SPSO Individual Decisions

C complained about how the association had responded to reports of antisocial behaviour and remained dissatisfied at the conclusion of the association's complaint procedure. C sought an acknowledgement of failings, an apology and steps to be taken to ensure the association's handling of reports of antisocial behaviour was improved. The association agreed to provide an acknowledgement and apology and had undertaken action to improve their handling of reports of antisocial behaviour. Therefore, we closed the complaint as resolved. Related reading View Decision Report 202501408 as a PDF (23.97 KB) Updated: March 18, 2026

C, a tenant of Albyn Housing Society Ltd, reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from a neighbouring family who were also tenants of the association. The ASB related to an overwhelming and pervading smoke and smell as a result of the neighbouring family’s cannabis smoking. The association reported having visited the family and the volume and frequency of smoke and smell reduced. Over the next several months, C made three further reports of the same ASB recurring, including reporting deterioration in their own and their family’s respiratory health. On each occasion the association reported visiting, or attempting to visit, the neighbouring family it resulted in temporary reductions in the volume and frequency of smoke and smell. When C complained that the association had not responded reasonably to the reports, the association’s response indicated that they considered that they had taken reasonable action. C felt that they had no option but to end their tenancy and raised their complaints with SPSO. We found that the association did not progress matters in line with a number of parts of their ASB Procedure regarding administration, categorisation and investigation of reports of ASB, subsequent review of progress, consideration of possible solutions to the reported ASB, or taking into account how the situation had developed over a number of months. The association did not explain to C that evidence and corroboration was required to enable them to take action, and they did not follow through with their belated requests that C keep a log of dates and times when issues arose. The association also failed to keep reasonable records of the actions that they did take or pursue and fulfil actions they indicated they intended to take. We upheld C’s complaint.

Miss C's property is served by a communal heating system, which failed to provide heating to her home on several occasions over a number of years. She corresponded with and complained to the housing association about this. At the end of the complaints procedure Miss C complained to us. While we were considering Miss C’s complaints, she accepted a full and final settlement from the association in relation to this. We decided that because she had accepted the settlement, there was no practical outcome that we could achieve, and that we would not consider this further. Related reading View Decision Report 201301779 as a PDF (10.85 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C lives in a house that had electric night storage heaters, using an economy meter with a reduced tariff. Following public meetings with their tenants, the housing association decided to implement a programme of external wall insulation and replace night storage heating with an air source heat pump system. After the necessary consents were obtained, work started in November 2012, in phases of groups of houses. Tenants were advised of timescales and the start date, and were told that external works were weather dependent. The internal work was completed in Mrs C's house the following February, during what turned out to be an extremely cold winter, but it was not until May that the external insulation was completed and scaffolding was removed. Mrs C complained that the information and advice she was given about the new heating system was inadequate, and that the association did not complete works within the specified timescales. Our investigation found that the association had had a lot of contact with tenants to explain what would be involved. They had not, however, made it clear to Mrs C that she would lose her economy meter and would have to negotiate a new tariff for electricity with her energy supplier, and so we upheld her complaint about this. We did not uphold her other complaint as the association had made it clear in advance that external insulation works were weather dependent.

Following the end of his tenancy, Mr C wrote to the housing association to complain about being charged for necessary repairs after he vacated the property. He also wanted to claim compensation for damage to his personal property, which was caused by a flood. The association investigated Mr C's complaints and agreed to write off the charges for the repairs, but did not offer compensation for the damage to personal property. Mr C brought his complaint to us because he was dissatisfied with how it was handled. He said that a complaints committee meeting was held at a time he could not attend; that all the available information was not taken into account; and that the association had refused to return documents to him. We did not uphold any of these complaints. Our investigation found that Mr C was not required to attend the committee meeting and that he was not invited. The association were free to make this decision as was clearly stated within their policy. We also found that the committee had extensive information available to them, and the minutes of the meeting showed that it had been considered. There was no evidence to suggest that documents had not been returned as requested. Related reading View Decision Report 201100872 as a PDF (16.96 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mr C is a tenant of Albyn Housing Society Ltd (the Society). He moved from one of their properties to another. He said that before he moved out they inspected the house he was leaving and did not find any problems. After he moved, they carried out a further inspection and decided that the kitchen and bathroom needed a ‘hygiene clean’.  They did this and billed him for the cost. Mr C complained that the Society did not give him the chance to question the decision to clean the house. He also said they applied inconsistent standards as the property to which he moved was not cleaned to a similar standard. We asked the Society for their complaint file, relevant documents and  procedures.  After seeing these, we decided not to uphold Mr C’s complaint. We took the view that the Society were entitled to use their professional judgment to make the decision to charge for the cleaning and there was no evidence that they had not followed the proper process when doing so. Nor did the Society need to tell him in advance about the decision to clean the house. Mr C had signed a document acknowledging that this would happen and that he would be charged if he did not leave the property in a suitable state. As the same officer carried out the post-inspection reports on both properties, we also believed that it was unlikely that different cleaning standards had been applied. Mr C also said that the Society did not act appropriately on financial aspects of the cost of cleaning and did not handle his complaint properly, including not telling him the date of his appeal. We upheld both of these complaints. We found that the Society did not provide all relevant information about charges and that they should have checked their invoice before sending it to him. They also took payment of the amount due by deducting it from rent that Mr C had overpaid, rather than offering him the opportunity to repay it in another way, and they had not repaid a small amount that they agreed to refund after con