SPSO Individual Decisions

Mr C disputed that he had access to heating during the period between a repair being reported to the housing association and the repair taking place. We found that heating was available during this time and so we did not uphold the complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201507963 as a PDF (10.66 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Ms C, who is a tenant of the association, complained to us about four issues. Firstly, she complained that the property she rented from the association was not in a tenantable condition. However, the association demonstrated that inspections took place before Ms C moved into the property which indicated that no work was required, and that it was in excellent condition and decorative order. We also found evidence that, by signing her tenancy agreement, Ms C had agreed that the property was in a good and tenantable condition. We were satisfied that the association let the property in a tenantable condition and, therefore, did not uphold the complaint. Ms C was also unhappy that information on service charges was not reasonably clear. The association accepted that they should have provided Ms C with a Service Charge Schedule which would set out the charges that tenants should expect. Although we upheld this complaint we were happy with the association's attempts to resolve this matter prior to our involvement, so we did not make any recommendations. We told Ms C that we could not uphold her complaint about the association breaching confidentiality because this was a matter for the Information Commissioner's office, who we signposted her to. We did, however, criticise the association because we found that their staff opened and discussed correspondence in an area that was open to members of the public. Ms C's final complaint related to an allegation that a housing and maintenance officer was unprofessional towards her. The association disputed this and said that their staff member was professional in her dealings with Ms C. As we could not establish the facts beyond what was said in the two differing accounts of what happened, we did not uphold this complaint. Related reading View Decision Report 201305568 as a PDF (11.43 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018

Mrs C was unhappy with the time taken by the housing association to carry out a repair to crumbling sandstone on a parapet above her window. She said that sandstone, mortar and lead flashing were falling down in front of her window. Mrs C complained that scaffolding had been erected for 35 days but debris was still coming down, no repair work had been started and she could not access her garden through the french windows. We found that the association had erected scaffolding to inspect the matter and to find out what repairs were required. Having done so, they instructed specialist structural engineers to carry out a structural survey. On receipt of their report, the association instructed the engineers to prepare drawings and specifications to put the work out to competetive tender. We did not find any delays in the process and noted that the association had kept all tenants, including Mrs C, informed at every stage of the process. We were also satisfied that, for health and safety reasons, the association had temporarily removed access to the garden and had explained this to Mrs C. Related reading View Decision Report 201201083 as a PDF (11.21 KB) Updated: March 13, 2018