told us that the council should take into account the wider context of the application, including parking provision for the site as a whole. The council had said that they did not consider the parking problems on the wider site to be a material consideration when determining the second application. We were satisfied that there was clear evidence of the matter being investigated and considered fully. Our investigation highlighted that the developer sold a number of properties to a housing association, and the proposed number of parking spaces for those properties reduced to 25 percent in line with the requirements for affordable housing. However, the properties were later to be sold as shared ownership flats, which require 100 percent parking. We noted that the council did not have a policy in place for shared ownership properties' parking at the time of sale. Once the matter was brought to their attention, however, they amended their policy and ensured that the developer would provide 100 percent parking. Ms C also complained that the council were working with the developer to use existing landscaped space for parking. Residents found t

Mr and Mrs C complained that they were unreasonably held liable for a month's rent by a housing association because they did not give the required notice of their intention to leave the property. They said that they gave notice to leave by handing in a letter to the association's reception desk. They also complained that the association failed to tell them about arrears about which they were eventually made aware by a third party. The association said they had no record of receiving a letter. Mr and Mrs C provided us with a copy of the letter they said they handed over, but had no receipt to show that it had been delivered or accepted. The member of staff to whom Mr and Mrs C said they gave the letter could not remember receiving it. Mr and Mrs C also said that staff knew they were leaving but the information gathered during the investigation of the complaint indicated that the association were not aware of Mr and Mrs C's intention to leave until the day they handed in their keys. There were differing accounts of what happened, and we could only use the available evidence to reach our decision. Although, therefore, we did not disbelieve Mr and Mrs C's account of events, as there was no independent evidence to support their position we could not uphold their complaint. We also found that the association acted in line with their policy and procedures. Related reading View Decision Report 201102824 as a PDF (11.3 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C said she had applied to the association for permission to erect a suitable shelter or shed for her mobility scooter and later decided that a shed would be more suitable. She said that all the sites the association suggested were not suitable. The association, however, said that her preferred location was not possible as there was a communal access path leading to the rear of the terrace of houses at that point. Mrs C was also unhappy about the outcome of a tenants' meeting held by the association to discuss the matter of private rear gardens. She also said the association had ignored their own complaints process in dealing with her complaint and delayed in responding to her. We found that the association had properly considered all the circumstances and Mrs C's views on the location of the shed and put forward two options that they considered would satisfy both Mrs C and all their current and future tenants. With reference to the tenants' meeting we found that the association had acted correctly in this matter. During our consideration of Mrs C's complaint the association acknowledged that they had not fully complied with their complaints policy. We, therefore, did not uphold Mrs C's complaints about the location of the shed or the outcome of the tenants' meeting but did uphold her complaint about the way the association had dealt with her complaint to them.